[Movie] Sinister

**Kreekakon** · 10-11-2012, 03:57 PM

Ran across a review of Jeremy Jahns reviewing this movie just now. He claims it is one of the most terrifying movies he's seen in a long time. Here's his review (spoiler-free):

Here's the official trailer:

I have to say, with all the positive reviews, put together with that trailer I'm very interested about this movie. What do you guys think? Have any of you seen it already?

**Bridge** · 10-11-2012, 05:58 PM

It looks like one of those movies. Count me out.

**Solitary Walker** · 10-11-2012, 06:17 PM

Me and my friends want to see this movie.

**Kman** · 10-11-2012, 10:46 PM

(10-11-2012, 05:58 PM)Bridge Wrote: It looks like one of those movies. Count me out.

Mind explaining yourself here?

I am most definitely going to see this, the trailer looks interesting, it's gotten great reviews, and it's by the same people who made Insidious and Paranormal Activity. I mean, how would you not want to go see it considering all that?

**Bridge** · 10-11-2012, 11:23 PM

(10-11-2012, 10:46 PM)Kman Wrote:
(10-11-2012, 05:58 PM)Bridge Wrote: It looks like one of those movies. Count me out.
Mind explaining yourself here?

I am most definitely going to see this, the trailer looks interesting, it's gotten great reviews, and it's by the same people who made Insidious and Paranormal Activity. I mean, how would you not want to go see it considering all that?

Because this "realistic" camcorder/found footage/documentary style horror is pathetic. I don't enjoy it at all. I'm a huge fan of cinematography and saying interesting things with lighting and framing all of which is totally lost. Plus the dialogue is usually total shit because it's for the most part improv around an idea by (sometimes) bad actors. You can also say a lot of things with just a few words if it's correctly delivered and if the shot complements it. Putting up a camera in a corner somewhere or worse yet having an actor lug it around totally sacrifices all of that. And it's not scarier. When it works it works because the characters give believable performances and the plot makes you uneasy. It has nothing to do with the fact that it's "real footage" because you know it's fake anyway. You are going to suspend your disbelief if you want to enjoy the movie. Being lazy with the cinematography and writing does not make suspending your disbelief any easier. Truth be told, I actually find it harder.

I have to admit I haven't seen Paranormal Activity which is supposedly the best of these films but it does not seem like a good movie to me, and I listened to an hour long review of both 1 and 2 each and did not like what I heard (and the guy was praising it to hell). I did not enjoy the performances showcased in the trailers at all and I found the story uninspired and boring. The only "found footage" movie I've seen is REC which I thought was good but the camcorder thing annoyed me. If you say it really is that good, whatever, I might check it out. It just doesn't appeal to me aesthetically. I know not all of what I says applies to Sinister but it seems to be the same type of movie. At least as far as dialogue and plot goes.

**Kman** · 10-11-2012, 11:43 PM

Honestly, I think Paranormal Activity gets a looooot more praise than it deserves, though I still think all around it's a good movie. If you want a movie that's good and is done in that format, check out Chronicle (though considering you seem to be a serious film buff I doubt you haven't either seen it or heard of it already). Still, I think totally disregarding a film just based on the format it's done in is kind of ignorant.

**Bridge** · 10-11-2012, 11:56 PM

(10-11-2012, 11:43 PM)Kman Wrote: Honestly, I think Paranormal Activity gets a looooot more praise than it deserves, though I still think all around it's a good movie. If you want a movie that's good and is done in that format, check out Chronicle (though considering you seem to be a serious film buff I doubt you haven't either seen it or heard of it already). Still, I think totally disregarding a film just based on the format it's done in is kind of ignorant.

Yeah I saw it. I liked the first half because the performances were overall excellent and the plot was interesting. I wasn't happy with the second half or the resolution though mainly because the "main" protagonist was unlikable and boring. I really had no sympathy for him at all. But it was a memorable movie, I definitely agree the format worked very well in that case. I still don't fully agree with the idea; at best it's tolerable or not noticeable. I avoid being a cynical douchebag whenever I can so I don't completely hate on a movie for having bad cinematography, but it's such an important part of filmmaking, I find it depressing that people are ignoring its importance.

EDIT: I really lose a lot of respect for a movie if I can't remember or don't notice even a single interesting shot though. Which is why I really liked Immortals. Sure, the acting was bad and the plot was boring but man, did it have some gorgeous shots.