The Conjuring 2

What do we have here? Two solid jump-scares, but otherwise it's a compilation of the most overused horror tropes and techniques we've seen in dozens of other genre-related films, and the 1970s horror films Wan refers to did it better. On top of that, there's a script that's just stupid, to the point of slamming the door louder than the ghost could. In the first half, Wan is still coaching with ease, but the second half is just a festival of stupidity and ineptitude. During some scenes, like the interrogation of the ghost ergo the girl with a mouthful of water, I felt ashamed of the filmmakers. But I won’t condemn Wan, he still knows how to polish a turd, like in the excellent prequel, which was simply better in many ways. (31/10/2016)

Wan is doing the same thing for the thousandth time, but he still knows how to tighten the strings famously, even though he uses the same thing and you actually feel a bit ashamed that you keep eating it up ("My home!"). This is true of the first half. The second half is a bit of a muddled screenwriting mess, where the supremacy of the ethereal child cast is ended by special effects and narrative imprudence. The first film is dramaturgically tighter, although it is actually about the same thing. (08/06/2016)

Wan has obviously run out of horror ammo. Visually, it again attacks the atmospheric mastery and imagination of Guillermo del Toro, but in terms of content it’s desperately boring and mired in scenes that are simply passé given the genre's recent years. The runtime reeks of an attempt to establish the warmest possible sympathy with the victims and Warren, which is understandable, but the horror filler is so bland this time that we are left with creative intentions rather than a truly "ghostly" and nerve-wracking experience. The day after the screening I hardly remember a single truly scary moment, apart from the hilarious final 15 minutes. The simpler and more straightforward Lights Out stuck in my head incomparably more. 50% (30/08/2016)

Camera looks left – nothing. Camera looks right – nothing either. Camera looks left again – still nothing, so it looks right again – nothing. Something falls from above. INNOVATION!!! Wan really tries his hardest, and his smooth sailing of the camera through the house at atypical angles keeps the boredom-bar still somehow hovering around average, but you can't win if your story is as worn out as the socks of a child with cerebral palsy. I like him better when he's filming footage of Paul Walker's funeral than when he's chasing a pissed-off nun around the house. Farmiga and Wilson aspire to be the whitest, straightest couple ever to grace the movie screen. (30/09/2016)

Conjured by the mainstream. Exactly the same as the first one: almost flawless craftsmanship wrapped in ghost-story clichés where nothing really interesting happens. No tension, no surprising twist, not even any interesting jump-scares (there are jump-scares, and they are effective, but they are classic, nothing fun). The ghosts also look pretty weak from up close, the scariest one is the portrait of the nun. It’s more than two hours long, completely unwarranted given how simple everything is. The efforts to generate fear for the character of Ed Warren are in vain, in the previous film nothing happens to anyone in the end, and it’s clear that nothing will happen to anyone here, either. In short, a horror safe space, which is exactly what horror shouldn’t be. It can be safely recommended to the people unable to appreciate indie horror films with higher artistic values, that are also sharper and more demanding on the viewer (knock, knock). Unfortunately these days studios won’t offer anything better. The first time was a lot of fun, but, if we count the Insidious films, this is Wan’s fourth stop in the same building already, and that’s too much. For the next one, he should stay in the genre, but pick another sub-genre. (09/06/2016)