Yes, finally I'm getting around to reviewing it.
Back up a bit.
A few weeks ago, I got invited to go to the midnight premiere of Paranormal Activity 2.
Of course I said yes; I loved the first one.
So, let me first give you my impressions of some of the things that really, really worked.
PA2 gave a far more plausible reason for there to be cameras all over the house than the first movie did, and as such manages to convey greater sincerity. Also, rather than using the annoying Blair Witch - style shaky-cam technique, the cameras are set up in fixed locations, which the movie simply shuttles between. It's marvelously effective, as it lends a sort of detached, impartial air to the events, which makes it feel oddly more authentic; there aren't any real "why doesn't that douchebag put down the camera" moments, as there have been in several other movies I can think of.
Yes, I'm looking at you, Cloverfield.
As well, the fact that there are multiple cameras allows the tension in the movie to build very slowly and subtly, something missing in the first film. This is something that I am going to come back to, however, because the critics absolutely hated it, and I will address their objections later on.
One trick of sound that the film does that is equally subtle but marvelously effective is the use of a precursor; when something significant is about to happen, the soundtrack develops a slow, gradually increasing, very unsettling bass rumble, right on the verge of hearing; almost subsonic. It is at first undetectable, then grows until...
...Something happens.
Another thing they did well is that in several critical scenes, the actors and actresses weren't told what was going to happen (from what I understand,) which means that, although they knew SOMEthing was going to happen, whenever the supernatural activity actually occurs, they ACTUALLY react to it. It makes their responses far more genuine, and that authenticity translates to the audience with the greatest of ease.
As well, the events of the second film surround and encompass the events of the first film, thus both expanding on and enriching the "lore," while simultaneously giving retroactive enjoyment when you spot something that fed an event in the first film, or was caused by it. This - at least for me - increased my enjoyment of the first film as well, and was hellaciously effective.
Now for some things that either got hammered by critics, or that I didn't think worked.
The critics absolutely HATED the pacing. I didn't agree at all. I will explain.
In the first half of the film, nothing - or nothing immediately apparent as supernatural - happens. Most of the first half is spent with many, many repetitions of shifts between various camera angles around the house displaying absolutely nothing out of the ordinary.
This is a VERY slow lead-in.
The critics hated this, and I got the impression from most of the critical reviews I've read that if they hadn't had to stick around, most of them would simply have walked out before anything really disturbing even happened.
Their loss.
That much-derided slow buildup lends even greater weight and shock value to the events in the second half of the film; as they are such an extreme contrast to the first half of the film, both in pacing and in succession.
The result is that the last 20 minutes of this movie is like getting kicked in the kidneys with terror over and over again. By the time things have progressed into really overt supernatural events, the sense to the audience is that of total inescapability; this family is doomed, no matter what they try to do to protect themselves.
Watching that doom unfold is both terrifying and as fascinating as video of an earthquake.
I honestly didn't like some things about this movie; I felt there were several opportunities they didn't really take advantage of. (Most of which would come under the heading of "spoilers," though.)
For example, I felt that the housekeeper was underused; as was the dog. I will note that the dog is some kind of mutant acting genius, and did a great job, although I'm sure my praise would be somewhat meaningless to the individual in question.
Annoyingly, this suffered somewhat from a syndrome that is becoming more obvious and noticeable as the studios go to ever-greater extremes to try to build buzz before filming is even complete, namely that the trailers featured several tiny clips that weren't actually in the theatrical release, which is slightly jarring for the audience, as you're looking for the bits you saw in the trailer...
...and not finding them.
Which in the case of PA2 is more significant than it might be in many movies, since what really sells this movie is the immersion; the audience gets involved in this movie. A couple of the bump-in-the-night bits serve only to underscore the authenticity of the actors' responses, and by the time the film heads into its climax, the audience is screaming every 30 seconds.
I will make a side note here.
Avatar cost roughly $400 million to make. Granted Pocahontas In Space is a good movie, and granted $1 billion is a hell of a box office, but PA2, by comparison, cost $3 million, and made $40 million plus opening weekend.
That's not a billion dollars, sure, but it IS roughly a 1200% profit margin.
I wonder which film will have a sequel next year?
Now, aside from the technical merits of the film, let me say this.
This was the scariest movie I've seen in years and years. The actors may not be recognizable, "name" actors, but they did a fine job selling their characters, and as a result, the movie is creepy to a fantastic degree. If you're not a horror fan, or didn't like the first one, you probably won't like this one either.
But if you're a horror fan, this movie is awesome.
Go see it in a theater, or go to your buddy's house that has the big screen and the home theater setup. The sound makes the movie, and it's very much worth it.
