Movie Review: Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)
Contains a few scares, but lacks the inventive nature of the original
Photo: Paramount Pictures
A year ago Paranormal Activity was the $11,000 film that could and I absolutely loved it. Made on a minuscule budget, the film went on to make over $107 million at the domestic box-office and a sequel was all but inevitable. Thirteen months later Paranormal Activity 2 is here, intent on copying the home video formula that made the first film such a success. Using props such as a German Shepherd and an infant, this film takes advantage of familiar horror film cliches for its scares rather than what felt like innovative storytelling with the original. Granted, the sequel does have its share of jump-enducing moments, but beyond that this isn't anything more than just a copy of any number of films we've seen using first person camerawork to tell its story.
The cast includes Sprague Grayden, Brian Boland, Molly Ephraim, Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat. For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis choose from the following menu.
Review
"Paranormal Activity 2" is a Paramount Pictures release, directed by Tod Williams and is rated R for some language and brief violent material. The running time is 1 hour 31 minutes.
I won't go into the particulars of the story, but I will say this time around a new family is tormented by an unseen demon. Married couple, Kristi (Sprague Grayden) and Daniel (Brian Boland) are raising Ali (Molly Ephraim), his teenage daughter, and the couple's newborn son, Hunter. Periodically, over the course of several nights, they find themselves dealing with the inexplicable. Hanging pots fall in the middle of the night, kitchen cabinets open in the middle of the day and the family dog can only growl and bark at seemingly empty spaces.
When things aren't caught on surveillance camera it's Ali and her video camera that capture much of the daytime action, but, like many films trying to tell the story from this perspective, the reason they are recording every mundane aspect of their lives is unclear. On top of that, when crazy things begin to happen, only occasionally do they check the surveillance cameras looking for an explanation. Sorry, I would be checking those things hourly.
Legitimacy was the greatest aspect of the first film, and what made it so good. There seemed to be reason for why things were being recorded and it added value to have the film's characters watch what they had recorded, allowing them to see exactly what the audience was seeing. Unfortunately, in the sequel the cameras are merely there to capture the story until it's necessary they take a more active role, such as the REC-style finale. Paranormal Activity made the audience part of the haunt while the sequel loses the intimacy and turns you into an impartial and detached observer.
Working with a story written by first time feature screenwriter Michael Perry, director Tod Williams (The Door in the Floor) fills his duties, but there hardly seems to be much of a directorial eye to this film. It would have also been nice if there weren't so many dull moments in an effort to build tension. Like the first film, each night begins with a date stamp and the audience does enter something of a collective clenched-fist moment, but the scares aren't on par with the original. While there may have been a few more screams in my audience, they were primarily as a result of "gotcha" moments and they were rather short-lived.
Walking home from the first film I legitimately wondered if I would have any issue sleeping that night. After watching the sequel I was primarily talking about everything that scared me about the first film rather than what scared me in the sequel. Paranormal Activity 2 feels like a remake of the original feature it's so similar in look and so lacking in invention, feeling like a hybrid of Peli's film and every other lame PG-13 supernatural thriller out there.
I would still say this is a film worth seeing in the theater if you like scary films, but keep those hopes minimal. I would also advise anyone that disliked the first film to stay far away, you won't like this one any better.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 20 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
I do not agree with much on the review. It seems to me you didn't even watch the movie and if you did, you were chatting away or too busy trying to think of what to write or who you would appeal to most. IMHO I would not hesitate to give this movie the highest rating. I don't think the first was better or the second was better. They, collectively are one (surely you know what I mean) and that's what matters.
The reason they are recording in the first place was because of the "break-in" in the beginning of the movie… Did you miss that? Loss of intimacy? Did you not see the part in the basement?!
I understand everyones different and I hope you don't think I am bashing you, I just felt some matters needed to be lifted a bit higher; an equalizer, if you will. A+ in my book. Go see it.
Yes the break in explains the security cameras, but not the handheld work. Having a break in doesn't give reason for Kristi to record her conversation with Katie or the majority of the other instances after they document the break in. And when I'm talking about intimacy, I'm not talking about the basement scene, which is in fact the scene I'm talking about when I say it ripped off REC. Intimacy means a closeness with the characters if you will, something you definitely had in the first film, and definitely not in the second.
As for the handheld camera, she is a teenage girl. When I was that age I recorded everything and anything. And the rest of the footage was mostly shot to record the new baby. Who doesn't want to capture their baby's young life? However, I did feel a disconnect with the characters too. I didn't walk away as scared as the first one. I also agree with the time frames in the first one buidling a sense of dread. This one created random events designed to make the audience jump.
I have to say, I enjoyed the movie a lot. I thought it was very ingenious to not promoted this as a sequel/prequel from the first story line, but to give us an idea that this was a completely different family that had nothing to do with the couple in the first movie… The movie overall was great, the suspense, the scares, and specially the story lines. Brad, I do see where you are going with the "why record those moments" question, but at the same time if I knew that something crazy was happening in my house ( i mean I would move right away, instead if staying to see what happens ), I would totally have a cam with me at all times to record any suspicious events that might happen, and so I think that the daughter really took that role, specially not having her father believing a thing… This movie definitely mirrors the first one, but in all the right ways, I mean how much more paranormal can you get you know? Its like walking into a zombie movie, you already know there is blood and gruesome action just different character/actors. Still the same tricks worked the second time around. I think the comparison to other hand-held camera movies is not really fair, I mean, if you really look at it this is probably one of the most effective type of hand hell type movies I have seen with the first one added. I also think that the "gotcha" moments are scary regardless of. I'm sure if you were to mute the movie and just have a silent movie, you would still be as scared as when any of the things happen. Overall I enjoyed the movie, and it was great to see the way they mixed the first and second all together without really being a dull story… I mean there is a reason as to why the demon came onto Katie in the first place. It wasn't just because, it was because of well… "hunt"ing reasons! :D Grade: A. Go see this movie!
I couldn't sleep for 4 nights after watching the first movie last year.
Why?
I was also very upset at the fact that the characters bought a 6-camera security system out of paranoia and never checked the footage.
But what I was most upset about was the fact that we would see piled up and edited footage of the cameras as if it were done in an editing room.
In the first one, the camera would fast forward to get to an important moment. And if it was going to skip a day, it would turn off and turn back on into the next day. It was REALISTIC. This time, the camera angle would switch out for no reason and made you notice you're watching a movie (like you said, removing the intimacy).
I was disappointed with the first one because of it not being scary at all, but it was technically sound and beautifully edited. This one was ridiculously bad. Anything that was good about the first one, this one got it wrong.
I won't be seeing this, the first film was a major disappointment, never been so pissed off by a film in my life.
Brad, I'm definitely taking your review into consideration when I go to the movie theatre this weekend. Many of the reviews of this are stuck in the backlash to the first film where it's hip to hate it because everyone else loved it so much. You gave the first one an A+ (which I totally agree with, it's one of my favorite horror movies), so I can't help but think that I'll probably agree with you on this one. I really wish this review was a bit longer, though. The summary took up about 40% of it; I wish you went into a bit more detail on why it was contrived and not scary despite the fact that your audience seemed scared.
It's got the jump scares, but it doesn't have the creepy factor I felt from the first one and a lot of that has to do with the fact it is so similar to the first film and just doesn't live up to it. I still think anyone that liked the first film will enjoy this one, and I expect most people in that camp will be split between loving it and merely liking it. Interested to hear what side you end up falling on.
wont be seeing this one since the first was a major borefest and nothing scary about it, ill admit it was creepy, but is in the WORST movies in my book (well it sucked so bad i wont put it in the book). and to me the new horror is a what would you do in this situation, like in the first one i wouldve said to kate hey nice rack but im leaving you.
ah and it is like the twilight of horror well comedy lol
I thought it was pretty decent. I especially liked that it started as a prequel and ended as a sequel. My hope is if they do a third, and judging by the box office it looks likely, that they step away from the "security camera" theme and make a balls to the wall fugitive-like flick. Cops on the hunt for a serial killer that's actually possessed by a demon. It could be pretty sweet.
balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls… your gay (:
Jake sully is queer!
HEY GUYS I LIVE IN SPOKANE IM BRANDON HIT ME UP SOME TIME.
CALL ME IM BRANDON LONG FINE ME IM LOOKING FORWOARD TO MEETING ALL YOU HOT GUYS :)
G-
HEY GUYS
hey guys i was looking forward to this movie so much, firstly i could not work out why the first 2 actors from the first movie kept popping up, anyway did not enjoy it, it was just like a re-run of the first movie, i have watched the first movie about 10 times and i struggled to sit through the second, i can see how it all worked out in the end which i thought was pretty clever, but imho totally gutted that i did not enjoy it. hope there is not a third because i think that would just kill it completely but im sure there will probably be about 6. not the worst sequel i have ever watched but its definetly up there with the worse.
I have been reading through these reviews, tbh I just wanted to see what other people thought of it. 'Firstly I could not work out why the first 2 actors from the first movie kept popping up' .. Just to clarify that the mother from the second movie was Katie, from the first movies sister.. said such to be a curse on their family from their great grandmother.. If you were listening. Anyways, I thought the movie was great, the plot was sorta confusing, but if you listen properly you'll understand it when things fall into place, I watched it last night at the cinema, got great reactions and made me jump a few times lol. :D
I have been also reading everyones comments to this and it seems, Brad, that you have missed a couple points to the movie. First of all, the reason Kristi was recording her convorsation with Katie was because at first they were just making some home footage of Hunter, as most families do. Second, what do you mean lack of intimacy? What about when each of the family members were left alone in the house and things were happening to them and they were all alone, there was no intimacy there? Or how about when Ali takes the camera out with her to check on noises, or when she was locked out and Hunter was left alone and taken out of the crib. Surely there was intimacy in those instances. I promise, I do not intend to attack your review, I am merely pointing out things i think you might have missed. Overall I liked the film alot, but I will agree with you that the first one was better but not by much. I would have liked to see more of Kristi while she was possessed, but I liked the fact that they explained why Katie became possessed in the first place in the first movie. Which in case anyone is confused, i will explain. When Kristi and Katie were younger their grandmother made a pact with the devil that if he were to give her wealth then she would give it her family's first son's soul. So when Kristi had Hunter, the first son in the family for the past couple centuries, the demon tried to take the son but the mother and the dog kept getting in the way (with all the barking and Kristi coming in when Hunter cried).So thats when it possessed Kristi and killed the dog. So when the family finds out Kristi is possesed they call the old nany who knows about demons and she tells them to put this oiled cross to her chest and the demon will escape and go on to the next youngest in the family, Katie. So Katie becomes possessed and then the story goes on from there. It was an A- in my book and i reccomend you all to go see it.