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

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for