By Mark Trammell

Unless you’ve been hiding under the bed and avoiding the internet at all costs, then you know that “Paranormal Activity” is the current talk of the town. It’s setting off waves of buzz the likes of which haven’t been seen since perhaps “The Blair Witch Project,” the film with which this film will draw the inevitable comparisons. Really, though, the only thing this has in common with that film is a cast that knows how to sell the material and a DIY approach that proves that literally anyone can make a movie with a little ingenuity. The fact that PA is getting so much attention online is because it’s different from most of the horror clogging the theatres these days, and that’s a good thing.
Think about it. The torture porn movement typified by the “Saw” series has been losing steam as of late, with many of its brethren tanking at the box office, including the latest installment of that franchise, which saw itself roundly trounced by the young upstart this past weekend at the box office. PA, like TBWP, has a lot going for it. With excellent word of mouth, it’s an internet buzz topic that has people debating whether it is, in fact, the scariest movie in many a moon, if not one of the scariest of all time. What’s more, no less a name than Steven Spielberg gave it a big thumbs up, helping the filmmakers get a theatrical deal and even going so far as to help them tighten up the original cut and change the ending.
The story is a simple but effective one. It revolves around a couple living in a sweet piece of real estate who suspects they may be the recipients of a ghostly visitor. They call a psychic type, who confirms it, then proceeds to get the eff out of dodge while the getting’s good, in one of the film’s funnier scenes. Then things proceed to get even worse. Much worse. That’s about it, really.
Ultimately, the film succeeds mostly because of the cast. Katie Featherston, in particular, steals the show as the main heroine, who suspects the entity of concern has actually been stalking her for some time, even before she moved into her current residence. Her matter of fact attitude, coupled with her palatable fear, is what gets the audience into the film. Meanwhile, her boyfriend, played by Micah Sloat, provides the color commentary, joking around at first before calling out the specter later in a way that tends to get the audience cringing. If there’s one thing you don’t want to do in a horror movie, its tick off the evil in question, and Micah practically begs for it. Once that happens, you know it’s only a matter of time before the crap hits the ceiling, and boy, does it ever.
The effects are mostly pretty lo-fi, and on the cheap, to be sure. People expecting, say, the next “Poltergeist,” are bound to be disappointed. We’re talking mostly minimal scares here: creepy noises, slamming doors, and the like. Certainly nothing that’s gonna gross anyone out or make them cringe. Yet, many of the classic old horror movies rely on mood and simplicity to achieve their scares, and PA is no exception. It’s cheap, to be sure, and really is the sort of thing most anyone with access to a decent camera and few computer programs could do themselves. The trick is, PA simply thought of it first. Or if not first, per se, then they got the most attention doing it. Having Spielberg in your corner can do that.
It also had that novel “demand it” internet approach going for it, in which people all over the US voted on whether the film should receive a wide release. People voted in droves, and the film has gone from potentially going straight-to-video to a limited release to going wide as of this past weekend, where it preceded to whomp the tar out of Jigsaw and his cronies in the latest “Saw” flick.
All of which, of course, means Hollywood will inevitably want a sequel. It’s hard to say how the filmmakers would proceed from where it ends, but no doubt, they’ll find a way. Interestingly enough, the film has already amassed three endings to date, with alternative versions making the rounds on the internet, alongside debates as to which of the three is better. Having seen two out of three, I would say the original ending is more disturbing and sticks with you more, whereas the theatrical one is more of the “let’s get in one last scare before we roll credits” type of cheat. In actuality, the one I haven’t seen sounds potentially the most disturbing of them all, but it’s hard to say which is the most effective. I suppose all three have their merit. That said, I think the theatrical cut is ultimately the more polished and most audience-friendly of the bunch, whereas the other one I saw is more disturbing more than anything else.
Whatever you think of the ending, the verdict is already in. The film is a huge success, especially given its non-existent budget. Like “The Blair Witch Project” before it, “Paranormal Activity” and the filmmakers that made it are no doubt laughing all the way to the bank. Whether you choose to follow is your call, but it beats the stuffing out of another lackluster installment of the increasingly ludicrous “Saw” series. I’ll take a well-engineered fright flick to yet another torture flick any day of the week. Those who don’t, well, there’s undoubtedly yet another remake or sequel headed your way any day now. For those of us who like our horror intelligent and well-thought out, “Paranormal Activity” will fit the bill just fine.