criterionforum.org

Not worth a thread I don't think, but The Conjuring is flat out fantastic. I daresay it maybe the second best movie ever made about demonic possession. After decades of shit and a handful of mediocre to okay efforts to reach that insanely high bar set by The Exorcist, The Conjuring has finally done the genre proud. Beautifully shot, nothing is too overwrought - from the score to the clothes to the general mise en scene (no HEY LOOK IT'S 1971!!!! hair dos or bell bottoms, etc). The house is great, the kids are uniformly good in each role, and Vera Farmiga, Ron Livingston, Lili Taylor, and Patrick Wilson give great performances themselves.

It's incredibly creepy and downright scary in spots without being over the top or insulting the audience by relying on stupid blaring music cues to tell you when to jump. One of the best "scary movies" to come out in years.

I plan to write more, but it's the first movie I've given 5/5 stars so far in 2013, and I can't think of a more classically great horror film since The Shining. I was blown away by how good it actually was, and it will likely be topping the box office for weeks to come as word of mouth spreads.

I thought James Wan's Insidious had a lot of promise, especially in the first third when it didn't bother to try and explain the creepy events. Wan also showed a real gift for spooky atmosphere, which left me optimistic for his future prospects-- and by all accounts this one is great. Critics seem to be falling over themselves to praise it and it has a genius marketing angle in being awarded an R rating for allegedly just being too scary for a PG-13. I'll have to wait for it to come to home video as there's no fucking way I'm dealing with the kind of crowd that shows up to a mainstream horror movie, but I am def intrigued.

It's a great one to see in a heavily air conditioned theater, though - perhaps at an off hour to lessen the crowd - the CinemaScope looks grand, and it didn't hurt that one of the lights against the wall in the auditorium we were in was flickering every few minutes, right at the edge of my periphery. I think I'll let my initial post stand for now in terms of praise until more people here have seen it - but it's one of those rare movies that is worthy of the hyperbole thrown at it - classics have to come along every few years in every genre - it's just a mathematical certainty - and this is one of those films that'll be talked about for years and years to come whenever some TV channel airs a "AFI's Scariest Films" special or somesuch.

I don't usually go in for contemporary horror films, but The Conjuring certainly seems to take a more classical approach. I've found myself anticipating my viewing more and over the passing week, and the positive feedback here is further encouragement. Hopefully I'll be able to get out to see it within the next few days.

It didnt quite meet my extremely high expectations, mostly because of the third act but the upsidedown camera and swinging bare lightbulb were very snazzy and it ends no worse than Insidious but it suffers that film's same problem of lingering too much on what should be teased and kept offscreen for purer scares, especially here where there's so much great harkening back to 70s horror (Exorcist, Amityville, Omen). As far as the mythology behind the supernatural events, I certainly prefer Sinister (which also couldnt land its 3rd act). But overall Wan is very talented and I look forward to Fast 7 and want to go back to see Saw (maybe...)

My wife made the Sinister argument too - and I'll agree that the videos (especially the one on the lawn) in that film were terrifying and stomach-turning. But that film was... missing something. I can't quite put my finger on what, I suppose I ought to see it again.

After rewatching "Saw" years later, I couldn't believe how amateurish it was from a directing point. I probably didn't notice it too much because the twists and turns were the driving point rather than the camerawork and direction. But then again, it was Wan's first big film. I liked "Insidious" but it wasn't incredible. This though, I'm very intrigued by. But I have to wait until next season when it opens in Japan.

Enjoyed this very much. Just a straight down the barrel period ghost tale tricked out as demonology. I love how straight Wan was with the Christian stuff right down to the Warren quote at the end and the ensemble cast was nicely balanced between besieged family members and paranormal experts. So much better in the muted palette compared to Insidious, which struck me as a Juggalo's idea of what is frightening, with the Darth Maul demon and the not-creepy-in-the-slightest "Tiptoe Through the Tulips" and the BDSM dude toward the end--too much neon red and too many meth-head tattoos brought to life. It seems like this time around Wan is taking a few cues from Ti West with regard to the slow burn of The Innkeepers. I wish more scare films had this kind of patience. Great casting, too. And I recommend sticking around for the end credits before the scroll--quite lovely in their own right. Not even a five-dollar-Tuesday Oakland crowd talking back to the characters could ruin this film.

domino harvey wrote:I'll have to wait for it to come to home video as there's no fucking way I'm dealing with the kind of crowd that shows up to a mainstream horror movie, but I am def intrigued.

But half the fun of seeing this is experiencing it with a large audience and feeling collectively played like an instrument by the director. If you're worried about texting or talking, I wouldn't be. The film is good enough that it should quiet everybody down. I haven't felt this kind of rapt attention or heard this enthusiastic an audience response to a first-run horror film in years. There was a row of teen girls right behind me who arrived primed to be scared and started screaming -- not without justification -- from the very first shot. A couple times I found myself jumping in my seat along with them.

It's old school horror indeed -- patient, allusive, where what we don't see is just as important and effectively scary as what we do. It's so visceral because it's so well constructed from moment to moment. All about the precise timing of the scares. It almost felt like a Val Lewton film in that sense (heck there's even a pretty prominent "Lewton bus" effect in at least one scene), constantly trying to head-fake us as to the exact moment and real direction of the next scare. The technical side of things -- especially the sound design -- is worth paying attention to if you're able, and yet another reason to catch this in theaters. A few of the most impactful sound effects just won't play the same even on the better home systems.

gcgiles1dollarbin wrote:...Insidious, which struck me as a Juggalo's idea of what is frightening, with the Darth Maul demon and the not-creepy-in-the-slightest "Tiptoe Through the Tulips"

Exactly! The level of taste and restraint in The Conjuring vs. Insidious is like night and day. I don't know if it's just the purported true story material or what, but I welcome the change and hope it sticks with the director.

gcgiles1dollarbin wrote:And I recommend sticking around for the end credits before the scroll..

Thanks for posting this....I meant to say the same in my initial post but spaced it. One of the best end credit sequences i've seen in a while.

mfunk9786 wrote:My wife made the Sinister argument too - and I'll agree that the videos (especially the one on the lawn) in that film were terrifying and stomach-turning. But that film was... missing something. I can't quite put my finger on what, I suppose I ought to see it again.

Everything else? That was my personal opinion on Sinister. If only the rest of the film had as much genuinely original scare tactics as those creepy videos. It's a shame the rest was so predictable because the idea of summoning ancient Babylonian evil deities in a modern setting via the lore of images inhabited with their power is awesome.

As for The Conjuring, I thought it also had a lot of potential but it didn't quite work for me. Call me a traditionalist/old fart, but I personally have something of a disconnect with CGI which removes the genuine creepiness from a lot of scenes in this film.

Spoiler

It takes me out of the film immediately when characters are face to face with CGI ghosts, so I was always wishing the film would just scale things back a few steps. However, I must admit that I loved the exorcism scene.

mfunk9786 wrote:I plan to write more, but it's the first movie I've given 5/5 stars so far in 2013, and I can't think of a more classically great horror film since The Shining. I was blown away by how good it actually was, and it will likely be topping the box office for weeks to come as word of mouth spreads.

I completely agree. I was thinking throughout the entire film how much it reminded me of The Shining mixed with some 70s horror elements, some of the camera tricks reminded me of Texas Chainsaw Massacre too. It was definitely a classically great horror film. It was intense and fast for an atmospheric classical horror, the feeling of uneasiness and nerve didn't let up for even one scene, from beginning to end it was gripping. Vera Farmiga was absolutely phenomenal, her facial expressions are incredible.

Having seen all of James Wan's films, I have to say I can't believe he was the man at the helm of this masterpiece. The direction was impeccable, Wan used a moving camera and camera techniques not only for style and to give a 70s vibe, but he found a way to make it practical. One particular shot comes to mind where a woman is running downstairs (won't spoil who) and he is shooting her upside down running and as she is getting out of the door he spins the camera upwards to film a man running into a bedroom upstairs (again won't spoil who or why). Insidious and to a lesser extent Dead Silence are fairly well directed and Wan shows his apt as a mood horror director but he certainly didn't show any signs that he was this good; especially considering he made Saw and Death Sentence as well, neither are particularly well directed films, the latter of which being one of the worst directed and worst shot films I've ever seen.


On a side note, I think it's pretty interesting that James Wan has been right at the forefront of two major horror film movements that have dominated the past decade. Two polarizing movements too, after Saw, every horror filmmaker wanted to make something more gory, bloody and grotesque then the rest (yes I know other gore horror's came out before this, like High Tension, but this was the film that got everyone's attention) and then after all of the other directors are moving in his footsteps he pulls a 180 and starts making horror films in a more atmospheric and classical fashion, particularly avoiding gore and violence, and then that becomes a movement too. I'm probably over crediting him, but still, it's pretty impressive that he's been able to make this much of a mark in modern horror, especially considering the majority of his films have been mediocre at best.

I found the first half hour of The Conjuring scary and very effective in places but it left me thinking how much better it could have been still if it wasn't so reminiscent of other and frankly superior films (The Exorcist, The Birds which is minor Hitchcock in my book, the original Haunting, Amityville Horror etc). A bit surprised by the very positive reception the film has gotten from many critics and the number of times forum members have listed it in their 2013 top tens though I agree it is competently made, especially when it relies on little violence and still got an R rating.

VHS 2, luckily for me, was much better than the original film which I pretty much hated. Less misogyny and fewer obnoxious characters this time round, with one standout segment (directed by Gareth Evans) and Eduardo Sanchez' refreshing take on zombies. Would have been genuinely good if it wasn't for Jason Eisner's terrible contribution for the final episode.

Comparisons to the The Exorcist are inevitable here, so let me just say that, while I've never been fully on board with that film, I think I liked this one for doing precisely what The Exorcist wanted to do in terms of theological persuasiveness. I think there's great significance to the Warren quote at the end of this film, particularly with how similar it is to a sentiment that William Friedkin shares in the DVD introduction to his film. Obviously both of these films want to succeed purely at the level of being good horror films, but they are also concerned with convincing us of the existence of the Devil, so that by extension we might also believe in the existence of God.

Both of these films proclaim that they are based on true stories, though something about the theatrics in The Exorcist has always kept me at a skeptic's distance, i.e. even if I were to believe that a supernatural demon had the ability to spin a little girl's head around, do the spider walk, etc. I don't believe that it would look like it's depicted in that film. And there's a bit of this in The Conjuring as well, perhaps unavoidably, but for whatever reason (good direction/pacing, a general sense of restraint) it didn't take me out of the film here. In other words, I'm still not sure how much I believe that a ghost in real life can, say, drag a girl around the floor by her hair, but while watching this film, I bought it.

Echoing much of what's already been said, but yes, this is quite effective and Wan has wisely leaned on the strengths shown in Insidious and less so on his weaknesses-- though they're still there. For as much as I enjoyed the film's jump scares and eerie tone, I found myself wishing Wan didn't show the spectres and/or demons at all. What these beings do and how they manifest are more interesting and unsettling than the same make-up-heavy ghouls we've seen a million times before that I don't need to see the ghost hands or dangling feet or obese matron with a knife, I'm seeing the effect they have instead. Wan comes a lot closer to trusting the audience here than he did before, but I don't think he's quite there yet. That said, some great scares (and the Zombi-esque exorcism finale is a nice touch) are stylishly put forth by Wan and he's smart enough to deal himself a cast better than the material calls for. This was a lot of fun, even if it's not quite the masterwork a lot of people starved for great horror want it to be.