The Conjuring 2

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. (06/08/2016)

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. (10/31/2016)

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% (08/30/2016)

130-min footage is treading water in terms of genre. Moreover, it´s treading the same water that hundreds of movies already did before (literally, Enfield has already been portrayed before) and in the same style and in a better way (and also in a worse way, that´s for sure). Wan knows well what he is doing, but he still was unable to reveal scary scenes too early (which is his long-term and recurring weak point), so instead of being frightened to death you are only surprised that you are supposed to be scared. On top of that, the running time that includes a lot of padding is simply way too long. Another weak point is that movie is too flashy and some scenes are just randomly put one after another. Thy only thing what is missing apart from demon, scarecrow from a nursery thyme, obsessive child and poltergeist is clown, Ash with a chainsaw or Ghost Busters. On the other hand, in addition to the excellent craftsmanship, it´s well-paced and has several brilliant scenes that still keep the whole thing afloat. So, as a result it´s Wan's standard, only this time much longer and honestly, when did you see a continuation of a scary movie in the movie theater, which despite all its weak points was also a quality film? (06/08/2016)

I didn't see the first part, and just the trailer for the second part gave me goosebumps, but I finally decided to watch it anyway. Within the horror genre, this is definitely an above average piece of filmmaking, where the tension is very well built up from hints to honest scares, and the thick atmosphere could be seriously chainsawed through in places. The cast was great, the story and script were well written and not too predictable as is often the case. I found myself with my fingers in front of my eyes during more than one scene - I'm not a good viewer for these kinds of films - but at least it's clear that the film evoked the target emotions in me, so it worked as planned. A solidly terrifying two hours that really won't leave you feeling rested. (12/24/2016)