By Zack Gill
Staff Writer
“Paranormal Activity,” released in 2009, managed three incredible feats: it dethroned the “Saw” franchise as the reigning king of box office numbers, was made for an absurdly low amount of money, and was actually somewhat frightening. Now, only a year later, the inevitable sequel “Paranormal Activity 2” was released on October 22.
With “Paranormal Activity 2,” director Tod Williams attempts to replicate the formula that made last year’s predecessor a surprise hit. Although Williams successfully translates the tone and many of the merits of the original film, “Paranormal Activity 2” also contains its predecessor’s flaws, feeling uninspired and unoriginal.
“Paranormal Activity 2” serves as both a prequel and an epilogue to the original film. The bulk of the story takes place about two months before the original and is about another household in the greater San Diego area afflicted by the same demonic entity that haunted the first film’s couple. This time, instead of another couple as victims, an entire family is stalked by the demonic entity, including a teenage daughter, a baby and even a German Shepard.
However, the film is not unconnected to its predecessor. The matriarch of the family is the sister, Christy, of Katie Featherston’s character in the first film. This connection makes it seem as if Paramount Studios was simply looking for an excuse to make this film (which they were).
Featherston and boyfriend Micah Sloat from the original movie both reprise their roles. They help set up the events of the first film and give closure to viewers. This helps make the sequel a little more natural and less irrelevant.
While the original film’s characters were somewhat relatable, the cast of “Paranormal Activity 2” consists of annoying horror clichés. The teenage daughter is the shrill, naïve believer in the supernatural; the father is the angry token skeptic; and the mother is never really characterized at all. It’s hard to root for such bland, selfish characters. Sympathy often drives a horror film, but it is completely absent here.
The shaky, handheld cam style of the original film wasn’t innovative and “Paranormal Activity 2” maintains that status quo. What this technique does for the film’s “realistic” tone it sacrifices in artistry. When it comes down to it, film is a visual medium and “Paranormal Activity 2” is not visually appealing in any way.
Ultimately, the most important aspect of any horror film is whether or not it’s scary. “Paranormal Activity 2” definitely contains a few moments of intensity, but these are created at the expense of pace. Where the first film began smartly and quietly, escalating to a thoroughly frightening finale, “Paranormal Activity 2” stalls for half an hour, then suddenly erupts with cheap scares.
The first film feels suspenseful throughout, without ever really showing frightening scenes. A large part of the build-up feels completely necessary. During “Paranormal Activity 2,” however, if the audience is not being scared, the material on-screen feels completely superfluous and often downright boring.
“Paranormal Activity 2” is mediocre. It adequately delivers quick thrills, but many may find themselves yawning and checking their watches. Those looking for any of the cinematic merit present in the original film best stay far away. “Paranormal Activity 2” is rated R and is playing in theatres nationwide.
Leave a Reply