The Conjuring 2

**This time a London family struggle in their haunted house.** First of all, I am not a big fan of the first film, but I liked that. Now this sequel was not bad either. This time it takes us to the... **This time a London family struggle in their haunted house.** First of all, I am not a big fan of the first film, but I liked that. Now this sequel was not bad either. This time it takes us to the London. But the film reminded me the 80s film 'Poltergeist', particularly the second part. So don't assume it is exactly the same, only the scenes involving house seems similar, but the story was different. It is another true story based film, that's what they said in the opening statement. You're not forced to believe that, if you're here for an entertainment, you will get that if you put your logics away for the two hours. A family of four young children and their mother living in a house in the London witness some serious paranormal activities lately. Particularly the eleven year old girl affected the most with the spirit the house possessed. So the American couple from the first film are brought in to do their best to help the family. When they try to contact the spirit, they won't get what they were looking for. Instead, an unexpected blame goes for the girl and soon the family loses confidence in them. The overcoming those misunderstanding, particularly realising the truth brings a twist before concluding the tale. The one twenty minute never looked too long. Because there's always something keeps happening, so the audience to keep engaged with. Probably this is won't be your best horror film of the years, but being a horror themed film, it had good form of those contents. Not too scary, at a time those clichés were used in a good way to bring freshness in the scenes. I will credit the writers for that. Besides, the actors were undoubtedly good, including those little ones. For me this is a better horror film and I definitely look for another sequel. I hope this one would stand up to your expectations. _7.5/10_

I know I'm in the minority on this, but I actually preferred it to the original. _Final rating:★★★ - I personally recommend you give it a go._... I know I'm in the minority on this, but I actually preferred it to the original. _Final rating:★★★ - I personally recommend you give it a go._

I'm giving this half a star more than I gave the first movie. As a horror film in its own rite, it's competently made, although somewhat predictable as it follows most of the traditional haunted house... I'm giving this half a star more than I gave the first movie. As a horror film in its own rite, it's competently made, although somewhat predictable as it follows most of the traditional haunted house film tropes. But it is better than the first one in that it's a more cohesive film, with such corrections as how the background "monster" actually does play a part in the story, whereas in the first film Annabelle was shoehorned in but had nothing to do with the main story and served only as a distraction. Ultimately, the reason I can't rate this film higher is because it's about the Warrens, who were a couple of charlatans that took advantage of vulnerable and desperate people. While this is touched on briefly, it's done more in the context of people who don't believe them are all mean and unsympathetic. Again, it's a competently made horror film that's better than its predecessor, if a little predictable, but don't look at it as being based on a true story. Take it with a massive grain of salt.

Really solid sequel, and a re-watch before seeing the third film, in fact probably liked this one slightly better, with some good scares but better, a nice heart at the center with the relationship be... Really solid sequel, and a re-watch before seeing the third film, in fact probably liked this one slightly better, with some good scares but better, a nice heart at the center with the relationship between Ed and Lorraine, played wonderfully by Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga. Once again, craft-fully directed by James Wan, a style missing from the others in the 'Conjuring Universe', though the plots didn't help matters. **4.0/5**

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 n... 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

<em>'The Conjuring 2'</em>, oof. What a chore to sit through. The only redeeming quality I have for this film is Madison Wolfe's performance as Janet, which is fairly impressive for a youngster. That ... <em>'The Conjuring 2'</em>, oof. What a chore to sit through. The only redeeming quality I have for this film is Madison Wolfe's performance as Janet, which is fairly impressive for a youngster. That aside, I have nothing that I can praise or even mark as better than mid, sadly. The 2hr+ run time obviously doesn't help, but that actually isn't even a major negative for this movie. The plot, which feels like a rehash of the 2013 original in most (if not all) areas, is just so bloated and boring, I initially thought the English-ify of the story would bring freshness but, aside from the amusingly bad cockney accents, it's barely noticeable when in yet another dingy house. <b>[bit of a spoiler on the way]</b> The demons felt like a drop-off from the first flick, I admit the Bill character turned out to be a tiny bit more interesting than I thought it was going to be early on. Even then, I wanted a little bit of resolution with Bill once 'the end' happens (with Anita too). Unless it happened and I was already mentally zoned out by then, possible I guess? I think another thing that affects my enjoyment is the lack of jeopardy for the human characters, once is fine but back-to-back? Like they put all the pieces in place to kill one of them off and then just bottle it right at the last minute; this one here, for example, would've been very meaningful too. That dog in the original must feel extremely hard done by, ought to sue thy agent. I suppose it needs to cling to the "true event" (lol). Ah, I've just checked the general reception this received. Wow! Most of the time I question myself when I see that I am in the minority, I gotta be honest this time its on you guys - please do send me whatever it is you lot are smoking though! Joking aside, it would appear I'm in the wrong, the majority view speaks for itself, but damn... surprised to say the least! Just remembered that I did actually say in my review of <em>'Annabelle'</em> (5/10) hours ago that if it was any longer then I would've disliked it more. Well, step forward this movie. I didn't think the proof would arrive in the pudding so soon.

This second cinema outing for the ghost-busting Warren’s takes them to London’s northern district of Enfield where the Hodgson family are having a fairly torrid time. Younger daughter Janet (Madison W... This second cinema outing for the ghost-busting Warren’s takes them to London’s northern district of Enfield where the Hodgson family are having a fairly torrid time. Younger daughter Janet (Madison Wolfe) and her elder sister Margaret (Lauren Esposito) have been pining for their absent father and so rather optimistically consult a home-made ouija board to find out if he is ever going to return home again! Their mum Peggy (Frances O’Connor) and the audience know that he’s shacked up with a woman round the corner with their new set of twins. Anyway, Janet goes to sleep and that’s the beginning of their nightmare as an old gent (Bill) who reputedly died in an armchair in the house decides to revisit the family, rearrange the furniture, change the television channels and generally cause mayhem for this cash-strapped family. Meantime, Ed Warren (Patrick Wilson) has been painting a fetching portrait of a nun (think the art-loving Sister Wendy Beckett from the mid-1990s) who seems to be the source of some discomfort for wife Lorraine (Vera Farmiga). Might these two mysteries be connected? Well the church asks the pair to do some surreptitious investigations in the UK and so off they go. Of course they are sceptical, but when a bit of levitation creeps in, the doors start to slam of their own accord and the water supply seems intent on building them an indoor swimming pool in the basement, they begin to wonder if Janet et al are really hoaxers, or might there actually be something altogether more malevolent at work here. According to local sources here, the Warren’s spent hardly any time at all at the house and so much of the substance to this story is unsubstantiated conjecture, but James Wan still manages to create something plausibly scary as these children and their mother - at her wits end - try to deal with this unwelcome phenomena. It’s end-to-end stuff with the girls also delivering spookily (and shriekingly) as the shadows come alive with well-mixed audio effects and some false teeth with a mind of their own. Wilson and Farmiga over-egg their earnestness a bit at times, but as the “McMillan and Wife” of the occult, they do well enough to send the odd tingle up and down your spine. It’s probably half an hour longer than it needs to be - there’s a wee bit too much preamble, but it’s certainly at the better end of the genre for my money.