Paranormal Activity: Next of Kin

I might be somewhat biased cause I enjoy Eubank's works to a certain extent. I think he's consistently almost a good director. The Signal was an interesting starting project, Underwater was too rushed and too focused on Steward though.

As for the PA franchise, I watched 2 or 3 of these when there was a hype going on, but as it went on it grew old fast so I eventually dropped it.

I don't know if this one follows the story or is a standalone film, but as far as these go, it was ok.

I enjoyed its atmosphere, the overall look, and, surprisingly enough, the dated found-footage gimmick was certainly used well in this.

Obviously, the movie loses a lot if you just ask yourself "why are they still filming?", but in this installment, they seem to mix found footage with a couple of cinematic shots. I actually think that this is a good idea, not wholly original though, since I've seen this done in REC 3: Genesis.

Yes, it was predictable and very reminiscent of the first REC or Quarantine, but all the good stuff I mentioned earlier was enough for me to watch it.

I think that for a franchise this stretched it was an ok addition.

Fans of the franchise might not enjoy it, horror fans might find it too predictable, but it is certainly watchable for the least.

This franchise was loved or hated by the fans. Still it was original in it's concept and due teens being afraid of the first entry it became a succes.

So 14 years after number one we are left with this one. Why it's called paranormal activity is still a riddle for me. It's more about some myth surrounding the Amish and it's there that the story starts. A crew staying at home with an Amish family but they have a secret.

The score used is the same as in the franchise. But it isn't a found footage like the franchise was all about.

It isn't bad at all, do has some scary parts but another title would have been better.

Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 2/5 Story 2,5/5 Comedy 0/5.

Whether by attaching itself to the Paranormal Activity franchise or some other reason, this film commits itself to being a found footage style horror film. This works great for most of the Paranormal Activity films, and even works out nicely for many parts of this film.

The problem is that this film was unwilling to fully commit to this, and thus ends up making some really stupid camera decisions that completely draw you out of the immersion of the film and even prompt laughter.

The film itself is straightforward: a woman, Margot, who is adopted discovers her birth family is apparently Amish and goes to visit them, all the while bringing a camera, boommike, and two friends, Chris and Dale, to film for a documentary. Who she is and why she apparently warrants a documentary is unclear and ultimately irrelevant.

It follows the typical routine of Our Dumb Heroes getting themselves in trouble by ignoring pleas and orders to not do stupid stuff and go exploring forbidden areas, all to further the plot.

None of it was particularly interesting. What really stuck out horribly for the film is that, despite the aforementioned commitment to the Paranormal Activity franchise of found footage, the film goes and does so many stupid things that break the format.

The most blatant and stupid incident, which I had to rewind just to make sure it actually happened and wasn't me misinterpreting something, involved the cameraperson backing away from "something" in a dark hall. They are alone and have the ONLY camera. The camera then cuts to an object BEHIND the "something", a location the cameraperson was nowhere near and completely unable to film at any point in time.

These sorts of impossible camera cuts start to pile up closer to the end, until at one point the camera just seemingly disappears, and we get conventional movie-style shots.... only for the film to somehow return to the "camera"'s framing, as if the camera had been on and filming everything the whole time despite no one holding it.

These stupid camera decisions constantly ripped me out of the immersion of the film, and there was one incident in particular where for no reason at all the camera went into a gratuitous slow motion sequence during a scary bit that was too laughable to take seriously and absolutely should have been cut.

Paranormal Activity: Next of Kin (2021) is a movie I recently watched on Paramount+. The storyline follows an orphaned young lady who traces her roots back to a Mormon society in the country. They take her in with open arms and show her their ways and tell her the story of her mother. As she stays with them she starts seeing weird phenomenon by the woods and around a rundown church. If she digs too much into her family history she may find more than she wants to know.

This movie is directed by William Eubank (Underwater) and stars Emily Bader (Charmed), Roland Buck III (Better Call Saul), Dan Lippert (Son of Zorn) and Henry Ayres-Brown (The Black List).

The storyline for this is a bit cliche but well told and interesting enough to keep your attention till the final scene. The cinematography is very good and the settings are beautifully depicted. The movie drags at times, but the last 20 minutes are excellent. I will say everything about the pit frustrated me; as in, I kept thinking "you'd never do that," but it wasn't enough to detract me from wanting to know what's going to happen.

Overall this movie is okay and worth watching. I wouldnt call it the best Parabormal Activity movie but it's worth a viewing. Essentially, the last few scenes are worth sitting through the movie. I'd score this a 5.5-6/10 and recommend seeing it once.

I won't go into it too much because it would be basically a repeat of what has already been said. This is not a Paranormal Activity movie, it just borrows from the name for promotional purposes. For that, I was disappointed.

I thought the acting was fine. I didn't dislike any of the characters like you eventually do. I thought story was fine, although not exactly new. It was definitely creepy, so I can't knock it for that. I was entertained. Of course there is a lot of footage where they would have never been filming, as per the norm, but I get that they have to tell a story through the camera. Personally I can't stand reviews that tell you to watch something or not to watch something. Reviews that tell you to ignore the positive or the negative reviews. I mean that the purpose of reading reviews, to eventually form your own opinion, then make up your own mind whether to watch it or not. You decide.