The Conjuring 2

Flaccus

Went to see this today. Had seen the 1st one and enjoyed it, and not read anything about the 2nd. Avoided the reviews. It was damn scary. In fact I can't remember seeing a scarier move in a long long time. Perhaps too many jump scares. But overall it really creeped me out.

Whatsisname

First one scared the life outta me. Don't think I have the liathroidi for the second.

tunguska

Went to see this last night and I thought it was really good. Has some seriously scary moments and it seemed to genuinely terrify the audience in the screening I went to. Patrick Wilson and vera farmiga are excellent, they take it to another level. I'd happily watch a few more installments of them as Ed and Lorraine Warren.

FourFourRED

The Conjuring really scared the life out of me in the cinema when I went to see it. Enjoyed the movie a lot, was a good story.

Convinced myself to go see the sequel last night. It was just as scary as the last one. Had two jump scares but thankfully the other people were caught by it too Felt one particular aspect of it

The crooked man CGI

very silly and took away from the movie for me. Still think the first one was better but this is worth the watch in cinemas

TerrorFirmer

Not as good as the first one but still a very solid film. Oddly, I had no idea that this was about the Enfield haunting, and had just very recently watched 'The Enfield Haunting' TV show (which is excellent) - it was very strange to be watching the same story all over again, because both do it quite similarly and very well.

Patrick Wilson is just fantastic though. I agree with the point above about the use of CGI for one particular instance - it did feel totally out of sync with the tone of the rest of the movie.

Hollister11

Saw it this evening. Brilliant film. As good as its predecessor.

nix

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Patrick Wilson is just fantastic though. I agree with the point above about the use of CGI for one particular instance - it did feel totally out of sync with the tone of the rest of the movie.

Yeah it felt like a plant character, maybe testing the waters for

another spin off, like Anabelle. I don't think it will :pac:

I loved this movie, apart from the parts from the above, and its great to see a horror movie that doesnt let down in the third act

smash

I wanted to want to see this but bcause it's based around 'true' events which were widely discredited I just don't think I could be bothered. Why couldn't they just make up a story?

Mr E

You don't want to see it because you're taking the high moral ground?

Just go and enjoy it for what it is - one of the best horror movies shown in the cinema for a long time.

Myrddin

smash wrote: »

I wanted to want to see this but bcause it's based around 'true' events which were widely discredited I just don't think I could be bothered. Why couldn't they just make up a story?

I know the feeling, I sent a complaint to Disney when I found out Episode 7 wasn't actually based on something that happened a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...





(:o)

Dodge

Not a horror fan but watched this last night without seeing the first. It really does build up the tension superbly, and the jumps are well placed

I also rolled my eyes at that bit mentioned above but thankfully it wasn't long and kinda makes sense when things are explained

My horror loving wife didn't find it scary enough but it was plenty scary for me. Overall a good night at the cinema

Gwynplaine

I really enjoyed the first one. Simon Delaney is in the second one, so I will not be watching it.

Mr E

Ah here...

candy-gal1

Best horror movie i have seen since insideous, if not possably better, loved it!!

Shint0

Gwynplaine wrote: »

I really enjoyed the first one. Simon Delaney is in the second one, so I will not be watching it.

He's not in that many scenes but you could probably avert your eyes when he comes on screen if you are really that horrified by him.

The movie is quite long and I zoned out a few times. Only one slightly 'jump out of your seat moment' on the screen. The biggest one for me was when my husband did a sneaky tap on my shoulder

Dodge

Should say the highlight was a woman in the cinema dropping her popcorn during a quiet moment and apologising to the cinema. Every one giggled

wp_rathead

Gwynplaine wrote: »

I really enjoyed the first one. Simon Delaney is in the second one, so I will not be watching it.

he is actually alright in this, usually he grates me but didn't even cop it was him until his 3rd or 4th scene

smash wrote: »

I wanted to want to see this but bcause it's based around 'true' events which were widely discredited I just don't think I could be bothered. Why couldn't they just make up a story?

it is a made up story

smash

Mr E wrote: »

You don't want to see it because you're taking the high moral ground?

Just go and enjoy it for what it is - one of the best horror movies shown in the cinema for a long time.

No, I'm disappointed about the story line they ran with because it's based on actual events which are known to be fraudulent. For me it just takes away from it.

Dodge

Dude, it's about a demon and you're annoyed it's not real?

FWIW the film deals with that issue too

smash

Dodge wrote: »

Dude, it's about a demon and you're annoyed it's not real?

Haha, I get what you're saying but it's not the supernatural bit that puts me off. Just the story itself.

Dodge wrote: »

FWIW the film deals with that issue too

Good to hear.

Space Dog

I thought this started off quite well by gradually building up the tension but became quite silly in the end - like lots of these Insidious/Conuring/Sinister etc. style films. The best scenes were the ones with the telly and the painting IMO.

Since some people have criticized the use of CGI for a particular character: He was actually played by actor Javier Botet who has played quite a few memorable movie monsters already, such as Mama and THAT girl in REC.

smash

Space Dog wrote: »

I thought this started off quite well by gradually building up the tension but became quite silly in the end - like lots of these Insidious/Conuring/Sinister etc. style films.

Was it better than 'The Boy'? Please tell me it was better than the boy...

Space Dog

Yes it was, it only got annoying in the third act.
TBH, I actually had to turn off The Boy after 30 minutes because I couldn't cope with that ridiculous premise, so I'm probably not the best person to ask!

smash

Space Dog wrote: »

Yes it was, it only got annoying in the third act.
TBH, I actually had to turn off The Boy after 30 minutes because I couldn't cope with that ridiculous premise, so I'm probably not the best person to ask!

At least you didn't pay to see it in the cinema...

nix

Space Dog wrote: »

memorable movie monsters already, such as Mama and THAT girl in REC.

mama was terrible

Loughc

Well that was intense but what a great film. I actually enjoyed it more than the first one.

wakka12

Overall a solid film, especially if you're a horror movie buff you'll know theyre hard to come by! I didnt enjoy the unnecessary jump scares, they just made it feel cheap. There were enough genuinely unnerving visuals and tense scenes to create an intense movie without the jump scares which honestly just annoy me and ruin a horror movie experience.

Loughc

To be honest that's the way all horror movies these days the cheap jumps scares as desperate as they are get people talking afterwards.

wakka12

Loughc wrote: »

To be honest that's the way all horror movies these days the cheap jumps scares as desperate as they are get people talking afterwards.

I know its awful! But the conjuring has some genuinely disturbing material to make us **** ourselves without resorting to jump scares so I don't know why they felt they needed to stoop to the level of other horror films!

Banjaxed82

It was pretty good in fairness. Very well executed.

As far as technique goes, James Wan knows his sh!t, but mother of God, it's some seriously well worn ground. If I see another horror film that includes:

- a house being centre stage
- a possessed kid
- scary basement
- a desaturated colour scheme

Sinister, Conjuring, Insidious, Oculus all possess this derivative tone, especially visually. I understand the financial reasons for minimal cast and locations...but if you're going to set it in a house, at least have some visual originality.

faceman

I thought the movie was weak. James Wan is the Louis Walsh of the horror genre.

Horror is no longer horror. Films rarely create a sense of dread or horror but instead rely on jump scares as a device. Yet we all know the jump scares coming, so its not even creative.

Here's an example of a great jump scare. (From the Exorcist 3)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH8ynu0jRvY

Beautifully executed. Creates a sense of uncanniness. You know something is wrong yet nothing looks wrong. You just can't quite put your finger on it then BOOM! It happens.

The only great thing about The Conjuring series is Farmiga and Wilson's onscreen chemistry.

Sugarlumps

I generally feel sorry for people who find the conjuring in any way scary. The above is a perfect example of how it should be done.

smash

Sugarlumps wrote: »

I generally feel sorry for people who find the conjuring in any way scary.

I feel the same about insidious but people rave about it.

TerrorFirmer

I think it's a bit insincere to dismiss The Conjuring outright as a typical jump-scare flick - there are one or two moments of course, but by and large the horror doesn't rely on simply leaping into your face but rather sets up some good scenes with an acute sense of dread.

It's easy to cherrypick scenes from an entire movie as some sort of point of how it 'should' be done - every movie has its moments. I personally wouldn't count the Exorcist 3, as an overall film, as an example of how to do horror. It's all over the place.

nix

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I personally wouldn't count the Exorcist 3, as an overall film, as an example of how to do horror. It's all over the place.

I agree, i watched the exorcist 3 based on a boardsies recommendation in a horror thread awhile back, praising the above scene. And the movie was pretty bad overall, the above scene being the only decent thing in it really.

I honestly dont know what people have against jump scares, i really dont, i love em and to say the conjuring or any of Wans movies since insidious are all dependent on jump scares and only that are inaccurate. The two girls sleeping in the same room in the conjuring scene, one of the finest freakiest scenes in any horror movie of recent years if ya ask me, he actually does alot of unsettling scenes that people will write off just because the scene may also have a jump scare in it.. Its a rollercoaster of fright, i loves it! :pac:

faceman

nix wrote: »

I agree, i watched the exorcist 3 based on a boardsies recommendation in a horror thread awhile back, praising the above scene. And the movie was pretty bad overall, the above scene being the only decent thing in it really.

I honestly dont know what people have against jump scares, i really dont, i love em and to say the conjuring or any of Wans movies since insidious are all dependent on jump scares and only that are inaccurate. The two girls sleeping in the same room in the conjuring scene, one of the finest freakiest scenes in any horror movie of recent years if ya ask me, he actually does alot of unsettling scenes that people will write off just because the scene may also have a jump scare in it.. Its a rollercoaster of fright, i loves it! :pac:

Re Exorcist 3 it is indeed a mess as the studio forced a different ending than what Blatty wanted which is why the finale exorcism is downright bonkers. There was rumour of a directors cut emerging but a few years ago Blatty's wife confirmed the deleted footage had been lost.

Jump scares have a place but there tends to be an over reliance on cheap scares in many modern horror films. They are usually telegraphed in advance and often uncreative.

Ben Gadot

faceman wrote: »

I thought the movie was weak. James Wan is the Louis Walsh of the horror genre.

Ah here, I've seen some outlandish things said around here but the above is genuinely taking the piss.

Anyway, Conjuring 1&2 are probably the only horrors in recent memory that I've watched that have had me getting worked up. The scene with the Valak painting just creeped the **** out of me no end.

Child actors were fine too to compliment Wilson and Farmiga so a really enjoyable experience.

faceman

Ben Gadot wrote: »

Ah here, I've seen some outlandish things said around here but the above is genuinely taking the piss.

Anyway, Conjuring 1&2 are probably the only horrors in recent memory that I've watched that have had me getting worked up. The scene with the Valak painting just creeped the **** out of me no end.

Child actors were fine too to compliment Wilson and Farmiga so a really enjoyable experience.

No, its my genuine view on it and with good reason. He's a horror film producing factory with more misses than hits. He shows potential in some flicks and then erodes his credibility with an over reliance cheap jump scares and formula driven horror in others.

Saw was great. Filled with dread and genuinely unnerving. Although the third act was somewhat spoiled by hammy acting, particular by Cary Elwes.

First 2 acts of Insidious were great. Third act was weak. But the first two acts showed incredible potential (and often great use of the jump scare)

Farmiga and Wilson bring a presence and chemistry to the movies they're in that audiences really invest in. However that doesn't save a movie.

Dead Silence and Insidious 2, utter nonsense.

Wailin

I remember that scene in Exorcist 3 and at the time it was creepy as hell. But after looking at it in the above post.....it is seriously laughable :pac::pac: