The Conjuring 2 (2016)

[CJohn]

Discuss it

[Blankments]

The Conjuring 2 is a sequel that thinks bigger is better, in good and bad ways. The Warrens get more character development, and the haunting is taking place in a city now, instead of a remote farmland. Yet, the urban landscape strongly takes away from the feeling the Warrens and the Hodgsons are isolated in their terror, and thus, the great atmosphere of the first film is mostly gone. The Hodgsons also feel underdeveloped, and Wan, Johnson, and the Hayeses are clearly more interested in how the Warrens' lives have developed. The film is still highly enjoyable though, having good scares and some fun characters. Patrick Wilson once again proves he should be a big Hollywood star with his immense likability and everyman-ness. Vera Farmiga is good too, but has much less to work with.

 

However, the only scenes where this film comes close to matching the masterful first one is when Wan showcases the pure humanity of the characters. From Ed Warren serenading terrified children with Elvis to Maurice Grosse confiding in Lorraine about his lost daughter, these are the moments that show why Wan is a spectacular director. He knows how to draw out primal fear, and that's by making sure to include primal compassion and understanding of his film's inhabitants. The Conjuring 2 may not be the masterpiece the first film was, but it is still a very good horror film, and, looking at both Conjurings and Furious 7, more evidence to James Wan being one of the human mainstream directors out there. B

[Ozymandias]

Enjoyed this a lot.  Consistently entertaining, great main child actor, high points are higher than those in the first, and fuck that demon nun face and and the crooked man(hat and cane dude) were creepy as shit.

 

Its a shame James Wan is now focused on some stupid fish man movie, dude is excellent at horror.

 

A-

[jb007]

It is quite good. It also does not fall prey to dull horror sequel syndrome a la The Ring 2.

 

There are some good scary moments. 

 

B+

[somebody85]

Look, no possession movie will ever top The Exorcist. It's just not possible. With that said The Conjuring 2 was pretty damn good. In whole the original is a stronger film but this one had some set pieces that were better. The thing that took this one down was the same thing that plagued The Poltergeist remake last year.

This movie is at it's best when it focuses on tension and not trying to go balls to the wall. The problem is the craziest stuff that was shown from the finale in the original is on display pretty early here so they are forced to keep ramping it up. And at times it's just way too much and becomes a CGI mess which took me completely out of it. Also it's a really long movie (especially for horror) and there are only so many times you can do these tricks before they start to feel repetitive.

So anyway, with the negatives out of the way the first half is a blast and carries a lot of the same haunted attraction atmosphere of the original. I didn't find it scary (though 2 jump scares sort of got me) but I could see how many would. You could totally feel the jitters and uneasiness in my full theater when something was about to happen. And surprisingly the trailers didn't give all the big scenes away and I thought for sure they did. The score and cinematography is right on target with it's predecessor.

 

The acting is still excellent from all involved especially from the little girl (who it all rides on). She delivers some great emotional beats and I definitely cared about her character. The scene where she's describing to Lorraine how she feels so ostracized and lost all of her friends was really sad. I also bought her reason for using the Ouija board.

 

And I loved how they recreated those environments in comparison to the old photographs too.

The real big negatives:
Crooked Man...Damn I wish they took every scene with him out except the one time he shows up in the tent. He shouldn't have chased Ed after that. The scene with the transforming dog took me right out of this movie for a little while. Like I know James Wan loves creepy toys but they could have done so more with that idea instead of a huge CGI beast. I get it Slenderman...but it still wasn't necessary. 
The final part of the climax. The nun demon shows up and again, the movie goes full CGI. It just felt really tacky after everything that came before it.

I also caught that Wan foreshadowed the demons name before Lorraine came up with it in her flashback. If you look on the bookcase at the Warrens house, it spells those letters and I was wondering if that was a hint. I think it showed up in a scene before that too because I recognized it just sitting in the background. I always look out for subliminal things like that. So it was a cool aha moment.

Other negatives:
The length - some of this could have been cut to make a smoother picture. It went on too long.
The plot got kind of convoluted at the end. It wasn't Bill who was haunting the family, it was the same demon from Amityville (and I love that throwback for the opening scene). From the train scene on, it sort of felt rushed. I dunno this twist will work for some but kind of didn't for me. There also wasn't much effort to even kill the demon after all that. Lorraine said it's name and that was it. (Again I really wish it ended as strong as the first hour)

The scene where the little girl goes to hide under the blanket. The demon just pulls it off when I think a more effective scare would have been for it to just show up behind her under it - ala Sixth Sense.
The totally felt like a studio film and the house looked like a Hollywood set. I like a lot of indie horror for this reason.

 

It's really hard for a horror sequel to be better then its predecessor and this does not succeed. But man is it way better then many others who try like Insidious 2 and the really awful Sinister 2. So far the best horror movie of the year and hardly a letdown. I wish they would have left the budget alone and shown some restraint though.

Overall: 7.5-7.7/10

Edited June 12, 2016 by somebody85

[The Stingray]

I second most of what somebody85 is saying.

 

+ scary/creepy, pretty good mix of building tension and jump scares, though, as always, I wish there was even more of a focus on the former
+ solid performances from the ghost hunters and the little girl
+ strong first half

 

- paint-by-numbers plot (we have seen this like a million times before)
- big, loud blockbuster ending (the movie works best when it stays simple and grounded)
- the crooked man (it took me out of the movie whenever he showed up)

 

B
 

Edited June 12, 2016 by The Stingray

[La Binoche]

There's nothing in this movie we haven't seen before, either in other horror movies or in the previous Conjuring, but James Wan makes it work. He just gets horror. He's a master of long tracking shots, of taking his time toying with us before delivering a great jump scare. The more of his films we see, though, the more we get used to his style and the less impact his scares have, but he's still miles above most other horror directors. 

 

I do wish the movie had been a bit shorter, had used a bit less CGI and had ended on a stronger (less facile) note. 

B+

Edited June 12, 2016 by La Binoche

[Kalderic]

On 6/12/2016 at 2:20 AM, somebody85 said:

I also caught that Wan foreshadowed the demons name before Lorraine came up with it in her flashback. If you look on the bookcase at the Warrens house, it spells those letters and I was wondering if that was a hint. I think it showed up in a scene before that too because I recognized it just sitting in the background. I always look out for subliminal things like that. So it was a cool aha moment.

 

I noticed this as well! When she is in the kitchen talking to her husband at the kitchen table, i'm pretty sure the letters "vala" could be seen spelled out with alphabet blocks in the window, as well as the letter V was very prominent throughout the whole kitche, including a heart hung on the wall that had the "V" in the word "love" very large. I am assuming all that was intentional. Now I want to go back to see if it was really there or if I was just seeing things.

 

The movie itself was not as good as the first in my opinion. The first left me breathless many times lingering in this muck of dread that wouldn't let go. It had some jump scares, but these moments of spellbinding terror are what really set it apart from other horror films, even this one. While it was still good, and I loved that the characters were looked at a bit more than a typical horror film, it felt long, and was a bit overcooked, especially by the end. A solid effort, but a bit disappointing if you ask me.

 

B

[somebody85]

3 hours ago, Kalderic said:

 

I noticed this as well! When she is in the kitchen talking to her husband at the kitchen table, i'm pretty sure the letters "vala" could be seen spelled out with alphabet blocks in the window, as well as the letter V was very prominent throughout the whole kitche, including a heart hung on the wall that had the "V" in the word "love" very large. I am assuming all that was intentional. Now I want to go back to see if it was really there or if I was just seeing things.

 

The movie itself was not as good as the first in my opinion. The first left me breathless many times lingering in this muck of dread that wouldn't let go. It had some jump scares, but these moments of spellbinding terror are what really set it apart from other horror films, even this one. While it was still good, and I loved that the characters were looked at a bit more than a typical horror film, it felt long, and was a bit overcooked, especially by the end. A solid effort, but a bit disappointing if you ask me.

 

B

The name is definitely fully spelled out in alphabet blocks on the bookshelf when Lorraine is I believe talking to her daughter.

[Goffe]

It doesn't mix the two stories nearly as seamlessly as the first, almost goes parody territory a couple times, and it feels long, very very long, with practically nothing happening in the first half.

 

But I liked it, the performances are top notch and Wan is just a master at what he does. Also, I was literally holding my breath in the climax and it gains steam as it goes along, which is a rarity nowadays.

 

70/100

[apsarasisodia]

I loved Conjuring part 1 a lot. Haven't watched Conjuring 2 yet but after reading so many positive reviews I bet I should watch it this weekend with my family. I want to ask one thing, for those who haven't watched the previous movie, can they understand the part 2?

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Free Online Ads Sites

Edited June 16, 2016 by apsarasisodia

[RandomCat]

8 hours ago, apsarasisodia said:

I loved Conjuring part 1 a lot. Haven't watched Conjuring 2 yet but after reading so many positive reviews I bet I should watch it this weekend with my family. I want to ask one thing, for those who haven't watched the previous movie, can they understand the part 2?

 

Part 2 is stand alone. There is a few nods to the first in props, and I believe one brief line of dialogue. But this nothing in this movie requires the first to be seen.

[Webslinger]

It's not quite as good as its predecessor, but The Conjuring 2 registers as the rare solid horror sequel. James Wan still has a terrific sense of how to develop at atmosphere of dread, and the visual and aural artistry of his past films are every bit as evident here as they've ever been. The film is admittedly a bit too long and its third act doesn't match the insane intensity of the first film (which had me literally gripping the armrest on my seat), but it's still a highly-entertaining experience that employs the tropes of its genre with greater care and effectiveness than the shoddy, half-hearted efforts that will undoubtedly follow in the remainder of this year.

 

B+

[apsarasisodia]

Wow, thanks guys. I will definitely watch Conjuring 2 with my friends this weekend. Hope to have good chills and horror experience in the theater.

[NetTV4U]

This movie is not big treat for horror movie lovers. Because they are expecting more when compare to Conjuring-1. But this movie has not fulfill that much. This is one time watch only. This is for my opinion about this movie.

[DAJK]

Still one of the best modern horror films I've seen. Scary, well acted, superbly directed, the story is well-crafted, although critics are right when they say it follows a lot of common horror tropes. Oh well, still good.

 

7.5/10. However, this is the grade I have the first when I first watched it. But that was a movie that really grew on me and now I rate a 9/10. We'll see how this one ages.

[RobinHood26]

James Wan shoots the shit outta this movie. But overall I agree with Stingray and Blanks.

 

B (85) 

[TheMovieman]

Having watched both Conjuring movies two nights in a row, this one is just as good with some effective scares, though the first had superior scares, while the story this time was a bit better. It is a win that a horror sequel managed to at least be equal to its predecessor.

 

****/*****, (B+, 8.1/10, 3.25/4)

[mattmav45]

The Conjuring franchise has attained a good amount of acclaim and interest from horror fans in recent years.  Unfortunately, I can't join the party in this respect.  Granted, they look great, there's tangible atmosphere, and some scenes are absolutely unnerving, but in the end the most pronounced aspect of these films is the distinct lack of bite and intensity.  Everything is set-up for a superior horror viewing, but the pay-off in both films tends to be lacking.

 

The set-up is damn near identical to the first.  The first half consists of the haunting of the Hodgson family, and the second half chronicles Lorraine and Ed Warren's attempts of ridding the family of the dastardly creatures.  With such a familiar set-up, once can only hope that the film differentiates itself from the original in other areas.  Unfortunately for the viewer, such is not the case here.

 

Above all, this kind of story just feels tired to me.  It does feature a classical look and some camera work is inspiring, but in the end flickering lights, banging doors, and things moving on their own tend to get old pretty damn quickly.  More importantly, above all horror cinema is an exercise in tension and intensity, and outside of a couple of scenes, there's very little here that has the requisite level of menace to oblige in this respect.

 

The best scenes of the film are those that heavily depend on quiet and nuance.  Lorraine's encounter with the demon with that painting is legitimately terrifying, and Ed's talk with the demon in the background while he is facing away is fantastic horror cinema.  Unfortunately, the majority of the film tends to be much more mundane in its execution.  

 

Much like the first film, it's good film-making, but somewhat mundane horror cinema.

Edited November 1, 2016 by mattmav45

[Morieris]

Does humans and character interactions stronger than the first one, the story...easily predictable. The actual ... happening isn't bad, it's just

 

Spoiler

The witch possesses the spirit of an old man? I wish there had been more about that and not The Crooked Man just terrorizing children.

 

The jump scares were a little predictable. The first one was rated R because the atmosphere was too spooky. That's amazing work that isn't present here, it just takes the easy way out.