Bing Search

Paranormal Activity 3

:

Critics' Reviews

Our critic says...
Metascore
®
59
Mixed or Average Reviews
out of 100
'Paranormal 3': More of the Same
Glenn Kenny, Special to MSN Movies

One lesson Paramount learned that the people who tried to make a franchise out of "The Blair Witch Project" didn't is that when you've got a hot, high-concept, fake found-footage horror property on your hands, you're smart to keep the sequels coming. About 20 minutes after it became clear that the fixed-camera spook non-extravaganza "Paranormal Activity" was gonna be a monster ROI hit, the sequel was conceived; and it was released about 20 minutes after that. OK, exaggerating here, but you get the idea. In any event, almost a year to the day after "Activity 2," here's "Activity 3." These sequels go backward, since apparently it would defeat its own paranormal purpose for the cameras to venture out after Katie, the apparently demonically possessed, um, heroine of the first film who disappeared at the end of that picture. (Is that a spoiler?)

Watch "Go See This Movie": "Paranormal Activity 3," "The Three Musketeers," "Margin Call"

Having been handed the entirely uninspiring challenge of fattening up the "Paranormal" origin story (pop culture mythology in the making, or not), directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman (the doofuses behind the 2010 is-it-or-isn't-it-a-sham-doc-about-an-Internet-sham, "Catfish") reach into their kit bag of plot elements from, and references to, a whole bunch of older horror movies that most of their target demographic likely hasn't seen. A bit of "Rosemary's Baby" here, "The Shining" there, "Poltergeist" there, not to mention some Japanese stuff, and, of course, "Blair Witch" itself, particularly at the end.

Search: More ghost movies

Beginning in 2005 or so and flashing back to 1988 via a box of significant VHS tapes, the film sort of squanders the good will its knowingness may generate with some older viewers by belaboring the rationales for the fact that all this activity is being taped in the first place. The wedding-videographer (see what I mean?) stepdad of two winsome little girls sets up his own primitive version of a domestic video security device, simultaneously taping overnight in the girls' bedroom, the other bedroom he shares with the girls' mom, and the kitchen/living room. This last camera he's mounted on the base of an electric fan so that it goes back and forth slowly while it's recording. Bet you can just imagine the fun Joost and Schulman have with that little device! (Which actually gets old pretty quick. It didn't take this viewer long to remember Andrew Sarris' phrase from an entirely different context, "the wasteful pan.") Oh, and Mr. Wedding Videographer also tapes himself looking at the tapes, which I guess is kinda like "Gimme Shelter" or something.

Anyway, this sets us up for the predictable series of shock scares, which subsist of things getting really quiet for a while and then something going bump really loud, and for the first hour or so it's mostly just people goofing on Mr. Wedding Videographer. But the little girls are enthralled by an "imaginary" friend named Toby (a name that had this fan of older horror movies hoping that maybe Terence Stamp would show up), and of course it turns out he is not nearly as imaginary as anyone had, um, imagined. So the shocks get louder and larger and more jarring. This really is kind of the cheapest form of horror: It's like sitting next to someone who jabs you and says "boo" at erratic intervals while you're trying to read, or maybe drive. Still, the directors are pretty clever about it. Mr. Wedding Videographer's multi-camera setup gives the directors all manner of cheats to work with -- intercutting! What a concept! -- and when they're not cheating, the production design has given them all manner of ways to manipulate what's going on in a frame and what the viewer's drawn to (full-length closet mirrors prove particularly useful in this respect).

Still, cheap it may be, but it's not particularly graphic, so it's got that going for it. And in any case, scares are scares, even if they are cheap. It may be that the best way to see this picture is at a latish show in a house packed with a bunch of zonked or slightly tweaked urban teens, which was how this reviewer experienced it. And while, yes, I dearly wish these kids would take their hippety-hop music and get off my lawn, I could appreciate how this group of fans really got off on getting scared together. Yes, it was a vulgar communal experience, but still a genuine one. For some people, that's what a night at the movies is all about.

Glenn Kenny is chief film critic for MSN Movies. He was the chief film critic for Premiere magazine from 1998 to 2007. He contributes to various publications and websites, and blogs at http://somecamerunning.typepad.com. He lives in Brooklyn.

For more movie news, follow MSN Movies on Facebook and Twitter.

One lesson Paramount learned that the people who tried to make a franchise out of "The Blair Witch Project" didn't is that when you've got a hot, high-concept, fake found-footage horror property on your hands, you're smart to keep the sequels coming. About 20 minutes after it became clear that the fixed-camera spook non-extravaganza "Paranormal Activity" was gonna be a monster ROI hit, the sequel was conceived; and it was released about 20 minutes after that. OK, exaggerating here, but you get the idea. In any event, almost a year to the day after "Activity 2," here's "Activity 3." These sequels go backward, since apparently it would defeat its own paranormal purpose for the cameras to venture out after Katie, the apparently demonically possessed, um, heroine of the first film who disappeared at the end of that picture. (Is that a spoiler?)

Watch "Go See This Movie": "Paranormal Activity 3," "The Three Musketeers," "Margin Call"

Having been handed the entirely uninspiring challenge of fattening up the "Paranormal" origin story (pop culture mythology in the making, or not), directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman (the doofuses behind the 2010 is-it-or-isn't-it-a-sham-doc-about-an-Internet-sham, "Catfish") reach into their kit bag of plot elements from, and references to, a whole bunch of older horror movies that most of their target demographic likely hasn't seen. A bit of "Rosemary's Baby" here, "The Shining" there, "Poltergeist" there, not to mention some Japanese stuff, and, of course, "Blair Witch" itself, particularly at the end.

Search: More ghost movies

Beginning in 2005 or so and flashing back to 1988 via a box of significant VHS tapes, the film sort of squanders the good will its knowingness may generate with some older viewers by belaboring the rationales for the fact that all this activity is being taped in the first place. The wedding-videographer (see what I mean?) stepdad of two winsome little girls sets up his own primitive version of a domestic video security device, simultaneously taping overnight in the girls' bedroom, the other bedroom he shares with the girls' mom, and the kitchen/living room. This last camera he's mounted on the base of an electric fan so that it goes back and forth slowly while it's recording. Bet you can just imagine the fun Joost and Schulman have with that little device! (Which actually gets old pretty quick. It didn't take this viewer long to remember Andrew Sarris' phrase from an entirely different context, "the wasteful pan.") Oh, and Mr. Wedding Videographer also tapes himself looking at the tapes, which I guess is kinda like "Gimme Shelter" or something.

Anyway, this sets us up for the predictable series of shock scares, which subsist of things getting really quiet for a while and then something going bump really loud, and for the first hour or so it's mostly just people goofing on Mr. Wedding Videographer. But the little girls are enthralled by an "imaginary" friend named Toby (a name that had this fan of older horror movies hoping that maybe Terence Stamp would show up), and of course it turns out he is not nearly as imaginary as anyone had, um, imagined. So the shocks get louder and larger and more jarring. This really is kind of the cheapest form of horror: It's like sitting next to someone who jabs you and says "boo" at erratic intervals while you're trying to read, or maybe drive. Still, the directors are pretty clever about it. Mr. Wedding Videographer's multi-camera setup gives the directors all manner of cheats to work with -- intercutting! What a concept! -- and when they're not cheating, the production design has given them all manner of ways to manipulate what's going on in a frame and what the viewer's drawn to (full-length closet mirrors prove particularly useful in this respect).

Still, cheap it may be, but it's not particularly graphic, so it's got that going for it. And in any case, scares are scares, even if they are cheap. It may be that the best way to see this picture is at a latish show in a house packed with a bunch of zonked or slightly tweaked urban teens, which was how this reviewer experienced it. And while, yes, I dearly wish these kids would take their hippety-hop music and get off my lawn, I could appreciate how this group of fans really got off on getting scared together. Yes, it was a vulgar communal experience, but still a genuine one. For some people, that's what a night at the movies is all about.

Glenn Kenny is chief film critic for MSN Movies. He was the chief film critic for Premiere magazine from 1998 to 2007. He contributes to various publications and websites, and blogs at http://somecamerunning.typepad.com. He lives in Brooklyn.

For more movie news, follow MSN Movies on Facebook and Twitter.

91
ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: Owen Gleiberman

The bottom line, for me, is this: I don't scare easily at horror films, but I watched Paranormal Activity 3 in a state of high anxiety.

Read Full Review »
90
LOS ANGELES TIMES: 

Paranormal Activity 3, the latest installment in the low-budget horror franchise, is far and away the sharpest, most wildly aware film in the series.

Read Full Review »
80
The New York Times: 

"3" introduces a camera affixed to a fan panning slowly back and forth, offering now-you-see-it-now-you-don't tableaus in the kitchen and foyer. (Of course we never see who's editing this footage, and the story's cameramen keep dying off.) It also brings fake-out jolts and humor into play.

Read Full Review »
75
CHICAGO TRIBUNE: Michael Phillips

The films are not works of genius. They are, however, wily reminders of the virtues of restraint when you're out for a scare.

Read Full Review »
75
Boston Globe: Ty Burr

Co-directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman cut their teeth on 2010's glib social-media mystery "Catfish,'' and since they're clever boys, they make the most of the series' new toy. Otherwise, Paranormal Activity 3 is almost identical to, and just as eerily effective as, the first two films in its alternation of cheesy "boo!'' tactics and genuine scares.

Read Full Review »
63
USA Today: Claudia Puig

Paranormal Activity 3 delivers similarly eerie moments, though long stretches go by where nothing truly ominous occurs.

Read Full Review »
60
Variety: Joe Leydon

Much like its predecessors, Paranormal Activity 3 is a slow-building, stealthily creepy supernatural thriller that takes a teasingly indirect approach to generating suspense and escalating dread.

Read Full Review »
50
ROLLING STONE: Peter Travers

I fully expect Paranormal Activity 3 to be box office gold. But it's barely worth two stars, let alone two cents. As for future followups, I offer this plea: STOP!

Read Full Review »
50
ReelViews: James Berardinelli

The scares (if you want to call them that) are still there - one "boo!" moment after another, strung together like a breadcrumb trail through a labyrinth. So if that's all you want from a Halloween release like Paranormal Activity 3, you are the perfect audience member.

Read Full Review »
40
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS: Joe Neumaier

A few really weird things happen during Paranormal Activity 3, though unfortunately, they have nothing to do with being frightened.

Read Full Review »
See all Paranormal Activity 3 reviews at metacritic.com »
showtimes & tickets
Search by location, title, or genre:
upcoming movies on
featured video