The Conjuring 2

Camera looks left – nothing. Camera looks right – nothing either. Camera looks left again – still nothing, so it looks right again – nothing. Something falls from above. INNOVATION!!! Wan really tries his hardest, and his smooth sailing of the camera through the house at atypical angles keeps the boredom-bar still somehow hovering around average, but you can't win if your story is as worn out as the socks of a child with cerebral palsy. I like him better when he's filming footage of Paul Walker's funeral than when he's chasing a pissed-off nun around the house. Farmiga and Wilson aspire to be the whitest, straightest couple ever to grace the movie screen. (30/09/2016)

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? (08/06/2016)

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. (09/06/2016)

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%] (09/06/2016)

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. (08/06/2016)