Movie Review: The Conjuring 2

In an average year I make it to about 18 movies in the theatre; half of them are easily Oscar nominees in January and February, and about six are various Superhero/Wizard/Spaceship films (which would be a movie I'd see entirely based on the title).

This tends to leave me with about two movies a year in theatres and in my chosen Genre, the horror film. More often than not these end up being post-apocalyptic films as they look better on the big screen.

Last night, however, I went to an advanced screen of The Conjuring 2, director James Wan's follow up to his 2013 original featuring Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga as Ed and Lorraine Warren, the paranormal investigators who, worked on cases like the Amityville Horror and the Enfield Poltergeist in the 1970s and 80s.

The movie was a lot of fun for me for a number of reasons:

1) Wan is getting really great at doing supernatural horror - although he is still probably most famous for the originalSaw (which is well worth a watch), the Insidious and Conjuring films show a really neat progression of his work behind the scenes, laying out the various home and characters before fully submerging them into the horror of the story, and working well on both the over the top and the subtle in horror.

2) The leads are pretty incredible, getting you to invest in them as a couple first and then using the strength of their relationship throughout the horrors of the film is a great way to show the power of a good relationship.

3) If you happened to catch the BBC mini-series The Enfield Haunting earlier this year, as I was, you're in for even more of a treat as that story follows the same events but from the supporting characters point of view - in many ways horror relies on perspective to be most effective and these two versions of the same story actually helped each other a lot.

Although I didn't like this film quite as much as I did the original Insidious (which, as a story not based on true events, could take some very interesting jumps) it is a solidly effective horror and left me hoping for more if the film does well.

Movie Review: Insidious Chapter 3

Yesterday I went to see the latest entry in the Insidious Franchise, Insidious Chapter 3, and although the film did have some serious flaws, I had a pretty fun time.

Leaving behind (or I suppose ahead, as this is a prequel) the Lambert family, being the main characters from the first two chapters, this one focuses on a new family, The Brenners, and specifically their seventeen-year-old daughter Quinn (Stefanie Scott).  Equally sharing screen time, and effectively stealing the show is Elise Rainier, played incredibly well by Lin Shaye, who I have to say may be my favourite part of all of these films.

The movie works best in terms of the questions it asks, and it's deeper delve into the franchise's world of "The Further" but does lose out as it mostly relies on shocks and jumps, and unfortunately attempts to tie itself too closely to the previous films, but I have to admit, in it's better moments I was definitely unnerved.

If you've never seen the series, definitely check out the first, as it is by far the strongest, but if you find you enjoyed the world and it's characters, the sequels are worth a look as well.

Movie Review: Insidious Chapter 2

I just got back from an advanced screening of Insidious Chapter 2 which was pretty darn great.

Unlike the sequels in the Saw Franchise (the original was written and directed by James Wan and Leigh Whannell, the same guys who would later do Insidious and The Conjuring) Insidious Chapter 2 sticks very close in tone to the first film, rather than turning it into something else entirely.

The film begins the day after the events of the first film, so I would strongly recommend you see the first movie before you check this one out.  I first watched Insidious back in 2011 when it came to DVD, and then rewatched the film last month with my 21-year-old daughter who hates horror films, but was willing to tough out this series so I could have company to the sequel.

In the end the movie is pretty great, works well for what it is, and will almost definitely end up on my DVD shelf next year.

Also kudos to my BFF Mike for getting me the advanced screening pass.

Movie Review: The Conjuring

Last weekend a lot of people decided to skip the usual summer fare of action and animated films and instead decided to go see the new horror film The Conjuring, directed by filmmaker James Wan (famous in horror circles as the director of Saw and Insidious), which is pretty great news, as the film was a pretty great haunted house story, and definitely had me on the edge of my seat for most of the story.

 

The story is largely about the Perron family, who in 1971 moved into a house that started acting very strangely very quickly.  All the clocks stopped each night at the same time, strange smells and noises contantly woke the family, and eventually something started attacking the children.  At this point Ed and Lorrainne Warren are brought in, paranormal investigators who hope to solve the Perron's problem.

 

What I loved best about the film comes down to the strong story and acting, horror can often impress me with great scary concepts, but stories that are brought to life by actors who excel at their craft tend to stick with you.  The entire film had a vibe that felt like a horror film made in the early 70s, reflecting in everything from camera angles to the title card.

Also the music box shown in some of the trailers is much creepier when seen in detail.

This movie was great, and assuming it'll come with a commentary track when released on DVD, I'm pretty sure I'll be adding it to my collection.

Bookmonkey Saw: Day 30 - The End

Conclusion

So here we are at the end of my month dedicated to an examination of the Saw franchise and what have I learned?

First of all, the 2004 film Saw is an effective, low-budget thriller that impressed me with concept, acting and a few intriguing plot twists.  I think I'll add my copy of the film to my horror DVD collection, and although I have zero interest in seeing the many films inspired by the franchise, I can honestly say the film is worth the watch for thriller fans.

Next, the comic book is a great example of how not to expand a text into another medium and both the Reality TV series and the video game are excellent examples of how to explore the phase space of an original text.  The comic added nothing to the original story and gave no lead-in to the sequel, in addition it could have created the beginning of an entire comic book series (for those of you unaware, horror and comics have a long and involved history together - check out The Horror The Horror: Comic Books the Government didn't want you to read by Jim Trombetta), while the reality TV series and Video game both spawned sequels and introduced new audiences to the horror genre and the original film franchise.

Finally, as a series, the franchise quickly looses steam and soon exhausts it's original concept - by the end of the third film I had seen the basic plot of the remaining four films.  As a long time fan of the horror genre, I can honestly say that unlike fantasy, horror works best in short form.  What horror also does is pack kids in theatres, and like the Friday the 13th's and Nightmare on Elm Street's of the 1980s, the Hammer Horror Films of the 1960s and the Universal Monster Movies of the 1930s and 40's, it ensures a new generation of teens grow up with a series they can call their own, as evidenced by the massive amount of fan fiction and websites devoted to any and all horror series.

In horror films, the two biggest sub-genres are slasher movies (wherein a killer chases teens around until one of the teen girls starts doing the chasing) and ghost movies (wherein a ghostly phenomenon terrifies a family until the Dad embraces the spiritual).  In 2004 Saw found another way (no teen characters and a "Slasher" who wants his victims to live, and to be better people for it) and creators Leigh Whannell and James Wan followed it up in 2010 with Insidious, one of the most effective ghost films I've ever seen, which also turned the tried-and-true formula on it's ear (It's not the house that's haunted).

Bookmonkey Saw: Day 2

Okay, so today let’s look at the first film of the series, Saw (2004).  Created by Australian filmmakers James Wan and Leigh Whannel, the story is actually quite simple.  Two men wake up in an abandoned bathroom, chained by their ankles to pipes on either end of the room.  In the centre of the room is the body of a man who appears to have shot himself in the head.  In its hands are a tape records and a gun.  The two men manage to acquire the tape player and finding cassettes in their pockets which say “Play Me” (Obvious shades of Alice in Wonderland here), are informed that they have approximately 8 hours in which to escape, which will only occur for the one left alive at the end.

There is also a sub-plot focusing on two police officers who are hunting down a serial killer called “The Jigsaw Killer” who places his victims in horrible hurt-yourself-and-escape-or-do-nothing-and-die traps (such as they one our two leads are in).

As with many horror/thriller films, there will be plot-twists and discoveries, but I’m attempting to write without spoilers so I’ll go light on those.

In terms of the Horror genre in 2003/2004 when the film was released at the Sundance Film Festival and later released throughout North America , here is what was going on.

2003 Was filled with a lot of sequels and remakes, Dawn of the Dead (Remake), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Remake), and Freddy vs. Jason (considered parts 8 and 11 of the Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13^th franchises respectively), as well as Van Helsing an homage to the classic Universal Monster movies of the 1930s.  Keep in mind that the Horror genre is one made of sequels and remakes; usually the producers and directors are working on their first or second film and horror films have always packed kids into theatres.

Saw worked in a very different way than the other options horror fans had at the time.  To begin, the killer is off screen for almost the entire film, second there is no female lead (one of the two men in the bathroom has a wife, but she is on screen for less than 10% of the film, mostly in flashbacks), and finally, although the story clearly owes concepts to both Mad Max (1979) and Se7en (1995 – which also focuses on cops trying to find an incredibly clever killer) Saw wasn’t an obvious remake or sequel.

Watching it myself I have to admit that the first film is kind of clever.  The on-screen violence is fairly minimal (you don’t see any severed body parts for example), and the story seemed innovative and quite smart for an incredibly low-budget film.  In the end, the movie did so well at the box-office a sequel was ordered with a release date set for the Friday before Halloween in 2005.

Bookmonkey Saw: Day 1

Okay, so lets join your pal Bookmonkey for a talk about the Saw-franchise of horror films.

In 2004 Lions Gate Films released a horror film which would dominate the horror genre in film for the next seven years and touch upon other formats ranging from comic books and video games to reality television.  It all began with...

Wait, first let’s go back to the beginning.

In 1979 Australian Cinema hit the mainstream with the film Mad Max.  The finale of this car-chase / revenge film has ex-cop Max Rockatansky (played by Mel Gibson) come upon one of the villainous thugs who murdered his wife and child early in the film.  Forcing the man to handcuff himself to a car, Max sets the vehicle on fire, brandishes a hacksaw and states:

Max: The chain in those handcuffs is high-tensile steel, it’ll take you ten minutes to hack through it with this. (tosses villain the hacksaw) Now, if your lucky, you can hack through your ankle in five minutes. 

Walking away from the vehicle as it burns, the audience hears the scream of the thug followed by the vehicle exploding.

The creators of the 2004 horror film Saw, Australians James Wan and Leigh Whannell, were both two-years-old when the first Mad Max film was released, but both state that the film, and specifically this scene “...was definitely a big, direct influence”(1) on Saw (2004) which has two men handcuffed to pipes in an abandoned building and facing the same dilemma.  

It is these connections, along with the fact that the Saw franchise had a new motion picture out the Friday before Halloween every year for seven straight years, and that the story expanded into other areas, including significant aspects of popular culture, that drew me to want to make an examination of the series.

As a long-time horror fan myself, but definitely one who prefers the monster movie sub-genre, I was of course familiar with the general idea behind the series, but until this month have not seen any of the central or related texts.  

1. Hartley, M. (Director and Writer) (2008). Not Quite Hollywood: The Wild, Untold Story of Ozploitation! [Film] Australia: City Films Worldwide.