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)

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)

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)

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)

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)