islandclaws

Count me down as not liking this one very much. I went on the insistence of some friends who claimed it was "The Godfather II of horror sequels" and I left feeling like it was more "Godfather III". This is the EXACT same movie as the first, except since we've already seen similar events before none of it feels new. What happens for 70 min? Nothing. A few loud noises, a thousand shots of that goddamn pool cleaner, a door closes. Same things happened in the first, basically. Then once the shit kicks in, there isn't too much that didn't happen last time, right down to the dragging and bite on the female lead. And the ending was just all kinds of dumb. I don't see how they're going to do a third, but I'm sure someone will figure it out. I like haunting films, and I thought this was decent for that genre, but as a sequel to PA I felt it missed the mark.

Rammsteinfan

I thought it was an okay film. The only thing that I found remotely interesting was all the cleavage early on. I did like them adding some mythology to the story and hopefully they wlil take that and do something better w/ a third film.

tylergfoster

Matthew Chmiel

I can get behind a Paranormal Activity 3 if we can see someone can get behind Katie.

Tom Creo

Man, if I was "The Demon" I'd be all over my rack like a Japanese titty massage video.

filmerp

I certainly appreciated that the sequel makes you re-evaluate what was seen in the first. Having now seen the film, it looks like the tv commercials have some misinformation in them, which I actually appreciate.

Matthew Chmiel

Based upon Paramount rushing the film, even more rushing when Gruetert got pulled off ship, I wouldn't be surprised if Williams and company shot a lot of footage regarding various different changes in plot just to see what did and didn't work.

Seriously, this film had three fucking writers attached. This film didn't need three writers attached (and based upon the quality of the film, I would be surprised if somebody actually did write a screenplay).

Travis McClain

My wife and I took my cousin to see this Thursday night. We were literally the entire audience for a 5:30 screening. It was great, but I have to say I think one of the reasons I prefer the first movie is that we saw that one with a packed and enthusiastic audience. Everyone was squirming, being strung along and then the whole audience would gasp or yelp or jump in unison, followed by a wave of embarrassed, self-conscious chuckling. It was one of the best movie-going experiences I've ever had. Being all by ourselves was kind of disappointing.

I'm in the camp that wished they hadn't made a sequel, but found enough to enjoy here that I liked it as well as I think I was gonna. It definitely felt like a studio production, though; far less organic than the original. I liked the cast, though, especially the actress that played Ali. (I don't remember her name, and currently IMDb only lists Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat as the cast.) She was very convincing as a teenage girl in that situation, going from being titillated by the idea of a haunting to taking it seriously and being overwhelmed.

One other thing: As a Psych viewer I was excited to spot a pineapple in the kitchen, and as a fan of The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson I had a small laugh when I saw the Dyson commercial with "the proper amount of suction." Made me wonder if someone involved with the film wasn't also a fan of those shows.

Travis McClain

I just got caught up on this thread (which I'd avoided before seeing the film) and it seems like most of the complaints are that the film was even made at all, or that it's too much of a retread of its predecessor. I wish they'd left the original as a one-off film and instead given Oren Peli and his cast more money to develop something entirely new. If nothing else, I think the film has proven those Blair Witch 2 speculations false. Whether you find the film scary or boring is entirely up to you, but it seems to me that a lot of the haters of this franchise aren't critiquing it for what it is and how it goes about being that, but rather dismiss it for not being whatever movie it is they do find scary.

As for the idea that too much of the film overlaps with the first movie, that actually works on two levels. Firstly, assume that this "found footage" was real. You could edit the 3 hours of combined final release footage into a more audience-friendly, manageable 2 hours. But consider the notion that you've actually got whole months of footage to sift through, which is what we're supposed to believe. You'd have to decide how to present the basics of the story, and that would lead you to making a choice between either Katie's story or Kristi's. Kristi's is more important, but Katie's is a more accessible way into the whole thing.

This also gives a built-in answer to any perceived plot holes exposed in the first film. Ostensibly, we as an audience are shown found footage. In reality we know that the second one was thought up well after the first one made its rounds at the festival circuit, but that really isn't relevant because the nature of these perceived plot holes is, "Why aren't these conversations with Kristi referenced in the first movie?" And it makes sense to me that once you decided to tell Katie's story, you'd streamline and omit anything that isn't either part of Micah Sloat's footage or would ask more questions that you're prepared to answer at the time.

What I really did appreciate was that this is much more of a companion film than a pure sequel or prequel. It's unique in that it's a perfectly linear film, but manages to take place before, during and after its predecessor. I can't think of any other movie trying to do that; even The Godfather, Part II only takes place before and after.

tylergfoster

Back to the Future Part II only takes place after and during. But I believe Saw IV also meets your criteria.

Matthew Chmiel

Really?

The plot holes exist because the crew had a great idea and executed it poorly; not because of whatever bullshit you just posted.

Travis McClain

A plot hole is an obvious contradiction or two significant, unconnected dots. Anything you can try to establish as either of those things is explained away by the concept of editing found footage.

Do you think the absence of dinosaurs in the Bible is proof they didn't exist before man? The reason dinosaurs aren't in that book is that it's not a book about dinosaurs. If you can understand that, I don't see why it's so hard to understand that the first film isn't about Kristi and her family's experience. It's about Katie's & Micah's experience.

Oh, and don't be such a dick.

Dr Mabuse

I liked it.

Totally worked for me.

newginafets

the screaming guy sounds like fun

Wolf359

Just a little thing, but it was kind of funny for the husband to make the joke about unleashing the kraken when the movie was set in 2006.

Philzilla

maybe he was the first and loved the original film

Defiant1

Or the Pirates of the Caribbean 2.

Goldblum

Just saw it. Really liked it. The first one wins out by an edge, but this had some really creepy moments too.

sauce07

I enjoyed the movie, a worthy follow up. Felt like a Spielberg version of a found footage movie, took everything up a notch. One complaint is the same I had with the first film, I never focus on the actors since I'm always looking at what else is happening in the background. It also took forever to get going, but the ending kinda made up for that.

Travis McClain

I found myself glancing in key portions of each frame during the night time footage, the same way I check my mirrors every several seconds while driving. I'd look at the crib first, then the mirror on the closet door, back to the crib, then the floor near the dog, then the crib, the bathroom... I think that's the real appeal of these movies: they have a way of getting you to go looking for things that aren't there.

Rival11

Was expecting to hate this one and ended up loving it....both PA 1 & 2 are great scare flicks that definitely put in the effort for the creep factor as well. Watching the second makes me want to revisit the first again.

And on a side note...after watching the video above and hearing the crowd reactions....I'm kind of bummed that I'm desensitized to horror flicks to the level that I would never react like that but with that said......I still get a genuinely creepy feeling here and there so I guess I shouldn't be too down about it.

dsa_shea

Fixed! Let em go bump in the night.

dsa_shea

What I don't understand about the found footage stuff if that if the home owners are filming days and days of stuff are they even checking to see what is on it? Did they not care about the same things as us the audience are seeing? Don't you film things with a purpose and if you do wouldn't you do something drastic if you saw what was going on in your own home in the video? I could understand if all of these events happened quickly within a day or two but to believe that they are events spread out over time make the "found footage" far less believable.

Daytripper

Rented this the other night and didn't think it was scary, creepy or effective at all. The performances were alright. But not a good horror movie otherwise. And I'm a fan of the original.

LosingMyMind

How will they justify a 3D sequel?