User Score
5.7

Mixed or average reviews- based on 232 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 47 out of 232

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Oct 23, 2010
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Most of the film flips through the same static shots where nothing usually happens, except for a bump in the night or some "paranormal activity." The movie mostly takes place inside some ordinary house, which limits the creepiness and makes it pretty boring to watch. Ooo, another still-shot of the kitchen...and nothing happens! Again! The characters are mundane and foolish, and the film never establishes a true connection to these people. I really couldn't care what happened to these characters because I barely got to know them. The plot is pencil-thin, and the ending is anti-climatic and not suspenseful at all - a HUGE wasted opportunity in what should have been the scariest part. I am being harsh, but I honestly didn't jump out of my seat once. There are some creepy elements, but the film failed to do what it was supposed to - scare me. Expand
  2. Oct 26, 2010
    3
    Trickery... It's nothing else. Not creative, not interesting. Lets make the audience focus on a door for 5 minutes... Do it for so long they are bored and feel tired, then ANYTHING can be done to shock you... Noise, movement and/or with any sound or shape. A total breeze for the film-makers and the first shock is just as lame as the last. I had more fun listening to reactions of differentTrickery... It's nothing else. Not creative, not interesting. Lets make the audience focus on a door for 5 minutes... Do it for so long they are bored and feel tired, then ANYTHING can be done to shock you... Noise, movement and/or with any sound or shape. A total breeze for the film-makers and the first shock is just as lame as the last. I had more fun listening to reactions of different people scream in the cinema. Pretty solid acting however and they made everything believable, I just personally felt it was a waste of time/money. Expand
  3. Nov 8, 2010
    0
    **** An evil ghost that harasses families-Paranormal Activity 1 and 2 in a nutshell.
  4. Oct 22, 2010
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie was like watching a funny porno with slight rumbling noises throughout. The reason i called it a porno is because the only thing you give a damn about is the girls breasts. Oh by the way, the ending is spectacular you wont be angry at all. Its not like all of the characters die. Oh god i just gave away spoilers.

    Oh btw, did anybody hear a slight RUMBLING NOISE?!
    Expand
  5. Nov 13, 2010
    2
    One trick pony. I don't think unexpected loud thumps count as scary, they are lazy and uncreative, which is the basis of why this movie sucked. The first Paranormal Activity had suspense and the thought that this may actually be real. Now everyone knows it's not real so instead of trying some new scares they just regurgitated the same "scare" moments of the first one (loud noises,One trick pony. I don't think unexpected loud thumps count as scary, they are lazy and uncreative, which is the basis of why this movie sucked. The first Paranormal Activity had suspense and the thought that this may actually be real. Now everyone knows it's not real so instead of trying some new scares they just regurgitated the same "scare" moments of the first one (loud noises, slamming doors, shadows, people getting dragged). I'm not saying that it didn't make me jump (the Kitchen scene in particular was scary $hit) but towards the end it seemed to jump the shark and become comical. The last 20 minutes I just kept on thinking "Are you for real?" I think the sequel had potential but it was just too poorly done for me to care. Expand
  6. Feb 26, 2011
    3
    Now this was better, I didn't have to give this movie a 1/10 like the last one. However, that doesn't mean that it was good. It was mediocre at best. The movie started off slow just like the other one, but jumped into the "scares" sooner. The scares, they weren't very good at all. They just sort of happened and they obviously weren't very thought out. Also; what the hell is up with thisNow this was better, I didn't have to give this movie a 1/10 like the last one. However, that doesn't mean that it was good. It was mediocre at best. The movie started off slow just like the other one, but jumped into the "scares" sooner. The scares, they weren't very good at all. They just sort of happened and they obviously weren't very thought out. Also; what the hell is up with this being a prequel, at the end, the possessed woman from the first movie comes to the house and kills everybody except for the kid. Just cause they were related doesn't mean she could walk all that way without someone seeing her. One last thing, why do they feel that they have to show shots of the pool every 10 minutes? Overall, this movie was better, but still not good enough to impress me in anyway. Expand
  7. Nov 7, 2010
    1
    I went into the film with fairly low expectations, but the real thing was worse that I could have predicted. The whole film was just long periods of noiseless filler between loud noises, as though this passes as some kind of entertainment or fear factor. Nearly all the plot elements were as thin as tissue paper, me and my friend were able to predict throughout; loud bang in the next 5I went into the film with fairly low expectations, but the real thing was worse that I could have predicted. The whole film was just long periods of noiseless filler between loud noises, as though this passes as some kind of entertainment or fear factor. Nearly all the plot elements were as thin as tissue paper, me and my friend were able to predict throughout; loud bang in the next 5 seconds, somethings going to move in here, etc. I say plot, but there wasn't really one to speak of, it was more or less a series of non-sequential events with slight connections towards the end. Of the 90 minutes there's probably only 10 minutes of footage where something even remotely interesting is going on. To be honest I have absolutely no idea how anyone can be giving this film a rating of more than 2/10, unless they were involved with the film, are critics who have completely lost their integrity to a pile of cash, or have the mental prowess of a toddler. Perhaps my complete and utter cynicism towards the paranormal and my utter belief in the natural sciences doesn't help but I don't care. In fact the only time I was entertained was by the terrible effects, which made me laugh out loud. Expand
  8. Jan 20, 2012
    0
    Incredibly boring in every aspect. I don't even remember the names of the characters, since a reason to care about them at all is never given. They're just bad actors trying to look natural, very similar to MTV's reality show stars. There is no suspense here--we get a massive amount of footage where *absolutely nothing happens at all*. The idea seems to be we're waiting for something toIncredibly boring in every aspect. I don't even remember the names of the characters, since a reason to care about them at all is never given. They're just bad actors trying to look natural, very similar to MTV's reality show stars. There is no suspense here--we get a massive amount of footage where *absolutely nothing happens at all*. The idea seems to be we're waiting for something to happen, and that's the suspense, since once in a while we get a...bump in the night, maybe. Not exactly frightening. The ending that it advertises as shocking is absolutely nothing. The original wasn't exactly a classic by any means, but this one is significantly worse. The movie is unsatisfying from beginning to end. Seriously, almost nothing happens at all. What does happen just isn't worth the effort to get there. Yeah, it ties into the first one at the end, but not in a way that really means anything at all. It's just thrown in there. There is no suspense, horror, or anything to keep you awake. It just repeats the same shots over and over, in which nothing happens most of the time. And you have to wonder, "This is supposed to be frightening?" when it isn't. Ugly stuff, totally boring, completely useless. Don't even rent it. Expand
  9. Nov 5, 2010
    4
    I have to admit that I hadn't seen the first movie, and was even a bit fearful to see this attempt, but overall i enjoyed it. The director's use of a documentary's "authenticity" works brilliantly in this case, although he relies too heavily on loud noises unexpectedly etc. I did find it frightening (at times) although I scare rather easily. The film did not really get going for anI have to admit that I hadn't seen the first movie, and was even a bit fearful to see this attempt, but overall i enjoyed it. The director's use of a documentary's "authenticity" works brilliantly in this case, although he relies too heavily on loud noises unexpectedly etc. I did find it frightening (at times) although I scare rather easily. The film did not really get going for an hour, and from what I could gather, did a nice job of weaving the first movie into its plot. It won't win any awards, but it gets the job done if you're up for a scary flick. Expand
  10. Nov 14, 2010
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This isn't scary. It's startling. There is a difference. Anyone that gets truly scared by this has some serious issues. A bunch of quiet followed by a loud noise isn't scary. There were, however, a few funny parts. The baby being pulled up the crib - funny. The fact that the pool cleaner creeped my girlfriend out to no end - funny. Expand
  11. Feb 10, 2011
    1
    Seems like the writers of the movie still think that thumps and bangs is still scary! But obviously these writers must have no backbone at all if they think a bunch of noises is frightening.
  12. Mar 12, 2011
    4
    For this sequel, the filmmakers decided to go with the idea that more is better. There are cameras than just the one from the last movie and there are more characters than just one couple. But more does not make better. In fact, it decreases the suspense. More means there is less 'alone' time for the characters. Also, the fear is spread amongst more people; therefore, it is felt lessFor this sequel, the filmmakers decided to go with the idea that more is better. There are cameras than just the one from the last movie and there are more characters than just one couple. But more does not make better. In fact, it decreases the suspense. More means there is less 'alone' time for the characters. Also, the fear is spread amongst more people; therefore, it is felt less by each. The film Paranormal Activity scared the crap out of me. There were long, static shots of a room and an occasional event. This time, the long shots are much shorter and since there are multiple cameras, no room is the main focus like the bedroom was last time. Furthermore, there was no build up to an event last time. A door would slam or the sheet would rustle all without warning. Now there is a low, rumbling bass noise which signals a coming event. This takes most of the fear of anticipation out of the scene. The plot is actually connected to the previous film but I won't give away how. The idea of a sequel to Paranormal Activity is fine and the script works...but there is too much activity going on to make it truly paranormal. If you haven't seen the first one, I highly recommend it. Skip this one. Expand
  13. May 7, 2011
    2
    Just like the first, this movie is horrible! It isn't scary nor fun nor entertaining. Nothing happened until an hour into the film and the film only 80 or so minutes meaning that their is only about 20 minutes of "scares". Pathetic "horror" film. They better not do a sequel.
  14. Jul 18, 2011
    1
    Awful, simply awful. 91 Minutes of my life i will never get back. About as scary and un-nerving as scooby doo, an hour and a half of watching still images of a kitchen and a swimming pool do not a good film make!
  15. j30
    Nov 1, 2011
    4
    Although the movie does have some good scares that'll make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up, it does not live up to the original or build off the creepy premise.
  16. Oct 22, 2012
    3
    A couple of clever moments aside, this "Activity" doesn't earn the atmosphere it tries to replicate from the first genuinely frightening installment.
  17. Oct 21, 2011
    1
    If you think stomping noises and screaming is scary then it'll give you nightmares, but seriously the only scary part was the blaire witch scene (also known as the part where they went down the basement scene.)
  18. Nov 17, 2011
    2
    I still remember sitting in theater wondering if I should leave. This was a horrible sequel to a great original. I found no character development and 40 minutes of this movie is extremely normal and boring like watching a horrible reality show where nothing happens. Don't waste your time on this movie.
  19. Feb 13, 2012
    4
    The sequel to the 2009 surprise hit Paranormal Activity, doesn't quite live up to the expectations of its predecessor. Whilst the first film had a frightning and suspenseful buildup to its epic climax at the end, this flick provides uneven scares that kill the mood. The acting in itself was nothing to be desired. I know there's a third feature in the series and with a forth on the way (dueThe sequel to the 2009 surprise hit Paranormal Activity, doesn't quite live up to the expectations of its predecessor. Whilst the first film had a frightning and suspenseful buildup to its epic climax at the end, this flick provides uneven scares that kill the mood. The acting in itself was nothing to be desired. I know there's a third feature in the series and with a forth on the way (due to be released in 2012) I hope the , franchise can redeem itself. P.S. If a large family is introduced in the next installment I'm going to scream! Expand
  20. Oct 17, 2013
    2
    Once again another boring, dragged out film that offers nothing scary or to be taken seriously. The second installment is equally as bad as the first and offers the same tricks.
  21. Nov 30, 2013
    3
    Seriously, this movie is a lot of things, but scary is certainly not one of them. Nothing happens that is worth giving two cents about. Devoid of anything that actually qualifies as a horror movie.
  22. Nov 8, 2014
    1
    I actually really like the first paranormal activity. But this is just awful, it takes everything that made the first one great and doesn't use it. The pacing in this film is woeful, where in the first film it builds up slowly, so you absolutely poo yourself at the end, this film decides to have "big" scares throughout, which completely undermines the whole film and leaves you just bored to tears.
  23. Aug 24, 2012
    0
    I really wish I had never seen this film. It wasn't scary and nothing happened for around 45 minutes. That is far too long to watch a mechanical pool cleaner cleaning a swimming pool. Definitely the worst film I have ever seen.
  24. Mar 1, 2013
    3
    Paranormal Activity marks as the strange case, in which the sequel (ok, it's actually a prequel) is better than the original film. However, the 2nd part of the horror movie series is still a bad film. While there are some nice scenes and I like the fact that it's highly related to Paranormal Activity, it's still a cheap horror flick that culminates in another strange ending (it's nothingParanormal Activity marks as the strange case, in which the sequel (ok, it's actually a prequel) is better than the original film. However, the 2nd part of the horror movie series is still a bad film. While there are some nice scenes and I like the fact that it's highly related to Paranormal Activity, it's still a cheap horror flick that culminates in another strange ending (it's nothing against the stupidity of PA's conclusion, but since those two are very related to each other, this one's also quite dumb.) Additionally, it takes itself 72% of the runtime to present the first jump-scare, which is a shame for a movie of this genre. And if that wasn't enough, all of the jump-scare moments are stupid as hell and I personally think that the vibe of these movies is very boring. Expand
  25. Dec 5, 2012
    3
    Absolute dross. At least half the film is dominated by a myriad of hidden camera shots that show nothing of interest. It's an attempted thriller gone awry.
  26. Jan 1, 2014
    4
    The filming style is good and the jump scares are present, however there's no real frights to be experienced with the exception of the finale which is relatively scary.
  27. Nov 6, 2012
    2
    How is this movie considered scary? How is nothing going on scary? How is a pool cleaner scary? It isn't! Somehow the director of this film manages to waste another hour and 30 minutes of my time of nothing happening. The only thing I can praise about this movie along with the first film is that Katie is scary when she is possessed. Maybe not Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter scary butHow is this movie considered scary? How is nothing going on scary? How is a pool cleaner scary? It isn't! Somehow the director of this film manages to waste another hour and 30 minutes of my time of nothing happening. The only thing I can praise about this movie along with the first film is that Katie is scary when she is possessed. Maybe not Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter scary but still scary. But even then there's more problems; the most eventful moments happen in the last ten minutes. Why not flesh that out into a full length film? Its sickening that this is considered good filmmaking and I weep at this heinous state of film. Expand
  28. Mar 9, 2013
    1
    Loses its interesting terror from before, leaving this crap as a confusing and obvious not really happening sequel to the Paranormal franchise.
  29. Feb 21, 2013
    0
    worst one out of all Paranormal Activities so far! my opinion but it is, acting is HORRIFYING, when Kristi gets dragged down the stairs it is VERY unrealistic! Only one scene made me jump, I was laughing at some parts.

    Here is how everything works
    PA: Creepiest
    PA2: .......
    PA3: Most Suspenseful
    PA4: Jumpiest
  30. Mar 25, 2013
    3
    Better then the last one but "Scary bumbs and things falling" ISN'T SCARY ANYMORE HOLLYWOOD. I mean this film again no plot just a haunting house story. Scary Movie is probably scarier then this, no it is scarier then this. If you watch this and you jump once then you are the weakest scariest punk in the world. Little harsh but true.
  31. Sep 7, 2014
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Este filme não é de forma alguma assustador. A maior parte nem parece filme de terror, só no final que aparece alguma coisa. Anteriormente, só aparece o fogão em chamas e colheres caindo. Me poupe. Um péssimo filme. Expand
Metascore
53

Mixed or average reviews - based on 23 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 23
  2. Negative: 2 out of 23
  1. Reviewed by: Mary Pols
    Oct 23, 2010
    60
    Unlike the original, Paranormal Activity 2's pacing is uneven; it builds slowly and effectively before rushing too quickly, and at one point not particularly coherently, through the climax. But the jolts, when they come, are bigger, causing actual physical thrills and chills, at least for me.
  2. Reviewed by: Dana Stevens
    Oct 23, 2010
    60
    Even knowing what's likely to come-the doors opening on their own, the skeptical characters scoffing at metaphysical explanations, the unheeded warnings from paranormally gifted guests-doesn't make it any less nailbiting to watch.
  3. Reviewed by: Andrew O'Hehir
    Oct 23, 2010
    50
    Paranormal Activity 2 suffers from the excessive expository blah-blah that's so common in horror-movie sequels.