By Steven Pepin
When a film is produced for $15,000 and makes a return investment of almost thirteen thousand times that, a sequel isn’t just in the cards, it’s essentially guaranteed. Thus, “Paranormal Activity 2” has materialized into theaters, surprising no one. And yet, it is surprising because it also happens to be one of the rare horror sequels that can truly hold a candle to its predecessor.
The film starts off promisingly enough: it follows the relatives of the first film’s protagonist Katie, and is set mainly before the events of the original. After what appears to be a break-in – out of concern for their newborn son – the parents decide to install a set of security cameras around the house, through which the audience watches. Soon enough, it becomes apparent that not all is well in the house, and that the family is dealing with something that is far from human.
In short, “Paranormal Activity 2” is a basic subscriber to the “more is more” school of sequels: more cameras, more characters, more everything. Unfortunately, for the first half of the movie this seems to be to its own detriment. Effective scares are fewer in number, the core story elements take ages to get off the ground, and the rapid cutting between camera angles dilutes the tension. Couple this with the introduction of some troublesome horror clichés (the kids and the dog seemingly knowing more than the adults do, the “superstitious ethnic” stereotype, etc.) and things start to go downhill.
Yet miraculously, the film proves its worth in the second half, when the previously sluggish pacing gets kicked into overdrive. The later spooky moments – be they abrasive jump-scares or subtle, unsettling frights – are some of the franchise’s best, many of which make great use out of the multiple vantage points and bigger budget. Meanwhile, plot elements that at first seemed unimportant suddenly start to make sense, culminating in a twist that cleverly ties the two films together. But alas, like its predecessor, “Paranormal Activity 2” has trouble finding a way to bring all this forward momentum to a close, resulting in another abrupt and arguably unsatisfying ending.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the movie is its decision to expand the series’ mythology. In my mind, one of the best parts of the first “Paranormal Activity” was its antagonist: a faceless, nameless, godless malevolence, toying with the pitiful humans in a way so precisely calculated as if to prey on their misery. It wasn’t just a representation of fear; it was fear itself. In the sequel, however, the narrative structure and overzealous explanations occasionally undermine this concept.
Still, for all its occasional faults, “Paranormal Activity 2” is a devout follower to the principles that made the first movie such a joy: old-school, no-frills horror earned the hard way, through masterful manipulation of lighting, motion, and sound. In such a stagnant genre, such admirable qualities alone are more than worth the price of admission.