The Conjuring 2

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)

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. (01/11/2016)

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. (09/06/2016)

James Wan's The Conjuring 2 was the clear dark horse of this year, and even though I find it a bit weaker than the first part, it will probably still take the first place this year. Wan's signature is evident in every aspect. Excellent camera work, impressive interiors, when a scare is supposed to come it doesn't and vice versa (Wan is just great at this), and I have to praise the villains, the Nun and the Crooked man were so amazing that I want to see a solo movie with them (The Nun is even confirmed already). The first hour suffocates with a pretty aggressive pace where almost every five minutes you don’t know what's coming next, but after the Warrens arrive there is a pretty long pause where I was bored at times, for which I also take off a star. The finale, though shorter, is decent. The exorcism in the basement in the first one was more intense though. As far as scares go, only two impressed me, but that's more due to the number of horror films I've seen and my resistance to scares. There isn't and won't be anything better in the horror genre, and that needs to be acknowledged. Story 7/10, Atmosphere 9/10, Gore 0/10, Visuals 8/10, Action 6/10, Suspense 8/10, Humor 3/10. Entertainment 8/10, Scares 7/10. 85%. (26/06/2016)

Given the time James Wan took to make the sequel to the best American ghost movie in recent years, The Conjuring 2 is surprisingly unsurprising. Newcomers might be stunned by his amazing style, as he is one level higher than all of his horror genre colleagues, but those who know him well need some added value in the form of a good screenplay, which is missing here. The change of setting to England is refreshing, but the course of solving the Hodgson case is a step back in its abundant use of genre clichés. (27/06/2016)