Just to tell all my fellow foot lovers. Paranormal Activity 2 has a lot of great foot scenes!
Posted by show me ur feet (Member # 6846) on :
Saw it last night and yes there were quite a few really nice sole shots!
Posted by coqui78 (Member # 9702) on :
Hard to masturbate in a theater though! specially when you are terrified.
Posted by Romantic_dork (Member # 22978) on :
That's funny!
Posted by Lord (Member # 2465) on :
The first one had some nice foot shots also. Thanx for the heads up. Posted by steve01 (Member # 7199) on :
very good scenes
Posted by axev1 (Member # 37163) on :
this one was pretty breasty as well. i mean, as scared as i was, katie's rack made the first movie all worth it for me. but yes, the bubble bath scene, and toenail painting scene with the daughter (don't worry, despite playing a teen, she's legal in real life).
Posted by nusuth (Member # 7372) on :
i just rewatched the original this weekend with my kids and yeah, it was nice seeing katie's cute feet again. i never would have guessed that the new one was so foot friendly too.
hows the actual movie btw?
Posted by Beautifulfeetonline.com (Member # 13717) on :
you all crack me up sometimes, lol. How was the actual movie. Was it awesome, better than the first? Worth seeing, not seeing?!?
Posted by axev1 (Member # 37163) on :
as an atheist and skeptic, it takes so much suspension of belief to sit and watch quietly. the first movie gave you an interesting twist on the ghost story genre, with the implement of a demon presence and its own sort of (inherently religious) mythology, but PA2 just treads old ground, imho. i will say if you liked the first one, you'll likely want to watch this one as well, as it ties up loose ends (possibly presenting new ones). people say its not as scary and it really isn't because you know the force at play and what its capable of. knowing this, obvious questions form like "why doesn't the demon just kill [blank] right away?" but there are some familiar frights still capable of giving you a chill. its good enough for halloween, not at all a "bad" or poorly made movie, but it doesn't hold up well as a standalone film, and non-believers are going to feel subjugated by hocus pocus by the end.
Posted by Patrick (Member # 1169) on :
I really liked that toe painting scene, but was like, "Okay, I'm 99 percent sure she's legal and playing an older teen... so is that okay to find hot?" LOL
Patrick
Posted by Scotty7493 (Member # 13127) on :
I though the first one was pretty ghetto, so I have no interest in this second one.
Posted by nusuth (Member # 7372) on :
ghetto??? wtf does that mean?
quote:as an atheist and skeptic, it takes so much suspension of belief to sit and watch quietly.
isnt it requirement to suspend disbelief when you watch most movies?
Posted by Scotty7493 (Member # 13127) on :
quote:Originally posted by nusuth: ghetto??? wtf does that mean?
Yes, I know it racked in millions upon millions, but that's just another way of me saying I thought everything about it was "low-budget". From the production to the storyline.
Posted by nusuth (Member # 7372) on :
i think you missed the point. it was supposed to look that way.. as well as the fact that it was low budget in reality. the story didnt to have some deep gripping depth as long as it delivered on atmosphere and tension and i did find that it succeeded on those terms.
Posted by Scotty7493 (Member # 13127) on :
PA just fed off the success of Blair Witch and followed pretty much the same formula. PA looked like a college student film project that was due for grading in 2 weeks (regardless if it was "meant" to look like that) and the storyline was pretty shallow and unoriginal. I pretty much slept through most of it and the ending left me asking "Is that it?".
Like much of crappy tv and film today, it doesn't have to be original and inspiring, just as long as it's entertaining, bumps up the viewer count, and makes money, that's all that counts.
By the way, PA2 stands at 65% critic approval and 69% movie go-er approval.
Some unfavorable critic reviews include (thought it would make for some funny reading);
"Clever, sure, and adding a baby and a dog certainly pushes child and pet lovers' fear buttons. But there are less transparent editorial tricks."
"Less scary than a toaster."
"Once again, somebody is being haunted by a demon, and once again the demon seems less like the Prince of Darkness than the King of the Whoopee Cushion."
"It's simultaneously a lot more expensive and a lot cheaper."
"You have to have seen the first one in order to make any sense out of this one. For those who haven't it is a muddled mess"
"A nullity of a ghost story, whose idea of creating atmosphere is preparing a blank surface for soundtrack bumps-in-the-night to resound off."
"Were Paranormal Activity 2 released direct-to-DVD, I would have felt it to be more appropriate and forgivable, because that's where it belongs."
"'This camera has your eyes,' said the illegal nanny, as she placed it in a high chair and tried to feed it cheerios."
[ October 27, 2010, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: Scotty7493 ]
Posted by Patrick (Member # 1169) on :
Scotty,
Averaging averages is what gives the Rotten Tomatoes ratings. Saying a 60-something percent does not mean it gets a D rating. This is why anything 60 percent or above is considered a good rating for a flick.
Patrick
P.S. Did you know that Blair Witch wasn't the first film to do what it did? There is a flick that has close to the same type of lore with the missing students that takes place in the woods of New Jersey. The Blair Witch just took advantage of an amazing viral campaign/lie that made everyone talk about it.
Posted by Scotty7493 (Member # 13127) on :
I don't know if you're talking about "Cannibal Holocaust" (but that's set in the Amazon) or "The Last Broadcast" which was a film released a year earlier than TBWP, but it almost sounds like "The Evil Dead" storyline (but that doesn't follow these types of ducumentary style filmed movies). Probably wasn't "Cabin Fever" because that doesn't follow TBWP film style and it was released afterwards, but that was a pretty creepy flick nonetheless.
Yeah the 60% rating is a favorable one for the movie, but that means 40% didn't like it.
Now if it had a fresh tomatoe it most likely would be something to see!
[ October 27, 2010, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Scotty7493 ]
Posted by Beautifulfeetonline.com (Member # 13717) on :
Blair Witch way waaaay scarier than Paranormal Activity imho.
Posted by axev1 (Member # 37163) on :
quote:Originally posted by nusuth: ghetto??? wtf does that mean?
quote:as an atheist and skeptic, it takes so much suspension of belief to sit and watch quietly.
isnt it requirement to suspend disbelief when you watch most movies?
not really. when something happens in a fantasy setting, or presents it's world in a fantasy way, you go where the director leads you. but this is supposed to have actually happened, or supposed to be possible, and exists in our realm with real world references and explanations, which is why there's security and handheld cameras telling the tale, not big budget cameras. there's no magic or hocus pocus; this is supposed to be the tragic story of what happened to a family in southern california, so when there's a bump in the night, the internet is referenced, and "facts" about spirit worlds and demons are brought out to rationalize the phenomena. the father, a skeptic, is proven wrong for dispelling the ladies' belief in the supernatural when confronted with evidence so compelling that it'd make even the most hardcore skeptic would turn believer. not as overtly heavy on belief as the consequences micah faced undoubtedly for burning the most holy, religious symbol, the cross, in the first film, but still pretty contrived, regardless.
and yes, the film was shot for $15,000, and is very much so supposed to look like "found footage", not some hollywood production on a lot.
Posted by axev1 (Member # 37163) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scotty7493:
"It's simultaneously a lot more expensive and a lot cheaper."
that's a great way to sum it up.
Posted by Patrick (Member # 1169) on :
Scotty,
It DOES NOT mean that 40% of the people didn't like it. It means when you take their averages, that average, averages to the 60%. It isn't a like/dislike vote on Rotten Tomatoes. You give it a 0-100% rating (and can only rate at scores rounded of to 0, 10, 20, 30, etc.). If 8 people gave it 100% ratings and two gave it 0%, it would average those averages to 80% that isn't would be reflective of how many people liked it because only 2 people didn't like it. So if the ones that didn't like it gave it, lets say a 20% or even a 40%, that numbers doesn't reflect how many people liked/disliked like above. It averages that scores given to it and that is how a 60% can be considered fresh.
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Thumbs Up]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)