web
counter
 

The Most Terrifying Movie About Nothing You'll Ever See

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (69)



5672_119673250.jpg

You can separate the viewers of the first Paranormal Activity into three categories: 1) People who were terrified by the experience; 2) people who were terrified by the experience but have too much pride to admit it; and 3) people who were legitimately bored by the movie. The latter category is understandable; it’s an experience you have to buy into, one that takes the proper mood and setting, and requires a certain amount of suspension of disbelief. Without it, Paranormal Activity and its sequel might come off as an exercise in tedium — a dull, restless patience-testing experience that’ll leave you scratching your head wondering wondering what anyone else found redeeming about the movie.

If you fell into either of the first two categories, however, Paranormal Activity 2 will not only match the terror of the first film, it will outdo it, and in the process, do something a sequel may have never accomplished before (much less a horror-movie sequel): Make the first movie even better.

What makes this franchise more successful than most other horror movies is that Paranormal Activity doesn’t reach for the big kill; it doesn’t amp the violence or pile up the body count. It’s painstaking in its ability to lull you into its atmosphere, refusing to satiate our desires for quick developments or provide relief — Paranormal Activity doesn’t give in to your anxiousness, it draws out that anticipation to the brink (and sometimes beyond that) of what you can take, and even then, it brings down the hammer sparingly and in a staggered crescendo. The real work of Paranormal Activity is in the silent shots, or the scenes of family banality, the way it turns that restlessness you’re feeling for most of the movie into complete helplessness by the end. And no franchise has perfected the jump-scare shit-in-your-pants jolt of terror as well as Paranormal Activity.

Paranormal Activity has no boogeyman — there is no quantifiable evil you can point you finger at. There’s nothing you can stop, or defeat, or kill. After two movies, we still have no fucking idea what’s haunting these people, and it’s that fear of the unknown that drives the films. As long as the filmmakers continue to follow a similar formula, using different but related characters (and the sequel is careful to mention a few possibilities), while building even incrementally on the now slightly more developed mythology, Paranormal Activity may in fact be able to pull out the long con, successfully dragging us along in our pee-stained undies for five or six installments. Unfortunately, in the end, they’ll never be able to satisfy our expectations. Nothing is as scary as something you don’t know or understand, and the second we do — or even think we do — the franchise will die.

Paranormal Activity 2 is a prequel; it begins one month before the events of the original take place, and for a very long time, you wonder what kind of cheap gimmick they will employ to tie the two together. The events of this film are not entirely separate from the original. They are happening to the family of Katie’s sister, and even Katie Featherstone from the original returns several times during the course of the movie (Micah makes a couple of cameo appearances, too). But the two movies not only complement one another, the sequel enhances your knowledge of the first. I’m sure there are unexplained gaps, but I’m not willing or curious enough to re-watch the original to critique the flaws in continuity. Paranormal Activity 2 does its job — it scares the goose bumps off of you — so how it syncs up with the first film is a futile exercise in academia.

The real miracle of Paranormal Activity 2, however, is that, if you’ve seen the first film, you know almost exactly what to expect. Yet, though it doesn’t veer away from those expectations — the victims are a family instead of a couple, but otherwise, the narrative is similar in execution — it manages to conjure the same haunting magic by following the same template. It succeeds not by restarting the experience of the first movie, but by continuing it, pulling us deeper in, clutching us around the heart, slowly squeezing, refusing to let up, until the final acts of terror send you home paranoid, uneasy, and uncertain whether to sleep with, or as far away as possible, from your children.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Going To A Party Where No One's Still Alive | Twelve Pop Culture Ghosts I'd Want At My Halloween Festivities | The Bug Up Movie Bloggers' Asses and the Fox News Petri Dish | The Weekly Murdertank









Comments

well thank god it's good! i just called my boyfriend at work to brag that pajiba gave this the stamp of approval.

Posted by: caroline at October 22, 2010 1:05 PM

I hope they have a damn good reason why these events happen a month before the hell Micah and Katie went through that no one bothered to mention in the first movie. I thought this was a sequel set in the same house so I'm pretty surprised about the set up of part 2. Nice to hear it's worth seeing though, I really liked the first movie but don't think I need to see it again.

Posted by: TylerDFC at October 22, 2010 1:07 PM

I know I liked it enough that I'm interested in seeing PA2. I also know I'm in the minority amongst my friends, who all HATED the original.

Anyone want to come along and hold my hand?

Posted by: Fredo at October 22, 2010 1:13 PM

It must be really scary if it can make people sleep with their kids.

Posted by: Hutch McNamara at October 22, 2010 1:26 PM

I read the first two paragraphs and stopped. The first movie terrified me. On more than one viewing. So I'm going to see this one.

Posted by: Pinky McLadybits at October 22, 2010 1:27 PM

I can't wait to see this movie.

I, for one, am wearing a diaper, but I'm in.

Posted by: Seriously at October 22, 2010 1:40 PM

my husband falls squarely in the #3 category, which was actually awesome for me because his running commentary, eye-rolling, and genuinely funny nitpicking (watched at home, we're not movie theater animals) kept my terror level down from "peeing my pants" to "i know it's not gory but i will cover my eyes anyway and peak out of half-closed eyes." i still wasn't able to sleep well that night. that said, there was a lot of fun to be poked at the first one and i was laughing as much at my hubby's dumb comments as i was cringing in my seat.

Posted by: Sinnh at October 22, 2010 1:50 PM

I thought that the first Paranormal Activity had a lot of potential. Its biggest downfall (in my opinion) was too much talking and that Micah was fucking stupid. Both of these things made the movie very hard to watch. I wanted to get the crap scared out of me, but I would get bored and distracted each time the two of them opened their mouths.

When I heard about the second one I doubted that I would see it...but if Pajiba likes it, I'll definitely give it a shot. I just hope there is less talking and more creeping.

Posted by: Mykayla at October 22, 2010 1:54 PM

I really liked the first one. I'm more scared of tension, of things you can't see, so I was terrified throughout.. My roommate, on the other hand, was bored to tears.

Posted by: Julie at October 22, 2010 1:58 PM

*mouth hanging agape*

Are you fucking serious? The sequel is . . . good? I loved the first one and thought this would be a pale imitation but . . . wow. Just wow.

Looks like my local theater just got $10 richer, only they don't know it yet. Boowhahahahaha!!!!!

Posted by: Kballs at October 22, 2010 2:00 PM

I can't believe this movie is good. I never would've guessed. Reviews like this one are why I come to this site. This would have gone way under my radar.

Thanks, because scary movies in October are one of life's great pleasures (for me at least).

Posted by: becks at October 22, 2010 2:07 PM

I think I planted the flag for Camp #3, bored to tears. My daughter and I saw it in the $2 theater, and thought ourselves lucky to only be out $4 and 90 minutes.

Given that our cat does "spookier" things in my house on a nightly basis, we just didn't see any good reason for the protagonists to continually freak out, especially for the first half of the movie.

Posted by: Wednesday at October 22, 2010 2:11 PM

#3 here.

So, how do they explain that (I'm assuming) crazy shit goes down one month before the first one took place? Were all the tapes found at the same time? Were the tapes for this movie found after the others?

I'm not going to see this, but I want answers.

Posted by: pissant at October 22, 2010 2:14 PM

There you go again, pissant, being all literal and shit!

Let's try this:

The first movie came out last year, meaning the footage was found in, let's say, late 2008. Since all that crazy shit went down, people started sniffing around for other stories of haunted shenannigans. These tapes were found. Here's your second movie.

You're welcome.

Posted by: Kballs at October 22, 2010 2:24 PM

I'm in group #2. I was terrified, but haven't been able to admit it. Not for pride, but for the sanity of my wife, who rests squarely in group #1. Were it not for me repeatedly telling her, "It's just a movie, babe," she might have never resumed a normal sleep schedule.

As for running immediately before and/or concurent to the first timeline -- eh, I'll believe it when I see it. If memory serves, the camera was a really novel idea to the couple in the first movie.

Posted by: superasente at October 22, 2010 2:29 PM

KBalls,
I suppose that sounds plausible enough, but I was wondering how it is explained by the people who made this movie. I mean, it's a related family in the same house, right?

I don't know, the cops were called at the end of the first movie, right? So, maybe those tapes were immediately found and "produced" and then these were found later. I just wanna* to know.

* - neeeeeeeeed

Posted by: pissant at October 22, 2010 2:38 PM

Just saw Paranormal Activity 2 an hour ago...and yeah, Dustin's pretty dead on. It's not bad, which is weird because I thought the trailers looked awful.

Mind you, I had some beefs with it...things I liked about the first that they didn't incorporate into the second. I won't list any of them, I don't want to spoil anything, but see it. It's worth it if you got a kick out of the first one.

Posted by: citizen_cris at October 22, 2010 2:45 PM

pissant: I won't spoil it, and I hope no one else does here, either. But, it's not in the same house, although it happens to Katie's sister, who lives in the same town. It bugged me all the way up until the last ten minutes, because I thought they were just going to ignore the question of, "Why didn't Katie know about this in the original film?" But that question is satisfied in such a remarkably simple way, and the answer to that question also answers some questions about the end of the original film.

That's probably made you only more curious.

Posted by: Dustin Rowles at October 22, 2010 2:46 PM

I fall into category 4, which is the category of people who were too pissed off at the utter stupidity and assholishness of Micah to ever get more than a little scared. He was such a dick that I spent the entire movie yelling at the screen rather than letting the tension properly build.

Basically what I'm saying is that if this version has eliminated the idiot selfish boyfriend from the mix, then I'll watch and probably have nightmares afterwards.

Posted by: Shannon at October 22, 2010 2:56 PM

Dustin,
After the second comment, I considered that it might be a plot point. Hmmmm, maybe I'll go back and watch the first and then watch this one.

Do you understand the amount of trust I place in this site's reviews?

Posted by: pissant at October 22, 2010 2:57 PM

Didn't Katie say several times in the first film that this had been happening to her for a long time? (I didn't think it was the same house, nobody ever said it was and it didn't look like the same house in the ads.)

My biggest problem with the first one was that Katie kept changing her pronunciation of Micah's name (sometimes she said "Mike-ah," and sometimes "Meek-ah"). It drove me out my damn mind. I did find it pretty creepy, though I wouldn't class myself as "terrified by the experience." I was pleasantly creeped out. That was the extent of it.

Posted by: Anna von Beav at October 22, 2010 3:09 PM

Crap, I hate seeing an animal in a horror movie, you just know they're going to get killed in some horrible manner.

Posted by: snapnhiss at October 22, 2010 3:24 PM

You cannot blame my utter boredom and watch-staring during the first film on an unwillingness to suspend disbelief. This film should have fallen right into my wheelhouse. Next to campy raped by the devil films, ghost stories are my favorite sub-genre of horror. I'm also one of the crazed horror fans that can wax poetic for hours about how close-minded people just don't get Exorcist 2: The Heretic (subtle Lovecraftian weird cinema) or Halloween 3: Season of the Witch (crime thriller by way of dark fantasy) because they won't accept the conceits of the films. I defend The Village (subtle romantic historical suspense) and The Exorcism of Emily Rose (bipolar religious-tinged procedural), two films notorious for "you've got to be kidding me" as the primary reaction. There is a gigantic line between subtle horror and bad horror where nothing happens.

Nothing happens in Paranormal Activity. Nothing. There is more plot in your average YouTube video than in that entire film. I wanted to like it, too. I might as well have been running for public office with the amount of favors I called in to get people to go to that Demand It campaign website in the hopes that my main theater would get the film. Then I saw it on opening night. Nothing. Fucking. Happens.

And from what I've read about this film, even less happens. The one interesting aspect of the original, the sleep-standing/possessions at night, is removed so scares aren't repeated. Something about poorly simulating massive injuries to a dog being a more compelling direction in a fake found-footage film. I'll just watch The Eye trilogy this weekend instead. At least there I am guaranteed ghost films with plots, characters, realistic dialog, artistic camera work, great lighting, expressive performances, and wonderfully inventive scare sequences that build to grand thematic statements and dissipate like shadows going into high noon.

Posted by: Robert at October 22, 2010 3:37 PM

Okay, so the comment just above about massive injuries to the dog might be the deal breaker to keep me from seeing it. Why oh why must they always hurt the dog!?

Posted by: Eva at October 22, 2010 5:13 PM

Shannon - My thoughts EXACTLY. I hated him too much to really get into the actual story. I just couldn't believe someone's boyfriend would be such a total dick to them when they were obviously upset. He sucked, and I wanted him to go away and shut up the entire movie.

Posted by: ninetwenteetoo at October 22, 2010 5:21 PM

I can't believe the success of the first film. Frightening? I actually laughed out loud when it finished because I couldn't believe that that was it.

I never got past the central improbability - that a man who has good reason to believe that he is being fucked with in the middle of the night, and whose partner is genuinely scared, would go everywhere with a hand-held camera and never turn on a light.

If you want frightening, watch Funny Games (the original) or Irreversible - people you can care about getting hurt. If you want first-person shakeycam with at least a smidgen of palusibility, watch Cloverfield. But please, please don't tell me you were frightened by Paranormal Activity.

Wusses.

Posted by: Paul B at October 22, 2010 5:42 PM

For me the boyfriend was a pretty accurate representation of my experiences with living with boyfriends. Oblivious and full of testosterone to the point of ridiculous foolishness. Pretty darn realistic.

Posted by: Eva at October 22, 2010 6:44 PM

@Paul B:
Don't act like a big shot. Yeah, the first movie wasn't that scary. But don't go acting like you're boss just because everyone but you is scared of a horror film.

Posted by: Kristina at October 22, 2010 8:08 PM

I'm confused, I thought they were brother and sister in the first movie.

Posted by: snapnhiss at October 22, 2010 9:21 PM

"I'm confused, I thought they were brother and sister in the first movie".

They probably *are*.


I'm almost a #3: but not quite because I didn't even watch it all the way through. I might as well have been watching a test pattern the whole time.
The only films I found kinda scary as a kid were The Thing (1982 version) & Halloween III: Season of the Witch (also cited by an earlier poster).

Posted by: hascimh at October 22, 2010 9:38 PM

Can someone who's seen the movie tell me how much time is spent hurting the poor damn dog exactly? Because that might be a dealbreaker for me too. Just once I'd love to see a dog in a horror movie NEVER PUT INTO A POSITION OF EVEN POTENTIAL HARM, because it's such a cheap emotional manipulation and a downright cliche at this point.

Is it, like, one scene and then the dog leaves or dies and you don't have to watch it get hurt anymore? Or does it happen multiple times or is particularly graphic and horrific or something? 'Cause I'd like to go see this, but not if I'm going to come out of it traumatized and crying and wanting to go home and hug my cats.

Posted by: Nat Kittyface at October 22, 2010 10:07 PM

This is for Nat Kittyface and anyone else who wants to know about the dog. If you don't want that aspect of things spoiled, I'm noting here ::SPOILERS BUT ONLY CONCERNING THE DOG. Again that's

SPOILERS, BUT ONLY INVOLVING THE DOG

Still with me? Ok. The dog does get hurt by what's going on, but not in a graphic way. After the scene it's compared in the dialogue to having a seizure. He is brought to the vet and is ok, just undergoing tests to determine what happened.

END SPOILER ABOUT DOG

I just came from seeing this and I really enjoyed it. I can understand where other people get bored or don't find it scary, but my friend and I went with the mindset of wanting it to creep us out and had a great time enjoying the tension building and the jump scare moments throughout. And what they do to connect the films is pretty fucked up and awesome - again, for me. Doesn't make me an idiot or tasteless, as some of the commenters on this thread seem to imply. Just means I was able to enjoy it, cause I really wanted to. Makes a difference with this kind of movie. If you liked the first one, you'll def like this one.

Posted by: KatSings at October 22, 2010 10:24 PM

Thanks, KatSings! I'm such a baby about animals getting hurt (somehow my ability to remember that it's all fake and everyone's just acting shuts down when animals are involved), but this sounds like it's within the realm of tolerable for me, so I'll be going to check it out.

Posted by: Nat Kittyface at October 22, 2010 10:29 PM

I'm not sure about this one, sequels to these kinds of sleeper hits never live up to the original. Blairwitch comes to mind.

Posted by: Watch Movies Online at October 22, 2010 10:29 PM

I wasn't so much bored as disappointed by the first one. Everyone on Earth was losing their damn minds about this "super scary" movie, and I didn't get to see it until it hit DVD, and... nothing happened. I mean, the biggest scare, *spoilers* when Micah's body hits the camera at the end of the movie, was freakin' spoiled in the trailers, for pete's sake! There was no way I could be scared by it because I friggin' knew it was coming!

I wasn't really interested in seeing this one, obviously, but after reading pissant and Rowles comments up there, now I'm kinda curious... damn it. Guess I better avoid watching the trailers this time.

Posted by: MelBivDevoe at October 22, 2010 11:20 PM

I just saw this, and I thought it was pretty damn good. A few of the people I saw it with even said it was better than the first.

The only problem was the people in the back of the theater who would not SHUT THE FUCK UP for the entire movie. They totally killed the mood, and I feel like I would have enjoyed it a whole lot more if they didn't partially ruin it for me. It was nonetheless engaging and certainly scary, but it could have been much more so.

I'd go into more detail, but I took a few shots when I got back from the theater, and I'm about ready to fall asleep.

Goodnight Pajiba!

Posted by: Patrick the Bunny at October 23, 2010 2:42 AM

My brothers words when I shang-haied him into seeing this with me today were 'I don't trust Pajiba- Dinner for Schmucks was awesome!' (Yes, I pray every day he was swapped at birth)

He did turn out to love it as I have NEVER been scared by horror movies EVER until I saw Carrie & Requiem for a Dream last month which changed me so severely that I wouldn't go into the bathroom when the lightbulb blew because it was 'too dark - something might 'get' me!'. Anyway, he adored the movie for the sole reason that I squealed like a bitch during the scary parts and he could not stop laughing and remarking 'Demon knows how to tackle a bitch!'

I love my brother

Posted by: Camilla at October 23, 2010 8:09 AM

Just saw this yesterday with a group of my buddies. We all loved the first one, and I can easily say that PA2 scares the shit out of the first one. Is it a perfect film? No, but for a sequel its pretty God Damn perfect. The silent relationship between the kid and the dog, the scares, the brilliant use of camera angles, setting, family dynamic, it REALLY works. And the time between day and night is more sporadic, which enhances the experience in my opinion.

Posted by: Jared at October 23, 2010 12:43 PM

I've been thinking about this, and have decided that each subsequent movie working backwards to the origin event (in other words, every movie being a prequel to the previous one) is actually a really interesting conceit, and could be quite fun, done properly.

Posted by: Anna von Beav at October 23, 2010 1:16 PM

Paranormal Activity 2 will...do something a sequel may have never accomplished before (much less a horror-movie sequel): Make the first movie even better.

I haven't seen either, but will probably scare the crap out of myself watching them at home alone some night when the hubs is out. My dog is no help.

But: I feel the above is true of both The Empire Strikes Back and Terminator 2. Both movies are solid on their own, but they're lent emotional weight by the weaker first acts. They also sort of retroactively improve their predecessors--I think because they're smarter, and explore the implications of the simple characters and plot setups introduced before, rather than just tacking on another adventure. They validate their weaknesses by showing organic growth, which makes the rawness of the first movies just look like potential rather than cheap hack. Just my 2¢.

Bookwise, this is also what I think of Ursula K. LeGuin's Earthsea series, barring any accusation of cheap hackery, but that's another story.

Posted by: Salieri2 at October 23, 2010 1:49 PM

Saw the first one in the theater--the way I recommend seeing films like this--and I wanted to be scared and I wasn't disappointed.

I mean, I wasn't scared like I thought it WAS ACTUALLY REAL. But I did like the quiet psychology of it (and Micah being a jerkwad was pretty realistic to some of my ex-boyfriends, too--fortunately I did not marry a jerkwad). I liked the creepy moments. I liked the jumping moments.

Good fun.

So if Dustin says this one is fun, bring it on.

Posted by: Snuggiepants at October 23, 2010 4:26 PM

I DON'T UNDERSTAND!

What was scary? I watched the first PA.
By myself
in an empty house
at night
with the lights off.

I struggled Visibly to stay awake.
In retrospect I think the movie works better asa device for not moving in with a woman who believe in ghosts. Her impenetrable bubble of silliness, could cause her to kill you before admitting she was wrong.

Because nothing ever happened in that movie that would give me trouble sleeping in my house if I had videotaped it myself. Ghost feet sure...It's a device for proving existance. It's still not scary. Long as he doesn't wake me up? Well just go nuts you crazy 'phantasm'.

I give it 5 mehs.

Posted by: Blank at October 23, 2010 5:00 PM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Posted by: seth at October 24, 2010 4:11 AM

Saw it last night. It was fun, mainly because of hilarious comments from the audience, but I didn't think it was really scary.

It did creep me out when *MINOR SPOILER* the baby was being dragged around. I never cared about animals being messed with in film, but a BABY? Don't do that.

Posted by: kayla at October 24, 2010 3:00 PM

Ok I saw it last night. Had to, after this review.

And I have to agree with Dustin. It's pretty damn good for a prequel/sequel. (It actually serves as both!)

The first one got more jumps out of me, probably because this one had the same sort of feel and I had already experienced that in the first one. Sort of how the first time can never be replicated, you know?

But it surprisingly good!

And here was a pleasant bonus in my theater: mall theater, right? 11:15PM showing on a Saturday, sold out, so every seat is full.

The manager came in during the commercials (which had been muted), with a STATE TROOPER (off duty, but in uniform and working for the theater) and an usher and addressed the entire audience about cell phones and talking. The thing is, he was funny enough that no one took it as a lecture. We were laughing at the way he put things. But he got the point across, definitely.

So there were no problems with rude assholes! YAY! It's sort of sad that they have to walk in with a state fucking trooper and say all that, but hey it worked.

As for the movie, stop reading here if you don't want to know anything, because for those of you who have seen both, I just have a couple of questions:

SERIOUSLY, SPOILERS!

If all the demon wanted was the first born son of that family (because the great-great grandmother made a deal with the demon in exchange for wealth and power), once the demon was in Kristy, it could have just taken Hunter right then. Why not? Why wait? Because THEN it had to get put in Katie (how WAS it put in Katie? I understand how they got it out of Kristy, I guess, but was it the bracelet they gave her at the end?), THEN kill Meeeeekah, THEN go over to their house, etc etc.

Also, I wish I knew what the wealth and power part of the bargain was. There was never any indication Kristy came from some wealthy powerful family. Dan is the one who is some big hotshot makin'-money guy for Burger King, right? I just wish they had gone into that a TEENY bit more.

OK I'M DONE!

All in all, though, these two movies are great for some scary jumpy fun! I took my friend J last night and I had never seen a scary movie with her before. I was half-afraid she'd be the type who would sit there acting too cool to be jumpy and then afterwards, talk about how "bored" she was through the whole thing. Fortunately, our friendship was spared: the moment she actually seemed to be using her PURSE as a shield made me laugh so hard I thought I'd wet myself. (I was choking back the laughter so as not to be accosted by an usher!)

Posted by: Snuggiepants at October 24, 2010 3:36 PM

I don't get worried if all kinds of weird stuff happens while I'm sleeping. Doors and windows can open and close, serial killers with blood stained knives can traipse through the room, in one door and out the other ... who cares. I'm sleeping, man ... I'll clean up the footprints in the morning none the worse for wear. These are the dumbest movies ever made. I'll go see this one and walk out, bored as hell halfway through, as I did midway the first.

Posted by: Johnny Bee at October 24, 2010 5:45 PM

@Snuggiepants

The state trooper thing is awesome! I would have loved to have one at my showing. I've never been in a fight in my life, but I came damn close because of how much those assholes messed up the movie for me.

Posted by: Patrick the Bunny at October 24, 2010 6:24 PM

@Snuggiepants, here's my take on your question:

SPOILERS FOR THE ENDING

It seemed like a two or three step process. Step 1 was knocking the demon out of Christy with the olive oil cross, step 2 was burning the photo of Katie, and then possibly step 3 was giving her the bracelet.

Posted by: Nat Kittyface at October 24, 2010 10:05 PM

Rubbish! I thought this was rubbish. And I liked the first one!

The problem here was, I felt, was that the sequel stripped away the things that worked best about the first movie. In the first movie, you have one camera, and you knew that when the scary stuff happened, there was no cutting away here. It's a very claustrophobic feeling, and because the sequel brings in five or six cameras, it's gone. You know the film can cut away from what's scary whenever it wants.

The intimacy of the first film is gone. Everything in the first film was handheld, you were up close, you were with the characters. Here, three quarters of the film is from those high, impersonal angles, keeping you at a distance from the characters, and from their fear. It doesn't help that there are no cameras in the bedrooms, except for the baby's. The first film had its scariest moments in the most personal room in the house, and that setting alone did help to make those scares so effective.

Here we're going to get into spoiler territory a little bit.

Fifteen minutes in, Micah enters the film. We're told in sixty days that he'll be dead. That also tells us that unless the film has a massive time jump, nothing all that awful will happen, because in the first film, set in this films future, makes no mention of Katie's family being killed or horribly hurt. So you wait for the time to jump because otherwise these people aren't going to be in huge danger. It's a huge mistake on the part of the writers.

Spoilers end here.

And why did the writers do this? To expand the mythology. There are things that happen that explain some stuff from the first film, but explaining these things adds shit all to the experience of that movie. Why did the Star Wars prequels suck? Well, so many reasons, but one of them is WHO CARES how Darth Vader became Darth Vader? Does that help the story of the original? No! When will Hollywood understand that STORY and CHARACTER and SUSPENSE matter infinitely more than MYTHOLOGY?

The tension just wasn't there with this one. Not that I'll be bothering with the inevitable Paranormal Activity 3, but a quick word to the studio: if you want that one to be a little bit effective, get someone who understands horror to make it. You're welcome.

Posted by: Simon A at October 25, 2010 7:57 AM

I saw it Friday night based on the fact that Pajiba liked it! I was thrilled AND disappointed, if that makes sense. It scared me, but it wasn't like the scariest thing ever. I hadn't seen the first one, and didn't watch it till I downloaded it on Saturday. I liked the second better than the first, but then, I LOVE prequels. LOVE. What I really want, and what I can't find, is a timeline of the two movies. Like, October 4, Day 19, blah blah blah happens. Anyone got any clue where I can find that?? I'm almost to the point of going to see the movie again with a paper and pen to keep track. PS: totally hid my face when [SPOILER ALERT] Abby gets attacked. Thanks for the warning - can't stand that shit.

Posted by: Jen at October 25, 2010 10:20 AM

@Simon, they do explain that in the movie.

RIDICULOUS AMOUNTS OF SPOILERS.
***
Katie kills Micah October 8th. She kills her sister and his husband October 9th. So this movie takes place right before the first movie, for the most part the events in this movie lead up to the first, and the very ends of both movies sync up.
***
AND SO ENDS THE SPOILERS.

But yeah I really liked it.

Posted by: Brittany at October 25, 2010 4:56 PM

Hi Brittany,

Yeah, big old spoilers.

I understood the timeline. But it's quite early when we're told Micah dies in sixty days. Yes, the last five minutes of the film take place after a time jump, but until then we get text telling us this is "Day 5", "Day 7", and so on. In the first film, which is set after the first eighty five minutes of its sequel, no mention is made of anything really bad happening to Katie's sister. So for as long as PA2 was taking place before PA, there was just no tension for me. The decision to make it largely a prequel sucked any suspense out Paranormal Activity 2 completely.

And hey, maybe if they had been more skilled in building tension, I would have forgot about the timeline and just let the events get to me. But they never grabbed me from the beginning. When a film doesn't have me in its clutches, it allows me to overthink it. Overthinking kills this movie.

The first film had a sense that anything can happen at any time. That gave it a lot of power. The sequel had the sense that something might make a loud noise at any time. That's not quite as scary.

Another thing is that the last five minutes were barely played as a suspense sequence. Hell, they could have held the shot where Katie appears behind the father, have a modicum of tension build where we know she's possessed and he doesn't know she's there. But it cuts away.

End of spoilers

Posted by: Simon A at October 25, 2010 6:56 PM

Spoilers Here

I just saw it and it all made sense to me. I've seen some people here and on IMDB saying "Why doesn't Katie mention this in the first one, why don't they know, yadda yadda", but that's absolutely explained in this movie. Partway through, while the haunting is still focused on Kristi and Hunter, Kristi tries to talk to Katie about it. Katie then shuts down emotionally because she doesn't want to re-live the fear they had as children and explicitly tells Kristi not to talk about it and that talking about it makes it worse. Thus, later, when the haunting has been re-focused on Katie, Katie starts to talk about it and Kristi, just wanting to forget the events of the previous month, similarly shuts down and reminds Katie of her advice that talking about it only makes it worse.

I think that overall the whole thing ties together really nicely, and also creeped me the fuck out.

Posted by: ReZ at October 30, 2010 3:57 AM

More spoilers

"once the demon was in Kristy, it could have just taken Hunter right then. Why not? Why wait? "

If I had to guess at the answer to this one, I would say that it was probably because a mother's soul is far more likely to resist harming her child than, say, an aunt. Which obviously we see play out here. Plus, Kristi was only possessed for a day, so there's always the chance that the demon simply needed more time to break down her defenses. I mean, didn't it take Katie two or three days of being possessed before she finally was far enough gone to kill Micah?

I think the timeline thing has been explained to death already, but here it is again for clarity and for those who don't want to scroll back.

98% of this movies takes place before PA1, 2% after. The tapes would almost certainly have been found at the same time.

Posted by: ReZ at October 30, 2010 4:07 AM

Hey! Just stumbled upon this okay.

I apologise if the above couple of explanations weren't addressed to me, but like I said, there's wasn't a confusing moment for me in PA2; I understood the timeline completely. But knowing when the film took place in relation to the original was a major suspense-killer, at least for me, and a lack of skill and understanding of horror in the filmmaking couldn't win me back. But yes, a very straightforward and understandable film, in my book, but not a scary one. (The first film, on the other hand, was a frightening experience that stuck with me afterwards.)

Posted by: Simon A at November 8, 2010 7:11 AM

I am definitely a #3, as I found myself staring off into space quite a bit during the first PA.

One of the mouth-breathing yokels that I had the misfortune of knowing while living in SC (a time I refer to as "The Lost Decade or Maybe Only Six Months") actually ruined the part where the Ouija board catches on fire.

So maybe had I not known about that part prior to seeing the movie, I might have been horrified. Dunno.

I do know that since I was unimpressed with the first one, I probably won't bother with the prequel. Maybe I'll just rewatch "The Strangers". Now THAT movie had me gleefully terrified!

Posted by: Lisa at November 9, 2010 7:12 PM

I’d have to give carte blanche with you one this subject. Which is not something I usually do! I love reading a post that will make people think. Also, thanks for allowing me to speak my mind!

Posted by: Juana Weissbrodt at December 6, 2010 3:25 PM

I was reading about it somewhere I do not remember where it was. Thank for reminding me of it.

Posted by: Jay Vittetoe at December 15, 2010 4:46 PM

You are doing a brilliant job here, writing articles like this one. Thanks, seems like you make my day brighter.

Posted by: Edison Aquilera at December 23, 2010 8:11 AM

Point received and well taken, when I disagree it's not a reason to argue. I appreciate your thoughts anyway.

Posted by: end of the world 2012 at January 8, 2011 4:37 PM

Thanks, it has been bothering me that I couldn't get this to work right. Thank you again!

Posted by: Popular Coupons at January 9, 2011 6:51 PM

I was surprised how effective it is. I think you should keep sharing.

Posted by: Tłumaczenia węgierskie at January 18, 2011 8:30 AM

Next time I read through a blogs, I hope that it doesnt disappoint me as much as this one. I'm talking about, I am aware it was eventually my choice to read, however I essentially thought you'll have something useful to express. Most I hear is mostly a bunch of whining about something you might fix if you werent too busy looking for consideration.

Posted by: Mac nick at January 23, 2011 12:04 PM

a very good read very good blog will be looking out for more of these blogs

Posted by: capets at February 5, 2011 4:35 AM

thanks!

Posted by: fulltilt at February 7, 2011 10:08 AM

I really like your writing style. Simple and easy to comprehend. I have book-marked it. By the way,does this blog operate on Wordpress engine? Couldn't find your theme, is it custom made? Thanks!

Posted by: poker gratuit at February 9, 2011 11:57 AM

Thats pretty amazing! I look forward to reading more of your posts.

Posted by: Fat Princess at February 25, 2011 8:55 AM

I admit, I have not been on this webpage in a long time... however it was another joy to see It is such an important topic and ignored by so many, even professionals. I thank you to help making people more aware of possible issues.Great stuff as usual.

Posted by: order Accutane online at March 6, 2011 9:43 AM

We really appreciate your site post. There are actually hundreds of means we could put it to proper use while having little or no effort with time and financial resources. Thank you very much regarding helping have the post give light to many problems we have experienced before now.

Posted by: zero friction marketing at March 14, 2011 9:44 AM