Buy Paranormal Activity 2 Movie. Watch online or Download
Genres: Hor
Starring: Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat
Director(s): Tod Williams
Available Quality: Hi Def
Country: USA
Year: 2010
Available Quality: DivX, Hi Def, iPod, Hi Def, Hi Def
IMDB Rating: 5.8 out of 10 (34447 votes)
After experiencing what they think are a series of break-ins, a family sets up security cameras around their home, only to realize that the events unfolding before them are more sinister than they seem.
 |
Paranormal Activity 2 (iPod) | Resolution: 480x272 px | Total Size: 253 Mb |
|
|
 |
Paranormal Activity 2 (Hi Def) | Resolution: 852x480 px | Total Size: 560 Mb |
|
|
 |
Paranormal Activity 2 (Hi Def) | Resolution: 1920x1080 px | Total Size: 6692 Mb |
|
|
 |
Paranormal Activity 2 (Hi Def) | Resolution: 1280x720 px | Total Size: 4474 Mb |
|
|
 |
Paranormal Activity 2 (DivX) | Resolution: 640x352 px | Total Size: 697 Mb |
|
Visitors Review
jess tess (18 May 2012)
better than the original
I was pleasantly surprised with the second installment of paranormalactivity. There are many people who will not find this scary - probablydue to their own inability to suspend disbelief and engage in themovie. This is very important because what the PA movies do is use thebuild up of suspense and play on your imagination in a way rarely seenin horror movies since "the Shining". What begins as subtle noises and movement of objects takes a slowescalation to the climax - this allows us to engage in the charactersemotional journey - the initial scepticism and then the increasingrealisation that something is wrong, and then fear. perhaps morefrightening is the subtleties which one cannot fail to notice whengoing to bed after watching this movie - a slight movement of the door,a whispering in the wind, or a noise coming from the other room.This film is almost a prequel and sequel, where we follow the characterof Kristi and her family who after an apparent break-in begin noticingunusual occurrences around the house. Kristi also happens to be thesister of Katie from the original movie. Katie appears throughout thefilm adding to the sense of impending doom as we wait to see when shewill turn.This movie improves a lot on the original - which suffered from pooracting and its one-plot storyline. Here we are given more depth instory and characters, with better acting all round (including from theoriginal cast)If you are a fan of supernatural horror movies you will enjoy thisfilm.
sieb66 (18 May 2012)
Better than the first ... (just not for Saw XII lovers)
It's only been done before.But to always simply say that a sequel is per definition less than pt1,just because of the "original idea/concept-value" of the first, isignorant and not true... Proved by the release of this 'pre-sequal'!Off course, 99,9% of the time, an original idea/concept get's milked,gutted, brutalized and/or raped out of context. Just not this one!It remains true to the original concept (the use of only stationary andhand-held cams and taking time for development), and the story-basedparallels with pt.1 (incl. Katie), simply adds up to the sheerintensity and build up suspense of this one.IMHO only people who think just "torture-porn" and slasher films (witha killcount over 10, that is) justify/deserve the term horror or scarymovie, will obviously bash this film as being dull or "slamming doormovie pt2"... It's just far from it.My guess, simply because they don;t get it. They either don'tunderstand suspense (and therefore are emotionally challenged), or arefeeling shame (the brawly tough guys they are) for having an uneasedfeeling (or maybe even being scared for a moment).Don't listen to those folk. If you liked part 1, you will love parttwo!!! Sequels are practically always bigger, louder, etc, etc. (by theunwritten law of film) and this one does so by using more camera's andhaving more characters (incl. a baby and dog). That's it.An instant classic, with one of the biggest shock-moment of the decade.(...Hopefully they don't get overboard, should they decide to make pt.3)
(18 May 2012)
Back to basics
I grew up with Poltergeist, the Omen, The Shining, Amityville Horror, etc. Special effects hadn't even been invented yet. They were never intended to create a huge empathy for the characters. The plots themselves were minimal and spared you from too much depth. They were simply filmed to make you jump and have that girl next to you hold you tight. This movie took me back old-school and that's why I liked it. Those who go deep in discussion about all this movie lacks are probably also dissatisfied that they don't find a diamond in a tootsie-roll pop. It's a scary movie. That is all and it's wrapper has no false advertising.
William (18 May 2012)
Real Review : Boring, Not Scary, Waste of Money
It wasn't just that this was a poorly developed movie or bad story line or just lacked entertainment value. Instead, and honestly speaking, it realy , truly felt like they studio just didn't bother putting any thought or effort into this movie. For that reason, I place this on any list of all time worst movies. This movie is a down right rip-off. If this review can stop any family from spending their hard-earned money on this movie, then i have done my job. Obviously, there are false reviews in the user review section. If you have gone to this movie and found it to be a total waste of your money as well, please, please respond to this review. I sincerely appreciate honest user reviews. thank you
thekyles99 (16 May 2012)
If you can't top the original then don't!
Doesn't even draw a flame to the original and this is how cool originalideas are ruined...Greed! I know indie directors have to make money butyou what go on to something newer don't destroy a good thing. Sequelsonly work occasionally for franchises like Star Wars, Indiana Jonesminus the Crystal Skull. Then can work the opposite way and destroymovies such as Jaws,The Exorcist, The Amityville horror etc. Making asequel to a great film is a huge gamble that this time left directorTod Williams going home with empty pockets. this time around thehauntings happen to Katie's sister Kristy (Sprague Grayden). the onething i liked storyline wise was the fact that the some unansweredquestions got answered from the first one. No I'm not going to deliverany spoilers !. Some scares come loud as in noise wise but the originalintenseness that Paranormal 1 brought to it's audiences just wasn'tthere as the camera crew's obsession with the families swimming poolbecomes annoyingly boring. If you are going to make something move,pick something other then a pool vacuum that already moves on its own.Katie Featherston reappears in this instalment as well as Micah Sloat.It's a prequel of sorts as Micah and Katie visit Katie and her familyan announcement comes over the screen that this visit takes place 60days before the death of Micah. Yawnnnn! I knew this was going to flopas you just cant seem to top greatness.
gabriele-5-90518 (16 May 2012)
Simply said, a bad movie
Life is short, time is the most precious commodity. Save yourself sometime in your life and avoid this movie. It is lame, it is predictable,it is not even scary. Middle income family in north San Diego countyhas "spirits" in their house and 90% of the movie is done with static"security camera". What is this,a bad attempt of Cinéma vérité? Thefather is a stubborn man, the new wife has some dark past, all end upin a big nothing. Not entertaining, not fun, not scary. After the firstten minutes I set my expectations low. I was wrong, it was belowexpectations. What really surprises me is that some people can financemovies like this. Well, it was in San Diego after all and they usedstatic cameras. May be the budget was very, very low.
(07 May 2012)
Not quite as good as the first but really liked it
This started out slow but really got going and once they tied it in at the end to the first I wound up really liking it overall. Recommend it especially if you liked the first one.
David T (06 May 2012)
A scary film that breaks no new ground (what a surprise)
First of all I made my partner take me to see this (bad move as itresulted in an argument about who had talent in choosing movies, Ilost).The only thing that scared me was the scene in the kitchen with thedoors suddenly opening and THAT was only scary because the sound was sofu*king loud that you jumped for that reason alone.I did enjoy seeing the vacuous late-teenage-bimbos all shriek theirheads off at the "scary moments".The only positive point I can say is the acting of the dog and toddlerwere amazing! This is a movie to be avoided at all costs.
(06 May 2012)
omg
This is THE horror flick I have been waiting for all year! The first one was the SCARIEST movie I had seen in a LONG time! I saw it in the theaters, and the combined horror of the audience really added to the atsmosphere and overall experience! I will definately see this one in theatres as well! 5 stars for the anticipation, obviously not for the actual movie. lol. NOTE: I have NOT seen this movie, nor do I own this product. It's specifically to hype ppl up for the big premiere this month! Happy Halloween everyone! Forget about the latest Saw entry; PA 2 is the way to go!
James (06 May 2012)
Better off watching The Blair Witch Project again
I saw the first one which was bad but this is really bad..basically thewhole movie is so slow, doors opening, pots falling down e.t.c..reallydumb cliché ghost stuff..I basically sat through the film waiting forsomething exciting to happen, last 20 mins wasn't too bad but it didn'tsave this film. Characters were boring, and I felt like I was about tofall asleep..maybe these films are better in a cinema but I highlydoubt it..and now Paranormal Activity 3 is coming out later in 2011can't wait...not. These movies are now going to become a cash cow andthey are going to get worse but the masses will lap these up. Thisisn't film making this is garbage, it's not a horror it's a very lamethriller..but if you liked the first one I'm guessing you like this oneso hey, go watch it and enjoy.
(05 May 2012)
This second part was doomed right from the start.
You don't need to have studied cinema in order to know that this sequel will not work. I've watched it cause curioisity got the best of me and i still wanted to give the creators a chance. What if this sequel (or prequel) was original? But no. I was scared right out of my mind with the first opus. In a fun kind of way, of course. But this second part didn't scare me at all. No trouble sleeping here. here's why, i think:A sequel usually means "bigger", "badder" and "More". If the ghosts take time to reveal themselves in the first part, well they need to show themselves sooner in the sequel. Everything needs to be sooner and bigger. You can't recreate the same exact pattern or else, what is the point? The problem with "Paranormal Activity 2" is that the first film was good BECAUSE it took its time to reveal its scary "stuff". Whereas the first one dealt with events that "could" happen (except the conclusion, of course), this one is going for the big scare right in the middle with incredible things that took me out of it by saying: "C'mon!". Yes, the first one had also certain phenomenons that seemed a bit exagerated but they came more toward the end. You were already scared-stiff when they happened.Plus, in this sequel, you have your normal clichés (the non-english speaking maid that knows what's going on, the strong father that will not believe, etc) and you also have your incomprehensible reactions which make you go: "Why, oh why?". Warning: Spolier ahead. For example, why wouldn't the wife tell her husband what happened in the kitchen? She's been looking for ways to convince him and now that she has the best proof, she shuts down. And she's not possessed yet. Why would the daughter and the father stay in the house, sleep in it and let the baby alone in its craddle when they now know (and seen on the cameras) the incredible and menacing actions of the presence, especially toward the baby? I mean, the father even battled with the ghost or the demon and he even had to get his baby out of the pitch-black basement! But what do you know? They all sleep tight like nothing happened. With the baby in the craddle! You kind of wish that they die at that point for being so stupid.The fact that they wanted to make it a prequel and the fact that you see the protagonists of the first movie is kind of fun but again, the reason that the new protagonists give to each other in order to not warn the original couples is lame. It feels like a cheap and easy way to tie the two movies together. Like if the screenplay writers went with the easiest reason. Anyhow, in my humble opinion, the first one is a classic. Buy this one instead. It's up there along with "The Blair Witch Project". "Paranormal Activity 2", without being a total disaster, is not helping itself with clichés and uncomprehensible reactions on the part of the characters. But most importantly, it was doomed right from the start.
blade399 (05 May 2012)
More Of A Comedy Then Horror
Im gonna keep this review as brief as possible as there are a few partsworth mentioning. THE SPOILERS, I will refer to are not so much asspoilers but that depends what people think, they'll be at the end ofthe review.The 1st half of the film was awful, yeah a few jokes cracked out hereand there but that wasn't the comedy...it was the horrors sections.Nothing happened, the night sequences were tame compared to the 1st.The best thing about the film compared to the 1st was that the in the1st film the sequences weren't skipped taking all suspense from thefilm as to when something was going to happen. Then came the nighttime parts (START OF SPOILER) the part where thebaby got lifted was hilarious, made more funny by the crowd roaring inlaughter. Then when the mum gets dragged down the stairs, yes a bitfreaky at first, but during her heroic escape gets face-planted...Imean whats not funny about that!? The only scary part where no-onelaughed but jumped was when the entire kitchen just burst open, alldraws and everything....what made this better was that it happenedduring the middle of the day...for once. (END OF SPOILERS)Sooo, the film has laughs and is made better then the 1st due to itsskipped horror sequences, explanation and general cinema experiencebeing the best since....well, anything. Yet, although better then the1st I still gave it a lower score..either that means I must reduce thefirst films score or find out why and heres the answer....it wasn't asbelievable and seemed forced to be scary. Also the fact we could see asequel due to how the events planned out. (SPOILER) oh, and the Katieneck snap and ending as well as telling us WHY number one happened,kind of ruined the 1st films legacy...if you can even say it ever hadone.Cheers for reading5/10
retro1983 (02 May 2012)
Much of the same, but maybe better!
The first thing to acknowledge with the Paranormal Activity movies isyou are either going to be a fan or not. There isn't really much middleground for this kind of movie as so much of its success will depend onwhether you as a viewer can be drawn into the story and the production.If you are unsure the best thing to do is simply ask yourself 'do Ireally want to be scared?' and if the answer is yes then hit play. If,however, you are the kind of person that will spend most of the movieproudly boasting how you are not in the least bit frightened and thatthe effects are rubbish then you might as well give it a miss.I personally love a good scare and am more than happy to watch thewhole of this movie fully believing the pretense that what I amwatching is real footage. In fact I find this kind of horror movie,like The Blair Witch Project to be far scarier than slasher or morerecent gorno films. In relation to number 2 vs its predecessor I think there is little tochoose from as to which is the better movie. Obviously the first hasthe advantage of originality (to a degree)and has the benefit of beingable to stick to a simpler plot line and for these reasons alone manyfans will proclaim Paranormal Activity 1 as the better film. Yet, Iactually prefer the set up of number 2, with the use of securitycameras instead of sole dependence on the hand held camera. After alltowards the end of number 1 you can't help but think 'why are theystill running around with the camera?'. The use of the baby boy and thedog are also great additions as kids and animals in horror movies arevery creepy. Some of the acting is a little suspect and you do have to take certainplot developments with a pinch of salt otherwise the story wouldn'tmove forward in any kind of entertaining way. The link in to the firstmovie isn't too bad though but I would be a little worried for number 3in the franchise. This movie is definitely best watched late at night, just beforeheading to bed.
(01 May 2012)
Horribly boring........AGAIN !
not a snoozalicious sequel but a yawntastic prequel. being a male, kate was nicer to look at this time around.the 1st part lacked more bit players. this movie has them. yes !!! more mouths yapping !!!!!!!!!!!!!!yapyapyapyapyapyapyapyapyapyapyapyapyapcliched night noisesyapyapyapyapyapyapyapyapyapyapyapyapyapcliched stuff moving at nightyapyapyapyapyapyapyapyapyapyapyapyapyappeople getting attacked, in a cliched manner, you guessed it, at night.are evil spirits day sleepers ? are they really afraid of the light ? and why do they attack pots and pans and books and doors ? the people are right there. why do evil spirits wait 80 movie minutes to do something evil ? ie; kill a person. thats why theyre ''evil'' right ? evil spirits are not evil because they mess up the house, right ?no way was i going to love my gf enough to join her at any theater to watch this. thankfully, she hated part 1 almost as much as i did. we both decided that since this is another home movie, lets watch it at home, which is what we did. the remote control made this a more watchable movie.in the end, if you like HORROR movies that limit themselves to being ''creppy'' and you loved p''a'' 1, the innocents, devils backbone, house of the devil, ie any supposed horror movie thats 95% lip flapping, then you will marry p''a'' 2. its more of the same.those, like me and my gf, who absolutely hated p''a'' 1, theres no reason to leave your house IF you want to see if this is as bad as part one.
monolithicmania (01 May 2012)
An Honest Review After Just Seeing It
i saw the first movie at one of those midnight screenings with a gigglygossipy audience. i really believe the reactions of the crowd played animportant part in the experience. the screams accented the events morethan any kind of score could. i left the theater totally refreshed athaving been truly scared. all the gimmicks worked. the internet hype. the tease. it worked likethe movie. you could tell smart people were behind it. i assumed the worst for the sequel. the first one set such a standardfor me. but it hit all the right buttons. this one seemed more COOLthan SCARY. one scene in particular. so i don't know. i guess you either love it or hate it. either it allworks or it doesn't. i shall say no more.the best movie experiences happen when you don't know what to expect.try to ignore the ads and the trailers as much as possible.see it.
hottheadliberty (30 April 2012)
Great movie go see it
many of you people have some issues that you need to resolve. i willstart with the people that say they were not scared at all by thisfilm. this means that either you are a liar or that you lack theimagination and personality to engross yourself into the entertainmentmedium that you are taking part in.next group: "it was disturbing but not scary." get a clue people!scary, frightening, horrifying, creepy, eerie, disturbing. it's all thesame it still invokes the very same fight or flight response that fearis supposed to. you say it was disturbing because it makes you feelbetter than admitting you got scarednext group: "it looked just like the first one" yes it did because itwas the same type of film it is meant to convey a sense of "this justmight be a true story" feeling. i would not be as drawn into it if itwas filmed like other movies. you are supposed to feel like you arewatching a true story and the only evidence that was found was thesecurity and camcorder tapes.the bottom line is this; when you read a review think of the wordspeople use and what it is exactly they are griping about. and as far asmy review goesif you want a movie that is going to make you think twice about openingyour bedroom door to see what that loud noise was then see this one
enuffenuff-293-933673 (23 April 2012)
Bad, cheapskate movie with no real lot
This movie uses the same footage about 20 or more times to pad out thelength. The story is complete rubbish and shows none of the actualevents that supposedly occurred. Despite the house having a full set ofinstalled cameras.The reused footage just shows shots of all the roomswith nothing happening at all.Do not bother watching it, it's a boring go nowhere movie.The actors are bad, the plot thin.The main male character dismisses all evidence of "demons" with a laughdespite seeing it on video, live.He's a complete idiot and the women must be ready tok ill him for hisignorance and ill founded confidence.
(23 April 2012)
This is GOOD!
This review is from: Paranormal Activity 2 (DVD) As usual, the packaging was excellent, I got the movie in brand new condition, and it was a very good movie as well.
(23 April 2012)
Absolutely the Scariest Movie I've Ever Seen!
I'm a horror junkie so it takes a lot to scare me. Paranormal Activity got to me just a bit. It's just the juxtaposition of middle class normalcy with a demonic haunting. Everything is understated and the tension builds to a shattering conclusion. I had to see PA 2 just to see if they were able to sustain the terror that the first movie had created. I was not disappointed. This is actually a prequel to the first movie as you find out at the very beginning. The filming this time is mostly from home security cameras with a few bits from a hand held camcorder. Things start slowly with just a few bumps being heard in the night. The only person to notice anything is the Hispanic nanny who tries to warn the family and cleanse the house of evil spirits. Of course, no one takes her seriously. And things begin to get worse (who could have guessed?). I don't want to give any more away but I will say that this is the first horror movie that I have ever seen which actually scared me so bad, it brought tears to my eyes. If you have a weak bladder, you should probably wear your Depends. I am not exaggerating when I say that the last 10-15 minutes of this movie could be dangerous to your health if you have a bad heart. Of course, it probably didn't help that I went to a midafternoon matinee on the day after Halloween. There were only 3 other people in the theater. I had a whole row to myself in a dark and mostly empty theater - believe me, it's not the way you should watch this movie. It's definitely a worthy successor to Paranormal Activity, in fact, I think it's scarier. Kudos to the writer(s) and director of these movies. An original horror movie is a rare thing and they have now given us two. So, fellow horror fans, don't miss PA 2.
danzeisen (22 April 2012)
Could have been SO much better
I love a good horror story, and the premise behind this is a good one-that the sins of the "Father" may be paid for by the "Son." There arestrange occurrences in the household, including the house being trashedduring a supposed break in. This prompts the installation of videocameras with recorders to record events in and outside of the house.The daughter stumbles across something on the internet suggesting thatthere may be a demon in the house. This is seconded by the nanny, whosenses an evil presence. Sounds like a kind of scary premise, right?Well, that's about it- the premise is never developed. While We learnthat the mother and her sister experienced "Disturbances" when theywere growing up- we never learn what was the nature of them, only thatthey do not talk about them. We never learn if there was an ancestorthat made a "Deal with the devil," it is brought up and suggested andthe movie fleshed out with that premise just accepted. However, it isnever explored in any way- and that really makes the plot WEAK. I know it will seem a cheap shot but I will make it anyway- on the castlisting on IMDD the camera installer man is listed at the top. He gaveperhaps the most solid performance of any of the actors and actresses,so perhaps it was meant that way. Three stars is my rating- a good premise developed with a weak plot andmediocre acting only goes so far. The sad part is that this could havebeen so good, and so frightening. My gut tells me, like other reviewershave mentioned, that this was a rush job to capitalize on the firstmovie, and not an attempt at a good, memorable movie- as it is not.
Review total: 20, showing from 1 to 20