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. (24/12/2016)

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)

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. (19/09/2016)

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)

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)