The Conjuring 2 (2016) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
479 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
An uncommonly strong sequel
mungflesh2 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The Conjuring 2 doesn't waste time in bringing the scares in. By that, I mean you're pretty much in the thick of it within three minutes or so, being given some background (via another very notorious haunting incident) for what is to follow.

The Warrens are sent on behalf of the church to investigate some paranormal activity which is whipping up a media storm in Enfield, England and, as per the first movie, they go and attempt to work their magic on the situation. As per the first movie, a family is being haunted and they fear for their sanity and lives. There are a few new twists this time round, so all does not play out as before - but it's not a complete departure from the format, which might have made it a bit more gripping in places.

James Wan's trademark visual style is repeated in this movie - his bag of tricks sometimes yielding a sense of deja vu but generally working like a charm. When it's intended to scare, it really does. The scares come a bit more frequently than in the first movie and do manage to build a lot of tension, even if you've seen the original, so well done to Wan for that.

What's really enjoyable about this movie, is its nostalgic recreation of 70s England. Wan has really done a great job of this, which is surprising given that he's not from there. Also, the central support role of Janet Hodgson is pretty crucial to empathising with the Enfield family and Madison Wolfe gives a solid performance.

It's arguable this one is as strong as the first. I really enjoyed it and would recommend it to anyone who enjoyed part one, or indeed likes movies of a haunting or possession theme.

Stick around for the credits - the music is seriously unsettling!
189 out of 257 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A rare horror sequel that delivers the same quality scares as its predecessor, courtesy of returning puppeteer James Wan.
lnvicta14 October 2016
The Conjuring was a shocking horror film. It combined every creepy trope you can think of (ghosts, dolls, music boxes, mirrors, you name it), and it actually worked thanks to a genre-savvy director behind the curtains. James Wan has proved himself a capable producer on projects such as Saw and Insidious, and with The Conjuring, he cemented himself as a master of the genre. It had the perfect amalgam of horror tropes crafted in such a way that felt as fresh and spine-tingling as classic haunted house movies did in the '80s. The Conjuring 2 is another "based on true events" tale that has us follow expert paranormal investigators, the Warrens, this time solving the mystery of the Enfield Haunting.

Similar to the Amityville Haunting, the Enfield Haunting sees an English family plagued with a poltergeist that doesn't seem to enjoy the presence of anyone in the house. What The Conjuring 2 succeeds at is giving us both character development and another great story, which is exactly what a good sequel should do. The acting is uniformly great, but the true star of the film is James Wan. His shots are designed in a way to imbue dread and stir it around our heads for a while before hitting us with the scare. That's what true horror lacks these days, patience. The longer the anticipation is built and the more atmosphere is created, the more unsettling the situation becomes until it's like a ticking time bomb that you anxiously wait to go off. It uses familiar tropes, such as self-starting children's toys, slamming doors, and smashing furniture, but they're used as tools to mask the truly frightening fact that this family is up against something utterly beyond their control - they're hopeless, and we can feel it.

Mind you, The Conjuring 2 isn't without its faults. The runtime is a blatant offender. Pushing the 2-hour mark is never a good idea for a horror film, and some fat definitely could have been trimmed. There are a handful of cheap scares, audio scares to be precise - when the music gets extremely loud all of a sudden and you find yourself more annoyed than scared, quickly reaching for the remote to turn the volume down at the risk of enduring another ear drum shattering noise. It also doesn't feel as unique as its predecessor, understandably due to the very nature of sequels, but there are moments that drag on long enough to remind you that the first Conjuring didn't have these plodding plot points. For example, it takes about an hour for the Warrens to even get to England. Also, while in the haunted house, they're able to sleep through some horrifying sounds that would snap a bear right out of hibernation. But these dull spots and plot inconsistencies are few and far between.

The Conjuring 2 is how a horror sequel should be done. It's slick, stylish, fun, and at times, quite terrifying. When a horror movie makes me want to turn on the lights as I go roaming around the house at night, I consider that a job well done. The Conjuring 2, well done.
53 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The Conjuring 2 is best when it sticks to the basics
AgentDice8 June 2016
First, the all-important question: Is The Conjuring 2 scary? Like, jump out of your seat, watch through your outstretched fingers scary? The answer to that is "yes." Under James Wan's direction, even the most clichéd haunted-house tropes (and this movie is bursting with them) are genuinely creepy, and although the movie isn't overly reliant on jump scares, the ones it does use—well, they work. On a lizard-brain level, The Conjuring 2 taps into the universal childhood fear of the dark, and some of its simplest moments—like a little girl hiding under the covers with a flashlight—are its most effective, bolstered by skillfully executed sound design and Don Burgess' gloomy cinematography.

Speaking of tropes, that's where the "based on a true story" bit comes in. The main plot of the film revolves around a real-life incident known as the Enfield Poltergeist, an extremely well-documented case of a supposed ghost who terrorized the Hodgson family of North London from 1977 to 1979 and was apparently a fan of the classics: knocking on walls, shaking beds, throwing furniture, and even the occasional haunted kid's toy. And as malevolent spirits often do, it picked on one of the children in particular, 11-year-old Janet Hodgson (Madison Wolfe). Call it a collective delusion, or a desperate cry for attention from a disturbed child. Or call it what the movie very explicitly calls it: The Devil.

With this installment, the Conjuring movies may have overtaken The Exorcist as the most Christian of horror franchises, taking place in a universe where the Catholic Church is the spiritual S.H.I.E.L.D. and demon hunters Ed (Patrick Wilson) and Lorraine Warren (Vera Farmiga) its holy roller super-agents. The film opens with the Warrens investigating the famous Amityville case, during the course of which Lorraine first encounters the hellish presence that will haunt her for the next few years. Fearing for his life, she begs her husband to suspend any future paranormal investigations, to which he reluctantly agrees. Until, that is, a priest arrives to give them their next mission: Travel to London and confirm the veracity of reports of a demonically tinged haunting.

Both Farmiga and Wilson are given their chance to shine in spooky set pieces—Farmiga early on in the film, Wilson later. But while they're both convincing in spiritual warrior mode, Wan's decision to play up the romance between the two doesn't quite work. We knew that the Warrens were a happily married couple in the first movie, but having them each individually tell the story of their paranormal love and Ed make suggestive comments about the sleeping arrangements seems odd, maybe because they're flirting in front of a possessed pre-teen whose soul is currently in the process of being swallowed by the Pit. (On the other hand, this is just another day at the office for the Warrens.) The non-horror elements of the film are uneven in general: The score, so effective in the fright scenes, suddenly evokes eye rolls when things start to get sentimental, and there's one scene of unintentional comedy where the film's retro '70s setting—another element downplayed in the first film but foregrounded here—collides with its demonic imagery in an honestly pretty silly way. (The Conjuring 2 shares its predecessor's eye for period details, some of which seem out-and-out ridiculous until they're juxtaposed with photos of their real-life counterparts in the end credits. The on-the-nose pop music gets no such redemption.) That being said, there are also some truly funny moments, like a shot of the Hodgson family running from their haunted house after a particularly intense bout of psychokinetic activity that riffs on smartasses' favorite retort, "Why don't they just move?" (And, for the record, they don't move because it's public housing, and the local council, which is naturally quite skeptical of the whole "ghost" thing, has to approve the relocation.) It's also worth noting that The Conjuring 2 is more than two hours long, allowing for lots of escalation. And while each individual haunting scene can be white-knuckle intense, by the dozenth or so such shock, the film starts to lose momentum. So the final confrontation, when it does come, is a relief in more ways than one. The long running time also allows Wan to overthink his demonology: The main villain, an infernal nun, is appropriately nightmarish, if reminiscent of the veiled "Bride In Black" from Wan's own Insidious. What's less compelling is the insertion of the "Crooked Man," a storybook scarecrow monster that starts spreading Babadook-esque chaos about halfway through and is explained as the demon assuming a form that's familiar to the Hodgsons. Which would be fine, if it weren't for the two familiar forms that the spirit has taken already.

When The Conjuring 2 focuses its efforts on scaring the audience, it succeeds, wildly. And why wouldn't it? Wan's got his horror technique locked down at this point. It's the parts where it wanders away from the basics of creating and releasing tension that prevent it from outdoing its predecessor.
123 out of 190 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Wow!!
m-shellby8 June 2016
Wow wow wow!! I've never been much of a fan of sequels but The Conjuring 2 was incredible. I'm never one to jump at everything 'scary' I see in movies as usually you've seen it all before & let's be honest, nothing really scares you much when your not a teenager anymore. However The Conjuring had me jumping all over the place. At one point I even yelped, much to my embarrassment, but that's why we go to horror movies! To be scared & the conjuring didn't disappoint. All actors gave amazing performances & the story had you never in a state of boredom. Walking out of the cinema I couldn't wait to see what The Conjuring 3 would bring! (Assuming we're lucky enough for another). Definitely a movie to see in the cinema. I give it 10/10!! Great movie!!
175 out of 279 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Clever enough to scare us
n-kefala9 June 2016
"The Conjuring 2" is an excellent example of what more sequels should aspire to be. It is a perfectly executed haunting movie from James Wan that dives deep below the surface to explore themes of vision, belief and faith. The family drama is still right at the center and is quite effective, and Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson are excellent to their roles. The film doesn't give anything new at the horror movie genre, but its set pieces are often impressive, even if sometimes rely a bit on jump scares. The truth is that "The Conjuring 2" has enough suspense and story to have appeal for all kinds of horror fans and is a film clever enough to scare us. nikisreviews.com
70 out of 118 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The Conjuring 2 Review
burnham-4235312 June 2016
The Conjuring 2 is directed by James Wan and stars Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson. The Conjuring 2 is an excellent horror movie and just a flat out great movie in general. From the camera-work to the performances this movie delivers on all fronts. The plot follows a family in poverty in Einfield,England that start experiencing strange happenings in their home. After things become much worse over a period of time The Warrens are contacted to come and help. This is a very scary movie thanks to James Wan's direction from lingering and tracking shots he is truly a master behind the camera. The scares come quite often as scenes will linger and bring a huge sense of tension and get you when your not expecting it bringing some very frightening scenes. Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilsons performances are excellent as you buy into their relationship and learn some lessons on marriage. The children actors have the be given credit too as they are great in this film. These kids are terrified of the haunting and you will feel their dread. I am so satisfied with this film generally people worry about horror sequels usually because they can turn out unsuccessful, but I am happy to report as a big fan of the first movie this is just as great.
69 out of 121 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Genre saturation Showcase.
ferna_oe12 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Don't take me wrong. I did not hate The conjuring 2. It is an enjoyable film, in many terms. But I need to stress out, that this is one of the many films that have come lately, which is absolutely all about selling the product. The Hype. The anticipation. The goal of the producers lies 1 second after the ticket is sold, and not quite 1 second after the film is over. The conjuring 2 takes its context out of a very documented paranormal case which took place in England in 1977. It narrates the story of a family of 5, single mom, and 4 children, which are tormented by a spirit, and who eventually, get to be assisted by experts-in-these-topics Ed and Loraine Warren.

The premise might not be original at all, but it still works. The problem comes when such a premise is used at an attempt to pull off an over 2 hours long feature film.

About 30 minutes in, you will start to notice that this film is desperate. It is desperate to make you scared and live up to its own trailers and expectations. It might succeed on some (mostly children under 14 who sneaked inside the theater or whose irresponsible parents lied about their age at the ticket booth). But seasoned horror film enthusiasts will be able to anticipate almost every single jump-scare or even take a leap of faith and predict the outcome of a whole scene. Why? Because everything that happens in the conjuring 2, you have already seen or experienced in other films. This is the type of film you can watch with a notebook and start checking those clichés as they appear. The effort through which the writers struggled to come out with anything barely original or "never seen" before is noticeable, and every time they fail. Now considering this film is 110+min long, you will get tired quickly of hearing a loud noise, the a scream, and the some generic paranormal door slam, or furniture dash, because it happens a lot, and it get old a lot faster.

Don't get me wrong. It is not a trash film. Production values alone are worth the ticket. The film is beautifully filmed, in dark and ominous colors, and the house looks stunning even in almost 95% darkness. The music is interesting and tense, and the acting is top notch. (And the vile nun got myself quite convinced it was Marilyn Manson) But if you're there for the technical specs of it, you could have gone to other place to watch Citizen Kane.

It saddens me a little, to be witness of the decadence of the horror genre. Where most of the production money goes towards jump-scare roller-coaster rides like this one. The recipe for box office success was found, and they just keep making the same cake with different glazing. You will probably notice that before the film even starts, when you see that 4 trailers, and then you cannot make the difference between the 4 generic horror movies you've been shown. Probably you won't even be able to recall the names of the films. Because it doesn't matter. 3 stars. Enjoyable overall, but terribly generic.
85 out of 154 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Great movie, better than the first one.
sivretta3 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I was really surprised about what an amazing job James Wan did with this sequel. From the very start it captures you and keeps you attached to the screen. There is no way you can get bored. I loved the suspense that goes increasing pretty quickly through the whole film, I could feel my heart in my ears beating faster as the atmosphere grew creeper and creeper. I enjoyed all the small details threw around such as the name of the demon that was showed in the Warren's house more than once in the background, leaving me with the question "Why that word keeps being repeated? Nobody in that house has that name!" only at the end I figured out what it meant. I absolutely adored the whole plot and the plot twist within. Make up and special effects were crazy, they made you get chills running down your spine. The soundtrack was impeccable, it played a big part in creating the right atmosphere. Few jump scares, very well situated, some of them very unpredictable. Didn't see a couple of them coming, at all. I found that Vera Farmiga was absolutely stunning with her performance in this movie. I loved the way Lorraine had her "moment" when stepping in to save her husband condemning the demonic entity back to hell. She was incredibly intense. Personally, I think Patrick Wilson did a better job in this movie compared to the first. I felt like Ed and his relationship with Lorraine was a lot more highlighted. I highly recommend this movie. If you are a fan of the paranormal you can't miss it.
66 out of 118 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Gerne-bending, ground-breaking and an absolute classic
KhangNg198 June 2016
The thing about The Conjuring series is that it screams classic right at the first few scenes and just works its way up from there. While The Conjuring is definitely being remembered as one of the most excellent horror movies in decades, its sequel does even a better job by providing some extra well-done scenes that are not normally seen within the gerne.

But how about the scare part? Is it scary? Definitely yes. Don't bother comparing it to the first one. Just enjoy the movie and you will find yourself holding your breath until the very last moment.

Vera Farmiga was superb. Her presence was so strong, and powerful that she managed to pull the viewer through all kind of emotions. Patrick Wilson was also wonderful indeed. There are some subtle little hints about a sequel here and there in the movie. If those two continues to star (and also with James Wan), there is no doubt that it would be another masterpiece.
90 out of 169 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Definitely scarier than the first!
jdogkg14 June 2016
I was really counting on this movie to raise my scare level to the top, and if you haven't seen this movie, you have no idea what I am talking about! Oh my gosh, this film was freaking terrifying! For three years I was plagued with nightmares of the first movie, and i didn't think any movie could be more scary. Conjuring 2 definitely proved me wrong! Not only were there jump scares but REAL horror, not just being startled by a loud noise but James Wan shows us what real horror is. There were many rising suspense scenes and you have no idea what will happen. That is what scary is! Demons are what true scariness are. What lurks in the darkness is something to be terrified about. And this movie shows us this perfectly. Like I said it does have jump scares, and I appreciated that, why? BECAUSE NONE IF THEM ARE FALSE, they were not a cat jumping out or a character popping out, every single one was real and lived up to the rising suspense that was built up. Not only is it scary but it is an awesome story. As a matter of fact a TRUR STORY. It was very well told and unlike most horror movies today it actually had a PLOT. The twist in the end is brilliant, unpredictable and pieced together the plot elements well. Also greatly shot, greatly acted and great character development. Unlike most horror movies this has Likable CHARACTERS. Unlike most horror movies it's not a gore fest or has countless swear words, it's rated R JUST because of how SCARY it is. I love James Wan he is terrific at what he does. Every horror director now days NEEDS to see the insidious trilogy and of course the 2 conjuring movies. This has restored my faith in horror movies! I definitely recommend it. See it with your spouse, friends, girlfriend or boyfriend (definitely do not bring your kids) and you will have the thrill of a lifetime! By the way you might want to look under your bed tonight! 😉
53 out of 96 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Too dumb to be scary
sosherio20 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
To be fair, the movie is scary (at least if you watch it in a theater) for about one hour, not because of the story, but because of its typical jump scares: the music, the camera movement, the light, and everything else prepares you for something horrible to happen, but it does not happen when you expect it; a couple of seconds later BAM! Even though I don't like jump scares in the movies (for the same reason I don't like them in real life), they can at least scare you. The other supposedly scary parts, like throwing furniture around or making loud and non-sense noises are not scary, but rather dumb and boring.

After one hour, the movie becomes dumb and dumber. I believe the most ridiculous scene is the one that Ed communicates with the Bill's spirit through Janet and tries to talk him out of harassing the family: they first introduce each other; then Ed asks the spirit very nicely to leave the poor family alone; the Bill's spirit argues that this is his home and they should go; Ed replies that Bill is dead, so technically speaking he cannot have a house, etc. In my opinion, knowing who the demon is and what it seeks is bad enough to ruin a horror movie, but bringing the demon into the negotiating table and getting to know him through a face-to-face meeting is beyond my imagination. This ridiculous scene ends with Ed pointing a cross at the Bill's spirit to repel it from Janet's body. I'm really wondering that if a cross is powerful enough to get rid of the evil, does it really have to be pointed at the evil to work?

After this scene, nothing makes any sense any more. We just have to wait for the nights to come, because that's when the bad things happen. But we don't really know what it is that the "demonic presence" of the house wants. If it wants to get rid of the family, it can kill them all quite easily, as it seems to be very powerful: it can throw the furniture around, destroy the walls, control all the objects, teleport people and stick them into the walls or the ceilings. What are the powers and the limits of such demon? In one scene, we see it repelled by a cross; in another scene, it puts on quite a show by rotating several crosses. If the demon is after Ed and Lorraine, why does it devise a plan to make them leave the house? Why don't the family move out from this place? It's not like other haunted house movies when nobody believes the possessed person; in this movie, the paranormal events occur right before everybody's eyes. As I said, there is no logic in this movie at all.

Furthermore, I found most of the "smart" scenes of the movie quite funny as well: the way Ed discovered the actual demon of the house by playing two records simultaneously; or the way Lorraine found out the demon's name in her dream, and the way she just needed to say the demon's name to send it back to hell, and the part that Ed talked to Bill's spirit in the first place.

Finally, I really enjoyed the fact that Ed and Lorraine keep souvenirs of the "cases" they solve.
44 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
"The Conjuring 2" Is Equivalent To Its Predecessor, Diabolically Creepy
pipecax9 June 2016
James Wan is the genuine Sir Alfred Hitchcock of the 21st century

Three years ago, the world went crazy with the 5th invention of the Malay director, James Wan - my king, master and role model -. "The Conjuring" triumphs in critics and box office bringing a breakthrough and resurgence to horror movies in the last decade, it was compared with classics like "The Exorcist" and "The Omen" and is considered as the master jewel of Malayan and the cinematographic of horror. Wan has continuously been providing us great achievements in commercial films, since his major debut as a director with "Saw" in 2004 to his first action film "7 Furious" last year; his shiny and original style to portray suspense and horror through each frame, has made to the director reaches to the top of podium of the films, not only in the horror genre, also the action genre, and we hope more he'll try to experiment.

"The Conjuring 2" opens the same iconic way that its predecessor, now is the famous case of Amityville (112 Ocean Avenue) which reveals to Ed and Lorraine Warren, the renowned paranormal investigators duo. Amityville was the event that gave them renown and recognition to investigators, but not by their horrible experiences, but by unbelief and ignorance of the people, which didn't believe it possible that those things happen. Later, within the film, we continue to validating in a 90s TV Show lack of confidence and credibility of the people towards the Warrens. Ironically, that skepticism would be powered once more with the Enfield Poltergeist, the case more documented to paranormal level. The famous massacre (DeFeo family) has been adapted millions and millions of times a big screen, however, Wan manages to save that gloomy essence of the night of the murder and projects it of a delirious and disturbing way in Lorraine's head, from the first minutes, "HORROR" genre shines.

The Enfield Case is adapted with purity and splendor of a script credited to Carey Hayes and Chad Hayes & James Wan and David Leslie Johnson. Wan dodges references of the two small programs have focused on the event (BBC's "Ghostwatch" and Timothy Spall's miniseries) to develop to Ed and Lorraine in the story (in real life, Warrens had not the least significance in the case, they only evidenced it one night). The film takes its time - somebody says that enough, I for one, the more see James's delights more I go crazy - to introduces the destabilized life of Peggy Hodgson (Frances O'Connor). The events happened in a interval between 1977 and 1979, to capture each sublime moment of the epoch, it was vital the intervention of the Department of costume led by Kristin Burke, the Department of light and art led by Fiona Gavin, A. Todd Holland and Andrew Rothschild, which not exaggerated in capturing the atmosphere of the 70s and 80s. Wan is amazing to recreate complex and refined milieus and sets, every shadow, square, furniture, door, toy and even each color play a fundamental role in the creation of the style of the director, a director who is delicately precise with his details, even though was a humble house, without many luxuries or support tools, the visual tension is concurrent.

On a night as any, Hodgson family is sleeping peacefully after a tiring day. Two of the four children, Janet (Madison Wolfe) and Margaret (Lauren Esposito) are awakened abruptly from their nap by an unknown entity, immediately, they go to tell what happened them to her mother, who refuses to believe and finds an Ouija board manually made by her daughters. Next day, harassment persist more sharply up to the point that the mother experiences with her own eyes paranormal events - James's interesting proposal to not to fall into the cliché that nobody believes them. Meanwhile, a suggestive sub-plot takes place in Warren family. Lorraine tends to keep fragments of each case and in their latest investigations, she sees to the Demon Nun (Bonnie Aarons), a superb and shocking demonic nun who torments them with a sinister intent, that purpose will intertwine of a sumptuous way with Hodgson's ending (which never happened).

Wan knows how to distort every trick in his favor, rung by rung construction makes that final climax has really earned. Wan is distinguished by the ability to frighten or intimidate the audience with shots both day as at night, he knows play and combine the tools that possesses, knows to keep constant tone of his film, he doesn't allow his audience to sleep, and even though this time he uses to more jump-scares than its predecessor, are equally enjoyable and are not shamelessly used. All of the above is essential in the foundations, however, the actors take all the credit Ed, Lorraine, Peggy and her four children (especially Janet) are fabulous, measured and charismatic.

"The Conjuring 2" is credited with the title "Horror film of the year" and is used for viewing the constant advancement of its director within the genre, it's hard to watch and hear, the film is not suitable for hearts or minds weak, "The Conjuring 2" an instant classic.
76 out of 150 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
An Honest Review
generationofswine15 April 2017
This is rated "R" and it's hard to believe...but let's face it, scary movies just aren't that scary anymore.

Not that many of them ever were. And even then few have actually provided the constant nightmares of The Exorcist...

But The Conjuring 2 feels like it's going for the PG scares to not lose audiences.

The potential is there, but the director is flying with one hand on the chicken switch and pulls out of everything that's not worse than a jump-scare.

We have the potential for an actual psychologically thrilling horror story here, but its a wasted potential.

Ultimately, like every other horror movie made of late, it seems afraid to actually frighten people.

Still, it's better than the torture porn on the market
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
definitely not the "masterpiece/modern classic" it has been hyped up to be
reid-hawk1 July 2016
This is going to be less of a review and more of a rant, so let me get the good parts of the movie out of the way. It's competently acted, and there isn't a bad child actor in the bunch. It's also pretty well shot, with James Wan using long shots where the camera floats around and through windows and walls, giving it a feeling of omnipotence. Now for the bad.

The intro is god awful. I'm not exaggerating when I say it made my entire theater erupt in laughter as Lorraine Warren pulled out in invisible shotgun to murder a family in a sort of dream-sequence. This accompanied by the fact that her hands are sped up every time she pulls the lever back to reload turn an intentionally "intense" introduction into a self-parody.

Next, this movie's CGI is also god awful. They were so lazy with so many parts that it's almost unbelievable how this movie has been made out to be a masterpiece by so many people. Instead of using a prop cigarette that produces smoke they said "f**k it" and just made crappy CG smoke. Instead of using machines to produce fake snow or create realistic rain effects the crew must have decided that was gonna take too much effort so they instead just CG'd the rain and snow effects. And they aren't even good CG like in the fast and furious movies that Wan does. It's like he decided his VFX and FX crews should be made up of entirely by monkeys with down-syndrome. The 2spooky4me memelord skelingtons in this movie don't look any better. The possessed girl (yeah I'll get to the clichés of the story later) is completely CG, including her fake face veins and Sh**ty cat-monster eyes, and the evil nun demon monster that makes no sense has a Cg mouth tentacle thing that looks straight out of the resident evil movies that shouldn't be getting made anymore. But the icing on this @ss flavored cake is the amazing idea to put the skeleton from "The Nightmare Before Christmas" in this movie, complete with the wonky frame rate that comes with claymation that makes things look like they aren't really moving right. It doesn't make sense on an artistic level (cause it isn't F!^&%%!%^@CKing scary!), and even less sense in a real life level. The dog literally transforms into the monster in front of a little boys very eyes. Like if it has this power why did it decide to use it only right there and never again. That's probably more useful than just about every other monsters' power in this movie, yet it just decides to do it once and only for the spooks cause lol this movie is so scary right guys gosh James Wan u master of horror u. ALso CGI tree spikes killing major characters in hallucinations is definitely 100% super intense not fake looking at all gr8 job m8 8/8.

OK for my favorite part, the story. It. Doesn't. Make. F**king. Sense....... Like I've seen so many message boards trying to understand certain motivations and all I can think is "guys. No one writing this movie gave a sh!t. There is no explanation...". So first off the main antagonist is valak or whatever and he can only be defeated by finding out then saying his name yadda yadda yadda cliché cliché cliché sure whatever. Now this nun monster valak enters the movie in physical form to terrorize Lorraine Warren once in her little spirit world, and once inside her house (btw the house scene, this movies so-called "scariest scene of the decade", is absolutely retarded. the demon literally grabs a picture, uses it as a face, and runs at Lorraine while both its hands are still holding the picture. It looks like those kids that try to do Naruto ninja running because their parents don't love them). Now you might be saying, why does she do that? Well wouldn't you know it, the house the Warrens investigate just so happens to be terrorized by Valak. So Valak must have been f@cking with Lorraine to try and draw her and her husband to the house right? Except as soon as they get to the house the demon tries to make it look like the family is faking everything, and therefore tries and almost succeeds in making the paranormal investigators leave. What was the point in haunting Lorraine then? If it wasn't to draw her to the house the only explanation can be just to scare the audience. In fact drawing them to the house only leads to the demon being defeated. There is absolutely no reason Lorraine should be seeing this ghost unless it is through some kind of ghost world logic that the movie never explains. If that is true then it's pretty f*&#*cking stupid to not explain a major lore/plot element like that to the audience once... God this movie makes me want to jump off the roof of my house more than everyday life already does so i rate it 3/10 don't see it unless you want cancer I hope somebody actually reads this big wall- of-text review
38 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A sequel deserving of being made
soulsk8ter2257 June 2016
For the most part, I came out with a positive vibe with the film. Production-wise, I thought it was exceptionally well done, and coming off the original one I can definitely say this held its own very well. Sequels have this innate ability to overdo what the previous installment did, and one might say this did it in some sense, but for the most part it played with a dialed-back approach. I mean look, what am I supposed to say about a film that is supposedly based on a true story? Sure, they will take their liberties here and there regarding what to make happen and how, but if they say it happened what am I to do in telling them they're doing what happened wrong or overly much? It was the right amount of "more done."

In my opinion alone (which will not be consistent with everybody here), the first hour was terrifying (depends on what one considers scary). The crowd interacted with the film appropriately, and the actors on screen did their due diligence to make you fearful for their well-being. Pacing-wise, the second hour took a strange turn. I was fine with what they did by creating more of a slow-burn effect to build up to a large climax, but considering there wasn't much to be considered scary in the second hour, it kind of felt like we got slow-burn for nothing (the end punch was fine, just not nearly as frightening as anything in the first hour is all). I can't really explain it. That's okay I guess, but I'm sure this film ran over two hours long, and I think the most appropriate cut would have been about right at two hours. I was only slightly fatigued by the end of it all.

James Wan has a terrific eye for the horror genre, and likes to display an array of emotions in his films, especially comedy where needed. Nothing slapstick at all, just the perfect blend of realism like "This is how a person acts in real life," something that Christopher Nolan has never been able to do himself. The characters aren't just pieces to tell a larger story, they are the story. Patrick Wilson is silently one of my favorite actors, often taking the non-blockbuster role but still holding his own in a natural way. I have only seen Vera Farmiga in a few films now (The Departed, Orphan, Up in the Air, Source Code, Safe House, and The Conjuring), and with every scene she is in, she just encapsulates me. I would love to sit down and have a dinner conversation with her, if you know what I mean.

Compared to the first film I'd say this resorted with a few more jump scares, but I'm going to credit Wan for not cheapening them and doing them where they fit (no kids scaring each other, etc). This film did not play with the "less is more" mantra as much as the first film though, but like I said I'll go with that in a sequel. The first one also had much more even pacing and left with the right amount of questions unanswered; not to be unfair with this, but I also "believe" the story of the first film more than this one (only regarding what was seen on the screen). However, in The Conjuring 2 I cared more about this family, and I think the tension was equally as good in this film, save the night scenes being just a little too well-lit for my taste. I'd say I might like the first one just a little bit more, at least in that I own the first one on Blu-ray and I don't know if I need this one immediately.

Oh, and just be aware that the official trailer reveals way too much. I'm not even talking about jump scare material (which it does overdo), but I mean story material. Avoid please! Watch the teaser trailer instead, that one is perfect and reveals nothing substantial. Also make sure you stay for the first billing credits sequence at the end of the movie just because of how well it is crafted, as was the film itself! If only they cut out 10 minutes and maybe even $10 million in the budget, I think it would have served its purpose a little more appropriately. Unlike Sinister 2 though, this film didn't disappoint in the slightest.
28 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
something wicked this way comes
feakes12 June 2016
The first conjuring was scary tense and original. It scared you when you least expected it and it scared you even when you expected it. the sequel However is the first time a horror movie ever gave me Goose bumps. Never has a movie ever given me goosebumps.Does that tell you something ? the direction is top rate and the acting is solid. The pacing is superb as the director lets the story unfold at it's own pace. Like the first movie. The conjuring 2 borrows from the real life case files of Ed and Lorraine Warren two real life Ghost hunters that had a knack for getting the truth out. The Film opens up in the famous Amityville Horror house and goes from that investigation which Lorraine said the evil in that house is as close to Hell as she ever wanted to get. Then the story moves to England and the house of a normal family named Hodgson and the stark horror that awaited them, The Enfield Haunting as it came to be known has the distinction of being one of the most documented cases in the area of the paranormal. Things occurred there that no one can explain. From Cops to Paranormal scientists no one could explain how it was done from scratching inside the walls to the Young girl named Janet being tortured and speaking in voices. Of course there is the people that tried hard to disprove it and only muddled the waters further. When the attacks intensify and the Catholic Church is brought into it the Church sends in Ed and Lorraine to investigate Not to get involved just observe. Lorraine is plagued by fear that if they do get involved it'll mean Ed's death. but from the moment they get there things escalate to the point that the warrens realize they can't just sit back and observe. there is danger here and Janet is targeted for death by the vengeful spirit.And so begins a struggle to find out just what it is they're dealing with a ghost Demon or hoax. That struggle is going to lead the warrens to the edge of despair and it might cost them dearly in the end.

the Story is based on true events. But like the conjuring the conjuring 2 is based on the fact that the warrens investigated the haunting. they never solved it. They never had epic battles like the films suggested. but that's reality and we are looking for entertainment and as entertainment this is entertainment of the finest kind. Best money you'll ever spend at the movies this year. and best money you'll send renting or buying the DVD. In other Words Go see it.
35 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
James Wan fails yet again
thebogofeternalstench17 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
James Wan is creatively bankrupt, and grossly over rated.

I went to see The Conjuring 2 today with a friend and I was completely fed up by the end.

The movie starts off with a blatant marketing pitch for what I'm guessing is going to be 'The Conjuring 3'. Why else introduce the Amityville Horror at the beginning which has absolutely nothing to do with the Enfield Poltergeist? It's just so James Wan can keep milking his franchise like he did with The Conjuring 1 with Annabelle, and the god awful Insidious series etc. Either that or they will make a spin off featuring Marilyn Manson in a nuns outfit.

So then the film shifts to London, with a cringe-worthy attempt of signifying that we are now in London by playing London Calling by The Clash. Cue stock footage of very British things and blah blah blah we are in a school playground where we meet Janet and then its over to her house to meet her caricature mother. The mother who has the most fake sounding cockney accent you will ever hear. In England we refer to it as 'mockney'. It's so over done and put on you wonder why Wan didn't just hire an actress from Eastenders. The acting may have been worse but at least you'd have more of a real sounding London accent. That scene where she goes into the basement of the house with a mate to mess about with the washing machine, I felt like I was watching a live London stage show. Where the actors over do the acting and accent.

Thankfully, I wasn't the only one in the cinema who laughed out loud at the actor playing Maurice Grosse. Another awful, awful representation of a real person. His moustache and hair looked glued on and again was nothing more than a hilarious caricature. Most of the extras in this movie (people playing the police etc) had no fluidity at all, just a stale rigid performance devoid of anything you could relate to real people.

Every 'scary' scene is a loud bass thump accompanied by a jump scare. This is the extent of James Wans creative vision. Mind you, I will give him credit for the chair scene where Janet is blurred out in the background and old Bill comes for a chat with Patrick Wilson. You can see bills face form slowly as he talks. Thats as good as the film got.

There was no tension, no atmosphere, nothing. The inside of the house was HUGE for a London council flat. Flats like that are tiny in reality.

And the demons great plan for Mr Warrens demise was to make him fall from the top window and impale him on a sharp tree branch below? LOL. Come on Wan, this is something a child would come up with.

The film got silly at many points, especially that cgi demon that came out of the dog. Just degraded the movie further and was comical more than anything.The first time BIll speaks through Janet when the press are there in the living room just sounded ridiculous.

Again, the use of religion to combat the evil just got on my nerves. Apparently Ed Warrens cross on his necklace warded off evil spirits but Janets room full of crucifixes on the wall did diddly squat. Any one else getting fed up to the back teeth of good vs evil involving religion? The acting was adequate enough but Madison Wolfe makes no impression what so ever. The other child actors were good enough I suppose.

There's nothing here you haven't seen before. James Wan uses the same old tedious, trite tricks and just copy and pastes from his other movies, with the exception of a differently arranged type of jump scare etc. He lacks vision and creativity. All he is, is a commercially viable hack making watered down 'horror' for the lowest common denominator. Generation 'apphole' will eat this crap up like its the best thing 'evaaaa' and hail Wan as a movie making god.

The emperor has no clothes.
46 out of 96 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A great horror sequel, not as good as the first
seige-hound3 June 2016
The Conjuring 2 is a period piece horror film that continues the story of Ed and Lorraine Warren, two demonologists who are most well known for their investigations into the Amityville haunting. The first film was set before Amityville and concerned one of their lesser known cases. This film is set after Amityville, and mainly concerns the Enfield Poltergeist.

The films obviously take a lot of liberties to what *actually* happened. Let's just say that this film is set in an alternate reality where every investigation the Warren family looks into is entirely true. If anyone looks into the actual footage and evidence in the case, it seems to be a pretty elaborate hoax, but in this film, it isn't.

That being said, this is an incredibly effective horror film, and some moments definitely caused me to feel incredibly anxious, and I frequently felt the need to push against the seat to get as far away from the screen as possible. The family is incredibly charming and likable, and the acting, especially the main girl character, I found to be quite impressive. There is also a carryover story from the first film concerning the Warren family, as they question the reason why they do what they do.

There were some cheesy moments throughout the film that distracted me a little. Some weird and out of place editing choices and other minor stuff. There is an over reliance of CGI in a few scenes that I found distracting. CGI, especially when it's CGI characters, are incredibly hard to make scary, and this film is no exception. However, for the most part this issue is avoided in favour of more traditional methods of scaring the audience.

Overall a quality film that is definitely worth watching if you liked the first film. It's not a better film than the first, but there isn't a massive drop in quality that occasionally occurs in sequels.
31 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the best sequels ever!!!
jakefear-1152710 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
(MAYBE SPOILER IN REVIEW)

The Conjuring 2 is one of the best movie sequels I've ever seen and I've seen a lot of sequels. I loved the first one and when I found out about the 2nd one I thought, "Yeah I don't know, most likely going to be really bad." Then I saw the trailer and thought" Hmmm this doesn't look half bad." Then I finally got to see it tonight and I couldn't believe how amazed I was at it! It was scary, suspenseful and jumpy. One thing I loved about it is that they get straight into the action, they don't wait 20 minutes to scare the living hell out of you. They like to throw in a jump-scare 2-3 minutes into the film. They don't add some crappy, boring, 20-minute introduction scene know one cares to see. It's BOOM into it.
17 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
decent at best, too predictable.
iluliarmioq25 June 2016
In hope of being scared, I was ready with my blanket and pillow to cover my self.

I started the film and the first act looks promising. It was scary, the psychologically horror was present but not for long, until the second and the third act. It became another jump scare horror. And it became a bit predictable at worst. You know exactly what's going to happen next.

On the other hand, my girlfriend, who was a bit wuss at horror movies, enjoyed the movie and she was genuinely scared as well.

Therefore 4 stars from me, making it decent horror/jump scare movie, enjoyable fun for the whole family maybe not for the children, but for friends and adult family.
10 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Cheap and full of stupid clichés
abuzarov28 June 2016
Seriously, I don't understand why this movie got such a high rating on IMDb (7.9 at this moment).

First. The whole thing is boring and predictable. And come on, it doesn't take much skill to scare a viewer with a sudden and loud shriek, accompanied by some puppet jumping into the screen. And they do that in the movie all the time, they do it a lot. And this is very low class for a horror movie, if you ask me.

Second. The music and sound effects. They serve just one purpose here - to teach the stupid spectator how to react at certain moments. Like "look, if you didn't notice, it's a really tender family moment, say 'awww, how sweet'", "and here it's ominous". Come on, we're not that stupid! We don't need THAT many hints!

Third. There's a lot of clichés. I mean it. Wind-up toy truck moving on it's own - how original! Then some vintage-looking toy with spooky pictures that come alive, then happy children's lough in the distance, then some background cathedral singing, then scary faces that only show in the mirror, then low-frequency growling - I can go on and on. It's boring. I know I've said earlier, but it really is.

But what got me the most, is that the creators of the movie exploit that "based on true events" line, and they are quite shameless on that. It's NOT based on true events in the full sense of this word. It's based on the STORY which is told by a couple of very successful hoaxers.

And the main female character - her acting was all about delivering just one image, it was all about that look on her face: "ah, I'm so enlightened, I posses hidden wisdom, I pity you, stupid hectic humankind"

Not a good movie. Just a bunch of old and cheap tricks.
42 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
More like Insidious 4
kukikid14 June 2016
I absolutely love the first Conjuring movie. When I watch that movie, it gets under my skin. I actually feel troubled and somewhat terrible after watching it. I rank the first movie rather high. It bothers me almost as much as the Exorcist does. I don't even like to watch it at night. The feeling of dread in that movie is heavy. In the sequel, my patience was challenged a bit. It plays out like a sampler of far better films such as Poltergeist and The Evil Dead. It's fun for what it is: a popcorn movie. If you enjoy fun ghost movies, see this one. If you're expecting a movie on the level of the first Conjuring, you may find yourself a bit disappointed.
14 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Good horror movie but it's more than just horror
Trollwrestler7 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I was a fan of the first movie and a big fan of all of James Wans horror movies. I love his unique skill of creating tension and keeping you on your toes. But I feel like he has taken big steps to becoming one of the best directors there is.

The movie itself has pretty similar structure than the first one. That is not a bad thing though. It has some good scares and nice tension, like a horror movie should. But the cinematography and the quality of directing in the movie kind of surprised me. The movie looked really beautiful and and it's something that I personally appreciate a lot.

The characters in the movie were very likable. For a horror movie it's very important to be able to care for the characters. I think that is something that separates good horror from bad. Their relationships were well written and the actors did a really good job. I especially liked Patrick Wilson. I have always liked him but after seeing this I like him even more.

In the middle of all the horror and frustration of the nasty situation the family had, there was a really beautiful scene that actually made me emotional. It's pretty rare when watching a horror movie.

I think the movie was just really well made. Horror movies used to be low budget and low effort films in the past. Nowadays some are made with great talent and effort. It's not just good horror movie. It has heart and style and great acting. The very ending of the film made me give it 9/10 instead of 10/10. But can recommend this to anyone who likes horror or just appreciates movies.
15 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Made an IMDb account to review this for you
nickolasearlwebb15 June 2016
This movie is very worth your time if you are looking for a good scare. With no swearing literally at all, not much violence or gore, and no drug or alcohol use, this movie gets its r rating solely for how scary it is. James Wan is a genius director. I hope for more installments to this series. I mean, thats all i really have to say. Im now just typing to fill 10 lines so i can send this review. This is no "jump scare slasher" film, this is real terror. There are jump scares, but more like you jump and then stay in the air. the scare keeps going. I audibly screamed a few curse words at the screen. A single tear shed from my eye at one point. This movie is very very scary. Its scary but so good! I loved every second of it! Sorry for mistakes or confusion. This is my first review. This is hopefully the very last sentence that i will have to write.
14 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Killer
colewaters4 June 2016
This movie is killer a must see movie for all of the horror movie fans out there all around the world. This movie puts the best of all worlds of horror and cinema movie. If you liked the first movie then you will go crazy for this one that is how good this movie is on all levels. This is the best horror film ever. Parents this movie is not for kids of any age due to high scares. If you think your kids can handle the scares then take them but it is really scary but in a brilliant way this movie is a work of art that will change the way I look at horror films it was that great and I hope you like it as much as I did because it is great nothing like it around and that is a fact for sure and u can take that to the Fing bang u will fall in love for sure.
22 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed