Print Topic

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board  /  Movie, Television and DVD Reviews  /  The Conjuring
Posted by: Heretic, July 20th, 2013, 6:22pm
This is definitely one to see in theatre. Just a great old-fashioned ghost flick that goes unabashedly over the top without looking back. The plotting's not exactly tight -- these haunted house flicks tend to meander by necessity, with characters essentially just waiting around for the next scare -- but there's so much success in almost every scary scene, and there are soooo many scare scenes, that it barely matters.

The third act problems that seem to plague James Wan's entire career are still present in this film, but he's getting better. Although the climax still feels a little anticlimactic, this is light years ahead of the let-down endings of past work like Insidious and Dead Silence. It's a lot more cohesive and the climax is actually built around character, which is nice.

This isn't one that deserves or demands much analysis. It's a kitchen sink horror blowout with shades of everything from Raimi to Shyamalan to Blatty to Spielberg, and it deserves to be seen in a packed theatre with a screaming, giggly audience.

And massive props to Wan, here...I might actually go so far as to say there is not a SINGLE unreasonable jump scare.
Posted by: Ryan1, July 20th, 2013, 6:59pm; Reply: 1
Yeah, I read the script to this one and as I was reading I kept thinking about the reaction some of these scenes would have on a packed house.  This screenplay is designed to make an audience cringe and jump.  It certainly does "borrow" liberally from Poltergeist, The Exorcist, Amityville and a few others, but has just enough spin to hold its own.  
Posted by: oJOHNNYoNUTSo, July 20th, 2013, 10:43pm; Reply: 2
Sounds like this flick has the goods.  I'll probably go see it with the wifey so she has a reason to keep me around for a night! Hahaha! Seriously, she's a scaredy cat.
Posted by: albinopenguin, July 23rd, 2013, 11:08am; Reply: 3
Apparently this movie was aiming for a PG13 rating. There's very little blood/gore and almost no sex whatsoever. However the MPAA found it so  scary that they slapped it with an R rating.

After hearing this, I knew I had to see it.

So I checked it out last night amidst a packed theater. And to be honest, it was a bit of a let down. Exorcism films are usually complete s hit. So when one comes along that isn't complete s hit (like this one), then it tends to receive more praise than it deserves. Yes, there are some original/creative scares. But I was never scared personally. Everyone else was screaming/laughing, but I just sat there.

Perhaps my expectations were too high. Despite all of this, I would recommend seeing this one in theaters. I was more entertained by the audience rather than the movie.

And I'm sorry but when people fly through the air as a result of an invisible demon, it's not scary. It's silly. And can someone tell my why the doll came back at the end?

Wan is a really talented director. Although he's working with cliched iconography in this film, I'm excited to see where his career takes him. I'm sure big things are coming his way.

Also, the father in the film is Peter from Office Space. Completely blew my mind.

C+
Posted by: DarrenJamesSeeley, July 23rd, 2013, 11:48am; Reply: 4

Quoted from Ryan1
It certainly does "borrow" liberally from Poltergeist, The Exorcist, Amityville and a few others, but has just enough spin to hold its own.  


I wouldn't go far as to say it borrows, but it is in that same ballpark. However, I highlighted the one for a reason. At the end of the film, Amityville is indirectly mentioned ("A case in Long Island") not as a horror homage, although it could be seen as such.

Fact of the matter is, the real life exploits of The Warrens (the paranormal investigators in the film) include the actual Amityville case and another which became the basis for  The Haunting in Connecticut

I was additional surprised to find out that the Warrens actually do have an "occult musuem" which includes 'Annabelle' (although different than seen in the film - the real doll is a worn out Raggedy Ann, thus, it may be a rights thing). In the film, I thought the weakest spot was the stuff with the Annabelle doll,  which, in my view, was set up as nothing more than cheap scares. I was also not big on the old tripe of children in danger. (although when mommy and daddy tell the kid not to play around with 'those dolls' and leave the door unlocked ? That's temptin' stuff, people)

http://www.warrens.net/Occult-Museum-Tours.html

But there were some good jump moments, I think that the last half jolted up the intesity.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie, and the actors were good.
Posted by: NickSedario (Guest), July 23rd, 2013, 12:26pm; Reply: 5


I'm more interested as to why the above poster is holding a propane gas tank bomb with a  smiley face in his avatar.  I'm almost tempted to report it to the FBI.  
Posted by: Heretic, July 23rd, 2013, 1:13pm; Reply: 6

Quoted from NickSedario
I'm more interested as to why the above poster is holding a propane gas tank bomb with a  smiley face in his avatar.  I'm almost tempted to report it to the FBI.  


Don't worry. I'm sure the NSA's got it. ;)

Yes I definitely agree about the Annabelle stuff. I think we needed to care about Farmiga's daughter so that we could believe in her ability talk the other woman down, mother to mother, or whatever...but it did just totally feel like a way to shoe-horn in a bunch more cheap scares.
Posted by: DarrenJamesSeeley, July 23rd, 2013, 7:39pm; Reply: 7

Quoted from NickSedario


I'm more interested as to why the above poster is holding a propane gas tank bomb with a  smiley face in his avatar.  I'm almost tempted to report it to the FBI.  


Sharknado!
Posted by: NickSedario (Guest), July 23rd, 2013, 8:06pm; Reply: 8

Quoted from DarrenJamesSeeley

Sharknado!


That's a relief.  
Posted by: jwent6688, July 24th, 2013, 8:38am; Reply: 9
I enjoyed this. I saw it at the $5 Monday night special in a theater packed full of teenagers. I think that kind of took away any chills I would've gotten from it, but the jump scares definitely delivered. I guess my favorite part of this movie is that it actually came to a climax and resolution as so many horror films avoid because, well let's be honest, they're no longer scary at that point and almost have to become more of a thriller.

Some great visuals and creepiness created by the director. I would recommend it as well.

James
Posted by: bert, July 24th, 2013, 9:00am; Reply: 10
I also saw this at the theater and would liken the film to a good meatloaf.

Just because it is familiar and predictable does not mean it cannot be satisfying, provided you are in the mood for it and it is done well.  This film is done well.

I also saw it in a crowded theater, and I prefer that for comedies and horror films.  Funny is funnier -- and scary is scarier -- with a crowd reacting to the film.  And a crowd reacts to the scares in this film.  

All of the familiar tropes are there, but handled with aplomb.  One of the best jumps in the film is a simple door slam -- twice, now that I think about it -- and it is all about timing.  I agree that Wan is a talented director, with his best work likely in front of him.

The film does tread into Exorcist territory near the end, and frankly, that sort of material just doesn't seem to work for me anymore.  It always comes off more cheesy than scary.  But I had no trouble forgiving that because I did enjoy all that came before.

I thought the doll was awesome.  She had f*ck-all to do with the film proper -- but I perked up every time she was on the screen -- so I would have a hard time saying she did not belong.
Posted by: Scar Tissue Films, August 7th, 2013, 3:19pm; Reply: 11
Very enjoyable.

Literally nothing at all new here, but if you like this kind of thing, you're almost sure to like it.
Posted by: Grandma Bear, October 8th, 2013, 8:59pm; Reply: 12
Just watched this one today. I liked it for what it was. A film set in 1971, I think. The tone, story and film felt like that time. There was no CGI shit ruining this film, which I appreciated. There were lots of jump scares that worked. However, it was also sooooo cliche` I was amazed that I didn't flat out hated the film. I also agree with Bert that the exorcism stuff is just too old hat by now. There's never going to be a better exorcism scene than the one in The Exorcist so quit trying, please. Still, a good film that I'm happy brought people into the theater to watch a horror.

PS. The scariest part about this film was the wallpaper...
Posted by: oJOHNNYoNUTSo, October 23rd, 2013, 11:50pm; Reply: 13
I gotta say, I wished I would've seen this on the big screen.  Obviously the story has been around in other films, but it was executed so good.  The camera work was super excellent and there was never a wasted shot or an old school zoom that felt overdone.  Some of the visuals I won't forget.  Notably the scenes where it's not horror, like the mirror's reflection twisting around her face with the music box.

The way the demonic force was shown just gave a feeling of domination to its territory.  And the way it latches on, forcing the Warren's to submit from crossing that line was genius.  Good flick for sure.
Posted by: James McClung, November 24th, 2013, 7:33pm; Reply: 14
Just finished this. Easily one of the dumbest, most obnoxious horror movies I've seen in a while. For a supposed ghost story, it was loud, fast, and devoid of any subtlety whatsoever. Every single scare in the film had some sort of giant flashing arrow pointing to it, whether it was a massive spike in the soundtrack or the camera framing a scary image such that you'd have to look away from the screen to miss it.

It doesn't help that James Wan uses the worst lighting schemes ever. Everything's lit in such a way that they look even more like movie sets than they actually are. Rooms that are supposed to be dark at night are lit like it's dawn outside unless something scary is supposed to happen in them in which case they're pitch black. Lightning is bright blue. Look intentionally fake, like they're trying to homage the 80s or something.

Saw The Changeling last month. The Conjuring featured many a nod to it. I'm sure it's the kind of film Wan had hoped this one would emulate. Yet the end result was more like Evil Dead than anything except for the gore and the humor and all around being a great film. The point is for all the tropes the two films share, The Changeling shows there's a way to make this stuff work... and that The Conjuring doesn't do that.

On the plus side, first Wan film I've seen with decent performances. He should keep using Patrick Wilson, for sure.
Posted by: Dreamscale (Guest), November 26th, 2013, 12:31pm; Reply: 15
I'm with James her completely, although IMO, there are many, many worse films out there.  In fact, this isn't terrible by any means, but it's dull until the last 25 minutes and brings absolutely nothing new to a dull genre.

To think this made $137 Million here and another $180 Million overseas is just ludicrous!  WTF?  What is wrong with the world and movie goers in general?

So, they spent  $20 Million somehow and managed to slap together a run of the mill haunted/possessed based on true life story and somehow the world must have been possessed as well into seeing this sleeper.

I've never been a fan of these types of movies, because for me, there's nothing scary...well...other than loud noises, suddenly appearing images and the like.  I must be missing something, but in reality, I'm glad i'm missing it.

Acting was fine all the way around and I guess the effects weren't bad either, but story-wise and movie-wise, there's nothing here we all haven't seen literally hundreds of times before.

Grade - C
Print page generated: April 28th, 2024, 1:00am