One year ago, a low-budget film titled Paranormal Activity snuck onto movie screens across the country (literally in the dead of night) and grew into a phenomenal box-office success. It was inevitable that a sequel would follow, as they’re the most common product of the horror genre. (Trying to add up the number of Halloween, Saw, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, and Scream movies is like struggling with algebra.) In this case, the first movie was a brilliant example of achieving so much with so very little; Paranormal Activity 2, though still entertaining, offers more but delivers less.
Slightly predating and, later, concurrent with the events of the first film, Paranormal Activity 2 introduces us to the sister Katie Featherston referred to in PA1, Kristi (Sprague Grayden), who lives in nearby Carlsbad, California, with her husband Daniel (Brian Boland); his teenage daughter from a previous marriage, Ali (Molly Ephraim); their faithful German shepherd, Abby; a Mexican housekeeper; and most importantly, their newborn son, Hunter.
Soon after baby Hunter is added to the family, their home is ransacked top to bottom, apparently by burglars, although nothing is stolen except for a necklace Katie once gave to Kristi. Daniel, already overcompensating with his handheld video camera as new parents tend to do, has six video cameras installed at high angles inside and outside the house for security purposes. Of course, these six unblinking eyes ultimately provide no security whatsoever, but serve as the audience’s vantage points, chronicling many of the unnatural events that take place.
The movie follows what becomes a too-familiar pattern derived from the original: Each night is numbered and dated, the time-coded security camera shots follow a predictable sequence as they would on a central security monitor, and the audience hushes itself in anticipation of the low rumbling on the soundtrack that precedes something scary about to happen. Our eyes dart furiously across each of the six wide-angle shots, looking for something moving that should not be.
Here’s one example of the “more is less” result of this sequel–instead of scanning every shadowy corner of a single camera angle as in the first film, there are six different views to examine here. Is that skillet hanging in the kitchen moving on its own? What about that automatic cleaner in the backyard pool? Do we need to be looking at the stroller in the hallway? What’s behind that bathroom door in the nursery?
Frankly, it becomes a lot of work for the audience to follow all these seemingly innocuous details, nooks, and crannies. And when the scares occur–and believe me they do, including a couple of shocking moments that freaked me out as much as the rest of the audience–they sometimes come with a lingering sense of wasted potential, as if this film could’ve been better executed with a little more imagination in regard to concept and characters.
I’ve watched the first Paranormal Activity at least a half-dozen times, and I believe it’s a cinematic masterpiece, definitely one of the greatest horror movies I’ve ever seen. It doesn’t rely on gore and graphic make-up effects (that stuff is gross, but gross doesn’t necessarily equal scary), nor weapon-wielding maniacs carving up teenagers. It wisely keeps the scariest elements invisible or off-screen, but lets us hear them–not only a smart budgeting move, but also fueling the fear in the audience’s own imagination. (People are increasingly and obnoxiously noisy and talkative during movies these days, so it’s gratifying to watch these two movies and hear the audiences collectively silence themselves to actively listen to what’s going on.)
After repeated viewings of the original, one of its most effective elements is the psychology of the two main characters, Katie and Micah. Between and within the scary bedroom scenes, we learn a lot about the dynamics between them, hints about their backgrounds, their personalities, and the shifts in their relationship caused by this paranormal and psychological attack.
On the other hand, Paranormal Activity 2, with a screenplay by a TV writer, directed by Tod Williams rather than Oren Peli (who executive produces), and with an apparently bigger budget, relies more on clichés, stereotypes, and unnecessary recycling from the first film. The father and mother are ciphers as far as character development is concerned. Daniel is fond of his high-end handheld camera and has a security camera system installed in response to a mysterious incident, yet he plays the skeptic when his own daughter tries to explain the scary phenomena she experienced, and he’s reluctant to even sit down at his own beloved security monitor to watch the recorded evidence. Daughter Ali begins as the typical “ghosts are cool” teenager, then starts to play the Veronica Mars card with her own investigation. The housekeeper adds to the stereotype recently depicted in M. Night Shyamalan’s Devil that only Hispanics can recognize evil. Babies and dogs can, too, hence the presence of both here, furthering the tension in stereotypical Hollywood fashion, as the filmmakers know putting babies and animals in jeopardy frightens audiences.
The film’s biggest mistakes appear during the ending, which is abrupt and weakly conceived, and the climax, which involves not the stationary cameras but a handheld shaky-cam in a muddled, confusing night-vision sequence that only reminds us of how lame The Blair Witch Project looks in retrospect. And, yes, it’s possible (even probable) that a third film will arrive next October, deriving itself from elements of the first two. Not that I can complain too much, as Paranormal Activity 2 is, for all its faults, still a fun, screaming thrill-ride of a movie. But it ain’t as good as the first one, and I fear this is only the beginning of a line of sequels descending in quality.
Related posts: