Midnight Screening: "Paranormal Activity 3"
Going to be in Cincinnati on November 11th-13th?? Come stop by our table at Horror Hound Weekend. We'll be there all weekend!
In the meantime, Brian, Sarah, Jake and I catch the midnight of the new Paranormal Activity.
In the meantime, Brian, Sarah, Jake and I catch the midnight of the new Paranormal Activity.
I'll definitely be at Horrorhound. You said we, so I'm wondering who all is going.
Reply to this
Me, Jake, Brian, Sarah, Jillian, Jerrid, and Virtual Boyd. So almost the whole gang!
Reply to this
Awesome! Can't wait to meet you guys. You should consider reselling some Not See Kola while you're there. =)
As for PA3, I saw it last night and agreed 100% with everything you guys said here. I didn't hate it, but they really dropped the ball with this one.
Reply to this
The declension has commenced.
Reply to this
Yay! I missed these!!!
Reply to this
Sweet. Are you selling any copies of Paranoia while you're there? I'll pick some up.
Reply to this
Oh man, there's condensation on the lens! XD You must be freezing! Now that's devotion. Good vlog as always.
Reply to this
I couldn't help it, the coven symbol just made me think of the damn symbol from HP7atdhpt2 and the damn Deathly Hallows symbol.
Reply to this
I was thinking of that too. In fact, I literally said out loud, holy shit, it's the sign of the Deathly Hallows! Minus the Elder Wand. I'm suprised that no other reviewer has pointed that out.
Reply to this
Don't forget to to stock up on musk sticks at Jungle Jim's while you're in Cincinnati!
Also, it may have just been the contrast on my monitor, but I really liked the disembodied head of Sarah in this video. Spooooky!
Reply to this
A point; I know you've denied being a critic in favour of "just a guy who talks about movies with his friends." However, most people don't ask these questions. They turn up to the movie theatre willing and ready to suspend disbelief. Your comments are perfectly valid - "Who edited the footage?" and whatnot - but bear in mind the average viewer doesn't ask those questions. You're a filmmaker, so naturally you pay a greater degree of attention, but essentially you ARE a critic now, because there's that distance between yourself and the usual movie-goer.
Anyway, love your site, and I wish you all the best. =]
Reply to this
No not really. I have the same opinions now I've always had, and I still look at movies the exact same way. I'd be saying and thinking these things with my friends regardless if we were in front of a camera or not. I put "The Asylum's Sherlock Holmes" and "Tron Legacy" on my best of 2010 list. I'm not sure how mainstream critic-y or "I can't suspend disbelief" that is.
Reply to this
That's exactly my point, though. You think you're identifying a film with the intent of presenting your opinion to a common audience, but that's not the case. You make your points without any opinion for the common cinema-goer. I don't expect you to cover all the bases (that'd be impossible) but you're a film-maker, and as a result, any MAJOR film releases seem like they're being analyzed from some obscure, elitism angle that most people can't relate to.
Reply to this
Have you even seen my movies? I make exploitation flicks. I point and shoot, with nearly no film crew on hand. I'm hardly an analytic tech expert film guy. In fact, the directing aspect of making my movies is my least favorite part. Also, I'm not directing my opinion towards a common or specific audience. I'm filming myself talking about a movie for entertainment purposes, and if people agree, fine, and if they don't, fine. Watch my review for "Season of the Witch," I recommend a SHITLOAD of flawed movies.
Reply to this
Yeah, I've seen your films. I paid for "Paranoia." I wasn't talking about your actual, scripted films. I was talking about your review for "Paranormal Activity 3." I wasn't arguing about your directing capability, or anything of the sort, so don't jump to those conclusions. You're a film-maker, and consequently any points you make seem like they're from the point of view of an insider, a movie snob, and are alien to the average viewer. Any MAJOR film release seems like it's being analyzed from some obscure, elitist point of view - from the viewpoint of a literal movie snob and his four or five friends.
My point was that you and your friends attacked the movie without considering the opinion of the average movie-goer. Most people go to the cinema, thinking "I will watch a film." They do not dissect each individual scene; they enjoy the picture as a whole. It seems out of touch when you and your buddies go into twenty minute dialogues about the legitimacy of the "bloody mary" scene. Most of us have other things to do.
Reply to this
No one should ever go into a movie or form an opinion based on anything other than their own outlook on movies. Why in the hell would I form my own opinion based on what someone else might like? Why would anyone do that? I've had the same outlook on films loooooooooooooong before I ever started making my own flicks. Also, did you watch the whole review? I stated that if you want to see this movie specifically to be startled because of jump scares, then you will like it. I didn't like the movie because this movie missed the dread of the previous 2. That isn't because I've personally make movies. It's because I like suspense more than startles, and have been like that since I was a kid.
Reply to this
So yeah, if that's what you're talking about, I do talk about what other people might like. I've said that if you like Terrance Malick, you'll like "Tree of Life." If you liked the previous Final Destinations, you'll like the 5th one. And if you're 5 years old, you'll like Transformers 3.
Reply to this
Of course I watched your whole review. I wouldn't be wasting my time commenting on it if my own opinions had already been expressed.
Analyzing your statement: "No one should ever go into a movie or form an opinion based on anything other than their own outlook on movies.". Why else, in the holy hell, would I watch your shows? I care what you and your friends have to say. It helps me judge WHAT MOVIES ARE WORTH MY MONEY.
I'm astounded I have to explain this - you already know it; people watch your videos FOR YOUR VIEWPOINT; That is why I feel the absence of a typical cinematic viewpoint is very deteriorative to the website as whole.
Reply to this
lol he changes the subject when Brad corrects him.
Reply to this
That's not what I'm talking about and you know it. I'm saying that when I watch a movie I would never create my opinion of it off of the opinion of someone else or what someone else might think. I watch people's reviews all the time time, but I'd never mimic my opinion off of another reviewer, or falsify a review so someone else might like it. My vlogs are my own honest opinions about the movies, regardless of who I'm talking to. Nothing more.
Reply to this
This guy is clearly just trying to get your goat. Why are you giving him the time of day?
Reply to this
No - YOU'RE ignoring what I've said AND you know it. I told you; what you're saying in your basic mpvie reviews is based around typical film-jargon - it's not what your viewers consider when they watch the film, and consequently it alienates them. I've already dealt with how you present your personal opinion and I said I have no issue with it; but when you treat me like a moron when I disagree with your opinions, I have to react in kind.
I never implied you were copying someone else's opinion. That was the first thing you jumped to when you were challenged. You're obviously not mature enough to deal with opinions that differ to your own. I'm sure this site will have an incredible lifespan.
Enjoy your fourteen-year-old fanboys while they're around - they won't donate when you need them to.
Reply to this
You're the one throwing the insults =) Also, if I had a problem with differing opinions, I would have deleted your comments and banned your ip address. Which I would never do, because anyone can say anything on my site (unless it's racist, homophobic, or promotes something unsavory). But don't cry or play victim when you get a response.
Reply to this
Look at how thin these columns are!!!
Reply to this
Calm the fuck down. You know why I don't lower myself to the standards of the average movie goer? Because the average movie goer puts shitty movies at the top of the box office list. But that doesn't stop me in my videos from stating whether or not an average movie goer will like it (which I say quite often). I will never start criticizing with the eye of some teenager with shitty taste. So honestly you're right in that I don't fully have the taste of the average movie goer, but it isn't because I'm an elitist snob (in real life). My taste has always been my taste, it's got nothing to do with the movies I make or the videos I do. Suspending disbelief is a privilege, not a right. I suspend my disbelief more often than not by a vast ratio, but when something is bad at it, I don't like it. If I were as bad as you think I am, I wouldn't have hated Tree of Life as much as I did, or loved Cowboys and Aliens.
Reply to this
Also if you're going to respond, start a new thread below. It's getting awfully cramped up here.
Reply to this
Sorry. I just need to see how narrow these reply texts can get.
Reply to this
Help Help I'm being compressed!
Reply to this
Shocker. Brad is sounding like the intelligent one, while the other guy is playing victim.
Reply to this
And suspension of disbelief is a privilege, not a right.
Reply to this
I like how Simbowski is being a million times more pretentious than he's accusing Brad of being. Plus, important note, Brad loved the first two Paranormal Activity movies. I'd say more, but I agree with the two people below.
Reply to this
Waaaaaaaah!! Brad defended himself from my comments, Waaaaaaaaah!!! And now I'm going to hurl insults at him for being insulting, when he never actually said anything insulting, Waaaaaaaaaaah!!!! And I'm going to play victim and say that he hates criticism, when I'm still freely allowed to say my opinion without getting banned, Waaaaaaaaaaah!!!!! Baby wants baba.
Reply to this
And if none of that works, why not throw a tantrum disguised as a joke?
Reply to this
Dude I seriously think you're getting Brad's outlook on movies confused with Spoony's. Did you see any of his previous midnight reviews or any of his vlog review for that matter? He recommends mainstream stuff all the time. He said "Cowboys and Aliens" was the best movie of the summer. He only nitpicks when its something that he already doesn't like.
Reply to this
I think the problem here is that Simbowski views Brad as a critic, and therefore expects the view of the average moviegoer to be taken into greater consideration than it is. He's not mixing up Spoony and Brad. He's mixing up Brad with Roger Ebert (sorry Brad no offense). What Simbowski is failing to understand is that its just a vlog of a guy and his friends talking about a movie like everyone does afterwards. They just view movies through a different lense. But as Simbowski stated in his posts, he bases what he sees on these and considers Brad a critic, so expects something from these that's not going to be there.
Reply to this
You have clearly never seen Brad's vlogs in your life, or like a previous person stated, you are confusing him with Spoony. I've seen Brad on several occasions say that while he might not like something, someone looking for something different may enjoy it.
Reply to this
I actually think that he is confusing Brad with Spoony. That actually makes a lot of sense.
Reply to this
This Simbowski dude is obviously just trying to troll you, going from polite and respectful to nonsensical and rude like this. Never mind that.
But he's right on one thing. You are, per definition, a movie critic. You watch movies, share your thoughts and constructive criticism, and you actively share them and publish them in review videos on your blow.
And that's fine! That's 100% fine. Good movie critics are what got me involved in the actual production aspect of films to begin with. Good critics are skilled writers and usually present good points. You're a critic, mr Jones, and a good one at that. <3 The Cinema Snob is a spoof of the snotty, elitist snob critics that really are just disgruntled script writers being bitter.
And I also agree and feel that...people shouldn't happily pay douchey film-makers at the movies to be entertained by things that quite honestly are trash. Michael Bay shouldn't be payed for the trash he's directing. Because it's -NOT VERY GOOD- and does nothing that helps improve cinema and movies. Right? That's because we talk about movies, because it's the right thing to do.
Reply to this
What is the "usual movie goer" I think the suspension of disbelief is won not automatic. I often find myself thinking how was that suposed to happen? Just because you accept a film reality that includes the supernatural, doesn't mean that you must accept a found footage format that seems to involve a cameraman following the action. Films have to have internal logic even if they're not logical. I think the idea that audiences are innately uncritical comes from film execs who like the idea that everyone is stupid.
Reply to this
This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on this website. I mean, really. Are you a complete moron, Simbowski?
Brad Jones is a MOVIE CRITIC, not an average moviegoer, and as such, he analyzes films from a critical standpoint. What is so hard to understand about that? It's called having an educated opinion on things. His opinions are generally the same of the average moviegoer, he's just able to elucidate them better. If you're not smart enough to understand that, do not come here and watch his reviews.
Reply to this
Trash Humpers came out in 2009 and was shot and edited on VHS. Brows Held High reviewed it, and it's from the director of Gummo.
Reply to this
So, if I _HATED_ the first movie (like, it's one of my least favorite movies ever), and really, really didn't like the second at all, I probably won't like this.
I guess I won't see it then.
Thanks.
Reply to this
I assume this is 80's Dans favorite installment of the series? :p
Reply to this
Ah, Sarah smokes. Good for her. Everyone tells you not to, but you just keep on doing it.
I know the above will probably come off as sarcastic, but I am dead serious. Smoking, I feel, is something that is sadly slowly going away.
Anyways, Jake, you are awesome. And, trust me, I hate these movies too, and I don't even have ADD.
Although, in a way, I hate the "idea" of these movies moreso than the movies themselves. Like, the first one wa sadvertised as the "scariest movie ever" back in the day. Horse. Fucking. Shit. And then people act like it invented "being a horror movie that doesn't rely on gore and rape scenes." No, lot's of horror films don't rely on that, that offer "suspence" and whatnot. In 2009, the year of the first PA, was a movie called "The Haunting in Connecticut." That movie is awful, but it is certainly much better than Paranormal, in my opinion, and also offers a horror movie without "gore and rape scenes."
So PA is just pure hype, and I already think its an awful film, so the hype just makes me hate in more.
Also, it also didn't invent found footage. Like, I like a lot of found footage films, but I do hate The Blair Witch Project. Look it up; such films existed long before, such as Cannibal Holocaust. Like, I like Quarantine a lot more than Blair Witch, and Quarantine isn't even a good found footage film.
And people like PA because it was so low budget. Well, that is impressive, I guess, to have biggest (Total Gross/Budget) ratio ever. And most examples of low budget films do have a higher budget. I will point to Primer however as a film with a smaller budget than Paranormal Activity, that is much better. Or, I assume, any of your movies, Brad. I assume they cost less than $15,000 each (no offense), and they are all 1000x better than Paranormal.
Reply to this
Making a film consisting *entirely* of "found footage", however, is a relatively recent development, I believe starting with 'Blair Witch'. Compared with 'Cannibal Holocaust', the concept shares similarities but the execution doesn't, considering 'Holocaust''s "found footage" takes up a fraction of the running time behind a traditional narrative. The format and structure of today's found footage films - 'PA', 'Quarantine', 'Cloverfield', etc. - pretty much owe everything to 'Blair Witch'.
Reply to this
I can agree with this. The only problem is, when I tell people in general that I hate Blair Witch and Paranormal Activity, they assume that I hate "that kind of movie" (many people being unaware there are other ones), or even that I hate "low budget movies" in general. Which is extremely untrue, I love a lot of the shit Brad reviews, and low-budget horror, cult, exploitattion films, and such.
As for "Blair Witch" being the first, well, it is certainly the most well known. But on this (haven't seen them all, or even close) list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_footage_(genre)
Surely some of those pre-Blair Witch movies were 100% "footage"? Maybe not, if so, I stand corrected. For the record, I do recommend The Poughkeepsie Tapes.
Reply to this
No, I agree with the first part: I personally love 'Blair Witch' but I don't consider it to be the epitome of low-budget horror or anything (although I do consider it to be a milestone in low-budget filmmaking).
I can't speak for the few films listed before 'Blair Witch' - except for 'Man Bites Dog', which is a comedic mockumentary and shouldn't really be on there - but looking at that timeline, it's undeniable 'Blair Witch' single-handedly kickstarted the trend en masse. Even if 'The Last Broadcast' preceded it (a matter of debate among fans), 'Blair' was the one which popularized and set the precedent for the genre (arguably because it was the first to do it well). Regardless of one's opinion of "found footage" films, it's obvious movies like 'PA', '[REC]' or 'Apollo 18' owe a bigger debt to the way 'Blair Witch' executed the concept than 'Cannibal Holocaust' did (though I do like 'CH' a lot).
That's the only point I was making, really. Someone always brings up the 'Blair'/'Holocaust' argument in every discussion about found footage movies, but the two are immeasurably different.
Reply to this
Fair enough. I do have to admit that "Blair" is certainly the reason we have this trend of found footage horror films. It is just that I do not like Blair Witch specifically, but I have to admit that it did influence a lot of films I did like (both [REC]s being a great films, and I also like both Quarantines, and I liked Appolo 18, Cloverfield is pretty good, and THE TROLL HUNTER IS AWESOME). So there is that. But I reallly hated Paranormal Activity. And, of coruse, the only two found footage movies most people have heard of are "Blair" and "Paranormal."
So I have to agree with your points, even though I wish I didn't. Like, I like both Blair Witch Project movies about the same. Think about that for a minute.
So I should thank Blair for making this trend, because I certainly prefer the found footage trend to the trend of remaking classic films, and the trend of ALL THOSE EARLY 2000S FUCKING JAPANESE GHOST MOVIES, be they the original, or the remake. The Ring, The Grudge, Dark Water, One Missed Call, fuck all those movies. As the Cinema Snob would say, "I'll stick with real ghost movies, like 'Poltergeist,' thank you very much." And now I am way off topic.
Reply to this
How can smoking be something that goes away SADLY? Heh. Yeah, it only pollutes the body, the environment and is 100% good for no thing at all.
No offence, but that's a bit of a jack-ass comment.
Reply to this
Hang on, long comment ahead:
Because of do-gooders like you.
The fact that someone could hate smoking so much, like you do, is nothing but an incentive for me to start smoking (I don't currently, due to the fact I don't want to be cut out of my grandparents will (I love them, but their anti-smoking stance really bothers me)).
I have heard every argument not to start a thousand times, and I just don't care. Quite frankly, everything gives you cancer these days, from cell phones to lightbulbs to cigarettes to pop to cars to the Internet to anything else you can think of. So I don't think we should be so overly concerend with one potential carcinogen. Quite honestly, many centenarians and even supercentenarians (including oldest person ever Jeanne Calment) smoked. 107 year old entertainer Johannes Heesters only quite last year, and he is STILL ACTIVE.
Reply to this
And if even if smoking killed 100% of all smokers, which I am sure you think it does, who cares? People should be free to decide to smoke or not. I believe in right to die, and so I certainly belief in the right to engage in activities that COULD kill you, but look awesome.
And, also, I feel that the tobacco industry and smokers are unduly oppressed these days. WHAT OTHER PRODUCT REQUIRES HALF OF THE BOX TO BE A WARNING NOT TO USE IT. Pop is just as bad as smokes, and can be bought by children, but the nutrition label is off to the side where no one sees is. Beer is a far more deadly product that cigarettes, and yet a case of beer is free to show guys having a good time, rather than a gory picture of a drunken car crash, or the bruises given to a wife by a drunk husband. Cars in general are not sold with pictures of car crashes.
Reply to this
My argument is not for MORE regulation (i.e., I do not want to see the silly above analogies happen), but I want to see LESS, I want cigarette packs to be 100% designed by the company, it is outrageous government intervention when they control any part of the pack, LET ALONE HALF.
I’m from Canada by the way, I think you Americans have as of yet not completely succummed to the insanity that is the cigarette pack with huge warning lable, and often revolting picture. A list of ingredients or small surgeon general's note would be tolerable and acceptable, but as things stand, it is an outrage.
Reply to this
Another form of oppression against cigarette buyers is that (again, in Canada) THEY ARE HIDDEN AWAY. It used to be, there were all the packs behind the counter, and you had to ask the worker to bring you what you wanted. This is already an outrage, you should be able to buy cigarettes off the racks. But NOW, they are hidden behind the counter to "protect the children" (anytime something is done to "protect the children", you can be sure it is completely pigheaded, asinine, stupid, and fucktarded, nothing good has ever come from "protecting the children" - just censorship and government intervention). So now you can't even see the product unless you ask to. It's completely asinine.
Reply to this
I’m not going to even get into the no smoking in restaurants, bars, casinos, stores, and whatever. That is just ridiculous. It should be up to the individual store owner to decide if smoking is allowed in their establishment, there should be no overall rules. The laws against smoking in PRIVATELY OWNED STORES are so stupid that I am sure even someone like you, who seems to be somewhat anti-smoking, realizes their complete folly and idiocy.
But the biggest, most offensive, and most completely insane form of anti-tobacco-company and anti-tobacco-user discrimination and oppression is the complete overblown nature of “Quit Smoking.”Now, I am not opposed to things to help people quit smoking, no more than I am opposed to things to help addicts quit alcohol, or drugs, or gambling. Be it Alcoholics Anonymous or the Gambling Hotline, or whatever. There should be organizations/hotlines/whatever to help people quit smoking.
Reply to this
However, anyone who suggests that ALL people should stop drinking or that alcohol should be BANNED would be laughed at. Even an organization like “Mothers Against Drunk Driving” is clearly only opposed to drunk driving, not drinking in general.
Nevertheless, there is an unwritten assumption that every smoker SHOULD quit. This is ridiculous, if they want to, they should be able to find a support group. To be constantly nagged and pressured is ridiculous. I point to, again, my own province of Ontario. Here we have something called “Smoke Free Ontario.” Basically, the term includes all the fucktarded bullshit nanny-state interventionist policies that harass smokers and cigarette companies. But the goal is clear: stop smoking altogether in Ontario.
Reply to this
Now, we also have laws regarding the purchase of alcohol here, obviously. For instance, you have to be 19, and, for some idiotic reason, it cannot be bought in convenience stores here (that may change soon). However, there is no “Alcohol Free Ontario” umbrella term. WHY NOT? Because, obviously, they do not want to end drinking entirely.
It is completely different with smoking. There is this undercurrent, that wants to end smoking entirely. This general attitude, WHEN HELD BY THE GOVERNMENT, is unacceptable, and oppressive. Having a “smoke free Ontario” SHOULD NOT be anyone’s goal, LET ALONE the governments. No more than having an “alcohol free Ontario” should be the goal of the government. Or a “pop free Ontario."
Reply to this
So, as I have shown, there is EXTREME prejudice and oppression handed down to smokers and cigarette companies these days. As such, I go from someone is neutral on the issue of smoking (not being a smoker myself, currently, but having many friends who do), to someone who is RABIDLY and COMPLETELY pro-smoking, who is going to START smoking just to try and stop this insanity.
So the pressure on innocent smokers to stop smoking causes them to cave into peer pressure (sometimes) and stop doing what they enjoy. This is sad, and an example of smoking going away sadly. The insane regulations put on people who make, sell and buy cigarettes, are OUTRAGEOUS, as well as sad. The fact that the government wants something like smoking to go away is sad.
Reply to this
And I’m not going to get into the issue of children smoking, because Sarah is not a child, and we are discussing smoking IN GENERAL BY ADULTS, so the fact that you have to be 19 to buy a pack of cigarettes but can go to war at 18, drive at 16, and buy a can of pop or go to McDonalds as soon as you can walk and talk, is something I will not discuss here.
So right back at you: No offence, but YOUR comment was the one that was a jack-ass comment.
Reply to this
Wow, you guys and Spoony had REALLY different opinions on this, especially on the hair-pulling scene which Spoony could not get enough of apparently, but that's to be expected by now I suppose. I hated the first one and didn't even bother with the second one so I'd probably side with you guys on this one.
Reply to this
Great review, what other midnight screenings are you guys gonna see?
Reply to this
Brad you should do some more movie talks with spoony like your Rocky Convo. I'd like to hear how your conversation would go with this movie since he just loved it. While you seem to a much more realistic view point. He seems like a fanboy almost and not a critic. Yes I know he admits it but still
Reply to this
Maybe as a Halloween thing you could talk about Nightmare on Elm Street series if you don't want to talk about this specifically
Reply to this
At times, it looked like Sarah's head was floating amongst the darkness of the car. So I got a bit jump-startled when she went BOO! near the end.
Reply to this
Wow. All this fighting, people need to chill out. Yeah, Simbowski I'm neither 14 nor a boy so that little quip at the end just shows how immature YOU are. Just shut up, enjoy the review and let Brad do his thing. He doesn't need for some stranger to start grilling him about the way he reviews or does things for this site. Brad has stated before he doesn't consider himself to be a serious film critic and if you don't believe it, that's your prerogative, but nitpicking shit to death and trying to make Brad seem like an asshole won't help you any. Picking a fight with him over nothing and then continuing to try to make him look bad is just sending everyone the vibe that you're the immature pretentious asshole you seem to be trying to paint Brad as. Grow the fuck up and if what Brad is doing is really bothering you this much, then stop coming to his site and watching his videos. Believe me, no one will miss you.
Reply to this
Listen, beautiful - I didn't start out attacking brad - I like his stuff. I only intended to give Brad advice on how to improve his show. Fuck you, ya presumptuous cunt.
But now, quite honestly, I don't have the drive to offer assistance for free. Brad's show is doomed to eventual failure - let's see how effective your fanboy goodwill is worth is in terms of a working career capacity.
Reply to this
Hey Simbowski, stop acting like a butthurt teenager and grow the fuck up. You act like Brad flat-out insulted you, which he didn't. He was simply just defending the fact that he's not really a critic. You just made a complete ass out of yourself on the internet. Congragulations, prick
Reply to this
Why did you change your name to Anonymous? I like Simbowski a lot better. Please go back to it!! In terms of your original comment, one thing I needed to say is just because an average movie goer wouldn't ask themselves these questions, doesn't mean they shouldn't. I don't have the best standards in the world, but atleast I've got some.
Reply to this
Holy shit, he's starting to drop the c-bomb.
Shit's getting serious, folks.
Reply to this
Wow.... The comments after the review are just as hilarious as the video itself. It's just that this Simbowski person is just so blatantly hypocritical. What made me laugh so hard is that I actually am a freshman, about to turn 15, but I watch this site because I actually have a decent taste in movies. For example; I loved the movie Z0DIAC, I love Jon Carpenter's The Thing, HATE pretty much every modern remake or reboot, and I can't stand this franchise. I normally am not the type of kid to swear over the internet, but seriously; Sambowski; accept this final rebuttal of mine; and kindly, go fuck a cactus.
Rawr.
Reply to this
Well, you do have a good taste in movements in my opinion, I agree that Zodiac and the Thing (from the 50s or the 80s, not the new one!) are awesome, and I hate all the remakes (except the Zombieween movies; I inexplicablly have a major soft spot for those movies, and really like them) out these days, and the PA movies.
But we must remember that saying "I actually have a decent taste in movies" can be pretentious, and, really, "decent" is completely an opinion. There is no objective scale by which one taste in movies is "decent" and another is "bad."
I only say this because when I was about your age, most people had what we would consider a "bad" taste in movies, but those with a "decent" taste in movies were SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO pretentious about it and shoving it in people's faces that it just alienated people, and they weren't even fun to talk to, because even though they had a "decent" taste it moveis, they were pretentious.
Anyways, you seem like a cool guy.
Reply to this
I'd love to see this argument continue in nothing but Terrance Malik dialogue.
Reply to this
Brother. Mother. Why must we all hate. For hate was created by the dinosaurs. And continued on in our message boards.
Reply to this
Well, Papa and I lived in Springfield for over 24 years. Every time I looked out the window, I always dreamed about life. I never really had any desire in me. My father shot my dog when I was two. He said I liked exploitation movies too much. He took me to see "Badlands" over and over.
___
So, yeah, that pretentious dickwad who pretty much cramped the comments section is an idiot. Hell, I don't agree with your opinion on Malick and I'll still listen to you. You're something of a common person's critic - one who's not too dumb to like everything, but one who doesn't feel as if it's at all necessary to transcend beyond simple box office fare.
Reply to this
I like to see you and Spoony do another stream Vlog debating on the series because I would like to hear you guys compare your own opinions on the whole series and what the future of these movies may hold for both of you.
Honestly, I had a much more fun time watching this in the theater than the second. Teenagers in back of me were screaming their heads off which it was to be expected. Plus, after one jump-scare happened during the movie, I hear one guy in the back saying that he just shat his pants. Any of you guys hear that too when you guys saw it?
Reply to this
Sarah is a floating head. And its hilarious.
Reply to this
Sarah's floating head is cute and awesome.
Reply to this
Who has a video camara that can record for 6 hours? Go ask Johnny from "The Room". He has a tape recorder that can go for DAYS on end
Reply to this
LOL love the ending to that review! AH!
Reply to this
I don't know why but I've tried 3 different times to watch this review and I've only seen like the 1st 26 mins of this. But, what I saw was the classic Midnight Movie Reviews! I liked to hear what ya'll's thoughts were of this movie even though it's one I'll probally only watch when or if it's ever on regular TV! I've not seen the 1st 2 yet but I keep hearing the 1st is really slow and boring. The 2nd one I hear is a lot better. this one.. well this review id the 1st thing I'm hearing of it!
What's next of the review board?!
Reply to this
You should make a "Brad & Jerrid booby-trap Jake's house"
Reply to this
You know what's good about the Paranormal Activity movies? Usually when you don't want to pay to see a new movie and you try to watch it online, it's usually like a really shitty "cam rip" and it just tends to really take away from the experience of illegally watching a new movie. But with the Paranormal Activity movies the cam thing doesn't annoy as much - 'cos it's that shitty fucking cam thing anyway.
But yeah, I don't hate them, but it was funny when the first one came out and it was supposed to be like the scariest movie going experience EVER! Demand it!
Oh and a question. I have not read any of the previous comments, so someone propably already tried to be funny, but... was the movie shot on shiteo?
Reply to this
I liked this movie. I just had two major problems with it, not counting the question on how the tapes were edited.
1. The tapes that 99% of the movie is were talked about in the beginning and put into the family from P.A.2's basement. When the house got smashed the tapes were stolen. ...Who is watching these tapes? The first & second movies had the black screens saying the footage was recovered from the respective houses by the police & were "declassified". But... then how did these VHS tapes get found for people to put them into theaters (going in on the "it's a real event" scenario where the tapes were true and shown to the public).
2. Katie & Christie's parents were murdered by the end (the step-dad at least, the mom looked like she was dead tho). How could these two not remember their parents dying?! Brainwashing, hexes, yeah... but come on! Creepy stuff happens in 2 & 1 and none of them thought "Hey, maybe it's like the time our parents were violently killed at grandma's house!" And who raised the kids after that? Their real dad? Evil witch grandma?
But other than that, really enjoyed the movie.
Reply to this
Sarah is a spooky floating head in this video. Ooo-WEEEEE-oooooh!
Reply to this
Are you all ok? Did the monkey attack hurt anybody? the camera cut out right before i could tell. It was Caeser leading them wasnt it!
Reply to this
This reminds me of something! Have you or any of your friends ever watched Lost Tapes off of Animal Palnet!? If so I'd love to hear ya'll's thoughts on it! It's basically Found Footage the series!
Reply to this
I love these movies and the audience reactions make it all the more enjoyable!
Reply to this
Sorry guys, but Noah Antwiler nailed this one.
Reply to this
Dear Simbowski,
You are a D-bag.
The end.
Reply to this
off subject, a film that would be perfect for the Snob is Possession from the early 80s. It's incredibly pretentious features Sam Neal, a convoluted spy sub plot, some top violence, a miscarriage and Isabelle Adjani graphically humping a squid-man-thing. Obviously, its one of my favorite movies of all time.
Reply to this
They missed the part where the Men in Black come in and neutralize the kids. Because, the mysterious death of your mother would be something you'd talk about when you're dealing with the supernatural.
Predictions for PA4:
1. Takes place even further in the past. Super 8 film with separately recorded audio. The movie could be scary if the audio or video cut out independently at different times.
2. Or takes place now... Paranormal Activity 4: Ghostbusters 3
That would be great for a viral video for GB3.
Lastly, Jake needs his own show.
Reply to this
I have to say I did like this movie for what it was, a jump scare (or startle) cinema going experience.
I don't think Brad's point about where in the hell this "found" footage sprung from was from the point of a "snob" but rather someone that applies logic to an obviously flawed plot point in the movie. I did ask myself all throughout and especially at the end that same damn question "HOW THE HELL DID THESE TURN UP AND WHO EDITED THE!?"
As for the movie itself, I would say it differed wildly from the first two movies and that was to its determent, the dread in the first films was that they had no clue what or who this thing was or wanted.
In this one it was blatantly obvious that demon (Toby)was after Kristie to do something, Christie said no, Toby wasn't amused by this, and when she started hinting Toby was trying to keep her quiet, he targeted other family members, In particularly Katie, she was victimized to holy hell until Kristie agreed to whatever.
The suspense I believe was built in Kristies conversations with Toby, And the most chilling scene in the movie was when they where at Crazy Grandma's house playing dress up and girly wedding stuff, and the mum or dad simply asks, "Who's the lucky guy" and she replies kinda reluctantly, "Toby". Grandma having this weird ass smirk on her face, and the parents freaking the hell out at this.
Basically what I'm saying is the dread and intensity in the first two where the not knowing, and this one was the dread of what Toby wanted this seemingly innocent little girl to do.
Those are my two scents anyways, great vlog as always. Can't wait for the next midnight when you're all in trench coats and woolly hats gathered round a bonfire.
Reply to this
Jake makes a good point about found footage movies: how are we seeing the footage? While I love found footage movies, if this question remains unanswered it really takes me out of the movie. If you want to see a great found footage movie, watch "Noroi" ("The Curse"). You actually see how the filmmakers recovered the footage, and the protagonist has a good reason for filming everything (he's the host of a show dedicated to investigating the paranormal). Also, it's one of the best horror films of all time, in my opinion.
Reply to this
So is the argument here that Brad is a critic because he's making technical observations, and therefore does not represent the common audience? That not "elitist" observation from some lofty critic/filmmaker perspective. That's called critical thinking. The act of thinking about a movie's content while watching it. Maybe he has more practice at this due to his website and filmmaking, but man...do you really need to be a "critic" to analyze the media you're consuming?
Reply to this
Jake killing everybody? Sounds like your Halloween video right there. The twist? His house really was haunted.
Reply to this
Sarah wearing black + inside car = Sarah's head floating.
Probably scarier than Paranormal Activity 3.
Reply to this
You should watch the TeleSync bootleg. It looks like shitteo so it makes the movie feel much more authentic. Apart from that, I completely disagree that this movie is all about jump scares. I didn't think there were that many. I think a major problem with the way you feel about these films is because you see them with your friends in a crowded theater. I'm certainly hoping though that they'll be going to a completely different storyline for PA4. I didn't think it was as scary as the others, but it did have more of a story line. And it didn't have a cliffhanger ending if you actually paid attention to the movie.
Reply to this
Man Bites Dog is easily the best of all the "found footage" films out there even if it's not a horror. One of the best horror ones is a little-seen flick called Home Movie, really good and creepy, sadly overlooked.
Reply to this
Wow, Battle conversation! Any way any one look at Sarah and think "Are you brave enough? HOW BRAVE?! Brave enough to do battle with hideous monsters Hmmmm?!"
Reply to this
I was thinking about Dragonstrike as well. lol
Reply to this
I'm with Sarah. Startling is not scaring.
Reply to this
Jake is right! These movies SUCK!
Reply to this
I am still waiting on a Cinema Jake show. Anyone else with me on that one?
Reply to this