The Conjuring 2

I’m glad that James Wan didn’t turn his back to the horror movie genre, as he had originally claimed, and that he filmed another mysterious story from the life beyond the stage. And I honestly say that I ignored the illogicalities – and there were quite a few of those – and I was enjoying the high-quality cinematography, which took me to places I didn’t expect and that also told a story that was interesting from its beginning to its end. I also have to add that I liked how the director didn’t necessarily lean only towards the horror movie as a genre and that he had a go at a couple of funny moments executed in proper British dry humor. I also thought that some of the scenes that looked like they fell out of Tim Burton’s head were pretty great. I simply didn’t watch this movie to get scared. I was mainly looking forward to the movie telling another ghost story, which is something that has been quite fashionable recently. (09/19/2016)

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 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)

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)

Slightly worse than the first film, which was less flashy and explicit. The first few tens of minutes nevertheless show that Wan is a master of timing and the mise-en-scène work, through which the camera moves with frighteningly distorting certainty. In fact, after extraordinarily intense and painfully stretched scenes of scares, I wondered how much more I could bear, but (un)fortunately a passage of pathetic conversations, an ode to a Christian marriage, and the skill of Patrick Wilson, who has time to sing Elvis, the repair of a broken garbage, and driving away Satan, occur. This time, the adoration of the Warren couple is beyond an indulgent smile and the film does not achieve the sharpness of the introduction. Nevertheless, the spooky satanic extravaganza does not lose its claws, which one appreciates the most when the lights go out in the evening after the screening and the whole thing takes shape in your head. P. S. Marilyn Manson can act... like during the times of the Antichrist. [70%] (06/09/2016)