“Paranormal Activity 4” disappoints
It is an unfortunately well-known phenomenon that the majority of horror movie sequels can barely stand up to the originals. Where the original film inspired chills and nightmares, sequels often lose any semblance of fear.
An example of this can be seen in “Halloween 3,” in which the plot had nothing to do with Michael Myers or any of the following sequels. For “Paranormal Activity 4,” not only does it fail to meet the bar set by the original movie, it has set a new low for horror movies.
The “Paranormal” series is based off a number of seemingly unconnected home movies depicting occult, supernatural and most notably, demonic events. The film is always portrayed through hand-held cameras or recording devices and claims that the police collected the video evidence. This series is in many ways similar to the “Blair Witch” series, using the hand-held camera perspective to try and terrorize the filmgoer. As the movies go along, more is revealed about the reasons for these paranormal events.
At least that’s supposed to be the idea. The sequels of the first film, especially the third one, have been criticized for not making very much sense and emphasizing sudden camera jerks or sounds in order to produce a short-term scare, as opposed to long-lasting horror. These types of movies have become popular because they’re cheap to produce and through ticket sales and hype, make a large profit. “Paranormal Activity 3” had a budget of $5 million dollars, and made a net profit of about $200 million — and that was for a movie that most movie critics gave a C+ at best.
“Paranormal Activity 4” not only continues this trend, but in a sick way, seems to master its own mediocrity. The story begins with a new family moving into an unnamed neighborhood. Following an incident at a neighbor’s home, the neighbor’s young son is allowed to stay with them, and from there the plot is predictable. Paranormal events begin to occur, mysterious characters begin appearing in the house, and things inevitably end with more questions being asked than answered.
For a light horror movie fan, this movie might be a good thing to see. It has some OK scary scenes and the inclusion of children in a horror films is always guaranteed to create some creepiness for the soft-hearted. For anyone who enjoys horror movies or is a fan, this movie will at best be a disappointment, and at worst will make you wish you could get your time and money back.
The effects are cheesy and just like in the other movies, the plot is predictable, almost down to the type of food they chose to show in the movie. Overall, the plot is weak. It follows the same plot as the first movie, but without any of the originality or emotion.
In conclusion, this isn’t the worst horror movie to ever be produced — that title most likely still belongs to “Trolls 2,” but it’s definitely near the bottom of the refuse pile. With poor acting, poor plot line and cheap thrills this a movie destined to be ridiculed, and at best, occasionally shown on the Sy-Fy channel. This is a movie that will be remembered for being the worst of the four and for making a huge profit, but will never have the same staying power that horror icons like Freddy Kreuger and Dracula hold in horror fans’ black little hearts. I’d recommend saving your money ad seeing “Silent Hill: Revelation” instead.
