Movie Review: The Conjuring 2

“After everything we’ve seen, there isn’t much that rattles either of us anymore. But this one…this one still haunts me.”

When I first started this blog years ago, I was not a fan of the horror niche. I felt the genre had lost its way, had become infested with copycats, jump scares and murder porn. It was a desecrated canvas and there was mounting evidence to support that stance. If you’re a long-time reader, I’ve written about quite a few of them.

But I persisted on and over this period have found homages to classic horror (The Shining, The Silence of the Lambs, etc.). Scott Derrickson’s Sinister, Jennifer Kent’s The Babadook, Mike Flanagan’s Hush, Joss Whedon’s The Cabin in the Woods and Jordan Peele’s Get Out all remain personal favorites of mine and through more exposure to the medium, I’ve found more fertile crop than I originally believed to be there. The garden of horror is not all dead and unkempt after all.

I still find uncovering these gems to require significant effort and research one need not do to find a good action flick or laugh house. Perhaps due to marketing budgets, most horror flies under the radar and goes unnoticed by the general public without significant limelight. They don’t get the fanfare of a Marvel installment or star-studded drama. They operate in the shadows, as horrors are apt to do.

Add The Conjuring and its sequel to my trophy case.

My biggest takeaway from these first two pictures? Director James Wan gets it.

Horror, perhaps more than any other genre, requires dominant direction. Horror is not about script and story so much as aesthetic and tonality. A monster’s presence in a room says more than any quip of writing generally will. When done correctly, the two elements can amplify each other and serve as respective soundboards but a dread’s weight in a house pays huge dividends then and later.

Its predecessor had it and so does The Conjuring 2. Wan is no fluke, no one-time occurrence.

Chilling on a continuous loop, the 2016 installment contracts the spine and leaves you unknowingly shortening your breath, at times at the brink of gasping for air like on the edge of a mountain. Every scene offers the prospect of a new terror, leaving you analyzing every shot like an I Spy book. No detail, color scheme or piece of set design goes unseen during The Conjuring 2. It demands your full attention.

While the lore and the characters offer their own accolades, this sequel is so visually gripping they pale in comparison. That is likely one of the few downsides. The Conjuring 2 is simply so commanding optically, it almost leaves you in a state of paralysis, unable to perceive your immediate surroundings, as if in a trance. You expect the worst and yet you still find yourself in its clutches.

To say I was enamored with The Conjuring 2 might be an understatement. Wan’s prowess with captivation is extraordinary. Truly mesmerizing. It’s as if he has your eyes on a string, magnetized to whatever he chooses. The film’s sound editing only furthers the maestro’s orders. You dare not take a breath without his say so.

With apt steering and stunning finesse behind the camera, all that’s in front of it runs like a smooth red wine. The story line is certainly disturbing enough to garner interest. Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson perform admirably in their reprisals of Lorraine and Ed Warren, paranormal detectives. While such things are easy to discount in conversation, you’re ready to believe just about anything after viewing. Wan’s otherworldly handling seems capable of making anything believable.

There is a need for a more domineering heft from Farmiga and Wilson or any other character who comes on screen to match Wan’s intensity. Despite surreal experiences, the Warrens seem rather plain and composed. This doesn’t lend well to theatrics or impressions. I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say underwritten but certainly underdeveloped compared to the two pieces’ finer points. Against all the greatness on screen, character is rather lacking in these chapters and that’s what prevents The Conjuring 2 from endearing itself as an extraordinary product.

Once again, if you’re new to my blog, I’ve always ranked movies on a scale of 0-100 (I don’t know why, I just always have). Here’s the grading scale. 

90-100  It’s a great movie and definitely one worth buying. (Batman Begins, The Matrix, L.A. Confidential, Her, Taken)

80-89  It was a pretty good movie and definitely one worth seeing, but it doesn’t quite scratch my top ten percentile. (Spider-Man: Far From Home, Dumb and Dumber, Pokemon Detective Pikachu, The Matrix Reloaded,Wanted)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too. (Solo: A Star Wars Story, The Matrix Revolutions, Triple Frontier, I am Legend, Ip Man 2)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (Zathura: A Space Adventure, Battleship, The Rundown, 2 Fast 2 Furious, Doctor Strange)

50-59   This movie isn’t intolerable but it’s not blowing my mind either. I’m trying really hard to get some sort of enjoyment out of this. (G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, XXX, The Silence, The Fast and the Furious, Brooklyn’s Finest)

40-49   This movie is just mediocre. It’s not doing anything other than the bare minimal, so morbidly boring that sometimes I’m actually angry I watched this. (Transporter 3, Doom, The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, Power Rangers)

30-39   Definitely worse than mediocre, the 30′s ironically define the 1930′s, full of depression, lack of accomplishments, poverty and just so dumb. (Bulletproof Monk, High-Rise, Most Likely to Die, Independence Day: Resurgence, The Crow: City of Angels)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (XXX: State of the Union, The Snowman, Avalanche Sharks, Catwoman, The Gunman)

0-19      Watching this movie resulted in one or more of the following: seizure, loss of brain cells, falling asleep/unconsciousness, feel you wasted your time/day, accomplished nothing for you, left the movie knowing less about it then you did going into it, constantly asking yourself why you came to see this movie, or near-death experience. In short, staring at a wall was just as entertaining as watching this movie. This movie deserved a sticker or a label that said, “WARNING: EXTREME AMOUNT OF SUCKAGE.” (The Extendables, The Coed and the Zombie Stoner, The Forbidden Dimensions, Cyborg, Outcast)

My score for The Conjuring 2: 84.

When your leading lad is this forceful, it’s impossible to fail. Wan’s direction alone demonstrates The Conjuring 2‘s quality and right to fame but a memorable character to balance the scales limits how high it can go.

Movie Review: The Conjuring

James Wan’s 2013 novella was beloved by audiences, conjuring over $300 million and becoming one of the highest-grossing horror films in cinematic history.

As I’ve made my way through the depths of horror these last few years, I’ve found a lot of duds, the type of garbage that turned me off to the genre at an early age. I’ve also found some crystals such as Cabin in the Woods, Sinister, The Babadook and The Shining, films that demonstrate tension, creativity and imagination. These are the type of productions that keep the category alive. We need more of them.

The Conjuring, through and through, is an ode to original horrors such as The Exorcist, playing on high wires, shredding one’s nerves against a grater and stretching them with a rolling pin like an experienced culinary maestro. Wan has a talent for this type of film making, pairing a fascination with cinematography with a genuine care for character. The widely known pitfalls of the niche are tactfully avoided by his pen strokes. (You’ll be hard pressed to find a misplaced horror trope.)

This isn’t to say The Conjuring is revolutionary in its innovativeness. Familiar imagery is often used to give us rather blatant gestures. Wan is not trying to finesse you. He’s going to come at you. Here, we’ll play a game of hide and seek in Rhode Island before unleashing the stops in the final third. A certain bar of patience is required, though I feel the apprehension to what we all know is coming is more than enough of a reason to stick around. We’re all toys in Wan’s fantasy. We’re just being played with.

The acting is capable though nothing dramatic. Most of its success is from its authenticity. Invested characters are key to an audience’s sympathy and involvement. Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson bring intrigue to demon hunters and paranormal specialists, a concept rather difficult to take seriously without our acceptance of these leads.

I feel directors of scare stories underappreciate the value a character brings to said moving picture, whether it’s a slasher flick or dramatic mind bending. Cynics, especially like myself, are looking for any opportunity to remove themselves from the equation, which spells, “Uh-oh” for horror creationists. An audience not slaved by the puppeteer is hard to frighten. They still feel they have control of the situation. That’s why drawing a line from your audience to a character is so important, whether that person is protagonist or villain. Friday the 13th is great because that line is drawn from us to Jason. He embodies emotional trauma. It’s hard to watch a film like that and not get even a little uneasy. The same goes for Michael Myers and Halloween.

So when you start the film and find yourself asking why we’re spending what seems like forever on this family, that is why. It gives us time to get to know ourselves in this pattern.

This film contains little to no jump scares. Wan is not someone to dab in the trivial. Wan would prefer to throw elements into his pressure cooker and watch them slowly rise up until its overbearing, silently laughing like a mad scientist.

This is not the type of movie to scare the daylights out of you, nor tell you a whole lot about yourself. There are shades of destiny talk here and there between the Warrens but not much in form of storytelling is going on. It is, however, a nice stamp to add to your passport of horror trips if you’ve just begun your adventures. It dedicates itself to what the origins of this storytelling based themselves on: a slice of visual grandeur, a pinch of narrative bravado and a heavy sampling of anticipation.

Once again, if you’re new to my blog, I’ve always ranked movies on a scale of 0-100 (I don’t know why, I just always have). Here’s the grading scale.  

90-100  It’s a great movie and definitely one worth buying. (Captain America: Civil War, Deadpool, Avengers: Age of Ultron, The Avengers, The Babadook)

80-89   It was a pretty good movie and definitely one worth seeing, but it doesn’t quite scratch my top ten percentile. (Sinister, Olympus Has Fallen, The Cable Guy, The Cabin in the Woods, Tears of the Sun)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too. (Ip Man 2, Ip Man, Kong: Skull Island, The Invitation, Hush)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (Doctor Strange, Johnny Mnemonic, Jason Bourne, Suicide Squad, Batman Forever)

50-59   This movie isn’t intolerable but it’s not blowing my mind either. I’m trying really hard to get some sort of enjoyment out of this. (Tommy Boy, Death Note, True Memoirs of an International Assassin, The Great Wall, Robin Hood)

40-49   This movie is just mediocre. It’s not doing anything other than the bare minimal, so morbidly boring that sometimes I’m actually angry I watched this. (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, Power Rangers, Underworld: Evolution, Batman & Robin, Bloodsport)

30-39   Definitely worse than mediocre, the 30′s ironically define the 1930′s, full of depression, lack of accomplishments, poverty and just so dumb. (Most Likely to Die, Independence Day: Resurgence, The Crow: City of Angels, Centurion, Planet of the Apes)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (The Snowman, Avalanche Sharks, Catwoman, The Gunman, The Visit)

0-19      Watching this movie resulted in one or more of the following: seizure, loss of brain cells, falling asleep/unconsciousness, feel you wasted your time/day, accomplished nothing for you, left the movie knowing less about it then you did going into it, constantly asking yourself why you came to see this movie, or near-death experience. In short, staring at a wall was just as entertaining as watching this movie. This movie deserved a sticker or a label that said, “WARNING: EXTREME AMOUNT OF SUCKAGE.” (The Coed and the Zombie Stoner, The Forbidden Dimensions, Cyborg, Outcast, Sabotage)

My score for The Conjuring: 86.

People might have hyped this up a tad too much for me to see it as a magnum opus but it’s still clear The Conjuring pulls its punches and waits for its characters’ most vulnerable moment before unleashing on them. James Wan is certainly a prodigy in the industry.

Movie Review: Watchmen

To even take time to talk about this film pains me. This movie is really bad. It was so bad when my brother and I first watched it on TV, we couldn’t even make it past the half hour mark. However, everyone mentions Watchmen at one point or another and I was tired of being left out of the loop.

Zack Snyder hits few cinematic targets and the things he does succeed at don’t meet any sort of standard. The score to the film is well done and accentuates the overall tone of the film and the dark humor is sly but effective. Notice neither of these things have anything to do with story structure, plot stability or character.

The only character who hits the figurative nail is Jackie Earle Haley’s Rorschach. Haley’s acting draws many parallels to Clint Eastwood. His depiction is the only one with any solidarity in this hunk of junk somehow deserving of the title “film”. Incredibly dark and sadistic plus his ever-changing face, Rorschach is easily Watchmen‘s most notable commodity.

Without these three minimal positives, Watchmen would easily be the worst film I’ve ever seen and yes, even worse than Alien 3. The pacing of a soldier who just got his legs blown off by shrapnel, Watchmen drags on…..and on…..and on…..AND ON… It never ends, ever, until your mind is empty, full of cobwebs and has lost any sense of mental presence. Who knows? Depending on who you are, your physical existence might be in jeopardy because this is a movie that could send someone over the edge, not because of its message but because it’s just so damn ponderous and insubstantial. Not even oxygen could exist in this atmosphere. Even the air would scream, “NO!!! I can’t take this anymore!!! I quit!!!”

And that’s just what the tempo does to you. The overall specimen we are reviewing today is far more toxic than that. Heck, no oxygen is child’s play compared to what this film is capable of.

We learn the background story of every notable character. Every single one. It makes Watchmen more of a biographical adaptation than a story. A film should have development, not minutes upon minutes of background detracting from any conflict this film may or may not have. Subplots dominate the run time on a continual cycle as do revolving narrators and camera specimens. Rarely is our band of heroes together.

Naturally, Watchmen is going very dark and vulgar with its tone. Composing a tone as brutal and uncompromising as this film wants is no easy task. It takes a lot of time, effort and diverse screenwriting. While there is little doubt the writers were given unlimited paper and pen, they don’t accomplish the message they set out to send. What this film is trying to say and what it says are two different things. What I think it was trying to say was the world is corrupt and there’s no sort of redemptive justice willing to do anything about it. Humans are vicious creatures capable of tortures we would rather not imagine because the thought is sickening. The world is full of sludge.

However, I think it’s important to show some light, some good in the world, even if just a bit. If there’s no good in the world, then what’s the point of justice? What’s the definition of life? If there is no innocence, no youthful naivety, no will for good and no concept of conscience, then how can this film complain about the circumstances it finds itself in? None of our heroes have an interest in saving anyone, contradicting the basic understanding of the word “hero”, but on the other hand, this film doesn’t direct the camera to anyone needing saving except for one minor and incredibly short scene that felt like a deleted scene more than actual movie material. In Watchmen‘s eyes, the world is full of ravenous dogs and the gnashing of teeth, fighting for the rotten scraps remaining on the curb. There are no puppies or a need for good. If there’s no need for good, why have heroes? This film is like hell on earth and if Snyder could have answered my most recent question, it would have gotten a lot more points from me but he doesn’t nor showed the aspiration to do so. There’s no doubt the want to discuss ethical questions is there but Watchmen fails to show two sides of the coin, leaving us with only one side and one option. You can’t argue which option is correct when there’s only one option, making the ethical questions you’re trying to discuss null and void. The underwritten characters rely far too much on comic profiles and previous material, only making this film’s primary purpose all the more impractical.

With the majority of this film’s deeper meaning evaporated, the only thing Watchmen has to lean on is a plot that balances like the Leaning Tower of Pisa, leading to a domino effect of collapsing film devices.

Dr. Manhattan leads our league of inferior characters, continually demonstrating his ineptitude for emotional output or humanistic tendencies. A blue robot more than a former human, Dr. Manhattan reserves no empathy or care for anything, making him as unreachable as a lone man in Antarctica.

The first hour of this is dedicated to past memories of the Comedian, who in every sequence proves to be filth just like the rest of the world. That is where I think this film really lost me, was when I realized these characters are not superheroes at all. They are neither super nor heroes. It’s almost as if this film is trying to debate the notion of superheroes, if the term is a fictitious thought or a genuine reality. If anything in this film was more developed, maybe it had a chance but there’s too much multitasking here to accomplish anything at a bearable level.

Once again, if you’re new to my blog,  I’ve always ranked movies on a scale of 0-100 (I don’t know why, I just always have). Here’s the grading scale.  

90-100  It’s a great movie and definitely one worth buying. (Guardians of the Galaxy, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Transformers: Age of Extinction, Jack Reacher, Godzilla)

80-89   It was a pretty good movie and definitely one worth seeing, but it doesn’t quite scratch my top ten percentile. (Tears of the Sun, Edge of Tomorrow, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Young Guns, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too.(Red Dawn(2012), Maleficent, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Transporter 2, Battle: Los Angeles)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, The Transporter, Speed, Godzilla(1998), The Incredible Hulk)

50-59   This movie isn’t intolerable but it’s not blowing my mind either. I’m trying really hard to get some sort of enjoyment out of this. (G.I. Joe: Retaliation, Vantage Point, The Starving Games, You’re Next, Thor)

40-49   This movie is just mediocre. It’s not doing anything other than the bare minimal, so morbidly boring that sometimes I’m actually angry I watched this. (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Billy Madison, A Haunted House, 300: Rise of an Empire, Cowboys and Aliens)

30-39   Definitely worse than mediocre, the 30′s ironically define the 1930′s, full of depression, lack of accomplishments, poverty and just so dumb. (Planet of the Apes, Stonados, Redemption, Pride and Prejudice, The Contract)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (X-Men: Days of Future Past, Thor: The Dark World, The Sum of All Fears)

0-19      Watching this movie resulted in one or more of the following: seizure, loss of brain cells, falling asleep/unconsciousness, feel you wasted your time/day, accomplished nothing for you, left the movie knowing less about it then you did going into it, constantly asking yourself why you came to see this movie, or near-death experience. In short, staring at a wall was just as entertaining as watching this movie. This movie deserved a sticker or a label that said, “WARNING: EXTREME AMOUNT OF SUCKAGE.” (Clash of the Titans, A Haunted House 2, Open Grave, Alien 3, Dark Fury)

My score for Watchmen: 11.

Watchmen is centered on its theme. If it was more of a philosophical discussion and less of directionless character dialogue focused on the overcomplicated plot, this might have been half decent. As it stands, Watchmen is a malignant tumor slowly overtaking the agonized viewer for all of its absurdly lengthy 161-minute run time. There are a few scenes where people are spray painting on walls and windows, “Who watches Watchmen?” The correct answer is no one because like these characters’ attitude towards other people, no one cares.