Paranormal Activity reviewed by The Rotten Tomatoes Show

Really? A positive review of this ridiculous tripe? Really? Complete waste of time, DO NOT SEE IT PEOPLE!!! It's not worth it- that guy who screamed OH MY GOD, was in disbelief because the ending, and really the entire movie, is SO STUPID, that people either laughed or stormed out in a huff. Why? Because they wasted 90 valuable minutes watching it, that could have been better spent walking in circles.

And let's not go overboard with the praise of it's use of crappy image quality- it's still a crappy story and using a video camera to film it, (necessitated by budget and not artistic intent), does nothing to improve it nor does it invite allusions to our notion of reality just because news is recorded on video cameras too. A dark house in the middle of the night, like the woods, is scary by itself- it takes no talent to make it so on a camcorder.

Oh, and these characters are so unlikable, for their idiocy, that I just wanted them to die after about 10 minutes of listening to their inane dialogue. Even if they survived, were they to get married you can be sure that they would soon after head off to the Merry Land of Divorce. Save yourself and your $12 and AVOID this movie. Anyone who praised it must have fallen asleep in the theatre and dreamed of something better because no one with trustworthy taste would recommend it. I'm kind of shocked the hosts liked it, usually they have good taste.

I liked it.

Except that it isn't frightening. It's so poorly written and shot that you know everything that's going to happen in this movie after about 5 minutes of watching it. There's no intrigue or cleverness to assuage the boredom and frustration of watching a couple idiots prattle on endlessly on their way to their doom.

And why does the boyfriend believe in the paranormality enough to want to film it but not enough to understand his girlfriend's fears? And why won't he let her call someone to try to make it stop as the activity escalates? Why does he keep trying to make it worse once he knows his antagonizing is having that effect? Because if they're not stupid, there is no movie. Hence, stupid movie. No talent necessary.

I liked it.

I wasn't gonna see this movie until I read samiracle's comments. He made it sound so awesome. The couples bickering and talking like idiots makes it seem so authentic, which I'm sure only makes it scarier. Also, the "poor" writing and "crappy" image quality are definitely intentional touches that went over the commenter's head, but since I went to an Ivy League school, I bet that someone like me will appreciate it.

Can't wait to go with all my friends!

HA!! So this is Ivy League sarcasm? Shucks, us bumpkins just dont have no clue do we? I wasn't aware that a $15,000 budget allowed for superior image quality, therefore offering the filmmakers a real choice between picture quality relative to a 35mm film or top-grade digital feature and a grainy, pallid monstrosity. I believe that with a budget like that you have no choice but to accept crappy image quality.

Compensating for this by inventing a story limited to one location and that relies on a main character's first-person camera perspectives is not new or interesting anymore. And nothing is done with it to make it feel fresh or involving or something unlike those dreadful paranormal detective shows on Discovery Channel that we can see without paying $12. BTW, scripts are more than their dialogue. The characters don't merely talk like idiots, they are idiots. Idiots that do things that make no sense, because the writers couldn't come up with anything better to move the plot forward. They thus killed the realistic angle that's supposed to heighten the suspense. A script laden with trendy, unrealistic banter and propped lazily upon a foundation of deus-ex-machina-overload is considered good writing where exactly? At Columbia? Harvard? Please, I'd like to know so I don't apply to complete my doctoral studies at this particular Ivy League school.

But go right ahead and spend your hard-earned money to be disappointed, and angrily laugh in disbelief at having sat through it or throw things at the screen like the 200 people I saw it with did when the movie ends, please enjoy.

I only went to a state college, so I guess I am not qualified to review this particular movie. However, my humbled opinion states that this is a terrific directorial and writing debut with professional performaces delivered by amateur actors. I wasn't scared, but I think all the hyped dulled the blow.

If this was a movie about a haunted but otherwise mundane and modern house, it would have been much better. I could have related to that potential and put myself in the situation.

But by making it about a woman who is being stalked by some kind of chicken-footed demon, I couldn't relate to it - and therefore didn't find it scary. It wasn't the house, it was HER... and I've never met anyone who has a stalking demon problem.

The nighttime shots are kind of creepy, but these cries of "scariest movie ever!" must be coming from folks who watch Scooby Doo cartoons with their hands over their eyes. The people at my showing were seriously disappointed and thoroughly unfrightened.

I found the characters annoying, bland, and stupid - which is realistic I suppose, but these are also the kind of people I try to avoid interacting with whenever possible. So I wouldn't call that a plus...

(And for the record, Ivy League doesn't necessarily equal smart, it usually equals money and connections. Case in point, George W. Bush.)