I think it’s super ugly and arrogant when people add extra coloring and stuff to movie/tv stills and gifs. Do they really think they know how the scene ought to look better than the director and cinematographer of the film/episode?
by “90s kids” i mean the people who say things like “omgz if you remember this then you had an awesome childhood,” or “omg kids these days are so reliant on technology back when i was a kid in the 90s all i needed was playdoh to have funn,” as though they’re superior or like 75 years old.
“Life its about learning how to stand up when you fall it doesn’t matter how do you fall what matters the most is how you stand up and overcome what life puts on your way.”—a quote from a college student’s picnik edited facebook picture
The best thing a movie can do is have an audience with incredibly low expectations. The best thing a sequel can do is learn from its predecessors’ mistakes. Paranormal Activity 3 does both of these things. What we have in PA3 is a prequel that takes the premise that the original promise, and actually manages to deliver on the promise that it had. Found footage movies are not the place for in-depth character development. What the first two films failed to do is realize this; they attempted to make something out of nothing and it just turned into cheesy drama on both occasions. PA3 instead realizes that it doesn’t need to attempt this in order to make a quality horror film. This is evident in the much faster pace of the threequel when compared to the first two. While the first two felt tedious and tiresome in their development, PA3 has more kinetic energy, allowing the visual horror to advance and develop over the succinct 84 minute running time.
I want to comment on the technical elements of PA3, since they are a clear improvement over the first two installments. The changing of cinematographers has clearly aided the series. What Magdelena Gorka Bonacorso did that Oren Peli and Michael Simmonds failed to do, was that she was able to engage the design of the film in her compositions, while finding the proper balance of cameras to use during night sequences. The first film only had one, the second had about 5, and the third has two and then three. Something about the two camera setup worked really well. It didn’t have the tedium of the one camera setup, but it allows the viewers to have a sense of place and time (due in part to the Gregory Plotkin’s smart editing) that 5 cameras confused. When the third camera is added, the back and forth technique perfectly injects traditional horror into the usually spastic camerawork found in found footage films; it adds a dimension to the film that creates more opportunities for good scares. This new dimension can also be found in the apt usage of mirrors in the smarter than usual production design.
The film is far from perfect though, the screenplay, though containing quite a few clever homages to classic horror films such as The Shining and Poltergeist, is filled with unintentional humor and narrative flaws. I’ll forgive this though, since it is joining the ranks of three film series this year that would do well to stop making sequels so that they can end on a high note (following Transformers and Final Destination), and PA3 ends on the highest note of them all.