Skip to main content

They're calling it England's Amityville.

The Conjuring 2
(2016)

(SPOILERS) There’s a view that James Wan’s horror movies fall into the category of intelligent genre fare. And, I guess, they do, to the extent that they eschew gore and put the emphasis on character and atmosphere. But that doesn’t mean they’re any less beholden to standard shock tactics than their less esteemed brethren, or that the quality of the scripting is especially remarkable. The original The Conjuring was a decent-enough picture, making the most of its period setting and reputable lead thespians while flourishing its “based on a true story” badge with a pride that masked what should have had a “very, very loosely” preceding it. The Conjuring 2 is looser still in its authenticity, while possibly being even more enamoured of its ‘70s (England) trappings. It’s also the point where Wan’s signature moves have become entirely repetitive, even – at two and a quarter hours – exhaustingly so.


In the first scene – Amityville 1976 – our God-fearing ghost/demon/spirit busters Ed and Lorraine Warren are engaged in an attempt to contact the presence in the famous house, and Lorraine encounters a freaky-ass Marilyn Manson nun (are nuns destined to be the next clowns? Possibly best ask a Catholic, but definitely if the mooted spin-off movie materialises). A freaky-ass Marilyn Manson nun who will inform the rest of the proceedings, so rather like the device of Annabelle in the original. That’s an informative set-up for how the whole movie is going, as the sequence is chock full of whispers, ghostly creaking noises, out-of-body experiences, suddenly darkening lights, demon children, basements (naturally), sinister laughing and Dutch angles. Wan is pulling out his entire bag of tricks, but it’s a bag of tricks leading the way, not in service of a strong or original story.


There’s a reason William Peter Blatty had a reputation as an intelligent (to do the adjective justice) contributor to the genre, and that’s because his material was imbued with genuine thoughtfulness, with philosophical and religious enquiry and a desire to take a viewer on a journey – the journey the author is on. That may have meant that, without a base, crude shock tactician like William Friedkin, his work fell more often than not on deaf audiences (The Ninth Configuration, The Exorcist III), but it also emphasises how the genre very rarely manages to marry the two polar forces of scares and meditation over what lies behind those scares.


Wan has little going for him here smarts-wise, alas; he’s on a mission to redux everything in the original and his Insidious pictures, and the believer status of the Warrens has little real import (“Your visions are a gift from God” is about the extent of it). So Lorraine is haunted by something truly dreadful (“Ned, this is as close to Hell as I ever want to get”), which just happens to stylistically resemble the previous dread figures they have come across (or Wan has, at any rate). And, wouldn’t you know it, somehow the very same Amityville demon has been manipulating the spirit in the Enfield Haunting case. Small otherworld, innit?


Every tactic has become familiar to the point of banality here, be they sound attacks in the corners of rooms, a whole scene in a flooded basement that appears to be flooded just because (in a house that is truly TARDIS-like compared to its modest exterior), scary spirit Wilkins, who moves oddly but isn’t really especially unnerving, or the familiarly-possessed daughter of the house. The latter’s vocal antics are far less troubling than Frances O’Connor’s outrageous Dick van Dyke accent as mum Peggy Hodgson (the final photos of the actual protagonists in the case are an amusing reminder of how glammed up these productions are).


I go on a lot about unnecessary lengths of movies these days, but really, The Conjuring 2 has no business not topping out at 100 minutes tops. Which isn’t to say it would be suddenly a whole lot better, but it might be a recognition that an over-extended running time in a horror is no indication of respectability, or still further, depth. There’s the occasional strong scene, admittedly; Ned’s first interview with Wilkins, in which they all agree to turn away from Janet (Madison Wolfe) is effective and engaging, as he probes the spirit’s reasoning for remaining; the earlier sequence of a TV interview with the Warrens is almost self-reflexive in raising the claims of hoaxes in respect of their cases, as it also applies tangentially to Wan’s disdain for sticking to the purported facts behind his story.


Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson are, as before, a quietly compelling couple (when Vera isn’t called upon to scream, at least). Which is good, as there’s precious little substance for them to work with. Most of the supporting cast, O’Connor’s accent aside, are decent, including Franke Potente as the sceptical front in the field of paranormal investigation, although Simon McBurney may look the part but is distractingly broad as Maurice Grosse.


This is another of those summer releases set at Christmas, but even watching it seasonally fails to lend it much in the way of extra buzz. The Hark the Herald Angels Sing motif is about as far as it goes, although kudos to the director for including excerpts from The GoodiesThe End of the World Show, which the outrageous spirit absolutely refuses to let Janet sit down and watch all the way through, indulging in rampant channel hopping. There’s bound to be a The Conjuring 3, as this did as well as the first movie, but someone seriously needs to service the Warrens with a good screenplay; the four credited writers here (including Wan) resolutely fail in that regard.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

You can’t just outsource your entire life.

Tully (2018)
(SPOILERS) A major twist is revealed in the last fifteen minutes of Tully, one I'll happily admit not to have seen coming, but it says something about the movie that it failed to affect my misgivings over the picture up to that point either way. About the worst thing you can say about a twist is that it leaves you shrugging.

Outstanding. Now, let’s bite off all the heads and pile them up in the corner.

Venom (2018)
(SPOILERS) A 29% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes can't be wrong, can it? To go by the number of one-star reviews Sony’s attempt to kick-start their own shred of the Marvel-verse has received, you’d think it was the new Battlefield Earth, or Highlander II: The Quickening. Fortunately, it's far from that level of ignominy. And while it’s also a considerable distance from showing the polish and assuredness of the official Disney movies, it nevertheless manages to establish its own crudely winning sense of identity.

Well, you did take advantage of a drunken sailor.

Tomb Raider (2018)
(SPOILERS) There's evidently an appetite out there for a decent Tomb Raider movie, given that the lousy 2001 incarnation was successful enough to spawn a (lousy) sequel, and that this lousier reboot, scarcely conceivably, may have attracted enough bums on seats to do likewise. If we're going to distinguish between order of demerits, we could characterise the Angelina Jolie movies as both pretty bad; Tomb Raider, in contrast, is unforgivably tedious.

If you want to have a staring contest with me, you will lose.

Phantom Thread (2017)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps surprisingly not the lowest grossing of last year's Best Picture Oscar nominees (that was Call Me by Your Name) but certainly the one with the least buzz as a genuine contender, subjected as Phantom Thread was to a range of views from masterpiece (the critics) to drudge (a fair selection of general viewers). The mixed reaction wasn’t so very far from Paul Thomas Anderson's earlier The Master, and one suspects the nomination was more to do with the golden glow of Daniel Day-Lewis in his first role in half a decade (and last ever, if he's to be believed) than mass Academy rapture with the picture. Which is ironic, as the relatively unknown Vicky Krieps steals the film from under him.

The whole thing should just be your fucking nose!

A Star is Born (2018)
(SPOILERS) A shoe-in for Best Picture Oscar? Perhaps not, since it will have to beat at very least Roma and First Man to claim the prize, but this latest version of A Star is Born still comes laden with more acclaim than the previous three versions put together (and that's with a Best Picture nod for the 1937 original). While the film doesn't quite reach the consistent heights suggested by the majority of critics, who have evacuated their adjectival bowels lavishing it with superlatives, it's undoubtedly a remarkably well-made, stunningly acted piece, and perhaps even more notably, only rarely feels like its succumbing to just how familiar this tale of rise to, and parallel fall from, stardom has become.

Yes, cake is my weakness.

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017)
(SPOILERS) Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is good fun, and sometimes, that’s enough. It doesn’t break any new ground, and the establishing act is considerably better than the rather rote plotting and character development that follows, but Jake Kasdan’s semi-sequel more than justifies the decision to return to the stomping ground of the tepid 1995 original, a movie sold on its pixels, and is comfortably able to coast on the selling point of hormonal teenagers embodying grown adults.

This is by some distance Kasdan’s biggest movie, and he benefits considerably from Gyula Pados’s cinematography. Kasdan isn’t, I’d suggest, a natural with action set pieces, and the best sequences are clearly prevized ones he’d have little control over (a helicopter chase, most notably). I’m guessing Pados was brought aboard because of his work on Predators and the Maze Runners (although not the lusher first movie), and he lends the picture a suitably verdant veneer. Wh…

I take Quaaludes 10-15 times a day for my "back pain", Adderall to stay focused, Xanax to take the edge off, part to mellow me out, cocaine to wake me back up again, and morphine... Well, because it's awesome.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Along with Pain & Gain and The Great Gatsby, The Wolf of Wall Street might be viewed as the completion of a loose 2013 trilogy on the subject of success and excess; the American Dream gone awry. It’s the superior picture to its fellows, by turns enthralling, absurd, outrageous and hilarious. This is the fieriest, most deliriously vibrant picture from the director since the millennium turned. Nevertheless, stood in the company of Goodfellas, the Martin Scorsese film from which The Wolf of Wall Street consciously takes many of its cues, it is found wanting.

I was vaguely familiar with the title, not because I knew much about Jordan Belfort but because the script had been in development for such a long time (Ridley Scott was attached at one time). So part of the pleasure of the film is discovering how widely the story diverges from the Wall Street template. “The Wolf of Wall Street” suggests one who towers over the city like a behemoth, rather than a guy …