Expediente Warren: El caso Enfield

Sorprendentemente, no sorprende que Wan se tomara tanto tiempo para hacer la secuela de la mejor película diabólica estadounidense de los últimos años. Los recién llegados deben estar impresionados con su famoso estilo, él es simplemente una clase superior a todos los asustadores que lo rodean, pero aquellos que ya lo conocen bien necesitan un valor agregado guionístico para estar contentos. Y ese no está allí. El traslado a Inglaterra resultó refrescante, pero el curso de la resolución del caso de los Hodgson lo empuja para atrás. (27.06.2016)

Conjured by the mainstream. Exactly the same as the first one: almost flawless craftsmanship wrapped in ghost-story clichés where nothing really interesting happens. No tension, no surprising twist, not even any interesting jump-scares (there are jump-scares, and they are effective, but they are classic, nothing fun). The ghosts also look pretty weak from up close, the scariest one is the portrait of the nun. It’s more than two hours long, completely unwarranted given how simple everything is. The efforts to generate fear for the character of Ed Warren are in vain, in the previous film nothing happens to anyone in the end, and it’s clear that nothing will happen to anyone here, either. In short, a horror safe space, which is exactly what horror shouldn’t be. It can be safely recommended to the people unable to appreciate indie horror films with higher artistic values, that are also sharper and more demanding on the viewer (knock, knock). Unfortunately these days studios won’t offer anything better. The first time was a lot of fun, but, if we count the Insidious films, this is Wan’s fourth stop in the same building already, and that’s too much. For the next one, he should stay in the genre, but pick another sub-genre. (09.06.2016)

Wan is doing the same thing for the thousandth time, but he still knows how to tighten the strings famously, even though he uses the same thing and you actually feel a bit ashamed that you keep eating it up ("My home!"). This is true of the first half. The second half is a bit of a muddled screenwriting mess, where the supremacy of the ethereal child cast is ended by special effects and narrative imprudence. The first film is dramaturgically tighter, although it is actually about the same thing. (09.06.2016)

What do we have here? Two solid jump-scares, but otherwise it's a compilation of the most overused horror tropes and techniques we've seen in dozens of other genre-related films, and the 1970s horror films Wan refers to did it better. On top of that, there's a script that's just stupid, to the point of slamming the door louder than the ghost could. In the first half, Wan is still coaching with ease, but the second half is just a festival of stupidity and ineptitude. During some scenes, like the interrogation of the ghost ergo the girl with a mouthful of water, I felt ashamed of the filmmakers. But I won’t condemn Wan, he still knows how to polish a turd, like in the excellent prequel, which was simply better in many ways. (31.10.2016)

I’m glad that James Wan didn’t turn his back to the horror movie genre, as he had originally claimed, and that he filmed another mysterious story from the life beyond the stage. And I honestly say that I ignored the illogicalities – and there were quite a few of those – and I was enjoying the high-quality cinematography, which took me to places I didn’t expect and that also told a story that was interesting from its beginning to its end. I also have to add that I liked how the director didn’t necessarily lean only towards the horror movie as a genre and that he had a go at a couple of funny moments executed in proper British dry humor. I also thought that some of the scenes that looked like they fell out of Tim Burton’s head were pretty great. I simply didn’t watch this movie to get scared. I was mainly looking forward to the movie telling another ghost story, which is something that has been quite fashionable recently. (19.09.2016)