The Conjuring 2

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)

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)

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. (06/27/2016)

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)

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. (06/09/2016)