Spooky!! Scarier than part 1. James Wan is the master of horror movies :) :)
Great horror flick! A bit too long at around 2 hours and 30 mins but the story was well developed. Ending was a bit expected but there's that masterful direction to bring the audience to the edge of their seats. I recommend a cinema viewing. Definitely a fun experience to watch with a full crowd. The gasps, screams and nervous giggles are an added atmosphere to an already atmospheric film.
Seriously, are people watching a completely different movie than I am or is there something else to this movie that I am missing? It's not scary at all, it throws every (horror)movie cliche there is at the viewer making it extremely predictable and the story is just ridiculous as it stumbles towards a climax which simply isn't there. Just say the demon's name and that's it, it's gone. And the way they 'solve' the case is just too stupid. Put 2 tape recordings together and you get a coherent sentence... So let's just put 2 random sentences together and the case is solved!
How people can seriously give this movie a good rating and comment on how scary it was is beyond me.
The first movie was great, but this one left me feeling pretty meh. The story seemed like it was trying too hard, fairly weak finale, and the extra heaps of cheese in various spots was enough to keep me rolling my eyes right to the end. The first "spirit" in the movie came across more comical than frightening. A few jumpy moments, and the camerawork was really well done, though the various 'strange happenings' really seemed recycled and cliche. Not the worst movie I've ever seen, but I don't recommend it all the same.
James Wan is no doubt a skilled cinematic craftsman, he has an eye for excellent set-design, cinematography, camerawork, and editing. The Conjuring, unfortunately, is an overlong, overblown, and frankly just a little bit silly. If an onslaught of jump scares are what do it for you, you may find this an effective chiller, it mostly gave me a headache.
Captured 1970s/80s Britain perfectly. Truly felt like you were in that era. There is always the worry these days that a horror film is just going to be a series of jump scares strung together with an unsatisfying ending but like the first film, this one was anything but. It builds the atmosphere and story well and the beauty of the Warrens' relationship is what makes it for me. The direction, editing and lighting were fantastic.
I still think the first movie was scarier, and just overall better. But this was still an exceptional horror movie, something that is desperately hard to come by nowadays. the jump scares were well timed, the feel was moody and demonic, and a great twist. I really enjoyed it.
I dunno why it's taken the Americans to make a movie about the Enfield hauntings ( which im very familiar with) apart of the recent T.V mini series that was screened earlier in the year which was really good just a shame us brits have lost the ability to make good horror movies
The Conjuring 2 is a sequel to James Wan's hugely successful original, but it falls short in comparison. The movie is overly long and slow, with a running time of 2 hours 14 minutes, which results in a bloated and uninteresting story. The need to provide backstory and introduce the Hodgson family is essential, but it takes over an hour for the Warrens to head to London, and when they do, the story plods along again, only picking up pace at the polished, unsatisfying and rushed conclusion. The original Conjuring is 45 minutes shorter and ends up being a tighter, better film as a result. The Enfield accents in the movie are grating and unrealistic, and the performances of the supporting cast are wooden and rigid. The jump scares in the movie are predictable and the CGI is poor. However, Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga are good performers, and they bring a degree of believability to the movie. The character of the Nun is creepy and mysterious, but her presence is weakened towards the end of the movie. Overall, The Conjuring 2 is a disappointment compared to the original.
The Conjuring 2 es una secuela del original de gran éxito de James Wan, pero se queda corto en comparación. La película es demasiado larga y lenta, con una duración de 2 horas y 14 minutos, lo que da como resultado una historia inflada y poco interesante. La necesidad de proporcionar una historia de fondo y presentar a la familia Hodgson es esencial, pero los Warren tardan más de una hora en ir a Londres y, cuando lo hacen, la historia continúa de nuevo, acelerando el ritmo en la conclusión pulida, insatisfactoria y apresurada. . El Conjuro original es 45 minutos más corto y, como resultado, termina siendo una película mejor y más ajustada. Los acentos de Enfield en la película son chirriantes y poco realistas, y las actuaciones del elenco secundario son rígidas y rígidas. Los sustos de salto en la película son predecibles y el CGI es pobre. Sin embargo, Patrick Wilson y Vera Farmiga son buenos intérpretes y aportan cierto grado de credibilidad a la película. El personaje de la Monja es espeluznante y misterioso, pero su presencia se debilita hacia el final de la película. En general, The Conjuring 2 es una decepción en comparación con el original.
Enfield Town Barclays was the site of the world’s first hole-in-the-wall ATM.
There - now you know two of Enfield’s claims to fame.
The other being of course the well-documented haunting. It’s creepy to know that while these events were taking place, a 3-year old me was living in a similar house in a similar town only 50-odd miles away.
When I was considerably older I ended up living and working in Enfield. In the aforementioned bank as it happens. Just a mile or two from where the haunting took place. Wish I’d gone round for a look now...
I’m a sceptical believer in the supernatural. That is, I’d love to believe, but I’m still searching for that indisputable piece of concrete evidence.
So when you take a genre I’m fond of (if ‘fond’ is the correct word?), the decade I was born in, English locations and actors along with spookingtons it’s a sure fire hit. Dammit. Now I’ve said that I’ll probably hate the bloody thing...
The sheer quantity and quality of the supernatural phenomena this unfortunate family endure is astonishing. And to think it’s all because of an obstinate old git who enjoys tormenting young girls.
Having said that, it does make for some chilling moments, young girl growling and shouting abuse is prime material for a horror film.
The usual bumps, bangs and thuds and lights & doors operating themselves are bolstered by some great shadow-work (with the sinister painting and when ‘Bill’ was being the crooked man) and some creative camerawork (how the focus is on Ed in the foreground but you can’t help keeping an eye on the blur in the background that should be Janet but has morphed into the evil Bill. )
In my opinion, it was a mistake to show us a clear glimpse of the malicious spirit so early on. I’m always of the less-is-more approach and ghosts don’t necessarily need to be seen in order to be scary.
Oh and that jump-scare near the end got me good and proper! I actually shouted “Aaaaahhh!” in genuine alarm.
Random Thoughts:
:o: She’s lucky she had a remote control to get freaked out by! We had to get up and walk over to the telly to change channels (out of the 4 we had). Then we had a remote that was attached by a cable. Totally remote handsets were just a pipe dream.
:o: Love the moment when the locked room suddenly, magically becomes a teenage metaller’s wet dream, when all those crucifixes invert themselves.
:o: I knew it was too good to wish for; Peggy is played by an Australian. Yeah, because there are no unemployed English actresses. Although she does a decent job with the accent, straying into Dick van Dyke territory only once or twice.
:o: The virtual lack of music to accompany the events of the film is a novel change. Less is more :thumbsup_tone2:
:o: The helpful but useless neighbour seriously needs to do a refresher course on his axe-wielding. That was some extremely ineffective chopping on that door.
:o: Nice that the visiting ghostbusters are Christian but not Bible-bashing evangelists. They have their views and they just get on with sorting out their clients’ problems.
One of the better ones - if not THE best - in the whole Annabelle/Conjuring franchise. It's a long movie, though; seems like it should have been pared down considerably. For one thing, I still have absolutely no idea how the opening scene of this film connects to the rest of the story; surprisingly, it seems they left that loose end dangling. (Maybe for future projects? Who knows?) It was definitely a great creepy feel throughout, though, and as many have noted, The Conjuring 2 was more than just a bunch of "jump scares". Again, my biggest complaint was the duration: for this movie, 2 hours (and then some!) was just too long and there were (IMO) many parts that could have been cut out without damaging the story in any way. If you're into spooky/creepy movies, chances are good you'll enjoy this one. Like the other films in this franchise, however, if you're looking for the "violent scary" movies (i.e. Rob Zombie stuff) this probably won't hold your interest.
"The Conjuring 2" was not as good as the original. In fact, I picked "The Conjuring" as my favorite film of 2013. This one did not impress me to that level. I've beat this dead horse before but there are too many jump scares that leave you waiting to be jolted instead of my preferred moments of sustained fear.
However, I do think this is a scary film on the strength of a couple of moments. One of them is an amazing sequence when Lorraine Warren is haunted by a nun. The haunting starts in her living room and proceeds into the office of her husband Ed. Ed had an earlier vision of the nun and had painted a portrait, which now rests on an easel in the empty office. The encounter that Lorraine has is a wonderful example of a sustained scare. The viewer (and the protagonist) is aware that the evil presence is in the room, and in this case, its followed within the room. It's really an amazing moment and is a big part of my mostly positive rating. This scene has stuck with me to the point of it being the primary thing that comes to mind when I am entering a dark room or looking down a shadowy hallway.
Another high point occurs when Ed Warren is interviewing a little girl who is sitting in a chair in the back corner of a room. While Ed asks the girl questions, his face appears in full focus in the foreground, facing the camera in the shot. Behind him, mostly out of focus, is the little girl. There's something unnerving occurring in the blurry background. I can recall it being unsettling, but I can't quite put my finger on why. These are two examples of sustained terror that I believe to be superior to the silly thing-that-jumps-out-at-you trend that passes for scary in most current Horror movies.
"The Conjuring 2" isn't gory so if that's what keeps you or someone you know away from Horror movies, have a go at this one.
Last time I saw The Conjuring 2 was at the cinema which I believe greatly helped the way I enjoyed the film back then. The big screen, the sound, watching it with a crowd, it was all loads of fun.
This time I watched it at home and I still enjoyed it. It is well crafted. Vera Farmiga is still amazing and Madison Wolfe as Janet is one hell of a scary possessed kid. But this time around, maybe because I was getting a bit tired, it felt like a long sit and it didn't feel as great as the first time I've watched it.
Which is a shame because I like the Warrens (Wilson and Farmiga), I enjoy great Supernatural Horror and I love the first one. But hey, it is tough following that one up! James Wan though is still the master of jump scares. While watching the film my girlfriend came home and she doesn't like horror films but she didn't mind me finishing the movie downstairs. And yes, the Crooked Man got her good. Loved it.
Anyway the Conjuring 2 is a strong sequel and well worth a watch.
I'm giving this one more star 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.
it wasn't that scary. at times it felt as if I was watching a family movie with horror elements. first film was carried out better, this just felt lengthy and desperately trying to use horror movie cliches.
"You know something wrong when a little white girl jump into a black mans arms"
Quite possibly better than the first Conjuring film. I have watched a few different things about the Enfield Haunting but this has been my favourite version of events. Even though it has been exaggerated a lot.
This is definitely not better than the first one. They made several major mistakes. CG characters, CG animation is not scary. They went too far. The first one is as scary and disturbing as the Exorcist. I get easily scared but this movie broke something half way through with that dog thing that it was not scary anymore to me.
This was fun. Not as good as the first and it wasn't until the last 20 min I actually felt invested in these characters. But fun.
Also there are way more unintentional laughs in this one. The lead lady and her yelling at spirits etc. Also one scene that was supposed to be an intentional laugh. But it's just so obviously a tacked on scene that is out of nowhere. P Wils picks up the 1978 era camcorder and struggles to put it on his shoulder then he says, "It's so small and light!" Hahahhah there's gotta be a more subtle way to make that joke! Hahaha
Anyway, fun movie. Saw it front row at the dome at arclight. There was an earthquake during the movie but I didn't feel it.
Probably the best horror movie i have ever seen..Tension is everywhere,acting just great and Wan is from another planet..No one will ever direct a movie like Wan did in this one.
Wow! What a fantastic movie!! I screamed and jumped so many times. It was horrifying but absolutely amazing!! Must see for horror movie fans or anyone interested in paranormal investigations.
Even better then the first can't wait for The Conjuring 3!!
There was a crooked man, and he walked a crooked mile.
He found a crooked sixpence upon a crooked stile.
He bought a crooked cat, which caught a crooked mouse,
And they all lived together in a little crooked house.
The Conjuring 2 is one of those rare sequel that wasn't terrible, but rather good. The squeal did a lot of things better than first film in terms of character's, the twist and the unpleasant atmosphere. But it's kinda rare that we get a sequel that's just as solid as it's predecessor with plenty of surprises under it's sleeve.
I have no idea how James Wan dose it. I seriously don't know how he manages to take the things that I usually can't stand in today's horror and somehow turn it into gold. That's why The Conjuring movies always stand out from the rest of the paranormal demonic movies, because movies like 'The Conjuring' actually have an atmosphere and characters with depth. Even the jump scars are effective and used at appropriate times. James Wan is the only director I can think of that I trust when it comes to directing horror movies, as he understands the genre well. Wan does it again here with tension that builds and the good old sense of death.
The acting from everyone was pretty damn solid. Patrick Wilson, Vera Farmiga and Frances O'Connor were all great in the movie. Even the littler girl (Madison Wolfe) was really good, as she actually looked terrified and it was a very convincing performance, even for a child actor in a horror movie.
What really surprised me about "The Conjuring 2" is that I actually did care for the character's. I mean, compared to some horror flicks that are somewhat similar to this, but with the character's that are forgettable and so boring to watch on screen. Luckily this movie had character's with emotional weight to them.
The camera work, the score and the cinematography are the highlights of this film. It also takes it's time and uses different ways to scare or spook you. It may not impress a lot of people, but I do admire the film markers for taking a risk like that.
Enfield haunting case has been a hot topic for years now with people debating if it's a hoax or not. And while the "based on a true story" may be bullsh*t (or just any movie that uses that headline for attention), I'm just so use to it now that it's getting numb. A lot people complained that this was too Hollywood or it was not accurate to the original story. I have seen the documentary and the stories about the Enfield haunting case, and it's so BORING. I literally found nothing interesting about it and all the evidence for the paranormal haunting seemed a bit fake. I'm so glad this movie wasn't accurate to the original case that may or may not be real. The film markers took something with it and told a different story with events that's very loosely based on an actual case.
The problems that I had with this movie (which is not a lot) is the use of CG for scenes involving the Crooked Man. It took me out of the movie and it kinda took away the terror from the Crooked Man character that Wan beautifully created. And yes, Javier Botet (who is about 6' 6¾) plays the Crooked Man, but the CG is so noticeable when he starts jumping around or growing tall to scare the little girl that he's haunting. I think practical effect's would have been so much better and scarier.
Overall rating: The Conjuring 2 is a solid sequel that's way better then the avenge horror sequel. It takes your expectations and turns it completely around.
Might be the worst horror movie I've ever watched.
Let me get it straight: the movie does have some semblance of style. It uses camerawork from Hitchcock's "Vertigo". In one scene in the beginning. And it's not a part of the movie's visual language. It's just there.
There's a certain style to the monster and set design too.
But there's absolutely no substance to it.
It's not like "The Orphanage", it's not a horror film gradually creeping under your skin: it's actually a very family friendly thing, back in the 90s some might argue it's not even PG. Well, the most PG thing about this film is schoolkids smoking.
There's a bunch of jumpscares throughout the movie, but well, the worst the monster does for most of the film is moving some furniture. You read it right. About 75 percents of the film in, and this horror movie has no threat to the protagonists. It's just "weird stuff happening". Well, one of the protagonists is having visions of a threat in the future, but it's for a character so sugary you wouldn't miss him if he died.
Cracked me up right in the movie theater a couple of times - and I wasn't alone. Thing is, if this film had a laughing track, I'd mistake it for a comedy, and not even a black comedy at that. Sadly, the film is very self-serious and the comedy was unintentional.
Funniest of all, the film claims to be based on real events. Not only it isn't even marginally based on real events or even allegations of real events - it actively falsifies facts to fit its narrative.You might want to do some research on the story behind this, you'll get it.Laughably bad usage of horror movie cliches, and as I already said - virtually no threat to the characters for 75% of the movie, just "spooooooky stuff happening".No character study or development.Lots of quasi-religious propaganda.No story.
It deserves 1/10.
Ed and Lorraine Warren take the fight against the forces of evil to London in The Conjuring 2. Based on the Enfield Poltergeist haunting, the Warren’s are asked to investigate the claims of a London family that their home is plagued by supernatural spirits. Unfortunately the pretense of being inspired by true events is undermined by how over-the-top and stereotypical the possessions and apparitions are; feeling more like something out of a slick Hollywood horror movie. But that said, the scares are pretty good. Director James Wan is quite adept at setting an atmospheric and creepy tone, and at creating frightening imagery. Though it’s not as strong as the original, The Conjuring 2 has its moments and is an entertaining horror film.
I'm really not a fan of mainstream horror/thriller flicks, but this was a pleasant surprise. Sure, it's over reliance on jump-scares is pretty tiring, and you'll roll your eyes if they've ever ticked you off before... but there are some very surprising and unexpected jumps in this film. Coupled with the overall production value, it certainly isn't bad. I wouldn't even call it mediocre, which can only be a compliment from somebody generally repelled by this genre.
Usually I'm really afraid of sequels being especially bad – in this case I was positively surprised. The story was ok but the horror moments really did scare me from time to time. Of course it was clear how everything would end (and most parts of the story were foreseeable) but in general a well executed movie.
The story was a little spoiled for me after watching the British drama The Enfield Haunting. Still, this was a superior horror film but please... no spins offs.
Oh, and never ever play with Ouija boards, it isn't a game.
It was really good, better than the first with a lot of terrifying atmosphere and it got me jump of my chair enough times.
It maintains the style and good tone of the first, this time in London
James Wan started out with not so great ghost movies like Dead Silence but has gotten better and better with each Horror film he has made. However despite being a strong sequel; Wan does do some of the same little scares again that worked in the previous film.
The Conjuring 2 is pretty damn creepy, well made with fine acting nevertheless.
Just saw The Conjuring 2 at a local theater; it's a haunted house film with some smooth transitions, lengthy, atmospheric, and I already spotted the letters in the kitchen and on the shelves before it was revealed later on to be important, and I really like how it panned out towards the end. There are some similarities to the previous Conjuring film and its prequel, and even one of the Insidious films (same team), for those that might notice them. I'll definitely be picking this one up on Blu-ray when it releases, and will be good to rewatch closer to the holidays.
I had to try hard not to bust out laughing when the ghost/demon started whistling a barney song.
None the less; it was enjoyable.
That nun freaked me the hell out.
After the dreadful "Annabelle", "Conjuring 2" manages to pick up the quality of the first movie effortlessly. This is due to Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson as the leads and the return of James Wan in the director's chair. Of course, there are still numerous clichés of the genre, and the jump scares are also omnipresent again. But for the first time in the series, there are even a few creepy moments that actually work for me. Additionally, there is also some humor; I couldn't believe my eyes. But in the end, what really lifts the film above the first installment for me is the case, which just drew me in more. I liked the family, which this time is haunted by demonic occurrences, as well as the the setting in London, which is something new. As a result, I could empathize with the characters, which aided the suspense tremendously. If the series continues on this path, I will be happy.
Quite decent first half. Efficient despite the narrative that makes no attempt of logic or consequence. Then just before the half way mark, it takes off into slender man and abandons all sense and relies entirely on jump scares and visual effects.
There are good horror movies, there are bad horror movies, but for some unfathomable reason even seasoned reviewers seem to lower their standards and not expect a horror movie to have any qualities demanded by any other genre.
A petty good sequel to the first film. Same layout as the first one as the Warren's are called upon to help with malicious spirits in a family home. This one was certainly a little more complex as there was a sprit haunting the spirit that took the body of a 12 year old girl. There was also the aspect of the Warren's being criticized for some of their cases being fake which kind of took away from the horror entertainment portion. However, it is still very entertaining and interesting with a lot of good jump scares.
The classic story of Rockabilly vs Death Metal. Death Metal nun only rocks out to choir music and thats why she loses to Elvis. Blue Hawaii is a good album but would not stand up to any classic Darkthrone or Mayhem albums. The movie is nonsensical and silly which makes it kind of fun. If you really care about Ed and Lorraine go listen to an interview with them on classic Art Bell its a lot more scarier than this.
If you haven't watch TC1 - jump in and have fun, you probably won't regret it. However, if you've already seen the prequel, I (who didn't have the biggest gap between the two parts) don't really see a reason for you to watch this one anymore. It actually felt like it was just another director implementing the same idea. The film is good, I don't want to question that - but in the form of this sequel it seems unnecessary to me.
Story: 5...a couple new wrinkles, but seen it before. And the ending is so anticlimactic
Script: 5...I hate dialogue that is only there to explain what's happening, and there's a lot of that
Performances: 5...lots of screaming
Misc.: 3...same jump scares that have been seen a million times. And wtf was that skinny claymation demon doing? Looked ridiculous
Influence: 3...nothing memorable here
Overall: 4...snore
Not as good as the first one, but pretty good. I was mostly interested in it for the Crooked Man tbh. It dragged a bit in the middle; I noticed I was checking the time repeatedly, which is always a sign I'm not fully engaged with a movie. Also when will people learn to hang crucifixes by two points instead of one, to keep them from being turned upside down?
Worse than the previous one, but way better than many other horror films about demonic possessions. What I liked about this film is how good the characters are, so close, so human. The acting is great again. But I did not like how they abused of the monsters. What I loved about the first one was how they created horror with not so many appearances. I think I will not see it again but I am glad I watched it once.
This is a sequel that is actually completely equal to its predecessor.
While the first one had a more creepy atmosphere, this one for sure had the creepier villain. "The Nun" is positively terrifying (at least in this movie) and absolute nightmare fuel.
Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson are fantastic again and portray the Warrens as a loving, understanding and brave couple, that oozes chemistry.
I praised the first movie for giving the audience the time to get invested in the "haunted family" and the sequel even expands on that. You really get to know these people and the film allows you to care for them.
It relies a tad more on jump scares than the first one, but these are so well set up and executed that it actually works very well.
A great sequel, a great movie and definitely another instant horror classic.
While not as outstanding as the first film it still delivers a gripping experience. The scares are much more terrifying than the first and were definitely the central standout of the film. A very good sequel.
Creepy in parts. And really good creeps. But, pretty plain and obvious. The ending is terrible. The ending is just too easy -- good overcomes evil in a snap. Everybody survives.
very frightening, on the edge of my seat constantly..chilly horror.. wish they would come out with #3
It's only partially faithful to the first, it does great at building tension and anticipation. But after a certain point in the film, it goes a bit too far with the cheese. The other two monsters were really unecessary in my opinion. I know that technically all of them were the nun in disguise, but it's still... Lame. The Enfield story is spooky enough, but I suppose they needed an excuse to introduce the nun for future movies. Found the Crooked Man also a bit too much, seeing him full on made us laugh rather than scared. If they had to have the nun in the films, it would have been far more interesting to maintain some mystery about her, so not having her on screen so much and certainly not in good lighting with the comical mouth thing she had going on. The old man was great but had too much of the spotlight stolen.
Still a decent horror flick, just not as scary as the first one.
The credits may be scarier than the movie.
It is a very horror movie and has many paranormal scenes.
The action at the end is not who knows what because it looks like the end of Annabelle 1, but anyway the story is very good, well continue the first one.
The most horrible scene was the one in which Valek first appears.
Vera Farmiga is so great. I don't know why does she put herself into this like... on purpose. More than once.
James Wan understands horror. Whether it's his hands-on directing or darkly lit cinematography, his flare feels real. What separates something like this from The Nun is it gives it's characters depth. Aside from the ham fisted "true story" narrative slapped across the opening and posters (which has been used in horror for years now), the tension from the film comes from the human interaction. You know, storytelling, an arc, building up emotional layers, finding something to relate this alien, and often hokey premise, to a general audience. There's something commendable about a film that will literally sit down and talk about bullying. A one shot scene where an out of focus character transforms into something else over time. The shock and surprise comes from these people feeling real; not some magic portal to hell that opened because bombs were dropped during world war two. While the effects get quite exaggerated, many times, it's hard to tell what is practical and digital, and I'm glad Wan still utilizes classic horror visual lighting, keeping everything moody and almost pitch black. We rag on modern horror for using a lot of the tropes (jump scares, religious undertones, Ouija boards, and demons), but what keeps this and Wan apart from others is it's down to Earth approach, even during the supernatural moments. At times, it feels like The Exorcist, in all the best ways, what scares you is what could be real, not what isn't. Also, let's applaud the soundtrack.
Not as good as the first and a little too long but it has some good scares.
Scares the *hit out of me... :smile::smile::smile::speak_no_evil: The best horror movie that I have ever seen!! :clap::clap::scream:
this was fucking terrifying, jesus christ
8/10
No había vuelto a verla desde su estreno y la he disfrutado como la primera vez. Me siguen pareciendo de las mejores películas de terror de esta época y, sin duda, volveré a verlas. Lástima que #LaMonja fuera un chasco...:rolling_eyes:
I always got the nun in this confused with lady in black/witch/nun looking demon in Insidious. Thanks James Wan. But GOD how much I’d love to see a Warrens/Elaine crossover.
This was a throughly entertaining movie; all the nicer that the focus was in the UK as opposed to some corner of the United States as is so often the case.
I personally hadn't ever heard of this particular happening, but, it does seem to truly be quite well known. Do I believe it; yeah, I do actually. It seems very convincing to me and I don't think they were making it up. Of course, this has had the 'film' treatment so many aspects are enhanced for entertainment sake.
Two of the oddest things to me. First, the family continued to live in that house during and worst of all after the event. I mean, come on! Secondly, the family lived in that house with a 2ft deep water pool in the cellar from a leak! Get out of here! I am on leaks of any type and they have to be solved; I wouldn't live above a lake!
Despite having some major factual inaccuracies, the movie has some pretty accurate moments and the fantasy parts are very well done!
James Wan continues to assert himself as one of the best horror directors in the world. The Conjuring 2 brings back some of the characters we've grown to love in the first movie while also introducing some solid new ones. It may borrow a little too much from the first movie and the runtime is a little excessive but otherwise this is a great new entry to a solid and legitimate franchise.
Watch The Enfield Haunting instead, a much better telling of a 'true' story. I would certainly say it would be more enjoyable if I hadn't seen the fore mentioned three part drama.
Maravilhoso, ótimo filme de terror
As for a movie watched after midnight - quite good :)
James Wan really brought it this time. I was squirming in my seat the whole time.
Actually thought it was better than the first one.
Well, i tought it will be scary like they said. But it's not at all. Story is very good!
One of My Faves :D
I much prefer this one to the first one.That's very rare.
James wan knows what he's doing, and i hope he makes more horrors.. First time i watched this was in Cinema, second time around was even better, one of the best horrors i've seen in awhile, It's not one of them cheesy cheap budget crap, it's well made, a good picture.. tops the first movie.. get it watched!
The editing is the highlight of this movie.
Shout by nomaamVIP 7BlockedParent2016-06-11T04:13:24Z
Masterfully terrifying. Not just a bunch of jump scares either. The entire atmosphere of this film truly makes your skin crawl.