The Conjuring 2

"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

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.

Decided to re-watch both 'The Conjuring' films, with memories of really liking both, after watching, and not liking all that much, 'The Nun' (which was watched as part of my watching as many films of 2018 as possible quest) very recently. Just to see whether they held up, as good as remembered and whether they succeeded where 'The Nun' didn't and didn't make that film's mistakes.

On re-watch, 'The Conjuring 2', like its very good predecessor, does hold up very well and actually just as good as remembered. It succeeds splendidly in where 'The Nun' failed and has none of its mistakes. 'The Conjuring 2', like its predecessor, is not a perfect film, but it is very atmospheric, well made and genuinely scary, or at least to me it was. It is a very familiar premise, done to death actually, but the atmosphere stops it from being too predictable and there is enough freshness. As a sequel, it fares very well and one of not many to actually be on the same level as its predecessor.

'The Conjuring 2' is overlong, which is its biggest issue. This would have been rectified by 20 minutes being trimmed and the pace of the first act, with a beginning that doesn't attention-grab or unsettle as it should have done, tightened up.

Other than those, 'The Conjuring 2' is very good. It looks great, especially for horror films released in recent years (too many of which have looked like they were made on the schlocky cheap). It looks slick and stylish while having a spooky setting and suitably nightmarish lighting. The music is haunting and not over-bearing, recorded in a way that is not overly loud or obvious that it spoils the atmosphere (which was great because many horror films seen recently failed in this regard).

Script is not too awkward and is structured coherently, with nothing cheapening it like sluggish exposition or cheesy misplaced humour. The direction is meticulous in detail and clearly shows an engagement and ease with the material. The story takes time to unfold but doesn't get dull once it gets going, while the ending is leagues better, much more momentum and the resolution didn't feel rushed. As said too, 'The Conjuring 2' yet again is genuinely scary, with actual tension, suspense and dread, in a palm-sweating and heart-pounding sense at its best, while not relying too much on jump scares (they are there but have build up and were surprising).

Found myself liking the characters more than expected. The leads were ones worth caring for, didn't get frustrated with them, wish for more personality or annoyed by them. The antagonist was frightening, was neither over-used or under-utilised and didn't look cheap. The acting also comes off well, especially Vera Farmiga who is superb, Patrick Wilson is even better here, while also impressed with how Frances O'Connor coped with a role that on paper seemed limited.

Summarising, very good. 8/10 Bethany Cox

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 from the get-go, 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. Once again, 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.

Some awesome, unsettling and creepy music in places too.

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.