Review of Paranormal Activity 3 (2011) by Tom M — 26 Oct 2015

At our third entry in the publics current favorite spooky franchise, we now find ourselves firmly fixed in 'prequel to a prequel' mode ("ALREADY?!" you may ask). As someone who pretty much despised the first two movies, I went into this latest 'fright fest' with my expectation-meter set firmly at sleeper level. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I wasn't dissapointed, but what does that mean exactly?

Well, in short, it actually scared me. Sure it's hokey and extremely in your face, but the scares genuinely do work, and do so in some (almost) inventive ways. Take this little moment for example; mistaken identity of child + white bed sheets + supernatural goings on = one rather unsettling sequence involving a lone babysitter. I think the main reason the scares work this time is down to the fact that the movie has now become very aware of itself and the cliches of the 'ghosty' genre it wears ever so proudly on its sleeves. Perhaps this is down to the fact that the script is sharper than ever, and is also willing to throw in the occasional laugh to give the audience a break (although it never becomes intense to a point in which you'd beckon for a breather).

The film also excels in the art of making me 'believe' that 'found-footage' movies are worthy of existing. Directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman (helmers of 2009's interesting mockumentary, Catfish) come up with a whole host of new ways to put the camera at an interesting angle whilst we wait for the next BKJNRNRUJE moment. The 'camera on a rotating fan' trick is a personal favorite of mine, and is a key component in the earlier mentioned 'bedsheet' sequence.

Still, despite the new found 'meta-ness' of the script, and the work of two obviously talented directors, Paranormal Activity 3 doesn't exactly break any new ground at all. It's still carrying the same, lame plot threads that were weaved in the original, and despite trying its hardest to muster up a 'shocking', 'controversial' ending it instead comes across as hammy and try-hard to an almost laughable degree (nevermind completely implausible when taking into account past knowledge gained from the prior movies).

If you thought that part three may have brought about some kind of innovation or change to the franchise, then think again. This is basically still the first movie, only slightly less-serious and certainly more camp. Still, i'm confused, This movie is supposedly set in the 80's, yet the fathers tendency for very stylish, 21st century camera techniques certainly raises eyebrows. Is the actual twist a subtle nod to the fact that this guy is in fact the grand-daddy of modern film-making? (Give me a break; I had to watch this movie AND had to write something about it. You can't expect me to hang onto my sanity forever).