31 Days, 31 Horror Movies: Found Footage 3D: in 3D

Found Footage 3D: In 3D (2016)
I'd seen this pop up on Shudder earlier in the month and had toyed with the idea of watching it, even thought it had the 'in 2D' notice on the listing. Then Calliope reviewed it and I decided it could wait.

And then last night I noticed that there were three different versions - the 2D one and two different 3D versions! One was for 3D TVs, which I don't have. The other, though - the other was for use with those red/blue 3D glasses. I was fairly sure we had some pairs of those from one thing or another, so that decided my course for the evening. Which was spending HOURS looking for a pair of 3D glasses that actually worked with the damn movie.

After going through every possible place in the house I ended up with three different pairs. The most recent (branding says it was for a Monsters vs Aliens TV special) didn't work at all - the colors were too dark. A pair from an ancient 3D video game was close, but still didn't quite work. In the end I used a pair of glasses from the WildC.A.T.S. vs X-Men 3D comic, taped to my glasses. It probably wasn't perfect, but it worked well enough.

The Medium
Shudder!

The Movie
Crew making a found footage horror movie goes to remote, supposedly haunted location. Falls afoul of real ghost/demon. Everybody dies. Your pretty standard found footage setup, really.

Only it's in 3D!

"I'm not saying it's in 3D. But it's in 3D."

Yeah, I know, it doesn't make sense - but at least the filmmakers are self-aware enough to note this as part of the film. It's a very meta horror movie, with a lot of commentary on found footage and horror movies in general. Lots of pronouncements like "if you don't have a good reason for them to still be carrying the camera in the third act, the whole thing falls apart." It's a little too smug about its meta-awareness for my taste, but it at least takes the time to build characters and relationships and doesn't get too dodgy with the CGI. (That it's usually on a small screen in the background probably helps with that.)

No, fish-eye does not count as dodgy CGI

The 3D aspect is actually quite fun for a good chunk of the movie. Yeah, it doesn't really make sense (whatever their excuse) to have them using 3D cameras, but once the illusion of depth on the screen kicks in you kinda give things a pass. It's in 3D! Look, that hand is coming right out at you! And to be fair - that IS their excuse. That the gimmick itself is entertaining enough that audiences will give it a pass. And I did. For a while.

The biggest issue with 3D and a found footage horror movie is that when things are dark - and they're always freakin' dark in a horror movie - it becomes absolutely useless. You're straining your eyes trying to pick out any glimpse of something that might possibly be in 3D - and when they go for the jump scare it's so brief that, again, the 3D is useless. Whole swaths of Found Footage 3D was annoying for this reason.

Which parts of this scene are in 3D?

Additionally, the 3D is inconsistent. Sometimes objects in the extreme foreground were just surrounded by blue and red halos instead of being in 3D. Parts of other objects or people would have the red/blue missing in spots, leading to bright lines and halos (I thought I was getting a migraine for part of one scene). This might be down to the glasses I used - though they worked fine for many scenes - but I'm not sure what other options viewers might have. (Apparently Shudder sent out some glasses to a few people - I'm wondering if those offered a better quality experience.)

Still better than those that got 'shovel in the face' vision glasses.

As for the film itself, it's a slightly above average found footage horror movie. It's meta-awareness makes for some fun bits and allows it to sell some hoary found footage cliches that would otherwise cause you to groan. The final bit does get gloriously violent, but here again the limitations of the 3D format become apparent, because fast action does not translate well to a 3D experience. The sequence also goes on too long and, as a result, ends up feeling anticlimactic.

The Bottom Line
Found Footage 3D is to be commended for trying a couple of new things with the genre, not the least of which being using actual 3D. As a film aside from the gimmick it's merely a bit above average, elevated mostly by its self-awareness and a decent cast.

31 Days, 31 Horror Movies: Friday the 13th Parts 2 & 3

Friday the 13th Part 2
This was the first of the Friday the 13th movies I got to see. I'd like to think it was because this was the first film of the series that I saw featured in Fangoria (something my brother Scott reminded me of). It's more likely that when I went to rent the first film the store didn't have it in. They always only had one copy of any given film (except for new mainstream releases), so this was a constant problem back then. Want to see the original Jaws? Sorry, how about The Revenge? Gah.

Anyway, this was my first experience of Friday the 13th and it colored my perceptions and expectations for the other films. It's the first of the series with Jason as the actual antagonist (though he runs around looking like the killer from The Town That Dreaded Sundown for most of it). It's considerably more polished with the cinematography, editing and acting than the first film. And I found the characters to be actually likeable - something that didn't always prove the case as the series progressed.

I also remember this film as much more bloody and violent than it actually is. Most of the gore is cut away from fairly quickly or (like the infamous spear) isn't actually shown on screen. I don't know if this is a result of Paramount getting more involved or the MPAA starting to crack down on horror movies, but I was surprised at how tame it is - especially for a series famed for its violence. I'm guessing I've somehow transposed behind the scenes shots from Fangoria for the edited sequences in the film.

And ya know, stuff can be disturbing without overt gore.

The Movie (I'll probably skip these title breaks for the later films)
The opening pads time with a recap of the events of the first movie and follows that up with a sequence featuring the sole survivor of those events, Alice. It's a bit of a mean-spirited scene, with a rough end to a strong character. Knowing the actress, Adrienne King, had to deal with a real life stalker after the first movie also makes it more uncomfortable.

And putting this right next to open milk cartons is just rude.

After that it's all young people, camp, hanky-panky, doomed, slaughtered - yadayadayada. The song seems familiar, don't it? They definitely chose not to stray too far from the original, which makes sense. Why mess with what works? It's in the details and the overall improvement in skill that I find what I enjoy about Part 2 - it's certainly not in any deviation from the formula.

I mostly like the characters, which I guess isn't that much of a change - but I also find it easier to differentiate and identify them. Other than Kevin Bacon (and primarily because of his later work) and Alice (because she's the final girl) I don't really care that much about the characters in the first film. The broad strokes of character development are still in place - the joker, the former jock in a wheelchair, the horndog, the fitness girl - but the actors seem to do more with them, somehow. I really wanted Vickie and Mark to get together, for instance - I sure as hell wasn't that invested in the characters in the first movie.

Oh Mark, no - she just put on the 'fancy' underwear.

I also really like the cinematography in Part 2. Things are framed well, let well, and I can generally tell what's going on in any given scene. I also really like the long, Steadycam shots as Ginny is trying to escape from Jason. We still get plenty of Jason POV shots as well, but those tracking sequences feel a little like we're running alongside Ginny, trying to escape as well. (And it also gives a great sense of space and uses the levels of the setting well to show us where the killer is in relationship to her.)

He's behind you. He's always right f&%!ing behind you.

And I love Ginny. She's my favorite final girl. She's smart, sarcastic, capable and strong without being a fearless automaton. She's terrified the entire time she's being chased, but you can see her overcome it and do what she has to. There's a shot of her sitting on a bed, holding out the business end of a broken pitchfork at the camera, dirty, disheveled, hurt - and yet determined. That's my mental image of the character.

Now sadly reminds me of part 3, in 3D.

The ending is an unfortunate cheat, however. We never really know what happened. Jason's brief appearance sans-mask isn't even necessarily real. Did she pass out? Did he really appear like a deformed hillbilly? Where's Paul and what happened to that damn dog, anyway. Ginny is taken off - strapped down, though she appears completely coherent - and we get no answers. Now or in the sequels. I always kind of wanted to see that character again - showing up with a chainsaw and a Psychology textbook to save the next batch of teenagers. Alas, Amy Steel declined to do any further Friday films.

The Bottom Line
My first Friday the 13th movie, and the one for which I have the fondest memories. It's basically a remake of the first film, but as it's better in almost every way I don't really care. (I do miss Tom Savini's makeup, though.)

Friday the 13th Part 3: In 3D!
I only vaguely remembered Part 3. My biggest memory is actually that of frustration - I couldn't go see it in the theater, so I never got to see it in 3d! And that's really the biggest drawback of the film - it knows it's a gimmick film and so it shoves that gimmick into every frame it can. Poles come at you, rats come at you, machetes, pitchforks and eyeballs come at you. And because it's NOT being seen in 3d, it just screws with the tension and pacing and you start getting annoyed. Yeah, I see it - stop holding it right in front of the camera for crying out loud.

The second biggest problem with Part 3 is that I really don't like any of the characters. They're... annoying. Even our supposed lead, the final girl, Chris, is... I dunno, flat. Vapid. I don't even like the nerd stand-in character of Shelly. In fact the character I end up liking the most is Vera - and she gets a spearfishing spear in the eye way too early.

The third problem for me is that they moved the production of the film to California. It's obviously California. The vegetation is all wrong, the light is all wrong, hell, the 'lake' is just a dug out area beside the house. It looks like a billion other films shot in California and loses everything that said "rural New Jersey."

And don't get me started on the 'biker gang.'

The best thing that can be said about Part 3 is that we finally get the archetypal Jason. The huge, deformed killer wearing the hockey mask.

BOO!

The Bottom Line
I really don't like this movie much and it's flabbergasting to me that it's directed by the same guy - Stephen Miner - that did the second film. If it wasn't for the iconic mask I'd say skip this one and move directly to Part 4.

I still kinda want to see it in 3D though.