Paranormal Activity 2

The audience jumped, and begged for it to be less scary. A really fun night out that must be seen in a cinema, otherwise you're just a big scaredy-cat.

I purposely avoided trailers for this because I didn't want any of the story spoiled and I can safely say I wasn't disappointed. Top notch acting, especially the younger sister - I hope we see more of her on the big screen in future.

The original is better but this is a class act too and some very spooky moments.

One scare in particular is worth the ticket price alone.

Go see it!

Creating a sequel to a film like Paranormal Activity sounds like a silly idea in theory. The film was released two years after it was made and went on to become a wild, completely unpredictable success. It struck a horrifying chord with audiences, and is one of the few movies I have seen where the participation of the audience was key to the film's overall effect. It was a memorable experience, one that cannot be replicated on DVD. So could a sequel to a film like this do any justice? Rather surprisingly, it can.

Paranormal Activity 2 revolves around the Rey family. Dan (Brian Boland) and his new wife Kristi (Sprague Grayden) have just welcomed newborn Hunter into the family, and very soon after, a weird break-in occurs in the house. Despite the family's affection for hand-held cameras, Dan gets security cameras installed around the house. Then weird, unexplained things start happening.

Paranormal Activity 2 easily could have been a phoned in sequel made specifically to bank on the original film's success. Instead, the filmmakers have crafted a film that not only ups the ante and precedents set in the original film, but enhances them as well. It gives us more characters and more cameras, and uses them to their advantage in every situation it presents. They even manage to craft a method of tying the original film into this one, in a totally unexpected way. It does what every good sequel should do – elaborate and extend the story from its predecessor. The sheer fun and surprise of some of these elements is more than worth the price of admission alone. But of course, the less you know about some of the surprises within the film, the better. It was secretive for a reason, and those going in unspoiled will no doubt enjoy the movie a lot more than those with an idea of what to expect going in.

What also works is that the film does not do away with the little scares and idiosyncrasies that made Paranormal Activity so effective. It lays them on, and builds towards some pretty horrific moments. While the original film relied on freaky and subtle special effects (the footprints and movement of the sheets come to mind immediately), this film relies more on sound and impending dread. The pumping bass gives away some of the scares a little too early in some scenes, but the unexpected high pitched sounds give way to some incredibly terrifying moments. Despite a higher budget, it felt more minimalist in a lot of ways, and showed that the filmmakers did not let success go to their heads. They wanted to maintain the same sense and style of the original film, and never once do they change this wise mentality. There are scenes that are much more elaborate and look like there was more money involved, but for the most part, it looks just as cheap as the original.

The experience of watching with an audience is also maintained here. There are plenty of moments of breathlessness, zany suspense and wild "What the hell is going on?!" moments scattered throughout the film. While the audience is more honed and prepared for some of these scenes than they were in Paranormal Activity, a lot of them still manage to be just as unpredictable and crazy as ever. While I did not see the film with a sold out crowd like I did last year, having a rather large crowd still managed to make the film just as scary as it should be. This is another film that will not be anywhere near as ridiculously effective on DVD.

If there is anything that works against the film (outside of a rather ludicrously bad effects scene involving a pool cleaner), it is that the film takes a bit too long getting around to hooking the audience on for the ride. Part of this is because the film's primary characters are nowhere near as captivating as Katie and Micah were. We care about what happens to this family, and we feel the pains and scares they are going through. But we never see the irresistible chemistry or horrifying realism of what is happening on screen the same way. In this case, it is much clearer that we are watching a movie, and the illusion of it being "real" footage is never there. Part of it is also due to the first act being padded out with a bit too much dialogue and set-up for what we can expect to come. I liked these early moments a lot more than most people did, but I still think they could have been significantly stronger and better honed.

I also feel that, despite the lengths everyone went to creating a film that did not simply cash in on a brand, its lasting impact was nowhere near as intense and petrifying as the original film. It admirably tries, but it never quite reaches the same heights. It can try all it wants to be just as good, but the lasting effect and charm of Paranormal Activity was just how wildly original it was. It is not an easy film to replicate, and while I admired all the techniques used in this sequel to make it feel in line and a worthy sequel, it simply cannot match up and go the distance as a film that betters the original.

I was greatly surprised by what Paranormal Activity 2 has to offer its audience, but must contain my enthusiasm for it. It is the rare sequel that does everything right, but it just never manages to be anywhere near as strong a final product as the original film. It is by no means a disappointment, just simply nowhere near as effective as the original film. And that is not necessarily a bad thing.

7/10.

(This review also appeared on http://www.geekspeakmagazine.com).

One profitable turn deserves another. I believe almost everyone will have balked at the return of investment for the first Paranormal Activity (PA) film, which continues to build upon the recent trend of films seen from the first person perspective by way of a video camera. So confident about the prospects of this film being able to spawn an ongoing franchise (hey, Saw managed 7) that Paranormal Activity 2 was announced shortly after the first film was released into cinemas.

So let's cut to the chase and get to the point - is this film any good? I continue to state that films like this one are an acquired taste. If you do not appreciate films from the first perspective, or are constantly annoyed at plot loopholes that stem from the use of a camera, then this film is not for you, as with any other film of any genre employing the same storytelling technique. Otherwise this is a film that requires you to have watched the first in order to maximize your enjoyment because it makes references to, and ties in intricately with the first, without which you'll be questioning who's who, and the significance of things that can be innocuous if seen by itself.

Writer-director Oren Peli who created the original film takes a backseat here as producer, handing over the directing reins to Tod Williams and writing responsibility to Michael R. Perry. While the first film focused on only one camera with most things happening when the audience is fixated as bedroom voyeurs, here we have more cameras thanks to the introduction of a baby and a series of house break-ins, which give reason for more vantage points to be set up by way of strategically located CCTV and nanny cams, and thus a larger stage set up with various situations to spook, but not quite. Filmmakers can attest to difficulties when it comes to handling either animals or children in films, but Williams prove that both can share the same frame together, and I suspect a lot must have gone into coaxing what the end result was, perhaps with a little help from the CG department.

Michael R. Perry's story though sums up this prequel-sequel (sprequel?) nicely, building upon and expanding the world of PA. The first film posed a number of questions, some of which get addressed here, but in turn builds upon what's known thus far to create more unknowns through the narrative, which is more "talky" since there are a handful of scenes involving a HD camera bought by the family to document baby Hunter's growth, now used to document the strange apparitions that happen more frequently as the story wore on. Some scenes involve switching the camera on during a conversation (yeah, perhaps the social-media aware teenager of today will require everything to be made available and put online), and the constant refusal of the father figure to look at evidence will stretch believability just a tad bit

The spook factor gets considerably dumbed down from the first film, though making the same impact as the filmmakers went all out to shock you out of complacency as you think by darting your eyes around the screen trying to pick up clues or signs would mean you can keep a step ahead. Some tactics like the moving door get repeated, but only so because as I mentioned, there's an intricate link between the two films. Here we follow the Dey family of four - Dad Daniel, Mum Kristi who is the sister of the first film's Katie, and kids Ali the teenager and Hunter the toddler, where Perry's story provides the backstory, some opening doors for another prequel, while providing closure from PA.

Will there be another Paranormal Activity film? I don't see why not, since the seeds already got sown with more fruits to be harvested by future filmmakers who may want to come on board and stem their mark in providing a fresh perspective to the now mature storytelling technique. If the basis of the film continues to be that of putting oneself into the shoes of an investigator (as how I will approach this) sieving through tons of archived material just to piece together and reverse engineer the source of all that have happened, PA will grow its own fanbase (if not already) and probably develop into a franchise to be reckoned with.

I love a good horror story, and the premise behind this is a good one- that the sins of the "Father" may be paid for by the "Son." There are strange occurrences in the household, including the house being trashed during a supposed break in. This prompts the installation of video cameras with recorders to record events in and outside of the house. The daughter stumbles across something on the internet suggesting that there may be a demon in the house. This is seconded by the nanny, who senses an evil presence. Sounds like a kind of scary premise, right? Well, that's about it- the premise is never developed. While We learn that the mother and her sister experienced "Disturbances" when they were growing up- we never learn what was the nature of them, only that they do not talk about them. We never learn if there was an ancestor that made a "Deal with the devil," it is brought up and suggested and the movie fleshed out with that premise just accepted. However, it is never explored in any way- and that really makes the plot WEAK.

I know it will seem a cheap shot but I will make it anyway- on the cast listing on IMDD the camera installer man is listed at the top. He gave perhaps the most solid performance of any of the actors and actresses, so perhaps it was meant that way.

Three stars is my rating- a good premise developed with a weak plot and mediocre acting only goes so far. The sad part is that this could have been so good, and so frightening. My gut tells me, like other reviewers have mentioned, that this was a rush job to capitalize on the first movie, and not an attempt at a good, memorable movie- as it is not.

After experiencing what they think are a series of "break-ins", a family sets up security cameras around their home, only to realize that the events unfolding before them are more sinister than they seem.

When Paramount announced that they were going to do a sequel to PA, I was skeptical. Let's be honest, it felt like they were trying to cash in on the surprising success of PA. Then the trailers were released, which weren't really special, and the film wasn't screened to the critics. Either Paramount was trying to keep a tight lid on it or it must be a really, really bad sequel. I mean, the only person in the casting list is Katie Featherston, who plays Katie, which is still pretty vague. Fortunately, PA2 is actually a worthwhile sequel that retains everything that made the original scary.

With a much higher budget, PA2 boasts a bigger cast and has more elaborate scares and security cameras to capture the events. But, as you all know, bigger sometimes isn't better, and, in this case, it's true. What made PA so great was its amazing simplicity. The scares were limited to doors creaking, lights flickering, and footsteps thumping. In this film, I'm not going to even mention what they do. However, saying that, the film does have some very scary scenes, even more so than the simple scares in the original. It's apparent while watching the film that PA2 relies more on jump scares than on maintaining an atmosphere like PA, which may be good or bad news depending on which you prefer more. However, the film still retains the slow buildup of scares in PA as the film reaches to the end, where all hell breaks loose. It's also agonizing to see things move on their own that our characters don't notice. Don't you just hate that feeling of dread?

Most of the cast do a great job because they are more innocent than the victims in the first film, including a baby and a dog. Please, just spare the baby and the dog! I'm also glad to say that the climax is much better than the one in the first film, if you could even call it a climax in that film. However, the sequel does have the same main problem of PA: The ending. It's just as anti-climatic and disappointing coming off from a huge buildup.

If you didn't like the first film, just skip this sequel. It's more of the same in terms of structure and style. However, if you liked the first film, you'll definitely enjoy this. I thought the storyline was rather clever in that it ties in with PA. Overall, even though this isn't as scary as PA, PA2 should be an example of how to make a proper sequel to a great first film which stays true to the original's overall tone. And considering the fact that we are familiar of the set up before, PA2 still has its own share of effective scares. Now that's an accomplishment.