 I feel like at this point, it's fairly safe to say that the 'Nun' movies are probably at the bottom of the 'Conjuring' list, or, at least, very low. The first one felt a little forced, as though they needed to give the demon Valak (Bonnie Aarons) an origin story, and it doesn't even really come across as such. For whatever reason, they decided to give that prequel a sequel, and, again, this is pretty weak, especially with the knowledge that Valak definitely comes back.
In other words, there's not much point to either of these backstories. I can't even say there's any sort of family connection between Lorraine Warren and Sister Irene, despite the women portraying them being real-life sisters. This seems to just be another cash-in using a universe that may draw horror fans to its advantage. To make things worse, the story is extremely similar, and the short version of it is "nuns need ancient relic to stop Valak's evil doings," and there's some spooky shit that happens along the way. As the last movie wrapped up, we were left with survivors Sister Irene (Taissa Farmiga) and "Frenchie" (Jonas Bloquet) who reveals his true name to be Maurice. Once the chaos is over, we're left o a bit of a cliffhanger, when Maurice finds himself "marked," so to speak. Sister Irene goes on to serve in a convent in Italy, and Maurice becomes a caretaker for a boarding school in France, where he befriends an unnecessarily bullied girl, Sophie (Katelyn Rose Downey) and her Mother, Kate (Anna Popplewell). By 1956, signs of the terrible evil returning seem imminent, and Sister Irene is dispatched to check out a series of deaths that seem to be attributed by Valak, or at least something very close to it. Selected by the church to go it alone based on her past experience, Sister Irene gets some company with her friend, the noob-nun, Sister Debra (Storm Reid), because these religious horror movies need someone on the edge of believing. But I will be air enough to say that Debra is actually a pretty likeable character. She just seemingly takes the same role Irene had in the last film, and it's more of the same. While Sister Irene and Sister Debra continue their investigation, they eventually manage to figure out that Valak has, indeed, returned, but is busy terrorizing the boarding school, using a certain someone as her conduit. And once again, a McGuffin enters the picture, much like the vial of Christ's blood in the first film. This time around, it's the Eyes of Saint Lucy, which Valak is after in order to restore her powers, which she... kinda sorta seems to have pretty down pat anyway. Again, things feel kinda pointless. The whole movie ends up largely being about the Sisters intercepting the eyes before Valak can get to them, and the rest of it is pretty much horrific scenery, jump scares, and a bit of a lack of real atmosphere. Much like the first 'Nun' movie, this almost feels like more of a superhero movie for the religious. It's not without a good scare or two, and a lot of it gets pretty damn creative. For example, one of the coolest but creepiest scenes in this, involving a magazine stand, was something I really appreciated. This is definitely a movie that defines "all style, no substance." Despite a few solid scares that I can credit it with, it's still highly predictable, and even more so if you've seen the first one in preparation, which you almost need to do to begin with. A part of me wants to suggest that this chapter is a little better than its predecessor, if only because it feels less preachy. But if it's better, it's not by a hell of a lot. It feels like a pretty obvious cash-in flick to me, but hey, if you liked the first one, you can find more here. 2/5
0 Comments
 If we're going by the quality of these movies, I would say that, unfortunately, 'Conjuring 3' here finds itself among the weaker titles in the franchise. I'd say that it probably gets a worse rap than it truly deserves, as it's not without a good scene or two. But I think it suffers from a bit of "part-three-ism." Put simply, we've seen this whole song and dance before, it's more of the same, executed a bit differently, and it's once again "based on a true story," which is hard to take seriously at this point in the game.
While the Warrens make for some pretty cool religious superheroes in these movies, the reality of them is that they were called to help out in some cases, uninvited in others (including the Enfield poltergeist case of 'Conjuring 2'), and this was all used to push their Catholic agenda on those suffering these unusual circumstances. They also often victim-blamed the people involved in these cases. Al of this was pretty widely revealed by 2021, so that likely takes away from any quality surrounding it as well. For more on the subject of the real Ed and Lorraine Warren, may I highly recommend "Last Podcast on the Left," episodes 573-575. Listener discretion is advised, but it's a thorough peek behind the Warrens' curtain, and Henry's impression of Ed is absolutely hilarious. Anyway, the bottom line here is that things are finally starting to get a little stale here, and a lot of the scares and suspense that made the first two movies so good have become par for the course. It's 2021 timing didn't help much either, being in the midst of the whole Covid thing. Taking place in 1981, we once again follow professional demonologists, Ed (Patrick Wilson) and Lorraine Warren (Vera Farmiga) as they document the exorcism of David Glatzel (Julian Hilliard); an 8-year-old boy one will probably recognize as the little boy from 'Haunting of Hill House.' I have to give full credit to this kid's acting abilities though, because he makes his possession pretty convincing. This will, however, pretty much be the highlight of the movie. The rest is okay, but they don't bring to the table anything the first two did. The exorcism is held around David's family, including his sister, Debbie (Sarah Catherine Hook) and her boyfriend, Arne Johnson (Ruairi O'Connor). During the nightmarish process, Arne tells the demon to spare David and pick him instead. From this, Ed becomes convinced that somewhere within Arne, the demon still lies. One day, Arne commits a murder, apparently without realizing he did it, and this brings us full circle to the title of the film. The Warrens then work together to try to clear Arne's name, using, for the first time, possession as a defence in court. This is another one I sort of meet in the middle, myself. While it's recognizably one of the weaker titles of the franchise, I personally find the idea that someone really tried to use demonic possession as a defence in court fascinating. Articles and documentaries on the subject are out there, and it is interesting, but in its way, it's also pretty bold, and much like watching a train wreck, one can't look away. That said, I have to also admit that there's a certain amount of blandness to the film, and it's pretty easily forgettable in the long run. So, if you like these movies for what they are, and can accept them as fictional horror, very, very loosely based on real events, this one is passable. But I have to mention again that this series is full of ups and downs, and this isn't even on par with the funhouse horror that was 'Annabelle Comes Home.' But I am going to credit it for being better than either of the 'Nun' movies, if only because, once again, the true events are pretty fascinating, regardless of whether or not people took it seriously. 3/5  When it comes to the 'Conjuring' series, I've mentioned before how it's sort of "up-and-down" as far as quality of the movies go. Although it's perfectly debatable, I would consider 'Annabelle Comes Home' to be in the "up" category. However, I should clarify that I find this good as far as an average "haunted house" movie goes. It's more on the fun side of things, less on the scary side of things, and it features a slew of possessed objects as Annabelle more or less leads an "army" here.
The film opens with Ed (Patrick Wilson) and Lorraine Warren (Vera Farmiga) taking the Annabelle doll home for the first time, so it can be locked away, and not harm anyone. While driving back home, Ed and Lorraine experience a variety of paranormal activity, including Ed getting attacked by a bunch of cemetery ghosts. Here is where Lorraine establishes that Annabelle acts as a sort of beacon to other restless spirits. Once home, the doll is blessed, and stashed away in a glass case, labelled with warnings against opening it. Once Annabelle is locked away within her case within a locked up room of cursed and haunted objects, Ed and Lorraine are contacted to investigate another case, which will be overnight. They welcome their daughter Judy's (McKenna Grace) babysitter, Mary Ellen (Madison Iseman), leave, and this is where things get interesting. For me, the fun of it comes into play, perhaps controversially, once Ed and Lorraine leave, and the film says "let's just do our own thing." I believe the only thing based on "truth" (a word we use very loosely with the Warrens) here is some of the drive home, and the locking Annabelle away. While babysitting, Mary Ellen's friend Daniela (Katie Sarife) drops by, as she learns at school which special house Mary Ellen was babysitting at that night. When, admittedly very irresponsibly, Judy and Mary Ellen leave for a quick errand, Daniela is left alone to snoop, stumbles into the room of oddities, finds the key to unlock Annabelle's case, does so, and therefore unlocks a bunch of evil that channels the other spirits in that room to "rise up," and haunt the hell out of these kids. Daniela, it should be known, is a snoop, and perhaps a bit untrustworthy, but its hard not to empathize with the real reason she's there - in hopes of getting into some sort of contact with her deceased father. In the meantime, I'd say Mary Ellen plays the audience, and Judy takes on the role as the "expert," having been given some of her Mom's psychic gifts. On a personal level, it's a little extra fun for me, knowing McKenna Grace mainly as Phoebe Spengler, and my tie to 'Ghostbusters' is just too strong to ignore here. As the movie plays out, it is, as I mentioned, very much a haunted house type of movie with a lot of variety, as some of the spirits unlocked who terrorize the house are interesting and creative. Some are loosely based on real cases, but some are clearly made for the film. My personal favourite has to be a piece of haunted Samurai armour, which the closer you get to, the more you hear what seems to be the tortured screams of its victims. It also just looks really cool. But there are a bunch of other entities here, each as creative as the last. If I were to give this some sort of comparison to another horror series, I might consider it the 'Elm Street: Dream Master' of its series, in that reviews are very mixed on the whole, and it even feels like a bit of a cash-in. But I'd personally consider it underrated, and there are definitely far worse movies in this collection. It's not as scary as some of its predecessors (the first 'Conjuring' takes it), but also not as lame as others (which still goes to the first 'Annabelle'). I'd say this is good for a fun evening of not-so-serious thrills and chills. 3/5  'La Llorona' here is a bit of a side quest of a film. While it doesn't count for anything in any of the 'Conjuring' lore, there is still a connection to the 'Conjuring' universe. If I were to compare it to something everyone knows, it's to the 'Conjuring' universe what 'The Eternals' is to the MCU - connected very loosely. In this case, it's the use of Father Perez (Tony Amendola) from 'Annabelle' in a cameo appearance. Otherwise, this story stands very much alone, a little more like a 'Halloween III.'
Just a couple of months before 'Annabelle Comes Home' was released, this dropped, just one week before 'Avengers: Endgame' managed to drown it with pure MCU power. all in all, it seems to be the movie of the franchise that gets overlooked the most, and I have to say, I can understand why. This is an interestingly average horror flick in my opinion. There's a lot of cliche going on here, but it's not without the odd moment or two that satisfies the senses on a fun, horrific level. The trouble is, those moments are few and far between, and a lot of the rest of it is... almost annoying in a way. The whole thing opens with an origin story, keeping it brief and to the point, as the viewer gets to know the legend a little better. Long story short, in Mexican folklore, La Llorona (the Weeping Woman) is a vengeful spirit who roams bodies of water while mourning her children, whom she drowned, jealous that her husband was a cheating jerk. Now, legend has it that whoever hears her crying suffers great misfortune, bad luck, and possibly even death. Movie-wise, it's more about her finding more kids to drown, which is also part of the legend, and the main focus here. In 1973, LA, a caseworker named Anna Tate-Garcia (Linda Cardellini) arrives at client Patricia Alvarez's (Patricia Velasquez) house for a welfare check, only to find her two children, Tomas (Aiden Lewandowski) and Carlos (Oliver Alexander) locked inside a closet. Patricia attacks Anna for opening the door, and the kids even ask Anna to keep the door shut so "she can't hurt them." Of course, this prompts the accompanying cops to arrest Patricia, and the kids are taken to a shelter. Little does anyone know that Patricia isn't who they were hiding from. Meanwhile, Anna's kids, Chris (Roman Christou) and Samantha (Jaynee-Lynne Kinchen) each have paranormal encounters with a mysterious crying woman in a white dress, who ultimately turns out to be the malevolent spirit of La Llorona, now chasing after Anna's kids. Their only hope, and I personally found this kinda funny, is an ex-priest named Rafael (Raymond Cruz), who knows the legend inside out. If Cruz's name sounds familiar, it's because he played the unforgettably suspenseful and nerve-racking character of Tuco in 'Breaking Bad.' I can't get Tuco out of my head looking at Cruz, and it's very hard to accept him as a "good guy," especially when he still carries that "f*ck-around-and-find-out" aura with him. But for as amazing as he was in 'Breaking Bad,' I just don't know how to take him here. It's almost confusing. I also mentioned "annoying" earlier, and that's a bit more of a personal matter. While there's a bit of bad parenting that sticks out, for me, Chris' scream was like nails on a chalkboard, and it happens often enough you kinda want La Llorona to get him. While I may be nitpicky in some regards, one also can't deny how cliche the movie is, with all of its scares more or less expected, and almost no mystery or subtlety to the figure of La Llorona, herself. It just doesn't have the same heart as the 'Conjuring' movies or the later 'Annabelle' movies, and in a way, it's kind of unfortunate for the series that director Michael Chaves has taken it all over, and the films under his name have been pretty well average at best. But the "beginning of the end?" Not quite. In this guy's humble opinion, we've got one more really fun, non-Chaves chapter to go! 1/5  The 'Conjuring' franchise can get a bit confusing at this point, if you're only reading this and haven't seen any of it yet. To make things easy, however, just know that the 'Annabelle' movies stand on their own as a set of films attached to 'The Conjuring', and the 'Nun' movies stand on their own as a couple of prequels to literally everything. So, if you wanna do these chronologically, 'The Nun' films are where you want to start. But fair warning, most of the franchise is better after these films take place.
The nun in question is Valak (Bonnie Aarons), who established herself as the Warrens' archenemy in 'Conjuring 2.' So yeah, this is a second origin story, establishing where the demonic nun in Ed's painting, and Lorraine's visions comes from. By the way, Ed (Patrick Wilson) and Lorraine Warren (Vera Farmiga) are not a part of these movies. Instead, we get a handful of unlikely heroes; a nun yet to take her vows, Sister Irene (Taissa Farmiga - Vera's sister); a French-Canadian villager, who simply goes by "Frenchie" (Jonas Bloquet); and, perhaps most entertaining, an almost-bad-ass priest named Father Burke (Demián Bichir). The short of it is that the abbey the nun terrorizes was built in the dark ages by an occult-obsessed Duke who summoned Valak through a rift in the catacombs for... reasons? Anyway, he was eventually killed by Christian knights, and the rift was sealed with a convenient vial of the blood of Jesus Christ. In WWII, bombing loosened the rift, and since then, nuns have kept things protected with prayer. But in 1952, the demonic force manages to escape, taking the form of a nun, and terrorizing the abbey, causing one of the sisters to hang herself. The hanged sister is discovered by Frenchie, and that's where Father Burke and Sister Irene are called in to action to explore the abbey and figure out what's what, and hopefully contain the evil force terrorizing the area. But since we have 'Conjuring 2,' we kind of know that evil doesn't necessarily stay put. Having said that, however, I won't spoil anything further as to what happens with our leading three. Speaking of which, let's get into that a little bit, because both religious figures here are such polar opposites. While Frenchie is a sort of "every-man" for us to relate to, and his performance is more or less what you'd imagine it to be, it's almost fascinating how underwhelming Irene is while Burke is so over the top. I found for the most part, Taissa Farmiga was pretty wooden all the way through. She's supposed to be all "pure," I suppose, but there's no real personality to her whatsoever. I'm guessing a lot of that was direction, however, director Corin Hardy here is still pretty fresh-faced at the time, and in all honesty, this chapter of the 'Conjuring' series is, at its best, just okay. Demián Bichir, on the other hand, is clearly having some fun with this role, delivering serious performance with his best Batman voice. He even delivers some of the funniest, if cheesiest lines in the film. I laughed out loud at him saying "The holiest." Without context, I know that makes me sound like an asshole, but trust me, the laughter is warranted. In my own way, I kinda love Father Burke. He's not what I'd call excessively over the top or anything, but his character comes across as a sort of Dirty Harry/Noir detective, and the dude is a priest. This one didn't do well, critically, and there are various reasons for that. Aside from opposing performances, my biggest criticism, and it may come as no surprise, considering the subject matter, is that it's preachy. The whole thing is essentially about the power of prayer keeping evil contained, and we all know the evil escapes anyway, so it's also a real downer of a movie when you take a moment to think about it. For me, I could see it becoming a guilty pleasure over time, but it's not that good overall, and the scares are much stronger in other chapters of the 'Conjuring' franchise. 2/5  Maybe this is just my perspective, but I swear, the 'Conjuring' franchise has about as much hit-or-miss quality to it as the 'Star Trek' franchise. While one can expect a lot of horror cliches to play out through the series, sometimes those cliches are executed poorly, and sometimes, really well, like here in 'Annabelle: Creation'; arguably one of the better movies in the collection, and a far cry from its predecessor. This may be a prequel to a prequel, but it makes up for a lot of boredom provided from the last one.
Not only are the scares much better executed here, along with the suspense, but the acting as well. It provides us with at least a couple of characters we genuinely care about, and it provides much more than just a doll sitting there with weird stuff happening around her. But before we get into it, for a touch of "spoiler," it is revealed in 'Annabelle' that the doll is thought to have been inhabited by the spirit of a girl named Annabelle, but the reality is that it's actually a demon of sorts, and this chapter tells of that origin story, answering and unanswered questions as to what exactly Annabelle is. We are introduced to doll-maker Samuel (Anthony LaPaglia) and his wife Esther Mullins (Miranda Otto) who, circa 1952, twelve years after a family tragedy involving their daughter (Samara Lee), open their home as a shelter for a nun named Sister Charlotte (Stephanie Sigman) and six other girls, when their orphanage closes. Two of these girls are outcast from the other four, and provide our main focus for the film; Linda (Lulu Wilson) and her polio-stricken best friend, Janice (Talitha Eliana Bateman), who have a sister-like relationship. Since the tragedy involving their daughter, the Mullins' have kept Bee's room sealed, and warn the girls not to go exploring in there. But of course we can't have a horror movie if someone doesn't get curious. Sure enough, when Janice is left alone while the other girls, including Linda, go exploring the grounds, she does just that. She also happens upon a key in the room that unlocks a closet leading to nothing but Bible pages posted all over the small space, and an eerie porcelain doll, made by Samuel, who we know very well by now as Annabelle. In unlocking that door, unknowingly, Janice unleashes an unspeakable evil on the house, and it terrorizes basically everyone, although no one really wants to say anything about it for fear of being seen as crazy. As the film unfolds, it's full of great atmospheric tension, decent jump scares, and even a bit of dark humour that may relate to any average horror fan. As an example, the exchange of "What is that?" / "Who cares? Run!," while not being a knee-slapper, it's appreciated as being one of the smarter subtle lines I've heard in a horror movie. As I mentioned earlier, this is a far cry from the first 'Annabelle,' so if you were like me and wasn't a fan, don't let that deter you from checking this out if you enjoy a lot of the other movies in this franchise. The scares are much better, sure, but what this movie also has is a certain amount of heart. Janice provides us with a character who has a lot of trouble being mobile, and it adds a bit of extra vulnerability to her character - especially one particular bit involving a stair lift. Her situation is similar to Nica's in 'Curse of Chucky'. What really does it for Janice, though, is her friendship with Linda, and how much they love and care for each other no matter what happens throughout the movie. Their connection is where the real heart of the movie is, and it provides a lot of good to route for against the evil that's stalking them. I'm also big on the idea that everyone experiences these weird goings on, and it's not just secluded to a couple of characters no one believes. For my money, the way this is executed, overall, makes for one of the better chapters of this franchise. 4/5  I think it's important to remember that when it comes to these movies being "based on true stories," that's a statement meant to be taken with a massive grain of salt. While the more obvious side of that these are apparent real-life supernatural stories that anyone can put their skeptic hat on with, they also take massive liberties with their storytelling, especially with Ed & Lorraine Warren. They have been revealed to be frauds in real life, but the pair make for a couple of good movie heroes, so here we are.
This time around, Ed (Patrick Wilson) and Lorraine (Vera Farmiga) become a big part of the Enfield Poltergeist case; one of the most compelling cases of poltergeist activity in real life, whose real story is crazy interesting and may have made for a better movie than we got. That said, I still think this is a strong chapter to the movie series, and it manages to bring the scares back up from the disappointment that was 'Annabelle.' We open up at the Amityville house in '76, following the DeFeo murders, where Lorraine has a vision of a demonic nun, and Ed being brutally impaled by something. The following year, the Hodgson family, living in their cozy Enfield, London home, begin to experience strange occurrences around the house after the second-eldest daughter, Janet (Madison Wolfe), decides to play with a Ouija board. While the haunting seems to affect the whole family, Janet seems to be most vulnerable, as she keeps coming across the angry spirit of an old man who used to live there, named Bill Wilkins (Bob Adrian), who pretty much just wants the Hodgson family out of his house so he can chill in his La-Z-Boy in peace. As the activity continues, things get interesting when other locals end up checking the house out and getting more or less attacked by the entity, or at least witnessing a thing or two. This causes them to call on the Warrens for any kind of help they can get. While the Warrens oblige, however, Lorraine remains hesitant due to her vision, especially when it ends up matching the painting of a nun Ed saw in a dream. For help, they call on Maurice Gross (Simon McBurney), who's the real hero of the real story, and Anita Gregory (Franka Potente), who comes across as your average professional debunker. As the paranormal investigation continues while Warrens and Friends stay in the house, plenty of compelling evidence comes to light, including things like seeing a giant "Crooked Man," having objects get thrown around as well as other more common things, and perhaps most interesting, Janet getting occasionally possessed by the spirit of Bill, and talking to others in Bill's voice, providing the film with one of its most chilling scenes. But truth be told, I think I like the first 'Conjuring' just a tiny bit more that this chapter. Don't get me wrong, this movie is great for a horror fan like myself, who gets a better scare from something a little more psychological, even if it is a "haunted house" movie. Certain scenes here work really well for messing with one's head - my favourite being Janet getting interviewed in the chair (the chair being one of those inanimate objects that becomes one of the film's central characters). It has its scares, it has its suspense, it even has some heart. That said, I have to say things start to go "Hollywood" here a bit more, and it lacks the subtlety of the first. I also just feel kinda bad for Maurice Gross, and his investigative partner, Guy Playfair, who wrote the book 'This House is Haunted' about the whole situation, and isn't even a part of the film. I think the real case is a little more compelling, but that's just me. For entertainment purposes, however, there's not a whole lot of negative to be said about it. I might suggest that it's a little less creepy overall than the first, but I'd also say that it's still one of the better movies of the franchise, and it manages to do what I like to see in a good supernatural horror movie by taking risks and making new things out of old ideas. 4/5  While the first 'Conjuring' film did a great job of getting into my head, I sincerely cannot say the same for its first spin-off movie. This was always one I found kinda silly, and I'll get to why, but the biggest disappointment about it is that it just isn't that scary. The scariest scene in the movie actually involves living, breathing human beings, and nothing of the supernatural variety. That's just one example of why I think this is silly - it's a supernatural horror movie, and anything supernatural about it is... "meh."
It all begins in Santa Monica, CA, 1970, when medical student John Form comes home to his pregnant wife, Mia, with a gift in a bog box. Said gift is one of the creepiest dolls you've ever seen, meant to be a rare collector's item, and a gift for the new arrival. It's placed on a shelf in the nursery along with a collection of others, and sticks out like some sort of demonic sore thumb. Honestly, seeing them all together, it's like picking out a moose from a flock of geese or something. I get that there were probably rights issues for the use of an actual Ragedy Anne doll (as the real Annabelle is), but they could have toned her down, nonetheless. Things are looking up, until we reach what I consider to be this chapter's most frightening scene, as Mia is woken out of her sleep from screams of terror coming from next door. Their neighbours are brutally attacked by a couple of cult members (very much reflecting the Manson family). To make a long story short, eventually one of the cult members, Annabelle Higgins (Keira Daniels) dies in the struggle, holding the doll. This, of course, gives us that copy-paste aspect from 'Child's Play' in which her spirit eventually possesses the doll. It's not long before supernatural basics start occurring around the house, and they decide to make a move to Pasadena as a result. Mia asks John to get rid of the doll in the process, but upon moving, it finds its way back to them, despite John insisting he threw it away. Despite everything, however, Mia suddenly decides she wants to keep it around instead of being as terrified of it as she should be. To no one's surprise, a paranormal plague of events starts to happen to both Mia and her daughter, while John's just kind of along for the ride. Beyond all that, the film pretty much unfolds as a series of horror cliches, and there's a pretty heavy focus on the Manson Family, whose real-life story is far, far more interesting and scary than anything this movie has to offer. There's a fair share of cheap jump scares, doors opening and closing, books falling off shelves and various other creepy things. But despite all of these odd occurrences, there's just nothing creepy about a doll who sits there doing nothing. I'm sure it must have worked for a few, but the first 'Conjuring' movie eclipses this massively in quality. While the aforementioned break-in scene is well done as far as scares go, there might be only one other scene that comes close, involving an entity running at Mia. Otherwise, it feels like a lot of general spook house stuff, and it plays with that old worn out idea that whatever is inside Annabelle needs a soul, and the big worry is on Mia's baby, Leah. A lot of movies have done this in the past; even one of my favourite guilty pleasures from the past, 'Ghostbusters II.' I'm fairly certain that part of things was the filmmakers taking liberties to form whatever suspense they could with this doll. Movies like this give me my reasons for not caring so much about a lot of paranormal titles. Sometimes things just get a little too cliche, and this was one such example. You'll also notice I haven't mentioned the Warrens (among other unmentioned characters), and that's because they're not a part of this. Personally, I just feel like its a good example of a bad second film in a franchise (a prequel in this case), and it pretty well remains the lamest of the batch, based on popular opinion. It's pretty bad, but considering some solid sequels down the line, it could simply be considered a "swing-and-a-miss!" 1/5  'The Conjuring' movies are one of the most fascinating cases when it comes to movie-viewing as an individual. In truth, I saw almost every movie in this franchise upon their initial release. I never got attached to them, though, because supernatural horror (ghosts, hauntings, demons, possessions and the like) tends to be more of the same, and highly predictable for me. This franchise is no different, but I will say that most of its movies aren't without a really good and effective scare or two, and that's what makes these good.
We are introduced to the well-known and well-debunked husband and wife demonologist duo, Ed (Patrick Wilson) and Lorraine Warren (Vera Farmiga). Perhaps most famous for investigating the Amityville haunting, the pair, despite controversy, have a good selection of cases that make for good Hollywood horror. This particular story is based on their experience with the Perron family of Harrisville, Rhode Island, and the now famous "Conjuring" house, which, by the way, looks insanely different in real life from the movie, and I'd say much creepier looking in real life. As the couple is introduced, we are further introduced to Annabelle, the possessed doll (who gets three movies of her very own after this for whatever reason) and Ed and Lorraine's room of horrors, containing cursed objects of all sorts. We also get hints that the clairvoyant Lorraine suffered some sort of unspeakable trauma during their last case, making it something she'll ultimately have to face up to in order to solve this here "Conjuring" case, which they eventually get called in to investigate. The case itself takes place in '71, and involves the Perron family: Roger (Ron Livingston) and Carolyn (Lili Taylor), along with their five daughters, Andrea (Shanley Caswell), Nancy (Hayley McFarland), Christine (Joey King), Cindy (Mackenzie Foy), and April (Kyla Deaver), moving into a new house. It's not long before the family encounters a malevolent presence surrounding their new house, tormenting them. When the Warrens are called in to investigate, what they uncover is far more sinister than your average haunting. Right off the bat, I will say that if one researches enough about Ed and Lorraine Warren, one will uncover them as being total fraudsters. And to those of my readers who don't really believe in any of that sort of stuff, it's no surprise. But I think its important to recognize this as a movie meant to spook us, and I have to admit, it's one of the better examples of such a thing over the past couple of decades. It can be a little slow at times, but in some of the more dark-lit scenes, the suspense is front and centre where it should be. I also find Ed and Lorraine to be the weaker point of this whole movie anyway. Not that they make for bad characters or anything like that. They just take a bit of a back seat to the Perron family and their experiences that are actually pretty creepy - my personal favourite bit involving Nancy, Christine, and an entity in their room, hiding in the shadows. It makes for a personal favourite horror scene as far as anything after the turn of the century, and Joey King's dramatically scared performance is pretty damned convincing. Whether or not this story can be completely proven false, it doesn't take away from the horror aspects in film that I really appreciate. The suspense here is well executed, the scary mood lighting is on point, the scared performances are convincing, and despite a bit of predictability, it really makes for a solid haunted house flick. It gets into demonic possession as well, as we probably all know by now, but even that didn't feel as cut-and-paste from 'Exorcist' as I initially assumed it might be. Altogether, this is a solid horror flick that, thankfully, doesn't rely on gore, and remembers how to get inside peoples' heads. 4/5 |
RSS Feed