REVIEW: Conjuring

Director James Wan made a name for himself with the low-budget, high concept horror film, Saw, a movie that kicked off a massive franchise.  From there, Wan teamed up with Saw scriptwriter Leigh Whannell (who has grown into a very talented director as well) in a movie that I couldn't stand called Dead Silence.  From there it was Insidious, a second hugely popular franchise created by Wan and Whannell.  In 2013, Wan worked with different writers, Chad and Carey Hayes, on a 'based on real life' film, The Conjuring.  The resultant product nailed it with both critics (86% on Rotten Tomatoes) and fans, making $320 million world wide on a budget of just $20 million.

Landmark movies are easy to spot, whether you like them or not.  I saw Paranormal Activity in theatres, and, as much as I didn't enjoy it, it was undeniable that the audience was enraptured and that movies would be changed going forward.  Seeing The Conjuring in theatres, the audience experience was so different.  While in Paranormal Activity the scenes only were constructed to lead to a moment that would make the audience jump, The Conjuring gripped people in a different way.  It was through old school story telling that viewers were being immersed.  This appreciation was echoed in the box office.  Paranormal Activity, the financial juggernaut of a franchise, tallied up $890 million world wide from six movies.  The 'shared universe' that was created from The Conjuring has racked up $1.5 billion from five movies.

What I would pick as Wan's greatest strength is the fact that you can easily tell that he learns from his movies and works to tighten elements up and further explore compelling ideas.  When he got to The Conjuring, as mentioned above, there was a sense of old school story telling, something that was quite fresh in a time of the poorly premised found footage films that were all over the place.  A downside to calling on the old school was the fact that there is a scene at the beginning of the movie when a family is moving into an old house where the dog refuses to enter.  Mild spoiler, but the moment a horror fan saw that scene they knew that the dog would later be found dead, probably by a young child that would scream.  Other tropes include a child talking to an invisible ghost that wants to be their friend and a haunted trinket.  At least there are no birds flying into things without explanation.  Oh, wait...

The story is about a family with five kids that find themselves living in a haunted house.  Lili Taylor plays the mother, Carolyn, and Ron Livingston plays the father, Roger.  In an attempt to find relief from the pestering of the dark spirit, real life paranormal investigators Lorraine and Ed Warren are called upon.  Take these people with a big ol' grain of pink Himalayan salt, as they 'investigated' the famous Amityville house and said it was truly haunted, even though it came out that it was nothing but a hoax devised over wine.

However, be them snake oil salespeople or not, Wan and the Hayes siblings are smart enough to know that these characters are going to be key in how the audience accepts the movie as a whole.  There are scares, but then there is also the art of making everything mean something as an entire package.  Paranormal Activity made the entire audience jump, but, from the people I have talked to, it failed to make them really connect with the story.  Wan knows that the Warrens are important, and he crafts them as people who are likeable, who care deeply about others, but who also have learned that there is a line in the sand (sorry for the cliche) that they can no longer cross.  This is the backbone of the film, as they desire to help, but the repercussions could be massive.  All of this is developed even more-so in the The Conjuring 2, which I feel is a much stronger movie.

Playing the Warrens are the incredible Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson.  It is clear that they really care about the characters they are portraying, and they slip into their skin with finesse and ease.  They are relatable, and it is easy to feel the impact of the decisions they must make.  The casting here is so brilliant, giving a grounded connection to the audience.

It is because there is an actual story to care about that makes The Conjuring really stand out from others of its time.  There were so many atrocious movies that really didn't care about their overall stories, much less their leads.  Things aren't necessarily deep and reflective in this film, but it just goes to show the difference that caring about the entire product can do.

The Conjuring really felt like James Wan's scariest film when it came out.  As I said, it is clear that he grows and learns from each project, and the spoils of that culminate in The Conjuring (and even much more in the sequel).  In the film, we do have some jump scares, but there are also many moments where it is all about the build and the atmosphere.  The house itself is a character, and not utilizing the location is a fault more common than you would imagine.

This was supposed to be Wan's final horror.  He had moved on to direct the box office Goliath Furious Seven, but he couldn't stay away for long.  It is clear that this is in his blood, and it is something that he is undeniably successful at.  How many other directors have created three mega hit franchises?  Those franchises alone, forgetting the $1.5 billion from Wan's Furious Seven, have made over $3 billion.  James Wan knows how to connect with audiences, and I couldn't be more excited about his upcoming Aquaman.  I know that movie's going to do well.

You may look at my rating of three stars for this movie and think that it shouldn't be considered a classic.  The Conjuring gave us something to care about in a time when story telling was beyond secondary to jump scares.  It used atmosphere, and it reminded audiences that there was so much more to the movie experience.   It could never be said that it didn't leave a massive impact on the entire horror landscape.  It isn't deep, it isn't insightful, but it is joyous fun, and the mark that it left on popular cinema was a positive one.

Rating - 3 out of 4 stars

Looking at Bates Motel - Thoughts From a Purist

I was a teenager when I first saw Alfred Hitchcock's 1960 horror film, Psycho.  It was the third Hitchcock film I had seen, behind The Birds and North By Northwest.  While I was really engaged with those two films and enjoyed them immensely, it was my experience with the Norman Bates classic that left a mark.

It wasn't just that I thought it was a phenomenal movie, it was a revelation to me in story telling as a whole.  It thew convention out the window.  The leading lady, the person who the camera fixates on and who the story revolves around, is killed off deep into the movie.  Hitchcock shows the audience that he is willing to rip out from under us the things which he portrayed as the most important.  By doing this, nobody in the film is safe.  If he will spend that much time and energy investing in someone who gets killed off, then not another single character in the movie is indispensable.  It was a brilliant move by Hitchcock, and it showed me that there really are no rules to story telling.  You can do absolutely anything you want.  It doesn't mean that it will lead to a good story, but it can create an experience that catches the audience off guard and leads them down a path which they have never before travelled.

This is what made Psycho a groundbreaking film for me.  On top of its lessons in story telling, it was a compelling movie that was driven by powerful performances by Janet Leigh (whose daughter would do on to star in classic horror film Halloween) as Marion Crane, and Anthony Perkins in an eternally haunting portrayal of Norman Bates.  The casting of these two characters was a thing of brilliance, and it pays off in my favourite scene in the film with the two leads having an interesting conversation while surrounded by the hollow eyes of dead, taxidermied animals, birds of prey looming over Norman.  The directing in that scene is a work of art, topped of by the foreshadowing comment from Bates that "we all go a little mad sometimes."

My love for this movie is what kept me from seeing the Gus Van Sant remake for twenty years.  I finally watched it, and my verdict is that it was pointless.  It may have been judged as art by Van Sant, but its shot for shot nature was just mere imitation.  I like it when amazing movies stay as stand alone films and resist the urge to turn into a franchise.  The subsequent movies have a chance to cheapen the majesty of the original.  With a film like Psycho, I felt there should have been nothing to follow after it, and most certainly nothing to be set before it.

The Star Wars prequels seemed to spark this idea that properties could be mined in new ways, with many prequels and origin stories popping up in the years afterwards.  I wasn't surprised when I heard that there was going to be a television show, Bates Motel, about the Bates family set before the incidents in the first movie.  I decided that I would never have anything to do with it, but curiosity killed the cat.  Vera Farmiga, an exceptionally talented actress, was cast as mother Norma Bates.  Freddie Highmore, who I got to know through The Good Doctor (a show that I'm not really into, but I enjoy Highmore's skills), was cast as a teenage Norman.  Time to give it a whirl, I thought.

I need to eat my words and admit that, in this case, an origin story worked.  Highmore has an appearance that works with Perkins and sets up a believable younger version of Bates.  He is shy and naive, but there is something that Highmore is able to say through his eyes that indicates that we may not quite know what is happening in Norman's head.  His mother, Norma, is a truly complex and complicated character.  Farmiga, an Oscar nominated talent, is able to hit all of the many sides and intonations of Norma.  It is a pure joy to see her, delivering a character that is absolutely unpredictable.  The supporting cast of Max Thieriot, Olivia Cooke, and Nestor Carbonell create a rich and deep viewing experience.

The location is perfection as well.  The iconic house set behind the motel on a hill was chilling to see.  The first shot of Norma and her teenage son Norman entering the house is set up the stairs, a shot that calls back to the killing of private investigator Arbogast from the movie.  Nothing in the visuals is delivered bluntly, but in ways that fans of the film will be sure to appreciate.

The story develops in interesting ways, and the real tale to be told here is the relationship between mother and son.  They are bound to each other, explosive with each other, and obsessed with each other.  Norma's maternal manipulation starts subtly, and grows as the story progresses.  As the episodes pass by, Highmore's performance more and more mimics the Bates that we know.

An interesting move in the show is that it is not a period piece.  I quite liked that.  Why feel the need to have to fit perfectly in with what was established prior?  I like when people take licence with properties and use the base idea as inspiration.  It is exactly why I disliked the Van Sant version.  With the story happening in the present time, it allows for an updated character that is more an interpretation than a duplication.

The creators of the show also took liberty with where it takes place.  Instead of a small town in California, it takes place in the fictional White Pine Bay in Oregon.  The town is given its own unique nature, which at first feels like a Steven King style of small town.  However, as the shows move on, the mystery no longer carries any weight and felt to me as though it was unneeded.  It was as though there wasn't complete faith in Norma and Norman carrying the story.  The stories of the town add definite entertainment, but I think it dilutes the power of the actions of the mother and son.  It leads to some things feeling a little over the top at times.

With that criticism aside, this is a surprisingly good affair.  The development of the characters is dark yet delightful, and it is done in a way that I do not think will offend purists.  Highmore is unnervingly placid at times, and a raging animal at others, often with not much separating the two states.  Farmiga got an Emmy nomination for her efforts, and it is easy to see why.  Our possible idea of what Norma Bates would be like from the movie Psycho is not what we are given, but Farmiga shows shades of what will happen to the relationship.  Bates Motel offers up a well built story that hangs splendidly on the talents of its cast.

REVIEW: The Conjuring 2

I will start this by saying that I enjoyed the first Conjuring.  It should be taken with a grain of salt, though.  It was a decent horror film that ended up switching tones and going for the ultimate in chaotic once the third act came around.  Director James Wan said it was his last horror film, but ultimately he could not stay away and returned for this summer's sequel.  If what we have been given in 2016 in the way of sequels is a trend, it would be believed that The Conjuring 2 would be without soul and just a reason to put out a film with a recognizable name.

Luckily, however, there is plenty of heart and soul to be found in this paranormal caper.  It follows the ghost investigating husband and wife team of Ed (Patrick Wilson) and Lorraine Warren (Vera Farmiga) as they come off the case of the Amityville haunting.  This is based off of actual people, and there was an actual Amityville case, but, truth be told, it was one giant hoax.  That doesn't stop it, and the fictional house that symbolized it in the 1977 film, from being used in cinematic tales of ghosts to this day.  After investigating the case at Amityville they decide to hang up the gloves, only to be drawn in one last time, heading to London to deal with a family that has been tormented by an evil spirit.

Wilson and Farmiga reprise their roles in terrific fashion, with a true chemistry between the two.  In a way, this is a story about their love for each other as much as it is about the case of the haunted house.  We get enough back story into their relationship to understand both their caring and concerns for each other.  Solid relationships that the audience can believe in are paramount to every film, and The Conjuring 2 manages to pull this one off.

Knowing the current state of haunted house horror films, it is easy to go into this movie and believe that everything will be solely about the jump scares.  The first Conjuring laid heavy on them, but Wan showed a crafty ability to keep them from being too predictable.  This time around they are a little easier to anticipate, but there is a greater detail paid to the atmosphere and the story.

The first half of the film builds on the tension of these jump scares that the Hodgson family is dealing with.  Poor folks can't get a decent night's sleep without jumping at a scare.  There were audience members who were jumping as well, but, as mentioned, they were easily spotted.  Once the movie entered the halfway mark, it was less about this and more about the narrative, turning it from a startling horror into more of a thriller.  In a number of ways, this format was similar to Insidious Chapter 3, which turned out to be a very fun ride.

Paying more attention to the characters and the story elevates The Conjuring 2 above what my expectations were.  We are treated to a well cast company of actors, anchored by the young Madison Wolfe who plays a child who is most afflicted by the paranormal baddy.  There are four people with screenplay credits, which can usually mean a film feels disjointed along the way.  Not so here, as it is competent for being a summer horror film.

Keeping it from being great is the aforementioned predictability of the scares.  But for those who have not seen nearly as many horror films as I, it should still prove to be frightful.  The characters are great, the relationships are believable, and Wan shows his slickness with the camera attention to set details.  There are so many failed sequels this year, but The Conjuring 2 does not rank among them.

Rating - 3 out of 4 stars

Hannah's Pick: Source Code

My amazing sister in-law, Hannah, recently passed a number of movies my way (most of which I had not yet seen) for me to check out and review.  In honour of her support of my blog, Wednesdays will now be 'Hannah's Pick,' as I will go through her offerings until the well worn shopping bag they came in is empty.  It is an earlier blog for me today, as I was sent home from work when I offered to come in for the night shift tonight and help out.  I napped a full fifteen minutes already, but something tells me that may be all the sleep I get until sometime after 7am tomorrow.  I will definitely be showing up for work double fisting the coffees.

Today's movie is Source Code, a film that I had heard good things about from friends and have been intrigued about for a while.  My interest was sent into overdrive a few months ago when I saw Moon, a sci-fi flick that was the debut for writer/director Duncan Jones, who would then go on to direct Source Code.  When watching Moon, a great appreciation grew for the story telling style of Jones, who is able to guide the audience through complex stories while keeping them simple enough to comprehend, and that allows us good emotional connection to the characters.  If I talked positively about Sam Rockwell in yesterday's review of The Way, Way Back, just wait until I review Moon and you will hear me gush over this under-appreciated actor.

Source Code stars Jake Gyllenhaal who plays the role of helicopter pilot Captain Colter Stevens, who awakens on a train, in mid conversation with a woman he has never seen before (Christina, played by Michelle Monaghan).  From this point on in the movie, we slowly get an unraveling plot as Captain Stevens tries to figure out his situation and the true depths of it.  He quickly finds out that quantum physics has allowed a program to be created that will allow Stevens to re-live the last eight minutes of someone's life, and that he is being inserted into the final moments of the victim of a terrorist attack on a train in order to find the bomber's identity.

 The acting in this film is really well done, and that seems to be something that Duncan Jones realizes is important when spinning an elaborate yarn.  It is possible for an audience to suspend disbelief and dredge through the unknown when we feel a connection to the outcome of the characters.  Gyllenhaal does a wonderful job showing the wide range of emotions his character goes through while constantly having to experience the same eight minutes only to perish in a terrible explosion each time.  Michelle Monaghan is great in her role as the stranger in the train that Gyllenhaal continually meets in his efforts to find the bomber.  As well, Oscar nominated actress Vera Farmiga delivers a terrific performance as Captain Goodwin, the face on a monitor who coaches Gyllenhaal between trips in the source code.  Because she is just a face on a screen, she needs to be able to portray any thoughts, emotions, or inner turmoil through small, nuanced alterations in her face, a task which she is able to accomplish extremely convincingly.

 Duncan Jones is really establishing himself as someone to watch, after only having directed two movies so far.  One of the skills evident in Source Code is that he is able to layer in deeper themes into a movie that is also enjoyable on a mere visceral level.  The film looks at living and existence, two terms that may seem to mean the same thing, but that are completely different.  What is someone willing to live for, willing to exist for, and willing to die for.  It is this theme that adds weight to the film, and is great fodder for conversations with friends over coffee.  It is an aspect that is woven into the fabric of the movie, and is not overtly shoved in our faces and left us dizzy from being bashed over the head with it, as seems to be the method when some films attempt to include a 'deeper' meaning.

If you are a fan of science fiction, you will most likely love Source Code.  If you claim that you are not a fan of science fiction (much like my wife) but enjoy thrillers, you will most likely love Source Code.  In both this movie and Moon, Duncan Jones shows that the genre is not just about space ships and cyborgs, but is really just a canvas left destined for immersive imaginations.  It is a place where all things are possible, and Source Code makes the most of it, inserting Captain Colter Stevens into mystery for eight minutes at a time, forcing him to repeatedly live with those who are about to die, a man immortal thrust into the continual mortality of the people on the train.  Sound confusing?  Duncan Jones does a better job at delivering the story and the message, and that's a good reason for you to watch it.

Rating - 3.5 stars out of 4