Minimal effective scares, laughable cockney accents, slim plot, poor dialogue, that lazy ending....
How did this film get so many good reviews? It's worse than the first one and waaaaaaaaay worse than James Wan's "Insidious".
It would seem you and I are among the few that weren't impressed by this movie. I can't believe the rating here is as high as it is, and that so many people are defending it almost angrily when someone says anything bad about it.
I watch a lot of horror movies, from big productions like this to small, independent films. This one was middling at best. And too long. And forgettable. There just wasn't anything original about it. That isn't necessarily required, but even with a predictable movie, you want it to draw you in. This just didn't. I hate to use internet slang, but I rate it "meh".
Count me in!
shareA lot of the people who gave it high ratings are probably teens who would be frightened to death of a thump on a wall. They have no idea what real horror is so let's not try to change their expectations. They will all continue to point out that this conjuring was 'well received' by critics without realizing that even dumb movies like avatar were well received and made lots of money.
shareYeah, it was pretty bad. It was basically big budget blockbuster horror. Tons of fancy FX, good production values but little in the way of plot, themes or characterization. It was purely an exercise in style and even at that it is lacking because a lot of the big scared fall flat.
http://batopusvs.com/