The Conjuring 2

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? (2016-06-08)

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%] (2016-06-09)

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. (2016-12-24)

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. (2016-06-09)

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%. (2016-06-26)