REEL LIFE: ‘Paranormal Activity 2’ spooks and satisfies moviegoers, even those new to series

As the final days of October approach, the season for tricks, treats and things that go bump in the night is upon us: It’s midterm season. To match that mood, October is a good month for horror movies and the people who love them.

Me? My Halloween movie selections consist of what’s showing on ABC Family’s “13 Days of Halloween” marathon (I’m particularly a fan of the “Halloweentown” series).

I’m usually too jumpy and too inclined to imagine monsters in the closet to enjoy horror movies, but every so often I’ll take a gamble and see something that could potentially scar me for a few days. Then “Paranormal Activity 2″ came out on Friday.

Maybe I just like an underdog story. The first “Paranormal Activity” was made with about how much it costs to live in the dorms for a year ““ $11,000.

It made seven times that its opening weekend and went on to gross more than $100 million. “Paranormal Activity” caught lightning in a bottle the same way “The Blair Witch Project” did ““ documentary level realism, shaky cameras and effective use of random noises combined with what could be called “chump change” in the world of movie budgets (“Paranormal Activity 2″ was budgeted for $2.7 million).

The difference is that, while “The Book of Shadows: Blair Witch Project 2″ won a Razzie Award in 2001 for Worst Remake or Sequel, “Paranormal Activity 2″ is rumored to be better than its predecessor.

The problem for Paramount has been trying to maintain the independent, viral feel of the first one without relying solely on the word of mouth that made the first one popular, said Ben Fritz in a blog post for the Los Angeles Times.

I wanted to see whether the movie could stand alone for people, like me, who haven’t seen the first one.

Granted, sequels always seem to be reaching back to reference the film(s) before them, but to be a good film it needs to stand on its own plot-wise. So I went to see it (by myself, on a Saturday night).

After 91 minutes of awkward noises and creative use of ways to incorporate a video camera into everyday life, I decided that it didn’t actually matter that I’d never seen the first one.

“Paranormal Activity 2″ is like a crock pot meal. It cooks slowly and gradually and is that much more rewarding at the end because of it. It’s a nice alternative to films like “The Ring” series (the equivalent of a TV dinner) or the “Saw” series (a McDonald’s meal, before they started serving better food).

The acting was good, and the movie was funny in a true-to-life sort of way, at least until it got scary.

The second film lived up to the hype of the first one in terms of feeling like you’re peeking in on the private suffering of a middle-class suburban family. The scariest thing in the film is the strategic use of random loud noises, pots falling, doors slamming and other things that can be explained away logically until things get “Ghostbuster” serious.

As Grant Penney, a first-year pre-political science student, explained to me in the theater after the movie, “Paranormal Activity 2″ is a prequel and a sequel, in that most of its plot takes place in the weeks before the first movie and includes a final scene that takes place after the first movie.

Sitting with him was Natalie Dreyer, a first-year undeclared student, who added that the plot of the second film explained the events in the first one.

After seeing “Paranormal Activity 2″, I could see how it would tie into the first one, but I wasn’t bothered that I hadn’t seen the first one and, because I was properly spooked by the second one, decided I probably never would.

Especially if I can’t find someone to watch it with me.

If you stopped watching “Halloweentown” movies after “Kalabar’s Revenge,” e-mail John at [email protected].