Paranormal Activity 2 is a film which asks a question. That question being "What would happen if they had a baby and a dog in Paranormal Activity 1?" The answer to which is "The same thing with more barking and crying."

The film follows the family of the sister of the girl from the first film. Yeah.

The first thing I noticed with the film is that they were keeping up with the whole 'This is real footage' thing, which was stupid. It worked for the first because it was low budget and basically made a name for itself on the back of word of mouth. This was a big budget Hollywood production, and it was a little cringe-worthy to see them try the same thing again just so that they could stick to the format of the first film. I also enjoyed the credits at the end of the film. Sure took a lot of people to make this "actual footage".

The reasons for filming everything are either stupid or non-existent. For some of it, they're filming stuff of their baby, which is acceptable, but then they also seem to just wander round the house with a camera for no reason. I sincerely hope that the dad isn't filming his '50 inch monster' or his wife in the bath for his son to watch in years to come. They also install CCTV cameras in every room of the house after what they think is a break-in. This didn't make sense to me either. Maybe on the outside of the house, but not in every single room. This was once again a example of the film struggling to set up the same situation as the first film. The problem is that this format doesn't really work when the people aren't looking for ghosts, because without that there is no reason to film everything and then everything else about the concept falls down.

The acting in this film isn't very good. The dad character is too cynical and his stubbornness gets frustrating very quickly. So stubborn that at one point he actually says "Why did you even open the door? Someone just knocked and you opened the door? Who does that??" .....Normal people?

The woman who plays the mum is by far the worst actress though. She doesn't seem that bothered when all the cupboards around her blow open, and she seems pretty indifferent when she's being dragged around the house by an invisible monster. I'm guessing they cast her based on how well she could play 'catatonic possessed lady'.

For me, the first film felt like a concept rather than a story, and Paranormal Activity 2 is just a copy. The "story" is essentially the same with the addition of a baby and a dog, and it draws so many parallels to the first film that they don't feel like playful nods to the original. Even some of the twists in the story are identical to the first, like looking up on the internet to discover what they're dealing with. The most confusing, blatant, and cringe-inducing tie-in with the first film though has to be the dad burning a photo of the character from the first film. I did not understand that one bit. "My wife has been possessed by a demon so I'm going to burn a photo of her sister." I think this guy is the one who's really possessed. Crazy bastard.

The film falls down in the same areas that the first did. Probably because they're pretty much identical. Why would a demon that wanted to kill you spend time dicking about opening cupboards when you're not looking? The film is great at building atmosphere, though the pacing, which was really nice in the first film, becomes a bit of a mess towards the end of this one. I'll give Paranormal Activity 2 credit for having more go on than the first film, but with very little story and a flawed concept, and the fact that it's almost a carbon copy of the first film, it's just not enough. This isn't so much a prequal to the first film, it's the big studios having their go at Paranormal Activity 1.