Box art for Paranormal Activity 2

Paranormal Activity 2


Paranormal Activity 2 is as groundbreaking as the original."* Just as Dan and Kristi welcome a newborn baby into their home, a demonic presence begins terrorizing them, tearing apart their perfect world and turning it into an inescapable nightmare.

Rotten Tomatoes® scores

  • Critic Score
  • Audience Score

common sense

PAUSE for kids age 16
1 out of 5
Drinking, drugs, & smoking
1 out of 5
4 out of 5
Positive messages
0 out of 5
Positive role models
0 out of 5
1 out of 5
2 out of 5

Psychological horror sequel just as spooky as the original.

what parents need to know

Parents need to know that Paranormal Activity 2 -- a follow-up to 2009's low-budget horror hit -- is as full of dread and terror as the original. While hardly any violence is shown on screen (most of the scary moments involve loud noises and sudden movements), tension and fear are constant, and -- as in the original -- the viewer's imagination provides most of the fright. There's off-screen violence involving a dog, a toddler is put in mild peril, and one character's neck is snapped. Language is fairly infrequent but strong; it includes "f--k," "s--t" and "p---y." Teens who survived the original will most likely want to see this one, too.

what families can talk about

  • Families can talk about what makes a movie scary -- blood and gore or implied violence.
  • What scared you most, and why? How did you feel about being scared?
  • What would be the effect of constantly filming your life?

movie reviews from Rotten Tomatoes®

Top Critic Reviews

Rotten: Paranormal Activity 2 is better made and not quite as paper thin as the original, but by replicating the bare-bones B-film, the sequel sacrifices any chance for distinction.

- Jake Coyle, Associated Press, Friday, October 22, 2010

Audience Reviews

1 star

img]] Paranormal Activity 2 is as boring, stupid and unimaginative as it's clueless horror movie body count of characters. It goes in a completely different direction to the original film, which I actually never found scary in the first place. Where as the original film made you care about the characters and had an eery atmosphere that didn't affect me but really got to some people on a psychological level, this lazily structured cash-in prefers to sit around doing nothing and then occasionally go "bang!". That's how lazy it is, this is a disgrace to horror and brings a bad name to the whole genre. Even though it fails on each level in following the formula of the first one it embarssingly does it even worse. It's constantly reminding us that it's based on true events but it never maintains any sense of realism because of the bad acting and the incredibly annoying cardboard cut out characters. It features a dog and a baby, that's all that's new. When all else fails it desperately succumbs to making us sympathise rather than cower behind our seats. Having said that it's clearly a film that has such contempt for it's audience that it doesn't care about making anything work, other than constructing a very slight likeness to the original. Which then just makes it incredibly predictable and then consequently, it's never scary, at all. I watched it in the dark, alone, and I never even flinched. It's one of those film's just dripping of the exact definition, of the saddest, most badly structured cash cow's, that really makes you think that Hollywood is running completely dry of ideas. And also that studios churning out horror movies have to take an admirable film festival creation, namely, the first Paranormal Activity, and then turn it into another lackluster franchise product churned off of the mainstream horror production line. It stands next to The Posession, The Saw sequels, Insidious and The Devil Inside in proving that horror isn't as scary as it used to be, and that everyone who's scared of this drivel and it's companions and actually pays to see it is probably an emotionally fragile wimp.

- aquateen2, Sunday, October 28, 2012

3 stars

Better than the first...toss up as to which I prefer between this one and 3

- stormyweather980, Sunday, February 5, 2012

3 stars

This movie has some really big shoes to fill. I highly doubted this would be as scary as the original. To be honest, I thought this movie would flat out suck. Did it? No, I kinda liked it. It's a prequel and as soon as I heard it would focus on Katie and the demon, I thought "Whoa, that's cool, a horror movie that's driven by character, that sounds great." It kind of worked. This movie focuses more on Katie's sister and her family being terrorized. (Apparently Katie's genetics are possessed or something like that, some weird demon gene.) Just like the first film it takes a while for things to start happening. At first things happen that suggest the house was robbed, so the husband installs security cameras. The latino housekeeper, however suggest it is a ghost. (It wants more lemon pledge.) More stuff happens and the creep factor starts to set in. Some scary stuff happens, some new and some recycled from the first film, just with some polishing added to it. There wasn't as much focus on the characters as I would've wanted so that dissappointed me. Another thing is the special effects were updated and that suggested that the director wanted more things to happen that wouldn't scare the audience because you can't really imagine it happening to you. Though there are some good scares though. The characters weren't generic though and that's a good thing. I liked the characters and I wanted them to make it out of this thing alive.It had the same intrigue the first film had so that was a big positive. The end ends up being more of a cliffhanger this time around, even if it is just a prequel, but it is very good build-up all around. Overall, good cast, good scares, great intrique, but it seemed to be missing the pyschological tension the first film had. Nonetheless, I still liked this movie and it delivered some fine scares.

- fb100000716838411, Sunday, January 15, 2012