Delayed Reaction: Found Footage 3-D

Premise: Filmmakers make the first 3-D found footage horror movie only to discover that they are in one.

 

Here's the thing. I like this movie, but it invites a lot of takes that really annoys me. I think it's true that to properly parody something, you have to love it first. That's why I love Young Frankenstein and Blazing Saddles and am much lower on Spaceballs and Robin Hood Men in Tights. I think you can tell that Mel Brooks loves classic horror and westerns and that he has less love and commitment to Star Wars and Robin Hood tales. I'd be curious to know where the filmmakers of this movie land. I suspect it comes from a place of love.

 

The idea is very meta and fairly cynical. There's a lot of commentary on how much found footage doesn't make sense and the bad faith ideas filmmakers have about the style. As expected, a quick look at the reviews use this movie as a confirmation for why the reviewers don't like found footage movies. They can't help but make a dig about how bad the movies are before praising this one. I think they are missing the point though. This movie isn't about a bad found footage movie. It's a movie about a bad film production that happens to be a found footage horror movie. The movie spends a lot of time picking apart the found footage style. It breaks down the rules and how people mess the movies up. Yet, it ends up dodging those exact pitfalls. It's a really competent horror movie. The humor is from the meta-ness and irony, not from lame jokes. It knows when to deflate things and how. Like, the scene when the lead actress screams and all the plates come flying out. It's a great moment, yet it has the brilliant explanation that it's a planned effect that malfunctioned.

 

A few things do prevent me from fully loving the movie. I couldn't get invested in the interpersonal dynamics between the cast and crew. The stuff about the producer taking over the film from the director wasn't as clever as the found footage commentary. The semi-professional nature of this footage maybe needs slightly better actors than found footage normally requires. As is, the movie is more interesting to talk about than to watch. Some movies I want to see. Others I want to have seen*.

 

*Example. The Birth of a Nation is a repugnant and overlong movie. I hated watching it. As a piece of film history though, I'm glad that I've seen the movie and have that as a reference point for film discussions now. That's the difference between wanting to see and to have seen.

 

Weirdly, I opted to watch this in 3-D but without the glasses. It somehow felt right for the spirit of the movie as the story of a failed production that misunderstands everything about the genre. I respect how silly the choice is. Like, there really is never a need for found footage in 3-D, however it's not like I actually believe the footage is real. Why not be in 3-D?

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend