Somewhere in between Cannibal Holocaust, The Entity, The Blair Witch Project and Open Water lies the source material for a story told through the 21st century breakthrough of digital camcorders, their mediums being YouTube and Reality TV...The scariest bit about Paranormal Activity is that some people were actually scared in the screening.

PA fools you not. Starting with the lack of opening credits - aside a 'thank you' to the families of those involved from Paramount, which is a version of an old stunt known in the GNR fandom as Uzi Suicide - you know you'll be watching nothing but a series of home videos, generally regarded as the toxic waste of cinema. Many fledging filmmakers got their first paychecks by shooting and/or editing hours of footage on vacations, christenings, weddings, etc, trying to rise above the oft sub-par footage (courtesy of either the head of the family or the odd cousin), trying to insert a faint touch of artistic expression. We've all been there, powered by sheer enthusiasm and ignorance of youth. But we made damn sure Daddy doesn't screen those tapes outside the residential compound.

Another distinct visual gimmick is the stationary camera shot, covering the bedroom. Much like the most effective single shot in Tobe Hooper's Salem's Lot, where the undead boy looms ominously outside the bedroom window, the Dormcam is also used repeatedly throughout the story, milking away some of the effect. The Big Brother network series carved a niche of nightvision shots consisting mostly of people sleeping, which makes one smirk in the middle of the screening upon the realization of a BB Haunted House.

Horror maestro Stuart Gordon once said that good acting is the best special effect. While PA tries to cover up the lack of budget by focusing on the characters, it'd be helpful if they'd be even half-way likable. The man of the house comes across as a complete dud, and you'd hope he'd be cut in ribbons any frame soon. The lady is halfway more likable, but I wonder what's she doing with a complete idiot like that. The lack of consistency in character motives (any rational person would take a hike halfway through, or atleast seek professional help) doesn't do the narrative any favors.

When all is said and done, the most memorable things (not many, mind you) happen in the Dormcam, with the timecode whizzing on the lower-right corner to clue one in on timing the phenomena. I personally found the Amityville reference of 03:15AM rather cute. Most often we view the Dormcam footage in real-time, occasionally stepping into fastforwarded material. A few suitably eerie moments are extracted, yet nothing even remotely frightening. Than again, unlike probably over 95% of my fellow cinema punters, I'd already spent many a long night in desolate houses and toying with Ouija boards.

To sum up, if you have any prior experience or enthusiasm in either horror films, paranormal activity, filmmaking in general, or all of the above, don't see this film. You'll only be bored out of your skull, with the chick gasping for breath next to you only serving to distance you further from your fellow men. 

People sure have gone a long way from the campfires to scared of things like that.

Unfortunately.

Crappy is a relative term. The PC hardware has a generally short lifespan if you're into keeping it cutting-edge. Furthermore, one thing I love about Mac's is the uniform hardware design. The strength of a PC is that you can basically compile your combination of choice from the ground up, gaining theoretically maximum proficiency and the best worth to your dime.

The downside is, that Frankenstein monster may not be the most stable puzzle when set against the Windows OS, let alone the various programs, codecs, et al, which I personally need in my daily work. The Vista compatibility with various pieces of hardware is the longest-running industry joke of the 21st century, and it wasn't any fun even at the get-go.

You can't get all that many Mac's. There are pros and cons to the closed build. Updating those sons of bitches can be a pain. The definite upside is, you get more or less guaranteed compatibility with different programs / hardware, because with a Mac, you simply don't face a miasma of components and manufacturers you do with PC's.

Have you tried doing anything aside playing Solitaire with it?

Get what? That a great many people pushing 50 want to re-live their youth by pretending an obsolete lineup with obsolete musical style is somehow as valid as it was 20 years ago?

I give you that. It's really a shame when that happens.

Reunions suck, mostly, because they can certainly devalue the music and legacy by giving old men that one easy payday after years of being discouraged by flopping solo records and efforts to evolve, much due to them getting trapped into the very image that made them big.

Definitely not. Called opinions. You want to tout the AFD lineup, don't let me stop you.

Well, I was talking about the 2001 lineup, but in case you were too eager to give me a reality check, I might as well cave in and spell it out for your perusal:

I obviously don't see the 2001 lineup reuniting.

Would I take it over any other lineup in GNR history? In a heartbeat.

Is it my decision? Nope.

Would an AFD/UYI lineup have more mass appeal? Definitely.

But why should I have an opinion in line with Joe Q Public? A reunion of whatever sort isn't happening in the foreseeable future. Slash isn't coming back. Axl will do as he pleases.

Are you in for killing the discussion by telling me I have a false opinion?