31 Days of Horror: The Conjuring (2013)

I’ve been married for twenty-four years or so. I love my wife. I enjoy spending time with her. I enjoy watching movies with her. We share an interest in animated films and fantasy films, certain types of comedy, etc., but she has little to no interest in horror. For most of our married life, we only had one television. So, when I wanted to watch a horror film, I had to wait until she was in bed or gone somewhere without me. We now have two televisions, so I can go upstairs and watch what I want in our bedroom. But before then, it was a bit of a challenge.

Several years ago, she took our daughter to visit her parents in Kentucky. I had a lot of work going at the time, so I stayed home. For the first few days, it was a lot of fun; I felt like I was single again. But then I just missed them and counted the days down until they came home.

With nobody home, I watched a lot of horror movies. Including The Conjuring.

Obviously, I love horror. I watch a lot of it. But I got to say watching two or three horror movies a night for several nights in a row and then going to bed in an empty house proved a bit much for me. By the third night, I started freaking out a little. I’d lie there in bed, eyes wide open, jumping at every little creak or crack, knowing some monster was out to get me.

After that, I started watching comedies.

The Conjuring is a movie that’s capable of giving me nightmares, even if I hadn’t watched numerous other horror films over the course of those few days.

A lot of modern horror just throws jump scare after jump scare at you. As if all we need from a horror movie is for something to jump out at us from the darkness or for the editor to make stark cuts.

Good horror movies know how to build tension over the course of a film. They can create a mood and build on it. That’s the kind of thing that gets under your skin and stays with you long after the initial fright of a jump leaves your memory.

The Conjuring does a great job of mixing the two. It takes time to develop its characters and build its story. It creates a mood of tension and builds upon it. But it also utilizes some great jump scares. Jumps can be effective, especially if they come out of the story. Anybody can have a maniac or a monster or a cat jump out at you unexpectedly. That will generally elicit a scream. But a good jump scare has been well developed. It makes sense within the realm of the story. There is background to the scare.

The film begins with some college girls telling a story. They were dabbling in the supernatural and were talking to a spirit. They invited the spirit into a doll called Annabelle. The doll started acting up. It started to scare them. They are telling this story to Ed and Lorraine Warren (Patrick Wilson, Vera Farmiga), two self-described demonologists who study the supernatural and help those with infestations or possessions.

From this brief scene, we understand who the Warrens are, what they do, and that within the confines of this film, the supernatural is real. Then the movie pulls out a bit, and we realize the story we’ve just been watching is actually being told to an audience at a college seminar by the Warrens. The Annabelle story is in the past; it has been solved. The Warrens use it as an example of what they do to academics and students.

Then our story shifts to Roger and Carlyn Perron (Ron Livingston, Lili Taylor) and their five daughters. They’ve just bought a big country farmhouse. We watch them move in, unpack, and play. They are a nice family. The film takes its time with them; it lets us get to know them and like them. Nothing bad happens at first.

For its first half, the film will move back and forth between the Perrons and the Warrens. The Warrens will give more talks. We’ll see them go to a possibly haunted house and determine that the spooky noises are coming from the pipes and the wind. Not every case is real, you see. The Warrens are good people, not charlatans or fakes. If your house isn’t really haunted, they’ll let you know. But if it is, they are here to help.

This has drawn quite a bit of criticism from critics because the real-life Warrens were charlatans and fakes. Their cases have been proven to be false. Their personal lives have been inspected and found severely lacking. This film and its sequels make them out to be saints. I’m not here to criticize those decisions or really to talk about the real-life people. I’m here to talk about the movie, and it’s a good one.

Slowly, weird stuff starts happening at the Perron house. There are strange noises and terrible smells. The dog refuses to come indoors. They discover a basement whose entrance has been covered over. One of the girls begins sleepwalking, banging her head into a wardrobe. One of them creates an imaginary friend.

As the horror escalates, eventually the Warrens are brought in. There are some nice scenes between the families before things get crazy. Again, the film takes time to develop relationships. The Warrens are caring and kind. The Perrons are frazzled, but they take comfort in their new friends.

The Warrens bring a crew with them. They set up cameras and audio recording devices. They need to prove the house is haunted before the Catholic church will do an exorcism. These scenes are so well done. They bring a new edge to the thrills and terror. It all culminates in a big showdown between the evil spirit and these two families.

Not everything works. Some of the stuff with the Warrens before they meet the Perrons runs a little long. They keep returning to the Annabelle doll, and after a while it really feels like they are just prepping us for the inevitable Annabelle movie.

I’ve seen this movie three or four times now, so the jump scares no longer thrill, and it no longer keeps me up at night. That’s to be expected. But I do keep coming back to it. That’s the sign of a good horror movie – when you watch it again and again even though it no longer truly scares you.

The Friday Night Horror Movie: Malignant (2021)

poster

It is time for both the Friday Night Horror Movie and Murder Mysteries in May. One would think it would not be difficult to find a film that fits both of those descriptions. Murder is horrific after all. But for tonight, I found it nearly impossible. The trouble, I’m realizing is that since mysteries and crime stories are some of my favorite genres, I’ve seen a lot of them. I wanted to watch something I’d never seen before and that proved difficult. I was probably using the wrong search terms.

I eventually landed on Malignant. It was directed by James Wan who has helmed several horror films I’ve enjoyed (namely The Conjuring and Insidious). Even when I’m more ambivalent about his films (namely the Saw franchise) I’m always impressed with his craft as a filmmaker. He definitely knows how to move a camera and create some true cinematic scares.

The basic synopsis of the film – woman begins having visions of terrible murders only to realize they are coming true – has been done many times before, but that type of thing can be effective and with Wan at the helm, I figured it would at least be interesting.

I was wrong. So very, very wrong.

In general, I’d say picking on a film’s plot holes (both real and imagined) is one of the lazier forms of criticism. A film is more than a plot and a great movie can overcome bits in the story that don’t make logical sense. But I also realize that when a film isn’t working for me I tend to get angry at those holes in the plot.

Malignant is a very stupid movie. So much of what happens either doesn’t make sense or is just completely bonkers. But the thing is Malignant is also a film that completely understands how utterly ridiculous it is. Few films from major studios are allowed to have such a ludicrous premise and are given the chance to just completely go for it.

Had I been in a better mood, had I been less tired, or had I been with some friends who enjoyed dumb, stupid, ridiculous horror films I might have allowed myself to just go with it and have a good time. As it is, I could barely make it through.

Saw (2004)

saw movie poster

I knew very little about Saw before I watched it yesterday. It came out during the time I was too busy moving out of my house and preparing to leave for France to pay much attention to upcoming movies. In France, I heard a little buzz on the internet about it being a very captivating and scary thriller. I tried not to pay much more attention than that because there is nothing worse than learning too much about a scary movie before you go see it.

Yesterday, while Amy (who doesn’t like horror movies)was out all day in class, I took my chance and sat down to watch it. Upon first viewing, I thought it was a really top-notch piece of horror (well all except that ending.) First-time director James Wan does an excellent job creating a dark, creepy mood. The set pieces are continually dirty and slimy looking, which is perfect for the setting. The story is intriguing enough to keep you from paying too much attention to the subpar acting and the numerous plot holes. It’s the kind of movie that kept me still for an hour after seeing it and thinking it over. And there lies the problem. After putting some thought into what I had just seen the movie crumbled.

But first, a little more on what is right about the film. The opening sequence is one of the more imaginatively openings I have seen in a long time. The movie opens in a rat hole of a bathroom buried deep in some long deserted public building. The two main characters, Cary Elwes and Leigh Whannel are on opposite sides of the room shackled by the ankles with a short chain connected to rusty pipes. They have no recollection of how they got there, or why. Oh, and there is a dead guy with his head blown off laying in the middle of the floor. I won’t give any other plot details away than this, but the remainder of the film centers on those two characters trying to find a way to get out of the room while playing a vicious game with a mad serial killer.

The design of the killer is also done quite imaginatively. Throughout the movie, we get brief glimpses into several other victims and the games they had to play. The killer’s design and the games he creates are quite frightening and original. Unfortunately, they are also quite implausible. There is no conceivable way that the killer could create his deadly games in the places he does without being noticed and eventually caught. I’m all for suspension of disbelief, but I believe a portion of the horror in this film is meant to be that this kind of sick killer could be quite real. He is not Jason, Freddy, or Mike Myers, but a more realistic psychopath. As such his killings are so complicated as to make them absurd.

There are several similarities to the superior piece of cinema Seven (1995). Both films are set in the seedier areas of a large city. The cinematography is both dark and moody. And both feature a moralistic serial killer who creates inventive and complicated murders. Yet where Seven succeeded in making a classic thriller all the way through, Saw fails about 3/4ths of the way in. The easier part of a horror/thriller is devising an original killer. Where the plot gets difficult is finding a resolution of why he is killing and how he is caught. Saw tries to be original by first giving the viewer a cliche fake ending, only to give a real surprise ending later. I wasn’t amused.

In order to fill out the plot and, I suppose, take up some time. The filmmakers create some characters that have no use. Danny Glover’s subplot adds to the ‘whodunnit’ aspects to a movie that doesn’t need to be a ‘whodunnit.’ Detective mysteries, cop shows, and murder plots create tension by giving various clues to who the villain could be. In a horror/thrill such as Saw, there is no need for the audience to figure out who it could be. We only need to be thrilled by the murderer and grasp with the victims for escape.

You never expect the acting to be brilliant in a small-budget horror film, and this film won’t surprise you in that area. Cary Elwes was a surpise to see in such a film. Though I know he has done similar fare I will always remember him for his role in The Princess Bride (1987). He doesn’t add much to the film in acting. He is also almost too pretty for the role. It seems as if the filmmakers recognized this because as the movie rolled on his makeup got more and more dirty and grotesque.

Overall Saw creates an unusual situation that is thrilling enough in the first viewing. However, after a truly good beginning the movie sinks into implausible and isn’t smart enough to figure out how to end itself.