The Conjuring 2 - a review

After a terrifying event in Amityville the Warren’s decide to take a break from their paranormal investigations. However a haunting in Enfield, England demands their attention as they try to save an eleven-year-old girl from a possessive ghost.

Let's get the big issue out of the way first: Whether or not you believe in the Warrens doesn't matter. In the fictional world of the Conjuring ghosts and demons are very real.

I think that should put a stopper on any moustache twirling know-it-all who takes one look at the 'based on true events'-line and starts debating. Whether you want to or not.

I don't care; I'm here to watch a movie!

Though the movie does address the issue (like the first one ). There are various storylines throughout the movie that debate that validity of the Warrens or even the Enfield haunting. But it is never stressed to the point that the audience starts questioning themselves.

I would have liked to see a bit more ambiguity on the subject. A bit of the tried and tested ‘unreliable narrator’. But then it would have become an entirely different movie all together. So different, in fact, that it would have no relation whatsoever to the first chapter.

So, as a two-parter making the Warren’s possible frauds would have been a bold move. For a possible franchise, however, director James Wann has made the wise choice to staying close to the original formula. However, that choice does –automatically- gives us more of the same.

A sequel: more of the same?

For years, Wann and his partner in crime Whanel have been written off as the guys from Saw. In the sense that they are 'torture porn'-enthusiasts. I keep on repeating that the first two Saw movies (the ones they are directly responsible for) aren't that vile but rather highly intelligent thrillers. Thankfully after the Conjuring and Insidious movies their public image is pleasantly placed in the slow-burn horror-drama category.

And I think they are quite happy in that category. For starters it gives you a lot more elbow-space than, let’s say, Eli Roth. But that does mean that you have to keep on making the same kind of movie over and over.

And that is without a doubt the biggest critique I can give The Conjuring 2. In the broad strokes it is exactly the same as the first outing. Take for instance the long take shot near the beginning of the movie.

This marvelous shot takes the camera through a window (a direct reference to Hitchcock’s Psycho) and through all the rooms of the house past all the characters. This is a great technique to let the audience remember the basic layout of the location where most events will take place. But Wann has already done the very same thing –though less complex- in the first Conjuring. So it’s a bit of a remake of the original shot.

There is, by the way, another Hitchcock’s Psycho reference I noticed near the end. Think: shower curtain.

The same goes with the ‘ghostly events’. In the first movie it was a music box that was at the center of ghostly appearances. In part two it is a zoetrope. In part one a dresser plays a big part, in part two a chair. In part one there’s a musical montage, and so there is in part two; and so on, and so on

This, of course, is emphasized by the return of various characters (the priest, the assistant, and the Warren’s daughter, even Annabel) who are solely there to tie this film to its predecessor.

But that’s the problem with sequels. There’s a balance to strike between rehashing elements and injecting new ones. And it is my opinion that the scale of the Conjuring 2 is leaning towards rehashing a bit more.

But, then again, the movie is filled to the brim with fresh ideas and spooks and scares.

Wann even gets away with a ghost actually scaring somebody by saying: “BOOOO” - which is actually rather rare in horror-fiction. The only movie I can come up with just now that scares people by saying this word is Casper.

To give one example of a great new shot Wann uses to entice the tension: it’s a simple top-down shot overlooking the small alley next to the house leading to the back yard. It’s a simple effective shot that moves characters from A to B. But due to the rain and the element of a supernatural being it receives a form of gravitas.

This is one of the benefits of shooting on a sound stage. Apart from getting a set-dressing just right it also allows freedom like these kinds of shots.

Where, in the first Conjuring, small spaces were key. This shot breaks the mold a bit and increases the space. It’s a small trick to move the movie a bit away from the first outing whilst staying closely connected to it.

Scaring the cast.

The audience has gotten to know the Warrens quite well during the first movie. So this time ‘round the focus on them is slightly muted. Yes it is a movie about the ghost busting couple the ‘Warrens’. But since the audience already knows them the movie wisely decides to put a lot of focus on the Enfield house family.

That family is great, no doubt.  The main girl is fantastic in shifting between a frightened little mouse and the charming sister of the Exorcist (thank god no puking and other stuff). The mother is a lovely lass that’ll do anything for her cubs. If there’s one nitpick it has to be a bit on the balance side of things.

The original story needed two boys and two girls. And each gets their moment to shine. The older girl shares a bedroom with her (gradually getting) possessed sister. And the youngest boy has an encounter with a fire truck. But, unfortunately, the oldest boy doesn't get to do a whole lot. In the first movie (with a family of seven) each and every child has a moment in the ‘frightening’ spotlight. But in this one it feels like a lot of the older boy’s-scenes were left on the cutting room floor. It would have balanced out more if his character was left out of the script- let the youngest walk into the kitchen.

One kid does accidentally look directly into the camera at one point.

Then there’s Patrick Wilson who is at his most charming. He really is an utter sweetheart. That's needed because Vera Farmiga's character has some demons of her own to fight. There's not much of a character arch with the two main characters. They've already finished that arch ages ago. Which makes them a bit uninteresting in their own movie. I would even say that they aren't the main players in this movie -it's Janet.

But then again none of the characters have much of an arch to go towards. ‘Ghost ?  get rid of ghost’ that's the story on the character level. And that's fine. Ghosts were the reason why I bought that ticket in the first place.

But, to return to my previous statement about the ‘unreliable narrator’ it slightly rubs me the wrong way that the Warrens as glorified as heroes. Thankfully Patrick Wilson’s character makes one massive mistake towards the end; so they don’t end the movie as superheroes.

To end this part on the acting/cast I want to give a shout-out to my I-would-love-it-if-you-were-my-girlfriend Franka Potente who rocks with a seventies hairdo as the (rather smug) non-believer. Unfortunately her part is too small to leave a lasting impression on the movie.

Scare me twice.

Which brings me to the scares. There are lots of them and they check all the boxes. Of course the light goes out at certain moments, of course a radio starts playing at high volume. Of course there is a dripping water faucet half-way through. And so on, and so on. But then again - that's what we want. Wann gives use more than enough original scares and ideas. Some of his very own tried and tested (a direct reference to Insidious (face behind head), Dead silence and enough repeats of some fan-favorite original Conjuring scares.).

But the new scares are brilliant in their own right. Shadows, paintings, nursery rhymes and even a toy fire truck. Wann proves that he can make anything scary. Even a bloody washing machine.

This has to do with the audience not knowing what will happen. Where will the scare come from?

For instance, one scene involved Janet watching the telly. She's on the couch, watching. But the angle of the camera gives enough speculation that, perhaps something could rise from behind the couch, behind her. Whether it was intentional or not, I don't know. But I loved its unsettling framing.

I loved the crooked man.

Tell me a scary story.

Being based on true events –or based on a true story at least- the movie takes its time to get to know the characters in Enfield and get reacquainted with the Warrens. But the minute the characters arrive the movie goes into top gear. Now there are some illogical/convenient plot elements in the final solution – but that’s forgivable. The thrill ride is of such top notch quality that it effectively hides the weakness of the story.

Is part two as good as part one? No. But it is darn close. This isn’t Jaws 1 and 2. Rather the Godfather 1 and 2 reversed. 

If the moviemakers keep this up. Perhaps weaken the Warrens a bit more in the next movie and give all the characters something to do – I’d happily sit through another power-outage or dripping faucet just because I love being scared by crooked ghosts.