Friday, October 15, 2021

The Conjuring Universe

I've admittedly fallen out of the habit of writing reviews, not because I don't enjoy the work, but because it IS work, and work that I've never been paid for (despite my feeble, failed attempt at generating affiliate revenue). I do still enjoy horror as much as ever, but I don't spend as much time watching it (outside of the Halloween season), nor do I keep track of new releases like I used to.

Still, I'm proud to say that the kids in my family have pretty much all learned to appreciate the entertainment value of a good horror flick - even without any conscious prompt from me! It's actually kind of funny to hear them raving about horror movies, having little idea of how obsessed I've been with them for much of my life. Like when they discovered The Conjuring on Netflix, a movie I saw in the theater back in 2013.

I had no idea back then that it would become the next big horror franchise following Saw (currently featuring eight films in The Conjuring "universe" - no doubt borrowing a page from Marvel's playbook), but it does make a certain amount of sense in hindsight, given how crowded that theater was (which was a surprise to me, as someone who is used to sitting practically alone in the theater during horror screenings), and the fact that the story is framed as a single case from the colorful career of a pair of paranormal investigators (based on real people, not that that means much in horror).

Browsing my review from eight years ago, the point that stands out is how effectively the movie utilized the genre's clichés to generate a cross between The Amityville Horror (a story which itself has ties to the aforementioned paranormal investigators) and The Exorcist. Anyway, the kids keep talking up the sequels, and have lent me their DVD collection for them, so I'm going to watch them all and write down my thoughts as I go. I haven't done a marathon like this for a while, but it will be just like old times!

The Conjuring (2013)

I don't have a whole lot to add to my previous review of this movie; my impression this time was on par with how I felt the first time I watched it (minus the reactions of a largely unblooded theater audience). Despite utilizing many of the tropes of the genre, it does so very effectively and piles them on thick. I did notice that Annabelle features more heavily in this movie than I remembered.

In fact, the first shot of the movie is a closeup of her face, and a brief recounting of her origin is used to introduce paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren, who in this movie investigate what is promised to be their most extreme case, of a demonic possession tormenting a family of five(!) daughters, that results in (spoiler) the Warrens performing a homebrew exorcism.

I did recognize a few familiar faces, including Joey King (who would grow up to star in the runaway hit Kissing Booth movies) and Mackenzie Foy (who was memorable in Interstellar), but most surprisingly John Brotherton (who plays D.J.'s other romantic interest, Matt Harmon, in the Fuller House reboot) as a town cop whose presence provides more comedic relief than actual protection (after all, it's ghosts - not criminals - they're up against).

In hindsight, I'm less surprised that this movie was successful; for a horror movie, it's as effective as it is accessible, with a framing narrative that leaves room for expansion, and the added kick (however cynical I've become of this claim in the realm of horror, it works rather better with the more naive, general audiences) that it's based on a true story. Now let's see about those sequels.

Annabelle (2014)

So, this movie actually starts with the same scene as The Conjuring, but the main story takes place before that encounter, with Annabelle's previous owners. I was actually kind of disappointed that the Warrens didn't feature in this movie, but I guess they can make more movies if they don't need the principal actors for the side stories.

If The Conjuring was a cross between The Amityville Horror and The Exorcist, then this movie is Chucky meets Rosemary's Baby. A young, married couple expecting their first baby is the target of a Manson-style home invasion conducted by members of a Satanic cult, which results in what would seem to be the origin of Annabelle's supernatural powers.

"To non-believers, it's all crazy."

Honestly, the movie felt a little slow, and the doll scares weren't as effective for me as the ghost scares in The Conjuring. Haunted dolls just aren't my thing. I mean, yeah, dolls can be creepy, in an uncanny valley sort of way, but if supernatural forces are going to take physical shape, they can be a lot more creative than relying on manmade wooden effigies.

Even if the effigy in question is so grotesque that I have a hard time swallowing anyone buying it (at least unironically) as a gift. That said, there is a point in this movie where an actual demon makes an appearance, giving us the money shot that The Conjuring lacked, and it's worth seeing. But if this movie wanted to impress me more, it would have had more demon, and less doll.

The Conjuring 2 (2016)

A question one might have for The Conjuring 2 is, if The Conjuring already depicted paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren's most extreme case, how do you make the next one stand out? And the answer is, go for name recognition. The movie starts with the Warrens investigating the house from The Amityville Horror (albeit in the wake of the events that went on there), and then proceeds to tie it in to the notorious case of the Enfield poltergeist in England.

Maybe this is just the inevitable result of watching too many haunted house movies, but there comes a point when the scares start to feel too contrived (even including the use of feints to trick the audience), especially with the guidance of a dramatic soundtrack. This is something I liked about the low-key approach of Paranormal Activity - I prefer a situation that's organically scary to the movie broadcasting the parts at which I'm supposed to be scared.

Which isn't to say that the poltergeist activity in this movie isn't creepy, or that it's not creative, but it's distracting when you can feel the invisible presence of the director's hand manipulating the scene, conjuring up ways to shock the audience. Is there meaning in the ghost flicking light switches, spontaneously playing radios, switching TV channels, or is it just generally trying to be a nuisance?

"Honestly, I don't know what's worse - the demons,
or the people preying on our willingness to believe in them."


"The demons. They're worse."

So, there's two stories going on here, one about a nice English family apparently being haunted by a renegade band of Cornish Pixies, and another where Lorraine seems to be hounded by a ghost she encountered in the Amityville house, which looks like a cross between Marilyn Manson and Jigsaw, dressed in a nun's habit (is this "The Nun"? Why are we seeing her now? Or is this another case, like Annabelle, of the writers creating spin-off potential?).

The movie actually gets a whole lot more interesting (and surprisingly humorous) when the Warrens finally get involved in the Enfield case. After all, these characters are what sets these movies apart - it's fun to see their confidence in action, and the experience they have doing this unusual work. In fact, the conclusion is quite thrilling (even if it's not exactly original at this point to conduct the climax in front of an open second story window), complete with a few dizzying twists. I think this movie requires a little more investment than the first one (especially given its fairly long runtime), but I'd consider it an effective sequel.

Annabelle: Creation (2017)

What this movie lacks in originality, it more than makes up for in execution. The first Annabelle movie gave us an origin story for the evil within the doll (which was already redundant, given that a different explanation was profferred in her first appearance in The Conjuring); yet, instead of tapping in to the potential for stories about other people coming into contact with the doll following its corruption (and before it ends up in the safe keeping of the Warrens' treasury of occult objects - unless it were to somehow manage to escape, hint hint), this movie takes us back even further, to tell a tale about the dollmaker who handcrafted Annabelle, and to seemingly spin a new origin story for the evil within it (because what would an Annabelle movie be with a doll that's not haunted?).

Many questions arose as I was watching this movie. Is Annabelle just so cursed that she can host multiple demons within her slight wooden frame? Or are there multiple Annabelles? In this movie, we witness Annabelle's construction; it's indicated that this is the first in a limited series of what was supposed to be a hundred dolls, but I think there's a reasonable indication that no more were ever completed after the first one - even though that could have explained the presence of different dolls with different possession stories. Yet, this reading would require that something about the design of the doll must be a unique conduit for evil (like LeMarchand's puzzle box). However, other than its aforementioned grotesque appearance, no explanation for this is given. (Spoiler: the end of the movie ties all of these loose ends into a neat bow).

To summarize the plot of this movie, years after his daughter is killed in a freak accident, the dollmaker opens his house up to a girls' orphanage (beating The Conjuring's previous record with six girls this time), and the typical poltergeist-related shenanigans commence, with Annabelle at their center. I don't know what it is, but the scares in this movie were significantly more chilling than the others so far. And I'm glad to see that the creators took my advice from the first Annabelle movie (which I've just given, years after both movies were already made >.>), and favorably tweaked the demon-to-doll ratio. The venerable Miranda Otto (who has been having a blast in The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina lately) hovers around the edge of this story, but the real revelation is young Talitha Bateman as polio-stricken Janice. There's a career to watch.


"Forgive me, Father, for I am about to sin."

Oh, and one other thing. I had a thought while watching this movie, although it's probably more true of The Conjuring movies than the Annabelle movies, but have you ever noticed how these movies are like a fireworks display of poltergeist activity? They start out small, trying out a few displays, then slowly ramp up the action, and you can always tell when the finale hits because they'll throw everything in their arsenal at you all at once!

The Nun (2018)

Like Annabelle before it, The Nun is a spin-off prequel telling of the origin of one of the series' major antagonists, introduced in The Conjuring 2. Except, it's not so much an origin story as a "this happened, too" story - and there's a critical flaw in setting up a prequel as a typical standoff between good and evil, when you know that evil is ultimately going to prevail (and not even in a "the bad guy wins" sort of way, which can be good). The best five minutes of this movie are a rushed summary of where the evil came from (something to do with a deranged crusader performing Satanic rituals) - and if you ask me, that story is what this whole movie should have been.

But to get to what this movie actually is, we start at the beginning, which feels very contrived. Inexplicably, a random abbey in Romania has a demon locked in its basement (oh yeah, happens all the time), and even more inexplicably, the abbess decides that it's a good idea to unlock the door and let it out (did you know that doors can totally hold demons back?). And if that weren't enough, once the abbess is presumably possessed, and the demon is chasing what appears to be the last surviving nun, she goes off and commits suicide, because that's totally something somebody ordained in the faith would choose to do. The fact that these events are eventually provided a plausible explanation doesn't forgive the movie for asking the viewer to stretch their suspension of disbelief so far in the first place. The only redeeming element is the irony of one of these movies starting, rather than ending, in front of an open second story window for a change.

But the movie's implausibility doesn't end there. In the wake of this disastrous encounter, the Vatican sends a "miracle hunter" priest to investigate with the help of a sister-of-the-faith-in-training. When the latter is introduced explaining dinosaurs to the younger students at her convent, it feels like the writers are telling us, "she's religious, but don't worry, she's totally cool". Because you know the church would aggressively stamp out that kind of open-minded progressivism in anyone on track to taking their vows. On the other hand, the character is played by Taissa Farmiga, who I remember from the first season (in particular) of American Horror Story, and who I keep thinking about every time I look at her sister (although they are 21 years apart in age) Vera's face, who plays Lorraine Warren in these movies. So that's cool.

I don't want to drag on too long talking about this movie that largely failed to hold my interest, so let me just address a few points. I like the setting - a gothic castle feels more appropriate for a ghost story than a modern dwelling. I just wish it was used in a movie with better writing. Example: the priest dismisses the guide so he won't have to "be caught on the road at nightfall". The guide agrees, and promptly leaves; in the next scene, he's on the road and it's dark. Like, okay. Later, the priest gets buried alive (and proceeds to use up as much oxygen as possible shouting repeatedly and flicking his lighter), and the nun-to-be has to use her psychic visions (I know) to dispel the ghost's distractions in order to find which grave he's buried in, except that the ghost already put the priest's name on the tombstone...

I guess I don't find the concept of a nun wandering around, even in the shadows, to be particularly scary. I mean, yeah, nuns are scary, but for all the human reasons, not any supernatural ones. And while the nun does have a creepy face, I feel like they're overplaying that factor (and I feel bad for the actress that plays her - how would you feel being told that you have a great face for horror?). I also don't think she quite lives up to the epithet "the defiler". Mocking religious symbols is one thing, but you have to have an artistry to it, a certain depravity. And it's not as much fun if you don't throw in some perversion. Maybe, like Annabelle (which played largely on the fears of new motherhood), I'm just not the ideal audience for this movie, given that I'm neither religious nor superstitious (redundant, I know).

The Curse of La Llorona (2019)

As the first "spin-off" in The Conjuring franchise that's really more of an independent tale, not preemptively teased or featuring a previously introduced entity in any of the other films, there's not much tying this movie to the Conjuring universe, aside from the brief appearance of Father Perez (who played a supporting role in the first Annabelle movie). Well, that, and the fact that this movie very much possesses the spirit of a Conjuring movie, with a creepy antagonist (just in a bridal gown instead of a nun's habit) who terrorizes people with poltergeist activity in pursuit of human souls.

The movie starts out well enough, feeling like more of a supernatural drama compared to the fantasy horror of The Nun. The story is inspired by a Mexican folk tale about a woman who drowned her own sons. She's called La Llorona (and forgive me, but I had the tune to My Sharona playing on repeat in the back of my head all throughout this movie), or the Weeping Woman. As the legend goes, when she found out that her husband had cheated on her, instead of punishing the husband, she murdered the kids she'd had with him. Upon realizing that she was the worst mother in the world, she killed herself only to end up spending her afterlife taking other people's kids. Until she runs into a feisty social worker (Linda Cardellini) and widowed wife of a cop raising two perky kids in Los Angeles, that is.

There's also another woman, whose behavior throughout the movie is quite frustrating. Like, she locks up her kids and acts crazy, and then blames the social worker (and actually attacks her) for rescuing the kids and thereby leaving them vulnerable to the entity that's hunting them. Like the social worker bears any responsibility when the woman failed, when given the opportunity, to explain the situation. I get that it's a supernatural folk tale, but if she was afraid of sounding crazy, the ship had already left that port. It just annoys me when drama is manufactured from a situation that could be resolved if people would simply explain themselves. I get that this happens in real life, too, but that doesn't change my feelings about it. And then later in the movie, she totally flip flops with no real motivation between being on the good side and the bad side.

And then we come to the final act of the movie, in which an ex-priest faith healer (Raymond Cruz) with "miracle hunter" vibes steps in to help the afflicted family, through a series of rituals and preparations that seems totally arbitrary and as if they were being made up on the spot. At this point, I think I'm getting bored with the convoluted schemes ghosts use to steal people's souls (read: lives). I mean, I can get playing tricks to make people go crazy, especially to the point of desperation and giving in just to make it stop, but it's almost demeaning that these supposedly intimidating supernatural forces have to resort to such petty psycho-physical manipulations. I keep thinking about how effective The Exorcist was, and it saddens me to see these ghosts and demons preoccupied with gliding down dark hallways, slamming doors, and toying with the remote. Give me sodomy with a crucifix any day of the week.

Annabelle Comes Home (2019)

Now that we're past the low point of the series, with those movies that don't even have "Conjuring" or "Annabelle" in the title, we're back to the power hitters, and I'm pretty excited. I may not have been real stoked to watch the first Annabelle movie (because haunted dolls, ya know?), but I liked the second one a lot, and I saw a trailer for this one when I popped in the disc for The Curse of La Llorona, and I'll be damned if I didn't think it looked good.

So, for the third time in the series, we get a movie starting with that scene with the Warrens interviewing the last owners of Annabelle before they acquired it, but for the first time, we get to see what happens immediately after that, on Annabelle's trip "home" - to the Warrens' Artifact Room. And it's nice to see the Warrens appearing in a movie that doesn't have "Conjuring" in the title. That's a testament to how big the Annabelle spin-off has become.


"Nice doll."
"That's what you think."

And this time, we get a proper sequel instead of another prequel - even though the events of this movie still occur before the events of The Conjuring - with Annabelle escaping her glass cage in the Warrens' treasury of occult objects. We also get to see more of the Warrens' daughter Judy, who is central to the action for a change, although she's been recast (no doubt because the previous Judy grew up) as Mckenna Grace, who was in The Haunting of Hill House (among other things - including a small role in Fuller House, since another actor from that show already turned up in one of these movies previously).

Along with Judy (who sees dead people, but she gets that from her mother), this movie is carried by two teen girls, a babysitter and her friend. Babysitters, school hallways - this feels like a vintage horror movie. I like a movie that gives you a nice slice of life with interesting characters before hacking them to bits (well, if this were a slasher). The real horror isn't what the monster does to its victims, it's what it takes away from them - peace of mind, happiness, and a chance at a normal life.

I'll even forgive the babysitter's plucky friend for being stupid enough to break into a room filled with cursed objects (and the Warrens for not hiding the key better), because it's just a plot device, resulting in a level of mayhem that's akin to a containment breach in the Ghostbusters headquarters. If we weren't so late in the series already, I'd say it's all fertile ground for further spin-off material.

The scares are pretty fun this time, without too much reliance on cheap gimmicks. The effect of the coins in the Ferryman's eyes, in particular, was clever, contributing to the effect of a creepy atmosphere over the hollow payoff of a jump scare. And the prognosti-tube (no idea what it's really called) was ingeniously unsettling. Although I could do without the "puking blood into somebody else's mouth as a vehicle for possession" trope. I know horror isn't designed to make you feel comfortable, but seriously, ew.

As a final thought, seeing so much of the Warrens' Artifact Room just makes me realize that this series hasn't remotely tapped the true sequel potential of its premise, especially spending three movies now revisiting the same doll (even if it does have the reputation for being the most dangerous object in the room - I like the touch of putting the tarot card for The Devil on her case, by the way). I think The Conjuring would be great as a TV series, with each episode detailing the origin/acquisition of one artifact from the room.

The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It (2021)

The Conjuring 3 opens at what seems to be the climax of one of the Warrens' cases, in which they are asked to oversee the exorcism of an 8 year old boy (for the first time, it's a boy - and one with ridiculous Gibson Praise glasses). And it looks like a doozy. Lorraine is sporting a new hairstyle - an updo reminiscent of pictures I've seen of the real Lorraine Warren, who looks rather older than she does in these movies. Between that and the (brief) return of the original actress who played Judy (who continues, as we all must, to advance in age), my suspicions are confirmed that this is one of the Warrens' later cases. Which is appropriate, eight years after the first movie came out, and as many films into the series. I wonder, though, if there'll be any more after this one?

The exorcism ends unusually in an apparent transference of possession (whose host gives off such strong Harvey from The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina vibes that I'm legitimately surprised it's not the same actor), and with Ed in the hospital, unable to warn the others what happened before the new host wreaks havoc (his struggle with health problems really gives Lorraine a chance to step up to the plate in this one). But what's really interesting about this movie is the extent to which it covers new ground, instead of retreading territory the series has already been over (other critics might cite this as a weakness, but I think it's one of this movie's strengths). The Warrens are faced with a new kind of demonic possession - less poltergeist activity and more Satanic curse - and must solve the mystery of what's going on while a young man's life is on trial.

"The demon's gone, what can you do now?"
"Who's your lawyer?"

This movie is based on the true life story of the first case in US law to claim demonic possession as a defense, which the Warrens consulted on. But that's not to say that this movie is a court procedural. The Warrens' investigations lead them to a(nother) ex-priest (played by John Noble, who was very memorable on Fringe) - one who studied the Disciples of the Ram (the Satanic cult responsible for much of the mayhem in the first Annabelle movie), to the point of collecting a treasury of ritual objects of his own (more along the lines of objects created for evil purposes, as opposed to mundane objects repurposed for evil), enough to make even the Warrens hesitant to enter. I'll refrain from giving away the rest of the movie, but suffice to say, I enjoyed it.

Conclusion:

It's been a fun ride! I enjoyed the main entries better than the spin-offs, although the Annabelle movies grew on me more than I expected them to. Ed and Lorraine Warren are definitely interesting characters, and provide fertile ground for stories to tell in the paranormal subgenre of horror. I think casting Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga was a good choice, as they both have good screen presence, and a natural chemistry. However, ironically, the more I've learned about the real life Warrens, the more I'm convinced they were frauds. Not that I ever seriously considered their claims, skeptical atheist that I am, but I will admit that I was a little taken in initially by the claim that they spent a lot of time finding perfectly natural explanations for the phenomena their clients experienced. But I guess if you want to convince people that your snake oil works, you're gonna pick the best case studies you can get your hands on (then again, one could argue that picking such highly publicized - and thus scrutinized - cases isn't the most effective strategy unless it's only publicity you're courting). Then again, it's entirely possible that they believed their own hype, reserving supernatural explanations for anything they couldn't otherwise explain. Religion and self-delusion frequently do go hand in hand. But that's reality, and this is fiction, and I'm capable of keeping the two separate.

Saturday, September 18, 2021

The Green Inferno (2013)

Since I have a healthy respect for Cannibal Holocaust, as well as writer/director Eli Roth (Hostel was one of the first movies I saw in the theater after consciously deciding that I was going to be a horror fan), I remember wanting to see The Green Inferno (what a great title!) when it came out (was it really that long ago?). But I never got around to it. Until now. Apparently, there was a whole string of cannibal movies in the '70s and '80s that this movie pays homage to, not just the infamous Cannibal Holocaust of which I am familiar.

By way of summary, the daughter of a UN official learns about female genital mutilation in college and impulsively joins a group of activists led by a charismatic psychopath (his character is plainly written to be a dick, but he actually makes some good points in criticism of ivory tower idealism), who challenges her to prove her committment in a stunt to delay deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, which threatens the survival of an isolated jungle tribe. Except, when their plane crashes in the jungle, they find out that the tribe consists of vicious cannibals and carnage ensues.

Be forewarned: although this is a violent and gory movie, it doesn't take itself too seriously, and is not above using toilet humor. Allegedly, the entire film grew out of the idea of stoned cannibals getting the munchies (in a scene that raises cannibalism to a level more typical of a zombie buffet). Critics may accuse Roth of exploiting the real native tribe he cast in this movie, but reports are that they had a blast doing it (the assumption that jungle tribes have no imagination or sense of humor kind of goes hand in hand with the harmful stereotype - satirized in these movies - that they are brutal savages), and he makes a good point about the real dangers to these tribes being colonial capitalists and not fantasy narratives. Anyway, it lends the movie a real sense of immersion.


As a final note, I know it's weird to think about this in the context of a gruesome horror movie, but seeing how skimpily dressed the natives are (albeit in full body paint), and particularly the lead Lorenza Izzo's ritualistic getup in the climax (the fact that she would spend a number of years married to Eli Roth after this movie is interesting), just makes me wish there were more movies that unselfconsciously showcase the beauty of the unclothed (or nearly unclothed) human body NOT in a pornographic context (not that there's anything wrong with porn, but naked beauty can be appreciated on its own merits, without being weighed down by all the baggage that comes with explicit sexuality).

Thursday, September 16, 2021

As Above, So Below (2014)

I was reading through some horror recommendations on Reddit, and people were saying good things about this movie, which I noticed was available on Netflix, but only for a few more days (at the time of searching), and that was all the motivation I needed to give it a screening. It's a found footage movie, that plays out like a cross between Tomb Raider and Full Metal Alchemist, but framed as a horror story. Imagine Lara Croft searching for the Philosopher's Stone in the catacombs under Paris, which turns out to be the gateway to Hell. Yeah. It's pretty effective. It goes a little deeper into its own lore than most movies of its kind (according to IMDb's trivia section, heavy parallels can be drawn to the Nine Circles of Hell in Dante's Inferno, but as someone who's actually read Dante's Inferno, it's mostly subtext that the casual viewer doesn't need to know), although it loses a little bit of traction with its vague rules governing the workings of magic. The whole experience is enhanced by actually being filmed on location in the catacombs under Paris, although the movie leans conspicuously on using supernatural nonlinearity (as disorienting as this can be), as well as straightforward backtracking at one point, as an excuse to recycle familiar rooms and passages. It's pretty ambitious for a found footage movie, and it mostly works. Not enough to raise it from the depths of the subgenre, perhaps, but definitely worth a watch.