Review #385: Paranormal Activity 3 (2011)

October 2026 Horror Reviews #13 - Paranormal Activity 3 (2011)

We're back with another Paranormal Activity movie, once again acting as a prequel to both of the previous films. (Don't worry, the next entry- Paranormal Activity 4- is the first actual sequel. Aren't you excited?) This was probably the entry I remembered the most from seeing it back when it released, though that may not be saying much.

Paranormal Activity 3 starts off with a framing device of Katie and Kristi, prior to the events of the previous film, finding some old family home videos, and... I guess this is supposed to be what they see (but that doesn't really make any sense if you think about it; more on that later). In this home video from 1988, we see the two of them as children, as well as their parents, Dennis and Julie (the IMDB plot summary says Dennis is not their father, rather he is Julie's live-in boyfriend, but if that was ever said in the movie I didn't catch it, and regardless, it's completely irrelevant as far as the story is concerned). Dennis thinks he sees a ghost in the house on a video he was recording, so he sets up 24-hour surveillance in a few rooms to try and catch some weird phenomena. In the end he gets exactly what he asked for, with all of it revolving around Toby, Kristi's imaginary friend- who might be a bit less imaginary than anyone realizes!

I do have some conflicting thoughts about this movie, which I'll get to later, but if it wasn't obvious, this one is very much more of the same. I have a lot of the same complaints about this one as I do from the previous two entries, and at this point it seems pretty clear these issues are here to stay. The main issue, of course, is the pacing, exactly as I complained about the last two. There's simply not enough that happens in this movie to justify an ~80-minute runtime, and nearly everything of consequence is jammed into the last thirty minutes. There are way too many scenes that start or end (or both) with characters mid-sentence, which is especially frustrating because in this one, it was almost always a conversation I would have really enjoyed listening to (whether it's characters arguing about if the name "Back to the Future" makes sense, or people discussing the supernatural phenomena they just witnessed). It is infuriating to me how uninterested the filmmakers are in literally ANY of the dialogue in here, because no other genre of film would let that sort of thing fly. Here, they would rather spend several minutes on static shots of an empty room than let the audience listen to characters talk.

Let me talk a moment about some of the weird contrivances this movie hand-waves without a second thought. First, the framing device of the film is nonsensical. It starts off with adult Katie and Kristi putting on a home movie from their childhoods, so are we supposed to imagine that these two sisters are watching an edited video where their parents are about to make a sex tape, and eventually it ends with the two of them (presumably) getting killed? Or are we supposed to forget about the framing device entirely? (The movie doesn't return to it at the end, so maybe the filmmakers forgot too.) 

Second, HOLY COW that house is gigantic. Whether Julie and Dennis are married or not, there's no way they could afford a multi-level mansion like this one on the salary of a wedding photographer and a stay-at-home mom. (There's a point where Julie's mom tells her "I wish you were more financially secure" while standing on the third floor of her massive house.)

Third, the justification for why this is all being recorded is pretty flimsy. In the first movie, the characters had already been experiencing some strange occurrences, so they set up one camera to catch some of it. In the second movie, the house was apparently broken into so they got a suite of surveillance cameras to keep it from happening again. In this one, they take measures to immediately establish why this family had high-quality A/V equipment in the late 80s (Dennis films weddings for a living), but he just happens to be reviewing one random video he recorded and sees something strange (which totally would not have been visible on a grainy VHS tape, but whatever) and he immediately decides to start 24/7 surveillance in the bedroom of two adolescent girls? Really? Additionally, in the first film, the ending climax is incredibly short and economical, because Micah doesn't take the camera with him. He just runs out of the room and gets killed. In the second film, Daniel does take a camera with him during the climax, but it serves a purpose- the power had gone out and he needs the light on it to see. In this movie, Dennis just takes the camera with him, for no reason, even taking care to pick it back up (and keep it pointed at the action) after his girlfriend/wife/whatever seemingly just got killed. Dude pays more attention to the camera than he does his possibly-dying partner. It makes no sense.

I'm really conflicted about this movie, though, and in turn about the series. Yes I kind of hate most of what it does. However, I understand that the "what it does" that I hate, might have some merit to it. By this point it's undeniable that the filmmakers have established a style- a style that relies heavily on long boring shots of empty rooms, but a style nonetheless. The pacing and flow of these movies follow a pretty clear rhythm of the following four parts: 

1. Scene where people talk and the dialogue doesn't matter

2. Scene of someone doing something mundane at home

3. Scene of several intercut shots of empty rooms and people sleeping

4. Scary thing 

This rhythm repeats several times each movie, with parts 2 and 4 becoming more and more sinister or bombastic as the movie goes on. (For example, at the start, the scene of someone doing something mundane at home will be exactly that- mundane. Nothing happens. Later on, though, this mundane thing starts really seeming like there's something sinister going on, you just might not be seeing it. So you're on edge. The "scary thing" from part 4 might just be a shadow moving or a door creaking open, but later on, it's the kitchen exploding or the dog getting attacked offscreen by a ghost.) As much as I may hate most of this, I can acknowledge that it sets up specific moments of tension for the audience to anticipate, and that anticipation drives the tension even more. It's a cheap gimmick, yes, but it's a gimmick that does work, and the movies are nothing if not consistent with this gimmick. 

Another perfect example of this is when Dennis straps a camera to an oscillating fan- it sets up a very clear expectation of "The camera is going to look left, then right, then left again, then right again. And then, when it looks left, there will be something scary." It's the movie calling its shot, telling the audience exactly when a scare is coming, and it's BECAUSE of this anticipation that the scare lands. I absolutely acknowledge that this is an intentional choice and it produces results- but I still absolutely hate that it relies so heavily on being (in my opinion) disrespectful of the audience's time by having literally 40+% of the movie be shots of empty rooms, people sleeping, and dialogue that explicitly does not matter.

Anyway, if I haven't made myself clear, I'm still not crazy about this movie but I see why it should get some credit at least. I'm actually really looking forward to getting past the next movie because I haven't seen anything past Paranormal Activity 4, and I have a feeling I might be a lot more engaged once I don't know how the movie ends. But we'll see in a couple days.

Overall Rating: 5/10 Sheet Ghosts

Extracurricular Activities: Apparently, the majority of the footage shown in the trailer for this movie (as well as the previous one) was not in the finished film. According to the production company, they had so much extra footage shot that they were practically able to make two different versions of the movie- and for whatever reason they decided to use the footage from one of these versions for the trailer, and the other version for the movie itself. On one hand I think it's impressive that they got so much additional footage, but then again, when so much of this movie is superfluous shots of things that don't matter, is that really an achievement?

Next Up: Paranormal Activity 4 (2012)!