Directed by:
James WanCinematography:
Don BurgessComposer:
Joseph BisharaCast:
Vera Farmiga, Patrick Wilson, Madison Wolfe, Frances O'Connor, Lauren Esposito, Benjamin Haigh, Simon McBurney, Franka Potente, Patrick McAuley (more)VOD (4)
Plots(1)
Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson star as Lorraine and Ed Warren, who, in one of their most terrifying paranormal investigations, travel to north London to help a single mother raising four children alone in a house plagued by malicious spirits. (Warner Bros. UK)
Videos (16)
Reviews (13)
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.
()
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.
()
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%.
()
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.
()
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?
()
Ads