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.

Halloween 2018

The Ritual (2017)

Saw this on Netflix. A good cross between The Descent and The Blair Witch Project (though not shot in the found footage format). Four Englishmen take a hiking trip in the remote hills of Sweden to honor the tragic killing of a friend. When they elect to take a "shortcut" through the woods (as one of the characters warns, "if a shortcut was a shortcut, it wouldn't be called a shortcut, it would be called a route"), they stumble across a pagan cult worshiping some ancient beast as a God. For a while, it seems mostly like all the baggage is just what the friends bring with them into the forest, but there really is something out there, and you do eventually get a good look at it in the end (in a climax that had me quoting Princess Mononoke: "I'm going to show you how to kill a god"). The cinematography is breathtaking - the beautiful setting goes a long way in establishing an atmosphere that is genuinely instilled with fear. I recommend it.

Temple (2017)

Three Japan-o-philes visit the land of the rising sun. The girlfriend is doing her thesis on religious studies. The boyfriend (who is kind of a prick) is mostly along for the ride. The third wheel is actually the most interesting character, and the only one who can speak Japanese. They quickly and conveniently stumble upon clues leading them to what must be the most haunted temple in Japan. There's a potentially interesting story in there about six kids who went missing, and the monk who was found living in the temple, but that's not what this movie is about - that's just background fodder for a gimmicky ghost story. Unfortunately, the acting is a bit wooden, and the writing leaves something to be desired. The creature(s?) are creepy, but the nighttime chase is just too dark (and there are too many shots pointed down the barrel of a flashlight, as opposed to the other way around). There's a novelty (for me, at least) to occult symbolism being associated with oriental spiritualism (as opposed to Christianity or paganism), but the various story threads don't really line up into a logical framework beyond "ghosts are creepy, right?" in the end (which came sooner than I expected). I'd like to see this story told with more substance and less fluff.

The Devil's Candy (2015)

Now this movie has style - and I do love a movie with style. Its taste in music is so good (a heavy metal cross-section of Pantera, Slayer, Metallica, even Sunn O))) - not music I typically listen to, but great for setting the mood of a horror movie), even the "trailer" music on Netflix had me hopping over to Youtube for more. The setup is recurrent of The Amityville Horror - a nice family moves into a house with a dark past, and their lives subsequently take a dark turn - but with a strong serial killer flavor - starring an older-than-I-remember Pruitt Taylor Vince. The cold open is so captivating - a Lizzie Borden/Jim Morrison singing The End-type situation, where a man gets up in the middle of the night and plays power chords on his electric guitar to drown out the Satanic voice in his head - I was instantly sold.

The protagonist family - a metalhead slash painter, his wife, and their teenage (also metalhead) daughter - are attractive and likable, and the movie is largely free of dumb clichés. When the Satanic element begins to manifest itself through art - the father's painting, provided by the real-life artist who's worked on some of Sunn O)))'s album covers - it's glorious. Did I mention this movie has style? It's terrifying - albeit, in less of a supernatural way than one might hope (on that note, it's telling that the killer watches a lot of fire-and-brimstone televangelist preachers; it's not hard to imagine it fueling the delusions of an impaired mind - though the preacher thinks he's helping people, by preying on their fears, he's only magnifying the horrors in the world; it is the height of irony that he, himself, is among the worldly devils he warns about) - culminating in a harrowing climax, but damn, it's not often that I have this much fun watching a horror movie! It just goes to show how powerful a movie can be when it's not just trying to tell a story, but aspiring to be a work of art in its own right. It's no wonder the music and painting plays such a critical role. This is the kind of movie I'd be proud to display on my shelf. (Even Black Phillip makes a cameo!)

Apostle (2018)

At over two hours long, this movie is an epic journey, with a plot that strongly resembles The Wicker Man. Around the turn of the century (last century), a man is sent undercover in his ailing father's stead to infiltrate a goddess-worshiping island cult and rescue his kidnapped sister. The first half plays a bit like Colonia in a colonial village with a medieval sense of justice. But at the halfway point (and I suppose this is a bit of a spoiler), it takes a very dark turn, with some supernatural elements, as the cult begins to implode from within. Most of the horror is human-generated, however, and it gets pretty gruesome. It's a sleek production, with good writing, solid leads, and ace cinematography. It's undoubtedly a tense viewing experience, but if that doesn't bother you, it's very well done.

"The promise of the divine is but an illusion."
"God is pain... is suffering... is betrayal."

P (2005)

The granddaughter of a witch leaves the Thai countryside to seek a living in Bangkok, where she uses her supernatural talents to navigate the sex trade - and get herself into trouble, when she loses control of her powers and a bloodthirsty monster is let loose on the city. It's fascinating to see different cultures take on particular subjects - like witchcraft - to see the similarities and differences in how they're interpreted across cultures. True to Bangkok's reputation, this is as much an erotic film as it is a horror film (and I have no complaints about that). In fact, it feels like three movies in one - a gritty, country-girl-meets-city-life coming-of-age drama gives way to a flesh-eating night stalker thriller, that eventually evolves into a Thai version of The Exorcist! Plus, it deserves an award for most captivating ending credits sequence - this film really knows how to keep the audience engaged through the credits. ;-)

Haunted (2018)

This is a short series available on Netflix - I view it as a sort of modern analog to Sightings. Six stories told in bite-size, 20-30 minute episodes, with dramatic re-enactments. Obviously, you can take "the following is a true story" with a grain of salt, but since none of these stories is designed to prove or disprove the existence of paranormal phenomena (this isn't science, this is entertainment), you might as well suspend your disbelief and take them at face value - they're certainly presented that way, told by the victims and eyewitnesses themselves in first person. Most of the tales lack a satisfying conclusion, but I think that contributes to the scariness, by leaving things hanging out there. Fair warning: you might want to watch this one with the lights on.

Here's what you can expect: in the first episode, a man is h(a)unted by a vengeful ghost, in a setup reminiscent of It Follows. The second episode is the story of the kids who grew up with a devil-worshipping serial killer father. Episode three takes a few pages from the Poltergeist playbook. Episode four is the most positive episode (relatively speaking), about a medium who awakens his gift after being contacted by three kids who died in a well. The fifth episode is your requisite alien abduction episode. And in episode six, a teenage girl's deadbeat boyfriend gifts her a stolen gravestone, so she dumps him and shacks up with the demon that's attached to it. (That description's not a fair reflection of the tone of the episode, but it's not inaccurate, and I couldn't resist describing it that way).

Discussion: it's almost more fascinating trying to think up a psychological explanation for these experiences*. I mean, assuming they're not fabricated whole cloth - obviously, I don't believe in ghosts and aliens (anymore), but I believe that these people (or, if they're actors, then others like them) have had experiences that defy conventional explanation. (To quote Scully from The X-Files, I believe that they believe - doubting their explanations isn't the same thing as denying their emotional experiences). I think it will be fascinating somewhere down the line, when we have a better grasp of how the human brain functions, to explore the physiological (and/or environmental) factors** that lead to things like hearing sounds and voices, seeing apparitions, etc. Just having had an episode of sleep paralysis once in my life, I've experienced the unbelievably realistic delusions the human mind can conjure when it's not functioning correctly, and the intense feelings (especially sheer terror) that can go along with that. Take mere suggestibility as a start. I don't believe in these things - these entities - yet thinking about them is enough to cause a palpable reaction of fear (accompanied by such physiological symptoms as goosebumps) in my mind and body. To quote The X-Files again, we have yet to discover how neural networks create self-consciousness, let alone how the human brain processes two-dimensional retinal images into the three-dimensional phenomenon known as perception, yet we somehow brazenly declare that "seeing is believing".

*When some of the people in this show say things like "houses aren't haunted, people are haunted", or that spirits are "attached" to them, or when one person in a household experiences a lot of paranormal activity but others don't... this all could be interpreted as one person being "psychically open" or "empathically gifted" or some such, but it suggests to me the possibility that these could be the manifestations of an impaired mind (or an enhanced one, depending on your perspective).

**In both genetics and conditioning - as reinforced by The Devil's Candy, it always seems to be those with direct exposure to religious mythology (not always in the form of devotion - sometimes it's "inflicted" upon them by others) that interpret these experiences in such archetypal ways. To provide an example of this phenomenon, a schizophrenic who hears voices or feels presences will be more likely to interpret them as ghosts or demons if he's been taught to believe in things like pure evil and the immortal soul.

Tales of Halloween (2015)

It's fun to watch scary shows and horror movies during October, but I always like it when I get a chance to watch something that captures the true essence of Halloween - costume parties and jack o' lanterns and trick 'r treaters - on the holiday itself. Especially when I don't get a chance to get out there myself (and not being a kid anymore, that kind of depends on the whims of other families). That's one of the things I like about the early Treehouse of Horror episodes of The Simpsons. That's also part of what makes the slasher classic Halloween such a perennial favorite. So I saved Tales of Halloween for October 31st - an anthology of ten (very) loosely connected stories that occur on the night of All Hallow's Eve, very much in the vein of that other, more recent, Halloween classic, Trick 'r Treat.

I'll tell you straight up that it's not as good as Trick 'r Treat, but it wasn't a bad way to spend a Halloween night, cuddled up on the couch with a bag full of candy, after all the excitement of the day has wound down. The stories are more sequential and less interwoven than they were in Trick 'r Treat - occasionally a reference to one short will be made in another, and the trick 'r treaters who feature predominantly in one story are recycled in the others. To give you an idea of what to expect, here's a...well, short description of each of the shorts:

Sweet Tooth - An urban legend about a kid who will eat all your candy (even the pieces you've already eaten) comes to life.

The Night Billy Raised Hell - An unfortunate kid learns why it's a bad idea to egg the guy's house who never gives out candy. (spoiler: it's not because he doesn't know how to enjoy the holiday).

Trick - A group of kids decide they'd rather draw blood than receive candy from a group of adults spending the holiday under the influence (spoiler: that decision is entirely justified).

The Weak and the Wicked - A bullied kid attempts to summon a Halloween demon to exact vengeance on his (rather sadistic) bullies.

Grim Grinning Ghost - A fairly straightforward exercise in suspense, expectation, redirection, and jump scares, when a woman's car breaks down and she has to walk home after listening to ghost stories at a friend's house.

Ding Dong - A rather quirky segment, featuring some kind of demon lady who really wants children, and her soft-spoken mate, as they navigate the temptation of having children delivered right to their doorstep on Halloween.

This Means War - A short that seemed more interesting in its setup than its ultimate conclusion. Basically, a tale of one-upsmanship in the realm of decorating your house for the holiday.

Friday the 31st - An over-the-top, humorous parody of Friday the 13th, involving a costumed victim, a Jason rip-off, and, believe it or not, a UFO.

The Ransom of Rusty Rex - Two desperate would-be kidnappers get a whole lot more than they bargained for when they try to take a millionaire's trick 'r treating son hostage.

Bad Seed - a killer goes on a rampage during Halloween, but it takes the novel form of a sentient (and bloodthirsty) jack o' lantern. Kind of reminded me of Halloween III (the one without Michael Myers).

And there you have it - take it or leave it. I hope you've had a haunted holiday, and if I don't see you sooner, I imagine I'll meet you back here next Halloween!

The X-Files - S10:E2 "Founder's Mutation"

[ S10:E1 "My Struggle" <<< Season 10 >>>  S10:E3 "M&S Meet the Were-Monster" ]

Spoiler Warning: This review may contain minor spoilers from this episode and from the series' mythology. But nothing major like the last episode.

Written (and directed) by James Wong, I honestly couldn't tell you if this was supposed to be a mythology episode or a freak-of-the-week episode - I guess I'll just have to mark it down as half and half. It doesn't pick up directly where the last episode left off (I'm guessing we'll have to wait till the season finale - though only four more episodes away - to conclude that story thread), but it does seem to concern itself with an update of the whole "alien hybridization" program the government is apparently still up to, and there are significant allusions made to William (who, nonetheless, does not appear, except in some confusing flashbacks to events that couldn't possibly have happened, and may represent Scully and Mulder's wishes and fears for the life they could have had had they not given William up for adoption when he was just a baby).

At the same time, the episode generally follows the freak-of-the-week formula, with an opening "teaser" that concludes with a brutal death (involving a high-pitched noise that is reminiscent of the one heard in Vince Gilligan's Drive), that precipitates the case that Mulder and Scully go on to investigate throughout the episode. There is even a scene of Mulder and Scully waving their flashlights about, but what the episode lacks is a good monster - especially touching, as it does, on the series' go-to subject matter of genetic mutations. The best it does is a gallery of freaks suffering from abnormal conditions, but they are only children locked up in the research facility run by this series' latest incarnation of a government-employed mad scientist. It all ties in to the experimentation with alien hybrids, but with a touch of the flavor of the ninth season mythology's inclusion of paranoid mothers (for better or worse).

I don't know if I would say that this episode is a vast improvement over the last one. I may have even liked the last one better. I haven't seen anything yet that's made me go "oh my god, this is awesome, I'm so glad The X-Files is back on TV!" But next Monday Darin Morgan's episode airs, so we'll have to see what that one's like. My overall impressions remain - I don't think I like watching TV in HD (or digital, or whatever it is that's making the show look so slick and clean). It just doesn't look right. I don't need to see every pore on every character's face. Even more so because it's kind of sad to see these three characters (Mulder, Scully, and Skinner) getting old. By the way, what's up with Gillian Anderson's voice? It's kind of distracting. Anyway, this may be a revival, but it's definitely not a repeat of the classic years of the show. I'm wondering right about now how other people (fans and non-fans alike) are receiving it - whether or not they're liking it, and whether or not it'll be popular enough to keep the series going past this 6 episode event. I'm not convinced yet that it should, but I'll withhold judgment until I see the rest of the miniseries, and at the very least, Darin and Glen Morgan's episodes coming up in the next two weeks.

Memorable quotes:

Lindquist: Unhand the hard drive, sir.

Scully: This is dangerous.
Mulder: When has that ever stopped us before?

Sister Mary: Desire is the devil's pitchfork.

Mulder: All we can do, Scully, is pull the thread. See what it unravels.

Scully: What you're talking about is changing the genetic makeup of a population. That's the next step in evolution.
Mulder: Every new species begins with a founder's mutation.

Jackie: They said I killed my baby. I didn't. I let him out.

Kyle's Mother: Bad things happen when the birds gather...

Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones (2014)

I recall Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones being marketed as a spin-off, rather than a direct continuation of Paranormal Activity 4 (after all, they opted for a subtitle, instead of calling it "Paranormal Activity 5"). Maybe they needed to switch things up a bit, and at least partially distance themselves from what had surely become a sinking franchise (critically, if not financially). Or maybe they just wanted to buffer fans' expectations, since this movie veers away from the tried (and some might say tired) formula of house-centered hauntings explored nightly via security camera footage. I'd like to say that it's too bad they'd have to resort to such measures just to try something new, but I was a little disappointed not to get (yet) another reiteration of the formula that had worked so well in the past, so maybe their concerns were justified. In any case, this movie does dovetail with the rest of the series (making direct connections to each one of the previous movies). I'd consider that a possible spoiler, given how the film was marketed, but since it may be the only thing to warrant giving this movie a view, I figure it's worthwhile for me to mention it.

In this movie we are introduced to a Latino family - complete with a chihuahua, and a superstitious grandmother - living in a two-story "garden apartment" complex. The film focuses on a small group of recent high school grads who gradually become mixed up with a witch that lives in their building. I think I would enjoy a movie about witches and their Satanic rituals (as stereotypical and un-PC as that would be), but you only get brief glimpses of it in this movie. What you do get to see a lot of is the hijinks that these young adults get up to (some of them approaching Jackass-level), in a slow build (note: I watched the "extended cut", so keep that in mind whenever I mention pacing) that plays like a standard, dime-a-dozen found footage movie. I presume these scenes are designed to enable the audience to relate to the main characters, but that's hard when they end up doing dumb shit that's clearly designed only to advance the plot - like smearing their fingerprints all over a fresh crime scene.

Or when they're hiding in the cellar, and not only do they leave their camera's light on, but they actively shine it through the floorboards while somebody is walking around above them! In their defense, the unidentified figure behaves no more rationally than they do. It climbs all the way down into the cellar, and just stands there, with the protagonists hidden behind nothing more than a clear plastic sheet (with the camera's light still on!), only to turn around and leave without incident. I can understand utilizing scare tactics, but it seems like there are more effective ways to pull it off. The scares in this movie seem designed to hide a small budget, rather than make the most of it, and instead of masterfully wielding the limited tools at their disposal, you get the feeling that the filmmakers threw a bunch of shit at the wall just to see what would stick (besides the dog). That some of it does work seems, therefore, to be in spite of the production, and not because of it.

I'm pretty sure that the first Paranormal Activity was an unprecedented success, making a big return on its bare bones budget. Maybe those funds have dried up by the fifth installment, but I think that rather than stick to the formula, this franchise should maybe have invested some of that money into special effects. There are a few good scenes of suspense in this movie - although not to the level of past titles - but you never really get a good payoff. (This does, however, ably demonstrate the theory that anticipation is a lot scarier than anything you could possibly throw at the audience - which is why the first Paranormal Activity was so effective). There are a few good ideas, as well - like that the protective demon force (the one we all rolled our eyes at in the third and fourth movies) could manifest as something like super powers, and then there's this concept of a door of space and time, which manages to be as evocative as it is hokey. But none of them are developed quite enough.

The best parts of this movie, though, are when it tries to align itself with the overarching mythos of the series (note: the rest of this review may contain spoilers). I gave up a long time ago trying to put the pieces of the plots of these movies together, after it got more and more convoluted in the third and especially the fourth movie. The Marked Ones would seem to serve as an example proving that the family we followed in the first three movies was not an isolated case, and that the witches in the fourth movie are working in tandem with demonic forces to create some kind of army of possessed firstborns (towards what end - if it's anything more sophisticated than the creation of a vague Hell on Earth - remains a mystery), referred to in this movie as the Marked Ones. I was very happy to see Ali (the delightful Molly Ephraim) from Paranormal Activity 2 return, although I don't know how she managed to become an expert on the witches' plans. I would have liked to have seen more of her than just the brief scene she got in this movie.

The "box of tapes" puts in another appearance, although it really seems to be little more than a prop at this point, as it's not as though anybody watches any of the tapes anymore. And there's no explanation whatsoever as to why this one particular witch should have them stashed in her closet. The movie's climax almost makes up for the rest of its runtime, although some of what occurs is as (unintentionally) funny as it is scary (like when the protagonists storm the witches' house from PA4 with a couple of Mexican gangsters in tow). It's a testament to how scary the first PA was, that when we return to that house at the end of this movie, I instantly got a cold chill over my whole body - which was, by far, the most scared I felt in this whole movie. There's supposedly another installment in the Paranormal Activity franchise coming out this season. I don't hold much in the way of hope that it will recapture what made the first two movies so good (or latch onto something new that's just as compelling), but I have to admit I'm a little bit curious to see where they're going with all of this. Call me a sucker, but now that it's gone this far, I kind of want to see just how ridiculous it's going to get.

The X-Files - S3:E21 "Avatar"

[ S3:E20 "Jose Chung's 'From Outer Space'" <<< Season 3 >>> S3:E22 "Quagmire" ]

Avatar distinguishes itself by giving us a rare glimpse into the personal life of Assistant Director Walter Skinner, a man we usually only see in a professional context. While grappling with the final stages of a divorce, he ends up sleeping with a woman he meets at a bar. To his surprise (as much as anyone else's), he wakes up next to her in the middle of the night, only to find her dead with a broken neck. She is later identified as a legal secretary who was moonlighting as a prostitute. This is The X-Files as erotic thriller - à la Adrian Lyne - with shades of Don't Look Back (this is The X-Files, after all). The rest of the episode concerns itself with finding out what happened, and gives Mulder and Scully an opportunity to help Skinner out of a jam for once, instead of being the ones getting him into trouble, like usual.

Now, I can see Skinner as the sort of man who would patronize a prostitute (that is, if he even knew she was a prostitute), because even though he adheres to a strong principle of justice, prostitution is one of those crimes that doesn't deserve to be one. But murder? No way can I see this man committing such an unjustified act of atrocity. Was he in an altered state of consciousness? Discussion of sleep disorders brings the mythical "night hag" into play, as well as legends of the succubus. Or could it have been a setup, designed to ruin Skinner's reputation - not to mention his life - in a way that (spoiler from Piper Maru): a bullet to the gut couldn't accomplish? In most cases, finding proof (whether of the paranormal, or a conspiracy) is largely an exercise in academics, but here, it could be the only thing keeping Skinner out of jail, let alone with a job.

Memorable quotes:

Skinner: I guess some people think that you owe 'em something just 'cause you're out alone.

Scully: Business must be booming.
Mulder: I think you mean banging.

Lorraine: You'd be surprised who some of my clients are.
Mulder: No, I don't think I would be.

Mulder: Maybe that's why Skinner's running - he's afraid.
Scully: That he did it?
Mulder: That he doesn't know he didn't do it.

Senior Agent: Do you believe in paranormal phenomena, Agent Scully?
Scully: Whatever extreme cases I have encountered, I have always viewed through the lens of science. I believe that is why I was assigned to the X-Files, and to Agent Mulder.

Scully: But I don't understand - why would they orchestrate such an elaborate scheme just to set him up? Why not just kill him?
Mulder: Well, they already tried that once, and a second attempt would be too obvious, even for these thugs. Anyway, I think Skinner's probably worth more to them alive and disgraced than dead and buried.

Scully: How are we supposed to find him?
Mulder: Well, this guy is a pawn. Pawns always make the first move.

The X-Files - S1:E22 "Born Again"

[ S1:E21 "Tooms" <<< Season 1 >>> S1:E23 "Roland" ]

Paranormal themes return in this episode where poltergeists and telekinesis are suggested as possible explanations when an 8 year old girl apparently manages to toss a police detective through a window - without laying a finger on him. The motive, however, involves a complicated web of fraud and corruption in a New York precinct, and a little bit of revenge from beyond the grave. One inevitably makes comparisons to several episodes from earlier in the season, particularly Shadows, and Eve - which also featured a creepy little girl (or two) - with shades of Lazarus, and Young At Heart. It would be tempting to say that the show is running out of ideas this late in the season, but it's not like we haven't had multiple episodes on the subject of UFOs and alien abductions (although that is kind of the show's main theme). Still, it's not a terribly memorable episode.

Memorable quotes:

Mulder: Why is it still so hard for you to believe, even when all the evidence suggests extraordinary phenomena?
Scully: Because sometimes, looking for extreme possibilities makes you blind to the probable explanation right in front of you.

The X-Files - S1:E15 "Lazarus"

[ S1:E14 "Gender Bender" <<< Season 1 >>> S1:E16 "Young at Heart" ]

After a bank robbery stakeout goes wrong, a colleague and ex-boyfriend of Scully's experiences "psychic transference" during resuscitation, and is possessed by the male half of a pair of natural born killers. The irony is that this was an agent who specialized in getting into the heads of criminals, and now he's got one inside his. This is another one of those excellent episodes if you enjoy the humorous banter between Mulder and Scully's conflicting viewpoints on the supernatural.

Memorable quotes:

Scully: I don't discount the near death experience, because it can be explained empirically, by stimulation of the temporal lobe.
Mulder: I sense a big "but" coming.

Scully: It's not working. It's stopped. At 6:47.
Mulder: The exact time that Jack went into cardiac arrest at the hospital.
Scully: What does that mean?
Mulder: It means...it means whatever you want it to mean.

The X-Files - S1:E6 "Shadows"

[ S1:E5 "The Jersey Devil" <<< Season 1 >>> S1:E7 "Ghost in the Machine" ]

Mulder and Scully investigate a young woman who seems to be followed around by a murderous, psychokinetic force, in this episode that features overt, self-conscious references to both Carrie and Poltergeist. We're into the bulk of the season now, and it looks like we're in for a string of monster-of-the-week episodes.

Memorable quotes:

Scully: You lied to them.
Mulder: I would never lie. I willfully participated in a campaign of misinformation.

Mulder: What are you doing, Scully? You don't believe.
Scully: Mulder, there's no such thing as ghosts or psychokinesis. I'm sure there's an explanation. But I believe that she believes.

Book of Blood (2009)

Book of Blood is based on what is essentially the "wraparound" or framing story of Clive Barker's early collection of short stories, the Books of Blood. As such, this movie (which is a good hour and forty minutes long) plods along slowly and feels very much "padded out" for what would have worked better as an hour (or less) length episode of a horror anthology. On top of that, it relies too much on cheap scares, the CGI is obvious, and the characters are never believable as real people.

Example: after a paranormal episode leaves a young man with cuts all over his body, instead of leading to a discussion about the ethics of their little science experiment, it leads to a sexual encounter with the researcher that hired him (who, oddly, must be turned on by his fresh flesh wounds). It's not the perversity (nor the nudity, which is skewed here in favor of the male) that's at fault - this is a Clive Barker concept, after all - but the poor writing and lack of realistic motivations.

For, the concept itself is compelling and original. The "book of blood" in question is the skin of a man which the dead use to etch their stories - in blood. But the bulk of this movie manages to squander that concept in a fairly run-of-the-mill haunted house/paranormal investigation tale, that gets boring fast (and is nowhere near as effective as Paranormal Activity). This is why I think the movie would be improved by cutting the runtime down significantly, and giving more weight to the wraparound of this wraparound. And the underlying theme - of the dead wanting to tell their stories, and our imperative to listen to them - is much better suited to the introduction of a collection of horror stories than a standalone feature length film.

Apartment 143 (2011)

I'm a little bit at a loss as to what to think about Apartment 143. It starts out as a pretty conventional haunting movie, with a small team of paranormal investigators setting up in the apartment of a family who's been experiencing some strange phenomena ever since the mother's death. And that's fine - everybody's got their tastes. Some people eat up zombie movies, others like slashers. I, personally, dig a good movie with some poltergeist activity. And Apartment 143 does have some decent scares, even if my final conclusion is that many of them are kind of cheap, and the overall tone of the movie isn't as effectively exhilarating as, say, Paranormal Activity.

But there's something about this movie that I found simultaneously intriguing, and frustrating, but talking about it requires spoiling (so consider yourself warned). A lot of the time in a movie about some kind of haunting or other, the paranormal investigators that inevitably get involved might tease at various explanations for ghosts and demons or what have you, but ultimately, they tend not to say very much of substance, and it often simply boils down to some kind of paranormal entity (whether the ghost of a dead person or something else entirely) either wreaking havoc or just playing around. Apartment 143 almost seems to want to provide a more scientifically rigorous approach to explaining the paranormal phenomena - by using all their fancy tools of the trade to rule out possibilities one at a time.

And in the end, the source of the problem tends toward being more psychological than anything else. There is a bit of mystery underlying what happened to this family, and how the mother died, and your speculations play into what you think might be causing the strange occurrences, and this provides more of an opportunity for character-based drama than you typically see in these kinds of movies. But to spoil it straight out, the explanation ostensibly involves the hot teenage daughter's Carrie-like superpowers, and the lead investigator (who is actually described as a psychologist, and is clearly a man of experience in these matters) settles on the diagnosis of "schizophrenia".

Which is interesting, because last I checked, schizophrenia doesn't involve subconscious telekinesis, much less demonic possession-like symptoms that defy the known laws of physics. On the other hand, positing an alternate reality where psychic powers such as these are truly in existence, and high levels of stress capable of triggering them as a much-needed emotional release (stereotypically associated with adolescent females) - which, on the other hand, begs the question of why every other family that's been through lots of stress doesn't similarly experience poltergeist activity - it's fascinating to think about how a scientist (or psycho-scientist?) would go about identifying and treating those cases.

Now, maybe if the movie somehow hinted that this was its aim, it might have been a little more fun to play along with. As it stands, it comes off being a little disjointed and confusing, like it's trying to be too many things at once - a haunting, a possession, psychic powers, and mental illness - while not quite seamlessly melding them together. And with the logic a little hard to follow, and some of the scares coming off kind of cheap (though not necessarily unscary), it left me feeling a little bit less than completely impressed. Then again, it's the first movie about a haunting I've seen that actually attempts a decent séance, which is something I've been looking for for a long time. Even with its flaws, it attempts to be something more than a plain old boring ghost movie, so I think it's worth watching.

Grave Encounters 2 (2012)

It's standard operating procedure for a found footage film to pretend to be real, but Grave Encounters 2 goes meta (much like The Human Centipede 2, as loath as I am to bring up that title). The movie opens with a montage of vloggers describing their reaction to Grave Encounters, finishing with an arrogant, egotistical film student who thinks he's going to usher in the next wave of horror. Guess who our main character is? And Grave Encounters 2 turns out to be the documentary he films about Grave Encounters, in which he goes on a search to prove that the first movie was real, after receiving some cryptic pieces of evidence from an anonymous source online.

Here's one lingering question that breaks suspension of disbelief - no matter how badly you want to prove it, if your suspicions tell you that a movie in which everyone visiting a haunted building was killed horrifically after days of psychological torture and an utter inability to escape that building is really real, then why in god's name would you go visit that building in the middle of the night, and do the exact same thing the last (lost) crew did, in order to prove it? Are you really that stupid? What good is your proof gonna do you if you end up just as dead as the last daring adventurers?

Yeah, so there's lots to roll your eyes about in this sequel. First of which is the early montage of our main characters partying, getting drunk and taking drugs. I know, it's one of those things that lends itself to the found footage genre, but seriously, what scenes could be any less interesting? And anyway, it doesn't help to make our characters more sympathetic. (I don't know about you, but I don't think vomiting into a toilet bowl makes somebody "cool" and "relatable"). And if your goal in a horror film is to make us loathe the characters we're going to eventually watch die, so we can sit back and say, "haha, you jackass, you totally deserved that," then I don't really think you're doing horror right.

I'm sorry, but it's just really hard to ignore when your main character is an aspiring director, who goes on about being original, then resorts to making films that rely heavily on cliche. The first Grave Encounters was an excitingly original take on an all-too-familiar premise. The sequel falls rather short of its forebear's legacy. It takes a long time to get to the asylum (that we all know it's headed for), and before getting there, it uses a cheap trick by which all of the best scares from the first movie are recycled by being cut into the footage without warning, being explained away as the other characters reviewing the first movie. But the result is that those scares, taken out of context of the original movie, lose all their atmosphere and are rendered as cheap jump scares.

As for the sequel's own scares, apart from one really cool monster sequence, they're much less effective this time around. Perhaps partly due to the fact that we have a better idea of what to expect, but also due to the way they're filmed. One thing that this movie has going for it is that it builds upon the spacetime anomalies that occur inside the haunted building, which was my favorite aspect of the original. But, unfortunately, even this angle is squandered as the movie begins to veer too far into fantasy, at the cost of its horror atmosphere. There's a really ridiculous floating camera gimmick that's in use toward the end of the film, that ultimately kills the found footage feeling of the film. Which is fascinating, in a way, because when the perspective begins to shift away from the first person POV, you can almost instantly feel yourself being less scared, because you don't feel in the middle of the action so much anymore. But, of course, for the film, doing that doesn't effectively accomplish its objective.

What we're left with, I think, is a disjointed sequel that has a lot of ideas - not half of them half bad - but that ultimately fails to live up to its own boasts, much less the expectations created by the outstanding film it follows.

Grave Encounters (2011)

Ladies and gentlemen, it's October.

I had no idea what to expect going into Grave Encounters. Well, except from the synopsis, which only told me that it was a movie in the style of those ghost hunting shows. I first saw it listed in Netflix's database, and honestly, among the unfamiliar titles I've watched on Netflix, the quality ranges from the fantastic to the abysmal. I wasn't even sure that Grave Encounters wasn't one of those cheap knock-offs of Paranormal Activity, or even a comedic spoof of the genre. But I figured I'd watch it, and find out.

Unfortunately, I can't really talk a lot about the film, because I'm concerned about giving away some of its surprises. (But if you're curious about my opinion of it, the fact that I think its surprises are worth keeping should give you a big, juicy hint about how I feel about the movie). It's a found footage film, about a fictional television series called Grave Encounters that is your run-of-the-mill ghost hunting show. The movie opens with a brief introduction by a (fictional) programming exec who introduces the show and prefaces the footage you are about to see, which was filmed for episode 6 of the series, during which a terrible tragedy occurred.

Then we cut to the footage, and in the first act, we're introduced to this small team of ghost hunters, and the abandoned mental hospital they're going to spend the night locked inside of. At this point, the mood is very light, and the film has fun demonstrating that these people are less true believers than they are simply interested in putting together an exciting television show - as you can imagine anyone who really works on these kinds of shows probably are, to some extent. Then night falls, and the fun begins.

At this point, you may be wondering how the rest of the film is going to play out. You're probably thinking, "let me guess, this particular abandoned mental hospital is going to turn out to be the one place that really is haunted." At least, that's what I was thinking. And yeah, that's exactly what happens. It's not a totally original plot development, but it does mean that you're in for a genuinely scary movie, and not some kind of parody or anything like that.

But what makes this movie so effective, is how those scares play out (gradually at first, then growing in intensity), and where the film ultimately goes in the end. There's no getting around it, the premise has been done to death. I mean, just consider the sort of television series the movie is referencing. Of course, this movie is the opportunity to take one of those shows and just go all out with the scares, not even trying to keep it grounded in reality - which is an excellent idea.

But of course, there have also been lots of movies about people hanging out in haunted buildings (Session 9, for example, was a pretty good one). But let me say this, Grave Encounters is not only the best, but the scariest movie of its type, that I've yet to see. I was very impressed with it. And despite the familiarity of the premise, it does manage to do some things that are deliciously original, which directly contribute to its effectiveness.

And here, let me leave you with this comment, lest you doubt the sincerity of my remarks: I saw both Grave Encounters and its sequel (Grave Encounters 2) available on Netflix, so I figured I'd watch them back to back in one night, to take them both off my viewing list in one shot. But after watching Grave Encounters, I was so scared, I decided I couldn't handle another one in the same night. And isn't that really the best compliment to a horror film, especially coming from a grizzled horror veteran? Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go watch something lighter right now in the hope that I can actually get some sleep tonight.

Insidious (2010)

I didn't notice when Insidious first came out - it's one of those titles that flew under my radar. But recently, I've been hearing about it a lot, usually in the context of being touted as one of the few really good (and effective) horror movies to come out in the past several years, among dozens of flops and mediocre titles. And with the sequel being advertised now (I saw the trailer for it when I went to see World War Z), I figured the first was one that I had to watch.

I didn't really know what to expect from this movie, as I hadn't read much about the actual plot beforehand. I think I had some idea that it had to do with ghosts. So I started watching it, and I was thinking to myself, okay, what can they do with a haunted house story to make it fresh and original? And, truthfully, they pretty much hit it out of the ballpark.

The movie sorta has two acts. In the first act, we're introduced to a cozy family and get a peek at their home life. Then, in typical haunted house fashion, things start to get weird, the family members get stressed out, and the audience is treated to some nice scares. This is all stuff we've seen before - but it's done really well. The characters are genuine and likable, and they actually react plausibly to the haunting. I mean, when was the last time you watched a haunted house movie where the family actually moves houses after shit starts getting weird? Yeah.

So then we get to the second act, and this is where Insidious really pulls itself ahead of the pack. Without dropping the horror, the story takes on more of a sci-fi/fantasy flavor and - I don't think this is really a spoiler, but if you want to be as surprised at the change of direction as I was, go watch the movie now and then come back and read the rest of this review - introduces the theme of astral projection and spirit worlds.

And you know what? I'm not going to say that the execution is perfect, but I still think that's fantastic. So many movies tell a good old-fashioned human story of horror, but shy away from entering a world of fantasy and imagination. Imagination can be horrible too, you know. I'm talking about movies like Event Horizon, or Drag Me To Hell, which end right where they should be beginning - when the character gets to Hell. Or movies like The Silent House, which craft an effective atmosphere, but then are afraid to speculate on the world of the supernatural.

Insidious is, in some ways, a cross between Poltergeist and Beetlejuice (albeit with the balance tipped toward horror/drama rather than comedy). I also got a sense of The Cell, starring Jennifer Lopez, also about a dream world populated by dangerous entities. Plus, Insidious has a certain style to it, and an idiosyncratic soundtrack, that at times recalls that old carnival haunted house aesthetic. Patrick Wilson (the creep in Hard Candy, or The Watchmen's Nite Owl, if you prefer) and Rose Byrne (the military chick in 28 Weeks Later!) are both excellent as the leading couple, and Lin Shaye is very charismatic as the medium who leads the affected family through one of the most original and action-packed séances I've ever seen on the silver screen.

I'm not quite prepared to list Insidious as one of my favorite horror movies ever, and my opinion of modern horror is perhaps not so picky as other fans, but this was a very good movie, very original, and I highly recommend it. I am now looking forward to the sequel, although having seen the ending to the first movie, I'm kind of wondering how what I saw in the trailer fits together. But I guess I'll find out when I see it!

V/H/S (2012)

So I finally got around to watching V/H/S, and I'll tell you, I liked it. You can't really take it too seriously, in terms of expecting everything that happens to make total sense, but if you're willing to just sit back and enjoy a bunch of found footage shorts, you just might like it. I think the idea is extremely clever - a horror anthology (like Creepshow or Tales From The Crypt) totally in the found footage style. And, I actually thought it was pretty scary, too (which is something I've found that found footage does more effectively than traditional filming styles in the horror genre). One warning though, if you can't stand "shaky cam" movies, you'd best avoid this one.

Note: The rest of this review may contain some spoilers. Nothing too detailed, but if you want to go in completely fresh, then I suggest you watch the film first before reading on.

So the "wraparound" story ("Tape 56") deals with this group of immature jerkwads who go around committing petty crimes and filming them, presumably for the entertainment of likeminded blowhards on the internet. And then they get this job where they have to break into some old guy's house to steal a VHS tape. Except, the old guy turns out to be dead, and his house is filled with VHS tapes. So they start watching some of them, and it turns out this guy has a treasure trove of found footage.

The first segment, titled Amateur Night, introduces three douchebags with a glasses camera looking to bag some drunk chicks from a bar, bring them back to a hotel room, and film them having sex with them (presumably so they can upload the video to the 'net). Except one of the chicks they bag turns out to have a very terrifying secret - she's not exactly human. The guys in this segment, as the guys in the wraparound, were very obnoxious, but apart from that, the segment had a nice balance of gore and nudity, and was genuinely creepy once the shit started to hit the fan.

The second segment is titled Second Honeymoon, and ostensibly seems to be a recording of a young married couple's "second honeymoon" road trip to the Grand Canyon. But they come across a suspicious girl at their motel who, it seems, is inexplicably able to sneak into their room at night. The segment ends with a very brutal murder (remarkably so) and something of an unexpected twist. I have to admit, even aside from the gore, just the idea of somebody sneaking into your room at night and watching you while you sleep (not necessarily with good intentions) is pretty terrifying.

The third segment, titled Tuesday the 17th, is a not-so-subtle parody/homage (take your pick) to Friday the 13th styled slashers, about a girl who lures three of her friends out to the woods in an attempt to capture video evidence of a local rampaging killer. The acting is atrocious, and this segment would be eminently forgettable, if it weren't for the video tricks utilized. The killer only shows up on the camera in the form of a glitch, presumably because of some kind of (quite possibly supernatural) electromagnetic interference. It's actually a neat trick that ramps up the mystery, and contributes to the viewer's fear of what exactly the characters are up against.

The fourth segment has the rather unwieldy title of The Sick Thing That Happened To Emily When She Was Younger, and comes in the form of an internet video conference between two lovers. The girl (who is not nearly as flawless, but oddly has some of the look and mannerisms of Chloe Moretz) is having some problems with her apartment - she thinks it's haunted. So we're treated to a very much Paranormal Activity style horror, albeit one that has an unexpected and somewhat ineffective (even if it was a neat idea) conclusion. Props for the addition of nudity, though, especially because - come on - this is a webcam convo, after all.

The fifth and last segment is titled 10/31/98. We are introduced to another group of overconfident young males (slightly less obnoxious than previous groups), on the night of Halloween, in search of a party they were invited to. They have a bit of trouble finding it, contributing to the suspicion that the house they eventually arrive at may or may not be the right one. Regardless, it's rather large and nicely furnished, but noone is there partying. They find a way inside and begin to explore the house. Various subtle paranormal activity follows, leading the men to believe it's some kind of Halloween trick - you know, a haunted house. They make their way to the attic, where they hear some men chanting, and find a woman tied up, the focus of some kind of ritual. They eventually discover that this is not, in fact, a party, and even as they try to save the girl and escape, the paranormal activity in the house ramps up considerably, trying to trap them inside.

If there's any complaint I have with this movie, it's that it spends a lot of time depicting the douchebaggery of today's stereotypical over-testosteroned male. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the female nudity (and even to a lesser extent, I like that they didn't just limit the nudity to the female), but it was almost always in the context of men being douchebags - like assaulting a woman on the street and forcibly stripping her on camera, or a guy trying to secretly film himself having sex with his girlfriend, or another guy pathetically begging his wife to take off her sweatshirt and kiss her with the camera rolling.

It doesn't make me hate this movie, because it's not a drama or an anthropological documentary - it's a horror, and it's effective (in my opinion) at being scary, even if I don't like the characters (in fact, I might be more receptive to the violence if it's being exacted on unsympathetic characters - that's open to debate), and after all, if a horror movie is out to depict the horror that exists in the world (real or not), then that contributes to my feeling of disgust.

But, it just makes me think about how men treat women in the real world, and wish we had better examples of men enjoying the sexual delights of women in a way that doesn't suggest that men are pigs and rapists, or lead you to the insidious conclusion that, like vandalism and theft, sex is an antisocial crime committed by immature men, in this case against women (who, nevertheless, may or may not have the ability to defend themselves and exact terrible, murderous revenge).

On the other hand, I am extremely happy to see a found footage film that doesn't shy away from the fact that putting the technology of homemade videomaking into the hands of the populace leads to a lot of people wanting to film some sex. Sex tapes, webcam videos, even the concept of voyeurism itself implies the marriage of sex and video technology. So even though this is horror and not porn, I was very excited to see some actual sex and nudity for once in a found footage film.