Product Details

• Actors: Katie Featherston
• Directors: Tod Williams
• Format: AC-3, Color, Dolby, DTS Surround Sound, Dubbed, Subtitled, Widescreen
• Language: English
• Subtitles: English, French, Portuguese, Spanish
• Dubbed: French, Portuguese, Spanish
• Region: Region A/1 (Read more about DVD/Blu-ray formats.)
• Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
• Number of discs: 2
• Rated: Unrated
• Studio: Paramount Pictures
• DVD Release Date: January 24, 2012
• Run Time: 83 minutes
• Average Customer Review: 3.4 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (188 customer reviews)
• ASIN: B004EPZ02A
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #68,292 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
• Learn more about "Paranormal Activity 3 (Blu-ray+DVD+Digital Copy Combo in Blu-ray Packaging)" on IMDb

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com

A leaner, meaner, and altogether scarier entry in the Paranormal Activity horror franchise, Paranormal Activity 3 is a well-oiled scare machine that delivers the gut-wrenching shocks of the original 2007 film. Fans may initially groan over the plot, which takes the tried-and-true sequel tack of flashing back to the "origin" of the first film's phenomena; here, we discover that the diabolical entity that plagued sisters Katie and Kristi (Katie Featherston and Sprague Grayden, both of whom return in "found footage" clips) has been after the girls since their adolescent years in the late '80s. There's an attempt to provide a reason for the haunting, which may or may not rankle franchise fans; its inclusion, however, doesn't interrupt the barrage of shudders and armrest-clutching frights encountered by the girls' father (Chris Smith), a wedding videographer whose skill with cameras uncovers glimpses of the monstrous presence in his house. Directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman (Catfish) have a keen understanding of how to use the corners of their image to milk maximum suspense from a static shot or slow-moving pan, as shown in one of the film's most memorable scenes, in which a camera mounted on an oscillating fan first suggests and then reveals a terrifying moment. As before, the human element is the weakest link, though Chloe Csengery and Jessica Tyler Brown, as young Katie and Kristi, respectively, are convincingly hysterical at the proper moments. But one doesn't attend a Paranormal Activity film to see fine acting. The franchise is a thrill ride/rite of passage/endurance test for its loyal fans, and PA 3 has the horsepower to stand alongside the other pictures. --Paul Gaita

Product Description

Paranormal Activity 3 takes you back to where it all began and the activity is more intense than ever. The cameras are on and recording the chilling moments when evil begins to terrorize young sisters Katie and Kristi for the first time. Brace yourself for the horror phenomenon that delivers “heart-exploding scares”* so frightening that “the last 15 minutes will mess you up for life.”**

*Brad Miska, Bloody Disgusting; **Aint-It-Cool-News

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

44 of 49 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars Some people's favorite and my least favorite of the franchise...but I say see it either way! October 22, 2011

By Tokay

First off, I should say that I LOVED parts one and two. The first two relied more heavily on very slow-building tension. These predecessors basically "taught" viewers how to watch these movies in the first 20-30 minutes by offering numerous subtle, relatively unimportant objects moving as if a spectral breeze had shifted them. This way when such production devices became important, the viewer had a trained eye--not unlike what was done with White Noise. These movies convey a style that is very unusual. So it came as no surprise to me that there was little middle ground in people's opinions of them; they loved'em or hated'em. I love'em. Why? Because my senses are all on full power; I'm all in; I'm practically concentrating on the screen and listening to every creak trying to sleuth out the next clue that something fishy is going on in that house. Some people may call this "work". I call it cool. [But people chatting during the movie are a much greater distraction than normal under the circumstances.]

This third installment was my least favorite, but I can totally understand why it may be others' favorite. While it still employed subtle moving objects, it did it less, instead relying on more mainstream devices to provoke scared jumps from the audience. It also borrowed more heavily from the Poltergeist movies than the first two--not that I minded. The characters' investigation into the strange goings-on was more methodical and plot-driven. The first two were more event-driven and investigated more out of fear and curiosity. The differences between 3 and 1 & 2 were subtle, but numerous, chief amongst them being that "the paranormal" functions as a character in this movie, rather than a mysterious "force" in the first two.... As such, the actions of "the paranormal" were more blatant and felt more like "it" was doing something "to someone" whereas in 1 & 2 it was more like "something was happening" to someone in a haunted house.

The plot is simple. A family lives in a house. Weird things start happening. Step-dad starts putting cameras around the house. Things get weirder. And from there anything more would give too much away. But while the first two movies' endings left us largely to wild speculation, I will say that this one ends with something of an explanation of the paranormal activity.

It doesn't really matter in which order you watch these movies. However, each sequel (or in this case prequel) was designed to mold over the events of the previous installment. So watch them in order if it's convenient. I also demand you watch these with the lights off. It makes it easier to avoid distractions while you're concentrating on the screen. Read more ›

9 of 12 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars Some people's favorite and my least favorite of the franchise...but I say see it either way! January 18, 2012

By Tokay

Format:DVD

First off, I should say that I LOVED parts one and two. The first two relied more heavily on very slow-building tension. These predecessors basically "taught" viewers how to watch these movies in the first 20-30 minutes by offering numerous subtle, relatively unimportant objects moving as if a spectral breeze had shifted them. This way when such production devices became important, the viewer had a trained eye--not unlike what was done with White Noise. These movies convey a style that is very unusual. So it came as no surprise to me that there was little middle ground in people's opinions of them; they loved'em or hated'em. I love'em. Why? Because my senses are all on full power; I'm all in; I'm practically concentrating on the screen and listening to every creak trying to sleuth out the next clue that something fishy is going on in that house. Some people may call this "work". I call it cool. [But people chatting during the movie are a much greater distraction than normal under the circumstances.]

This third installment was my least favorite, but I can totally understand why it may be others' favorite. While it still employed subtle moving objects, it did it less, instead relying on more mainstream devices to provoke scared jumps from the audience. It also borrowed more heavily from the Poltergeist movies than the first two--not that I minded. The characters' investigation into the strange goings-on was more methodical and plot-driven. The first two were more event-driven and investigated more out of fear and curiosity. The differences between 3 and 1 & 2 were subtle, but numerous, chief amongst them being that "the paranormal" functions as a character in this movie, rather than a mysterious "force" in the first two.... As such, the actions of "the paranormal" were more blatant and felt more like "it" was doing something "to someone" whereas in 1 & 2 it was more like "something was happening" to someone in a haunted house.

The plot is simple. A family lives in a house. Weird things start happening. Step-dad starts putting cameras around the house. Things get weirder. And from there anything more would give too much away. But while the first two movies' endings left us largely to wild speculation, I will say that this one ends with something of an explanation of the paranormal activity.

It doesn't really matter in which order you watch these movies. However, each sequel (or in this case prequel) was designed to mold over the events of the previous installment. So watch them in order if it's convenient. I also demand you watch these with the lights off. It makes it easier to avoid distractions while you're concentrating on the screen. Read more ›

11 of 15 people found the following review helpful

3.0 out of 5 stars Worth a view January 27, 2012

By EStats13

Format:DVD

i saw this film on its premiere in the theaters and honestly, i was very disappointed, but exhilarated at the same time. for one thing, keep in mind that if you have seen the first two films and are from a generation of movie goers who have 'seen it all' that, unless there is perverse graphic violence and gratuitous amounts of flesh with a twisted sense of humor thrown in, you will laugh this one off. for one, it's all been done before. two, there was so much hype surrounding this film that unless it went from 0 - 60 in 4 seconds, it didn't live up to its expectations. as a film, in regards to the story line and acting, yeah, it's weak. the whole 'found footage' element is getting rediculous. and because this franchise is trying to mill out as much product as it can to capitalize on the name, the entire project feels rushed and contrived. as for the film as a whole....

for one, the single most annoying thing about this flick is the fact that so many scenes, scenes depicted in the trailer, did not even make the final cut. there is controversy surrounding these decisions, but as a movie goer expecting to see what was advertised, it is gravely disappointing to wait to see what seems like a scarey part in the previews to not even take place in the actual film. lame, inexcusable, and downright false advertising, if you ask me. two, i didn't exactly have a stop watch going but i swear, in the theater, this felt like the shortest major motion picture of all time. if it lasted 1 hour and 10 mins that is a generous estimate. is there any merit to this film?? you betcha...

although they keep repeating a lot of the same scares, at least this time they do it with a little twist.... instead of the stationary video camera from the other two offerings, they rig it up to an oscilating fan that pans side to side which was a cool effect. also, there absolutely are some good creeps and scares in this and without a doubt, the ending is a major shock and scare (getting goosebumps even thinking about it). trust me, there are definitely some good frights in this film but as i said, if you think good horror is seeing someone disembowled and than fileted on a grill, you won't like it. (knowing that kids today think they are above anything remotely supernatural and that it could never be contrived as frightening is the real horror in this society to me)

if you enjoyed the first two films, i'm sure you will like it...just don't expect to see exactly what you saw in the previews because it's not here. i haven't yet gotten this on dvd so there may be some 'deleted scenes' bonus but, those scenes still were not in the true film and as i said, it is majorly annoying. if you haven't seen any of these films and especially if you didn't like them, i don't see how this film will change your mind on paranormal activity. as i said, there are definitely some cool and genuine scares but as a whole, it falls short. Read more ›