Ladies and Gentlemen…meet the heir to the Saw franchise’s
"annual Halloween release" throne!
Just when you thought it was safe to video tape yourself
sleeping again, here comes Paranormal Activity 3 from co-directors Henry Joost
and Ariel Schulman just in time for the trick or treating season. The first Paranormal
was genuinely creepy (director’s cut ending) and last year’s follow up was one
giant remake/bore fest, so what could the new installment bring to our eyes that hasn’t
been done two times already since 2009?
As we learn in the first couple of minutes, what we are watching
in Paranormal Activity 3 are old VHS tapes from a box that Katie (Katie
Featherston) gives to her sister Kristi (Sprague Grayden) somewhere in the
timeline of the first and second films. Funny thing is that the sisters don’t
remember half of the tapes they see labeled in the box, but soon after an earthquake,
said box of VHS tapes vanishes from Kristi’s house. Dun-dun-dun!!! All of sudden, we are
treated to a VCR blue screen, the menu’s play button appears, the familiar
auto-tracking fuzzy lines begin to clear the image, and we begin.
Taking place in 1988, young Kristi (Jessica Tyler Brown) and Katie’s (Chloe Csengery) childhood moments
are captured by their mom Julie’s (Lauren Bittner) boyfriend, Dennis
(Christopher Nicholas Smith), on VHS, who they love and treat as their very own
father…but he also looks like Howard Stern’s Baba Booey. Seriously. Kristi has
an imaginary friend named Toby, our demon, which Julie and Dennis ignore until things start
getting weird. That is when Dennis decides to set up two camcorders in the
house and record everything, thus following the same formula as the film’s
predecessors. At first, the hints of the demon’s presence are subtle until it
escalates its threat but wreaking havoc. Even the film's effective comic relief uncle Randy (Dustin Ingram), who he looks like he was just booted out of the All-American Rejects, does not take Toby's examples of power lightly.
Sounds like another remake/sequel disguised as a prequel set in the 80's,
no? Well...it is, but at least they added some scares and some techniques that
kept you glued to the screen. For example, the oscillating fan swiveling with
the mounted camera really implemented many suspenseful moments in a genius touch!
The set design made for a perfect 80’s–looking house and other decade
references like Teddy Ruxpin plus an argument for what the Back to the Future
sequel should be called were nice touches. Sure these “old VHS tapes” look like
the DV Pro format of the 90’s, but let’s suspend some belief for a film such as
PA 3.
As someone who hated the second one with a passion, this was
a fun flick with some great jump scare moments. Now to warn you, you are going
to get answers for some of the other films’ questions, but there are going to be
more even questions left open in this chapter that will probably be answered next Halloween…just like
Saw. The only problem for me was the ending seemed a little derivative off
another one of these found footage flicks, but don’t all films copy off each
other nowadays? Also, we needed more Katie Featherstone, who I am still trying to figure out why she is so alluring to me.
Someone in my theater was freaking out as we left, shouting
that many scenes from the official trailer were not in this film. While he
claimed false advertising, I just thought he was a cheapskate wanting a free
movie pass for next time. I try to avoid trailers, especially for the PA series,
because they usually blow their loads and show you all the scares, leaving me
bored with buyer’s remorse for 90 minutes in the theater. When I got home and checked out the
trailer on Youtube, that angry patron was 100% correct. What you see in the
non-Bloody Mary/official trailer is like a completely different product and storyline
from the actual film. Maybe the film makers did that in a response to people
like me that complain about too many reveals in trailers (which would be hilarious to the umpteenth degree) or maybe there are two
versions of the film floating around. Who knows? Guess it is just another marketing
tool to get us all to buy the Blu-ray.
![]() |
| Here's an example of a scene not in the film. Teaser trailer only. |
Look...it’s Halloween and horror films in the theaters are
almost nowhere to be found. If you want to get some scares on a fun date night and you need to give the haunted hayrides a break, PA 3 will do it for
you and might leave you intrigued to see next season’s follow up. Go have some
fun and don’t expect either Citizen Kane or Citizen Toxie. At least go see it for the
trailers of The Devil Inside and Chronicle 2012 on the big screen. And I hate
to tell you, but the film’s already a financial success, so get ready for in the inevitable part
four...and five...and six. Out of Saw's ashes, rises the Paranormal Phoenix!
RATING:
![]() |
| Three out of 5 Oscillating Fans |
![]() |
| Three out of 5 Creeper Santas |
TRAILER (for some other version of PA 3?):







5 comments:
I never did get around to the first two flicks, because honestly, I heard so much hype around them that I sorta felt overwhelmed, sick of 'em, and like I'd practically seen 'em already. But now I'm sorta interested in hitting them up, and your review of this third installment reinforces that.
If I'm disappointed, I will hold you personally responsible. YOU.
TAFNAJA - Deal. 1 is cool, three is fun, but two sucks. That one does not have my approval. BUT... you like "need" to see it in order to put some things together for part three. So if you are ready to dive into the over-marketed PA universe, I will tell you right now to get a couple, no make it a few, beers ready for part two.
I also want to be held responsible for the awesome tagline I left you at 'Vania too.
I loathed the 2nd. Might give this one a shot.
You are. And as always, thanks for coming to see me. ;) May pick up the the first two PA's @ Wally-world this weekend, they're cheeeeeap there.
this movie s*cks so damn boring!
Post a Comment