Bruce Willis is at the height of his game here as his "Cole" character is sent back in time to find out just how the world came to suffer from a virus that all but wiped out humanity. He is promised early release from his extended prison sentence if he can glean enough information and get back alive to share it! Thing is, they put him back a bit too early and his harbingering of doom stuff merely serves to find him sectioned and under the care of scientist "Railly" (Madeleine Stowe) and friends with the off-his-trolley "Goines" (Brad Pitt) who might just have an use when it comes to fulfilling their quest. "Railly" doesn't exactly volunteer to help him out, but quickly she and "Cole" are onto a group called the "Army of the Twelve Monkeys" believing that they might hold some of the clues to this man-made misery in waiting. It's a Terry Gilliam film so the plot is never going to stick to just the one dimension. Accordingly, "Cole" starts to lose his grasp on reality - he hallucinates, hears voices and generally begins to wonder if he is going mad. Maybe it's the effects of time travel? Maybe something more sinister is afoot? Willis and Stowe are on good form but it's actually Pitt who plays the role of the bonkers "Goines" more memorably. You just know that his character has more to it than the vacillatingly unhinged man presented in the hospital, and as the adventure develops these three characters present us with a quickly paced story that mixes the future with the past whilst peppering the whole thing with questions about the morality of vivisection, scientific experimentation and unfettered technological advances. Why would anyone want to create a virus this potent and irreversible anyway? That's the question.

**An excellent sci-fi film that deserves our attention.**
I didn't really know what to expect when this movie was on TV very recently, but I was really glued to the set until the end thanks to a truly absorbing story and a collection of great actors who do a great job. I don't know director Terry Gilliam very well, I've only seen one or two of his films so far (not counting this film), but I'm beginning to understand his aesthetic a bit. However, I recognize that surrealism, of which the director is adept, and the bizarre script can really make it difficult to understand the work.
The film begins by immersing us in a profoundly dystopian world, where humanity was almost extinct by a pandemic. As the disease comes from an airborne virus that was deliberately released, the survivors moved into underground shelters. Technology, however, has evolved and allows the sending of chrononauts (that is, time travelers) to the past, in order to obtain pure samples of the virus, which can be used in the manufacture of a vaccine or medicine.
This is how James Cole, a criminal, is chosen for time travel in exchange for his crimes being forgiven. His mission is not to alter the past by preventing the release of the virus, even if he seems to want to. The mission is to locate those responsible and pass on all the information to the future, in order to send another agent who will collect the samples. But he only knows that a radicalized environmentalist group, the Army of the Twelve Monkeys, was responsible. Sent by accident to 1990 (instead of 1996), he ends up in an insane asylum where he will befriend the manic Jeffrey Goines and endear Dr. Railly.
The film deals with very complex themes, such as time travel, temporal paradoxes, the impossibility of changing the past, and even madness, the tenuous difference between reality and imagination, or between sanity and insanity. It has several advances and retreats in time and you have to be attentive, but what intrigues viewers the most is its ending, strangely sudden and confusing. I understood it quite well, and I think you just need to pay attention to the film to understand everything, but I'll leave a clue to help: the eyes of the protagonist and the eyes of the child that we see at the end of the film are exactly the same, and the what she sees coincides perfectly with a recurring dream that torments the protagonist, coming from the future. I say no more.
I loved Brad Pitt's performance in this movie. The actor, very used to heartthrob roles where he can use and abuse his natural charm, is almost unrecognizable here. Of course, younger and less experienced, but just as impeccable. I don't know to what extent participating in this film had an influence on his learning as an actor, but I believe it was useful for Pitt. Bruce Willis is also an actor who deserves a positive mention for his work here. He really seems confused, and in many scenes he manages to give the character the feeling that she is abandoning herself to the course of events, fighting against it whenever she feels her mission is in danger. Madeleine Stowe's performance was not so happy: while being frankly positive, it is the least interesting and the most conventional.
Technically, the film is flawless. Gilliam cleverly takes advantage of the sets and costumes and makes a truly strange, bizarre future, with those plastic protective suits and that ball in the interrogation scenes. It's an ugly world that we don't want to see one day. I especially liked the cinematography, and the way the director works the footage in a way that makes everything even more surreal and strange. For example, the scene on the staircase of Goines' father's mansion, which is as elegant and majestic as it is labyrinthine and dreamlike. In addition to the good effects, the film also has a very effective soundtrack.

**_A-man-comes-back-from-the-future Sci-Fi with Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt_**
In 2035 survivors are living underground after a viral outbreak has wiped out most of the populace. A prisoner (Bruce Willis) is sent back in time to obtain the original virus so scientists can find a cure. Madeleine Stowe, Brad Pitt, Christopher Plummer and David Morse are on hand in key roles.
"12 Monkeys" (1996) has a huge reputation as a sci-fi thriller and is iconic of 90’s cinema. The man coming back from the future plot immediately brings to mind the first two Terminator flicks (from 1984 and 1991), but “12 Monkeys” pales by comparison.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s worth seeing and is entertaining enough with Madeleine Stowe shining, but the story is hampered by a muddled tone of schizophrenia and the unrelenting grunginess of the visual aesthetic (which makes perfect sense for 2035, but not for 1990 and 1996 where most of the events take place). In short, the movie’s just not as compelling as it could be.
People gush over Brad Pitt’s role and he is entertaining, but it’s a glaring rip-off of Dennis Hopper’s photojournalist in “Apocalypse Now” (1979), although I suppose you could see it as an homage. In any case, I could see through Pitt’s acting here and there whereas Hopper was the real deal, perhaps because he & crew were literally stuck in the sweltering jungle waiting around for days doing drugs or whatever while Coppola & Brando worked out the kinks in the script for the last act.
If I'm in the mood for this kind of fare, the first three Terminator flicks are a superior option and even the remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (2008). This one's decent, but overrated.
The film runs 2 hours, 9 minutes, and was shot primarily in the Philadelphia & Baltimore areas. For instance, Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia was used for the rundown asylum.
GRADE: B-

Really good sci-fi thriller with wonderful performances by Bruce Willis, Madeline Stowe and Brad Pitt. Really well done by director Terry Gilliam that has great pacing through the two hour running time. **4.0/5**

"Luca" endures, really, a life beneath the sea where he acts as a sort of shepherd for fish each day before returning home to his loving but over-bearing mother. It's when he encounters a fishing boat near the surface, that he becomes intrigued by things going on on land. Scavenging for jetsam, he encounters "Alberto" - only to discover that this lad lives two lives. He also has a terrestrial home atop a ruined tower. Gradually the two become firm friends, and soon "Luca" is spending more time as an human boy than he is as a sea creature. Determined to stay one step ahead of his parents, the boys decide to relocate to the town - and that's where they hope to be able to save enough money to buy a "Vespa". They spot one - a bit rusty and dilapidated, but how to get the cash? That might come in the way of the annual Porto Rosso Cup - but to win that they have to outwit the town bully "Ercole". He's not so much a brutal bully, more an entitled eedjit with a superiority complex. The boys have to be mindful of one thing, though. Get wet and they return to their natural "sea monster" form - and that will scare the local population and they'll be toast. I really quite enjoyed this. It's a simple story of two boys who make friends and dream of escaping to a new world of amazing and exciting opportunity together. There's even an engaging hint of jealousy that creeps in too, when "Alberto" feels snubbed when "Luca" and their new friend "Giulia" start to send more time together, and especially when they talk about voluntarily going to school! The narrative delivers a clear story of family, loyalty and fun with loads of daft Italian expressions incorporated into the lively dialogue (sorry if you are called Bruno!). Much less cloying and sentimental than many Pixar characterisation, it's a story about not being afraid of what (or who) you don't know and it's unashamedly a bromance.

Meh. Nothing creative here. Cute film and all but certainly not Pixar's best.

Really good watch, could watch again, and can recommend.
This is full of fun and child-like wonder, with a surprising edge to it as there is an usual amount of violence directly related to the main characters.
This has a very wholesome feel to it as it has the romantic aspect of searching for new frontiers and adventures, but not necessarily for romantic relationships.
The story does a good job of pacing out the events of the movie allowing for each aspect to take the focus it needs.
While this is a movie about a triatholon, it's a better story about freedom and acceptance.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/luca-spoiler-free-review
"Luca follows the studio's formulas of success closely without taking any unique detours, but it still tells a compelling story with relatable characters that gets to the viewers' heartstrings. From the detailed animation that makes the Italian coast look realistically astonishing to Dan Romer's rich score that hits all the right notes, without forgetting the outstanding voice work, every Pixar's trademark technical attribute is present in an admittedly less complex, unsurprising narrative. Enrico Casarosa takes Jesse Andrews and Mike Jones' light screenplay through a generic structure, where the "feeling/being different" theme is efficiently developed but closed in an underwhelming manner. Nevertheless, predictability means nothing in a movie where fully-developed characters spend the summer creating genuine friendships with an impactful emotional weight that might induce a couple of tears in the last few powerful minutes. It's not my favorite Pixar flick, but it's definitely a good film that I wholeheartedly recommend watching."
Rating: B

The artists at Disney and Pixar have returned with a new animated film “Luca” which will debut on Disney+ on June 18th.
The film introduces audiences to Luca (Jacob Tremblay); a young Sea Monster who lives with his family and fellow fish off the coast of a small town in Italy. Luca is warned not to go on the surface and to avoid humans at all costs by his parents.
When a rebellious Sea Monster named Alberto (Jack Dylan Grazer); happens upon Luca and gets him to the surface; Luca discovers that he and Alberto appear as human boys when their skin is no longer wet.
Fascinated by the rebellious life Alberto leads and amazed by what he sees upon his brief land excursions; Luca looks for new ways to find time on the surface which leads to him being more and more deceptive to his parents.
In time Luca and Alberto head to the village and meet a spunky local girl named Giulia (Emma Berman); who is on a break from school and longs to win a local race in order to get back at the reigning champion and bully.
Luca and Alberto see the race as a chance to win money to buy their own Vespa which they see as the key to exploring the surface world which sets a chain of events into motion as their two worlds are about to collide leading up to the race.
The film is visually appealing, but the story for me dragged and did not have the spark and heart that have made countless PIXAR films enduring classics. While the characters were fine; they did not have the appeal or charisma that I have come to expect with the PIXAR brand.
There have been reports that after “SOUL” was moved from a theatrical release to streaming during the Pandemic that some at PIXAR were upset with the decision to make “Luca” a streaming option. My take is that it was 100% the correct decision as while it is an entertaining film; it is not one that is likely to light up the Box Office and is better suited for a streaming debut.
The biggest issue with “Luca” is that coming from a studio with such a long line of classics; it fails to reach the levels previously set and while entertaining comes up lacking.
3 stars out of 5

There's a lovely quote from the late Lord Attenborough at the end of this film along the lines of "...creatures don't need our help to survive, they need our absence". Never a truer word, but sadly it doesn't really enliven this merchandising booster of a film. The aforementioned gent, "Hammond" has had control of his company wrested away from him and informs chaotician "Malcolm" (Jeff Goldblum) that there's a B-site full of the beasties from the first film and his new board are determined to monetise them all. He has to get there first, and so armed with his sarcastic wit and the savvy Quatermain-esque "Tembo" (Pete Postlethwaite) off he goes. Of course, it being a Spielberg movie, there has to be an annoying child and in this case that's the stowaway "Kelly" (Vanessa Chester) and to complete our line up of charm-free misfits we have Vince Vaughn's "Nick" and Julianne Moore's "Sarah". Thereafter we embark on an whole load of set-piece snatched from the jaws (literally) of death time and time again type scenarios from the real stars of the show, only they have lost the wow factor of their 1993 outing and so now look like pale imitations or something from Ray Harryhausen's reject pile. The story is all too hysterically predictable as it turns out that the venal and the scientific end up going head to head with each other, and the ravenous dinosaurs, before a denouement that is entirely fitting but about ninety minutes later than I wanted it to be. Postlethwaite is the only one here who has anything like a character, in many ways akin to Bob Peck's first time round and there are some astonishingly creative visuals, but this is a sequel that nobody is going to look back upon very fondly.

The Lost World: Jurassic Park tries to follow in the footsteps of the original masterpiece but stumbles along the way. While Spielberg delivers some thrilling action and stunning visuals, the movie lacks the charm and cohesion that made Jurassic Park so iconic. From the start, it feels like something is missing. The plot kicks off with a weak foundation, and motivations for the characters feel scattered and unclear, which makes it hard to connect with their journey.
What really hurts the movie is the lack of focus. The story feels pulled in multiple directions, with some characters there to explore, others there to capture dinosaurs, and a few just along for the ride. This muddled narrative waters down the tension and excitement, leaving you questioning the point of certain scenes. Even Ian Malcolm, who was a standout in the first movie, struggles to carry the weight of a leading role here. The awe and wonder of the original have been replaced by darker tones and chaotic action, which might appeal to some but feels like a step back overall.
That said, the movie does have its moments. The action sequences are gripping, and Spielberg still knows how to build tension when it counts. Visually, it’s as impressive as you’d expect, with dinosaurs that still hold up today. But ultimately, The Lost World feels like a sequel that’s trying too hard to recapture the magic of its predecessor without fully understanding what made it special in the first place. It’s worth a watch for the action and nostalgia, but don’t expect it to leave the same lasting impression as the original.

The other 2 star / 40% review of this movie is on point. The Lost World: Jurassic Park sucks on so many levels.
I had Jurassic Park 1 on repeat for nearly 24 hours and every time I sat down I had a laugh or a feeling of awe or excitement. Jurassic Park 1 is truly a marvel. Apart from the squealing, the characters are well written and well acted. The casting is amazing, even the kids, and it's so WOKE I oughta give it a 10/10. _Actually, I think I will._
This time around it's all trash.
Malcolm returns but the off-putting charisma that made him "beloved" is dulled. The kids return for a cameo but get replaced by Malcolm's daughter who... exists like Stacker Pentecost's son apparently exits in Pacific Rim. She does basically nothing for the majority of the movie. I'm not one to hate on kids unless they're insufferable but she kinda embodies the reaction I had throughout this movie, which is "this is pointless". Pointless movie, nothing happens, sure some folks get nommed but no one cares because they're all kinda stupid and useless except for the first guy who gets nommed _who I'm almost certain mentioned the Rexes left the area_.
I've never seen Julianne Moore smile so much. Her character, Sarah, is fine up until Sarah and Nick do the "no good deed" _with a lot of unnecessary stupid_ that results in the events of this movie.
Unlike the normal fare, I don't have an issue with women or feminism so her little quip about not needing Malcolm to save her at the start of the movie before everything goes awry doesn't phase me. She went there not expecting events to unfold the way they did, and by events I mean Ludlow.
Anyway, back on topic. There isn't much else to say except just re-watch Jurassic Park 1 five times and you'll likely have a better time than watching any of the five sequels.
P.S.: Can anyone explain the ship? Anyone at all? I know what the script says was supposed to happen but that's not what we get in the movie and the movie makes no sense whatsoever.
4/10 is too generous for this trash. I should reduce my rating. This was so disappointing after watching Jurassic Park 1 on repeat over the course of 24 hours.

Now they are trying to recover from the devastation that happened from the 1st one. This movie is pretty boring and not much happens.

I feel I should point out that my overall positive review is based on entertainment value and not at all on scientific accuracy and the like.
This sequel mirrors a few of the winning elements from the successful first movie: they retain Ian Malcolm, who is one of the highlights of the first film; they bring in a child, because it is much more dramatic to endanger children; they have at least one bad guy who we root for to become Dino-dinner; and there are plenty of action sequences with heart-stopping chases and hair-raising escapes. Several of the great one-liners are again given to Ian. My favorite line for all the Jurassic movies occurs early on. After they watch the cute Triceratops herd pass closely by them, Ian says, “Well yeah, ooh and ahh; that’s how it always starts, but then later there is running and then screaming.”
And four years after the first movie, they have learned one thing from other action films: increasing the body count. Why kill of a handful of people when you can easily send a large team in to capture the dinosaurs and start picking them off one at a time? They even have a T-Rex wandering the streets of San Diego like King Kong at the end. So it sticks to the formula with a few variances and is entertaining.

MORE REVIEWS @ https://www.msbreviews.com/
The Lost World definitely didn't deserve its originally bad reception. Sure, it's far from the incredible 1993's Jurassic Park. Less interesting character arcs and overall (silly) story.
However, it remains fun enough with equally memorable dinosaur sequences. Goldblum rocks.
Rating: B-

Actually where you're going is the only place in the world where the geese chase you!
The Lost World: Jurassic Park is directed by Steven Spielberg and adapted to screenplay by David Koepp from the novel written by Michael Crichton. It stars Jeff Goldblum, Julianne Moore, Pete Postlethwaite, Vince Vaughn, Richard Schiff, Peter Stormare, Vanessa Lee Chester, Arliss Howard and Harvey Jason. Music is scored by John Williams and cinematography by Janusz Kamiński.
Four years on from the horrors of Jurassic Park on Isla Nublar, it transpires that there is a second dinosaur site on Isla Sornar. Dr. Ian Malcolm (Goldblum) is forced to head off to face the horrors once again when he learns that his paleontologist girlfriend, Sara Harding (Moore), is already on the island as a forerunner to a team John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) is assembling to document the dinosaurs in their habitat. Once there, though, the problems soon arise, especially when a team from InGen arrive with other ideas about the dinosaurs on their minds.
Given the massive success of Jurassic Park in 1993, a sequel was inevitable. What transpires is pretty much more of the same, it's very safe film making by Spielberg. Coming off of the emotional exertions of his last film, Schindler's List, few can deny that the director was entitled to wind down with The Lost World project, there was after all nothing safe about Schindler's, but although Jurassic 2 is a hugely enjoyable family blockbuster, a jazzy bit of hi-tech fun, it lacks the requisite brains to make it an inspiring sequel.
Formula follows the same path, humans in peril on the island, with some added and new dinosaurs (double T-Rex a bonus), and then the "twist" in the narrative sees some monster peril come to San Diego, King Kong style, for the finale. There's inter fighting between the good dudes led by Malcolm and the bad guys led by the weasel Peter Ludlow (Howard) who is Hammond's conniving nephew and current head of InGen. Family issues also feature, of course since this is Spielberg after all, while the dangers of tampering with science message remains as strong as ever.
Cast are ably led by a witty Goldblum, who is a reassuring presence carried over from the first film, and the tech-credits are as expected, very high. Some scenes soar, such as a sequence shot from under a pane of glass that starts to crack under the weight of a character, others not so, such as having Malcolm's teenage daughter turn into Nadia Comăneci for one credulity stretching scene. But all told it's an honest blockbuster purely aimed at the target audience who helped to see it make over $600 million in profit. Safe often pays you see, and as sequels go it's one of the better ones in the 90s. It's exciting if intellectually stunted. 7/10

If you loved the charismatic Doctor Ian Malcolm of the first film, then get ready for him to take centre stage, and immediately have every interesting character trait stripped away! Did the original have you believing dinosaurs walked the Earth with its seamless blend of practical effects and groundbreaking CGI? Too bad! That's gone too! Sense of wonder? Poof! Marvel as each and every actor phones it in over an absurdly bloated runtime in: _Jurassic Park II_! I mean, _Jurassic Park II: The Lost World_... I mean, _The Lost World_! I mean, _The Lost World: Jurassic Park_ for some damn reason.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

An intense, serious and harrowing portrayal of the H.G. Wells classic. Tom Cruise doing an excellent job of not being Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning out acting everyone. It's hard to call this film an enjoyable watch as it's actually emotionally affecting at times, with some very raw realism concerning human nature. This movie manages to keep a constantly high pace without being exhausting to watch. Well worth a place in your collection.

Sometimes it just pays to leave well alone, and this remake of the 1953 version adds nothing aside from more sophisticated special effects. A vehicle for Tom Cruse, it allows Stephen Spielberg to turn this menacing and thought-provoking sci-fi classic into a family melodrama with the star and his dysfunctional family travelling the breadth of the country trying to escape the terror that is falling from the skies. These metallic creations are ruthless, destroying everything in their path but somehow the emphasis of this is more on why "Ray" can't get on with "Robbie" (Justin Chatwin) and whether or not "Rachel" (Dakota Fanning) can keep hold of her childhood toy. The effects are good: the lasers and the pyrotechnics; the explosions and scenes of dereliction are impressive - but oddly enough, I found them less so than in the iteration made fifty years earlier. Lots of horrified expressions as the cast look longingly at green screens, some banal dialogue and we end up with a film about the people in/behind it rather than one about alien world domination. After almost two hours, the ending - and it's huge significance - is almost an afterthought to the boring story of who did what to whom over the years in the "Ferrier" family. Cruise can, at times, bring charisma to the screen. Here he brings little and I am afraid that I found this a triumph of commercialism over creativity and was cheerily egging on the aliens from fairly early on.

First time seeing this in 15 years and lame plot, annoying characters (both kids got on my nerves) and a protagonist who just runs around, as Tom Cruise does so well, but has zero impact on the end game which was... bacteria. Yeah, this was just as dumb today as it was back then. At least the visual effects and sound design still holds up. **2.5/5**

I enjoyed this entry into the HG Wells film library. The special effects are great (to this amateur anyway) and the acting and action more than adequate. Plus it stays near enough to the sci-fi genius of the author to satisfy the fans of the classic novel. I will say that I got a little tired of the son acting like such a teenager, but he and the Tom Cruise character both show some character growth by the end of the film. Tom is one of those actors who seems to be playing himself a lot, but I suspect there is a lot more work to it than that. I'm not sure Dustin Hoffman would have gotten his Academy Award for Rain Man if he had played off a lesser actor than Cruise.
I think there are a couple of scenes the movie could have done without, such as in the cellar with Cruise, his daughter and the man who lived there. It slowed the story down, changed the tenor of the drama, and didn't add a lot, in my view. But it is what it is and overall I found War of the Worlds to be entertaining. Good science fiction movies can be hard to find.

'The Conjuring 2', 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.
[bit of a spoiler on the way]
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 'Annabelle' (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 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

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**

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.

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._

**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_

Atrocious directing and cheesy jump scares disguised as nonsensical "social commentary."

The core idea of a "purge" is interesting, but every single moment of "horror" or "thrill" in this film is a predictable jumpscare. It takes itself way too seriously and makes some heavy-handed social commentary, while at the same time being really unconvincing and riddled with tropes. Whenever one of the masked villains is on-screen you can count on them to silently tilt their head to the side, playfully skip with a weapon in hand, or giggle about killing.
The main concept and Lena Headey's acting bumped the rating up a little.

It's the basic premise that makes _The Purge_ such a chilling watch and, thought you may see the thrills and scares coming from a mile away, it's the most interesting home-invasion thriller that I've seen in a very long time.