The Critic's Corner

June 20-26, 2016

‘Conjuring’ sequel offers big scares

By David Laprad

“That’s as close to hell as I ever want to be,” says Lorraine Warren after having a terrifying vision involving a nun with sunken eyes, a gaping red mouth, and far too many teeth. I agreed with her; if hell is populated with creatures like that one, I don’t want to be anywhere near the place.

The demon isn’t playing fair. It’s perverted an icon from Lorainne’s faith in order to scare her away from her work as a paranormal investigator – work that in “The Conjuring” saved a family of seven from the spirit of a homicidal witch. It’s also given her a vision of the death of her husband, Ed. Lorainne and Ed work together, making them something of a somber precursor to the Ghostbusters. When there’s something strange in your neighborhood, who you gonna call? Ed and Lorainne.

Like “The Conjuring,” the sequel is set in a beautifully rendered 1970s, and is based on the case files of the actual Warrens. Beginning in Amityville and then moving on to their investigation of poltergeist activity at the Enfield house in London, England, there’s enough of a thread of actual events running through the movie to give “The Conjuring 2” at least a footing in fact.

Taking the place of the witch from the first movie is the spirit of an old man named Bill Wilkins. In several goosebump-inducing scenes, he torments a young girl named Janet, who’s living with her divorced mother and siblings in the aging Enfield house. It takes a while for everyone else to believe Janet’s claims of someone, or something, being in the house, but when a dresser slides across the floor and slams into the door of her bedroom, trapping everyone inside, they come around.

The Catholic Church reaches out to the Warrens to help. Lorainne wants to quit ghostbusting because she fears for Ed’s life, but she reluctantly agrees to see if she senses anything in the house, which would give the Church the basis for performing an exorcism. Oddly, once there, she senses nothing, and evidence soon surfaces that suggests Janet is faking the whole thing. This actually happened, and the Enfield case continues to be disputed today.

I’ve spent a good chunk of this review setting up the plot, and that’s no accident. One of the strengths of “The Conjuring 2” is its story, which spans continents, but comes to a head in a small house in London. What’s more, the character work is good. The best horror isn’t about gruesome monsters (sorry, Freddy and Jason) but the people they plague. When we care about someone, we care about their fate, and even place ourselves in their unfortunate shoes.

That’s not to say “The Conjuring 2” doesn’t spend ample time on spine-chilling, supernatural hijinks. On the contrary, with a slightly bloated running time of 134 minutes, there’s plenty of room for all manner of spooky goings-on. Ranging from quiet and creepy to jump-out-your-seat scary, these sequences are very well done, and come at a pace calculated to hold your interest.

Director James Wan has become something of a modern master at crafting effective, memorable horror. He not only directed the first “Conjuring,” but his filmography also includes “Saw” and a pair of “Insidious” movies. He’s done his best work with the “Conjuring” films, though, and while the sequel doesn’t contain anything as memorable as the hand-clapping scene in the original movie, it’s probably the most fun I’ve had watching a scary movie. Like a kid on a wild ride through a manic fun house, I was both frightened and thrilled.

The most surprising thing about Wan is how he continues to come up with new techniques for scaring the bejesus out of people. His work on “The Conjuring 2” is no exception. In two scenes in particular, he uses unfocused imagery to glue the eyes of his viewers to the screen. A scene in which he focuses on Ed while a fuzzy Janet channels Bill in the background is so good, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn I didn’t blink.

As good as “The Conjuring 2” is, it isn’t perfect. As with the first film, the ending feels artificially amped up, with Lorainne and Ed figuring out the key to the haunting at the last minute and racing to save the family. Then there’s the bit where Bill gives Lorainne a clue in the form of a riddle instead of simply saying what he wants her to know, an awkward bit where Ed sings an Elvis tune, and a creaky CGI sequence involving the Crooked Man from the English nursery rhyme. While these things seemed out of place in an otherwise well-crafted film, none of them diminished my enjoyment of the movie.

I can’t close this review without mentioning actress Vera Farmiga’s performance as Lorainne. In scene after scene, Farmiga does a superb job of projecting her character’s strengths and vulnerabilities, and of reminding us that something important – Ed’s life – is at stake. A luminous presence in a dark film, Farmiga brings a refreshing element of humanity to the proceedings. (If you aren’t watching “Bates Motel,” in which she stars as Norma Bates, mother of famed psycho-killer Norman, you’re missing one of the best shows on television.)

I should also mention the humor. “The Conjuring 2” is anything but a lighthearted affair, but Wan does pepper the film with well-timed laughs. The original was perhaps too solemn, and I liked the addition of humor in the second one. A gag about the size and weight of a 1970s video camera is priceless.

If any part of you enjoys scary movies, then “The Conjuring 2” should be at the top of your to-see list. Also, please try to catch it in a theater. The film deserves to be seen where its wide-screen photography and hair-raising audio will be most effective. With Wan moving on to direct the DC Comics film “Aquaman” and the sci-fi epic “Robotech,” I feel a little sad that the horror genre will have to do without his expert touch for awhile.

Three-and-a-half stars out of four. Rated R for terror and horror violence.

Viewer’s tip: For horror of an entirely different breed, seek out the Austrian-made “Goodnight Mommy” on VOD. This slow-brewing tale of twin boys who think a stranger has replaced their mother is deeply disturbing and has a gut-punch of an ending.

David Laprad is the assistant editor of the Hamilton County Herald and an award-winning columnist and photographer. Contact him at dlaprad@hamiltoncountyherald.com.