The Conjuring

Another thorough lesson in exorcism and communication with ugly ghosts, but this time creatively shot, devilishly well acted and even genuinely scary in places. Wan is not that original in the end, and especially the first half is more or less just a suspenseful patchwork of tried-and-tested clichés saturated with references to Child's Play, Hitchcock's The Birds, and hundreds of films with creaking doors, a possessed bedside clock, and an imaginary friend. Where the director triumphs again, however, is, as in Insidious, in the chilling execution of the scenes with the ghosts – no cheap jump scares, but patiently spun tension that tingles on the viewer's nerves, which Wan clearly revels in and wrings new blood even from disgustingly stale moments like the excellent bed scene. The glowing reviews may have driven my expectations too high, but I have to admit that Wan has a firm grasp on his craft and is perhaps the only one who can consistently make entertaining and successful horror films at the moment. Let’s hope he can continue :-) 80% (08/10/2013)

“Look how I can get you with something you’ve seen a hundred times before!” the talented James Wan said to himself. Brilliant filmmaking, especially the long introductory shots. The 1970s atmosphere, which best suits haunted houses, is well depicted. The Conjuring has quality actors and great sound, making it a grade-A horror movie that Warner Bros. can be proud of. But the ending could have offered more. The first [Rec] set a real high bar for final escalation. (09/16/2013)

James Wan is a god. And if filmmakers can’t be gods, then he’s at least a demigod or something like Hercules. Because while I’m not sure where he even came from, I must say that if he sticks to the horror genre, he might become one of the best contemporary horror movie directors. I haven’t ever seen such a great and at the same time horrible – in the good sense – movie. At first glance, The Conjuring seems like a classic supernatural movie. The story has an old house, ghosts, poltergeists, a swamp, an old tree that’s moldering away and an exorcism – so nothing out of the ordinary. But this movie can be surprising. It can surprise you with its atmosphere before and after the movie itself. Before I watched the movie, I only knew that it’s based on real-life events and that the people in trailers were the ones who suffered through those traumas. I also knew that it’s all based on the most truthful truths that you could ever get in a movie and that we could ever manage to swallow down. But after I watched it, I learned about the most famous ghost hunter in the US and I started hunting down more and more information that assured me that this movie isn’t any ordinary movie. Because James Wan shot the absolutely perfect horror. I haven’t seen a horror this good in a long time. And I also haven’t seen a character that the actress could embody this perfectly. Vera Farmiga is absolutely amazing in this! This is exactly the kind of movies that the viewer needs. A healthy dose of the supernatural is always nice. It assures us that there are things in this world that simply can’t be explained. (11/17/2013)

I saw it in the theater, but I feel like if I watched it at home on my computer, I'd enjoy it just as much. The atmosphere didn't really move me (= I wasn't scared, I only got scared about two times); it felt more like a thriller than a horror movie. (And looking at the genre, I was right on the money.) I enjoyed it because it wasn't your typical mindless horror movie with exorcisms of the devil. It had a nice "scientific" feel to it. With a few exceptions, it could do without the crying-to-the-heavens cowlike behavior of the characters. I was expecting something a bit more, so I felt a bit empty when I left the cinema, I felt a bit "unfulfilled" and it has nothing to do with my escort just gripped my hand... Not bad, but nothing to fall on your ass about either. But I found a flaw in the film! SPOILER When the mother goes to the husband-investigators to ask them for help, they don't want to believe her that there's really something going on. But then later on in the movie, they are told that the ghosts have stuck to them, that they will be with them everywhere and all the time, wherever they go, that the psychic can see them. So how come she didn't see anything when her mother came to them asking for help? It just boggled my mind... (09/08/2013)

I definitely have to commend Wan after the awful Insidious. Lesson learned this time; he doesn't try to render the digital finale on his cell phone alone, and more importantly, he's formally keeping pace with the times. I even snorted with delight at three shots – the lighting at the Warrens' first lecture, the intensity of which also determines the depth of focus of the shot, which informs the viewer of the setting of the scene by shifting the focus from the closeup (the lecture ticket in the visitor's hand) to the long shot (the packed auditorium with the Warrens on stage); the Perron family's move into their new house in a one-shot take, beginning as a crane establishing shot and then moving through the house, leading the camera through all sorts of obstacles and then a confusing camera sweep from under the bed to the door. Wan has done his homework, you can make a list of all the essential horror films of the 70s and 80s and tick them off as the film progresses. He does a great job of selling a thousand well-established routines to an audience only marginally watching horror. The problem, however, is if you’ve watched dozens of hours of this horror subgenre. For this reason, The Conjuring unfortunately doesn't have much more to offer me. (10/29/2013)