Just got back from seeing The Conjuring 2 with my daughter. It’s not nearly as good as the first one. The tone was all over the place and it really wasn’t all that scary. It was not complete trash though, so I guess that elevates it above most horror films.
Very slow developing plot. Way too long. Very incompetent demon when it comes to trying to kill people. Shame, could have made a great series of films.
Good point in regards to the demonic competence - it really went to great lengths to accomplish almost nothing.
I knew there was some legal wrangling going on over The Conjuring, but I didn’t realize it was this big.
The author claims The Conjuring, The Conjuring 2 and Annabelle infringe on his exclusive rights to create derivative works based on the Warrens’ cases. He says, in a 1978 agreement for his book, the couple agreed to a no “competing work” provision that is still in effect. Under it, Brittle says, the Warrens aren’t allowed to make or contract any works based on the “same subject” as The Demonologist, specifically their “lives and experiences as paranormal investigators.”
According to the complaint, Brittle’s attorneys sent a cease and desist to defendants before the release of The Conjuring 2, but they claimed the films weren’t based on The Demonologist but instead on “historical facts.”
It’s a common argument raised during copyright dust-ups involving true life tales. Here, though, Brittle’s legal team says it has an ace in the hole: The Demonologist isn’t historical fact because the Warrens lied about what happened in their stories.
“Lorraine and Ed Warrens claims of what happened in their Perron Farmhouse Case File, which the Defendants freely and publicly admit their The Conjuring movie was based on, does not at all jive with the real historical facts,” Henry writes. “This is a pattern of deceit that is part of a scheme that the Warrens have perpetuated for years … There are no historical facts of a witch ever existing at the Perron farmhouse, a witch hanging herself, possession, Satanic worship or child sacrifice.”
That’s an interesting legal twist. He says WB can’t claim to be basing the story on the Warrens’ lives because the Warrens made everything up.
I think he’s got them there. Imagine the poor WB attorney saddled with the job of proving the existence of an evil haunted doll.
-Tom
I’ve seen so many worse horror movies than this one. It’s very competent, to the point of being near-great.
It is no //itch (2016) of course, that one is solidly in the “great” category.
I hadn’t realized that the producers refer to this as the “Conjuring Universe” now.
The Conjuring Universe keeps going.
I watched The Conjuring a long while ago but it was mostly all jump scares in scenes of people being afraid. I think it has an interesting setup (mainly the professional paranormal hunters and their room of haunted/cursed/blessed? items and how they are actually backed by The Church™) and but man…jump scares, all the time.
It gets super annoying and totally rote. I don’t get the appeal. Is this what horror movies are all about for the errant masses? Hard pass!
I recently watched The Conjuring 2 and it was just more of the same. I think I am done with this cinematic horror universe.
It has jump scares, some creepy bits, and an emotional core from the fictional Warrens. Most horror movies feature families in distress or they are outright dysfunctional, but in these movies the Warrens (despite their weird jobs) provide a steadfast and wholesome relationship example. This, I suspect, appeals to a lot of people. Beyond that, the horror is “safe” and firmly at the PG-13 level. The thrills won’t have any troublesome lasting impact like a Hereditary or The Exorcist.
Importantly, these movies are competently made. They are decently shot, lit well, the audio mix works, and the scripts have a clear A-to-B-to-C progression. The acting is workmanlike. (Nothing stands out, but no performance is going to detract from the film.) As someone that watches a lot of horror, these qualities don’t commonly happen in the same film in the genre.
They don’t do a lot for me as thought-provoking or scary movies, but they also don’t make me angry like Truth or Dare. I get why they appeal to general audiences.
Yeah, this was pretty much my reaction, I can’t imagine I’ll remember anything about this movie in a year’s time, but then I didn’t like Malignant so maybe James Wan just doesn’t do it for me. On the other hand, I’m delighted to learn there was a QT3 podcast about it, so I have that to look forward to.
Mere competence doesn’t make an interesting film for me though. I’d much prefer an incompetently made out there mess to a competently made retread of familiar tropes.
Tolstoy and I disagree.
New Line’s bank account must be getting low.
I wonder if this will star Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga, who will appear for less time on screen than Bruce Willis usually does?
“Oh hey, remember us? We’re going to interview someone about a very scary supernatural event! It’ll be told from their prospective, and we weren’t there, so we’ll be a bit absent. But we’ll be sure to be back at the end to wrap this story up!”
More Conjuring universe stuff.
Wait, there isn’t already a Nun 2? I would have assumed we’ve had four or five of those things by now!
Didn’t the titular (eponymous?) nun from The Nun previously show up in one of the Conjuring films?
Yes. The evil Nun/Valak is one of the manifestations in The Conjuring 2.
Ha ha, @Telefrog knows the nun’s name. That’s pretty hardcore.
BTW, I recently watched Christopher “Triangle, Black Death, Severance” Smith’s latest movie. It’s about nuns. And – surprise! – they’re not even horny:
I kinda liked it.
I really wish Ken Russell’s The Devils would get a proper release…