VS. 
THE CONJURING: 2012:++: HRR: OK, hype aside, this movie is a scary, terrifying movie. The best part about it is the way that it seems to tie together all the other James Wan movies. It's almost as if it's a prequel to all the other movies and a sequel to a movie never made. Does this make sense? If not, please read on...
So there were 3 other people that "directed" this movie, but let's face it, it's all James Wan. A little while ago, M Knight had a following, but then he crapped the bed with The Village & Devil, but he had his run..Everything about the scenery, the camera shots, the pace, the music, etc SCREAMS James Wan and it's almost a perfect movie. Almost..
Overall, I thought the possession scenes were on the par of the The Possession, one of my favorite horror movies, as well as the Devil Within, which is a "Textbook" possession movie. The mythology was intact, made sense, and made the movie deep. Ok, so it was loosely based on a possessed doll, but this movie has ties to one of the best horror movies, Amityville Horror. How you ask? Ask me on a comment and I will answer you. Obviously, James Wan loves the actors in Insidious and this one also has the actress in The Departed. This movie is more sinister than Sinister, which is hard, because that movie is also top 10 of all horror movies for me.
It's actually an interesting comparison to bring in M Night into this scheme because he had his favorite actor, in Bruce Willis. In Unbreakable & Sixth Sense M Knight used Bruce Willis almost like Wan uses Patrick Wilson who stars in The Conjuring as well as Insidious 1& 2. Vera Farmiga, who also starred in The Departed, put on a great performance and actually made me believe in her abilities better than The Departed. Her "Bostonian" accent in that movie made me cringe a few times, almost as badly as DiCaprio's. Yes, I just criticized Leo. Who cares, I can do that. It's my damn blog. BTW, I gave him many accolades in Inception, which was reviewed in "Movies II".
The possession scenes, especially the last one, were truly terrifying and actually quite original. The setting set the mood and the music is a Wan standout. Joseph Bishara is very talented and reminds me of the composer in The Shining. I especially enjoyed the scene in the chair with the sheet. I also liked the scene where the ghost pukes into the main character's mouth. Office Spaces' Ron Livingston was decent and actually makes you forget about his role in said movie, which must have been challenging. I will not give away any plot aspects of this movie, I just want to give you broad strokes because it's still new and therefore I will only say:::91%
Insidious Chapter 2: 2013: ++: HRR: I've watched Insidious about 3 times because I love the movie. James Wan really discovered his niche in that movie and brought back the much maligned "horror house" movie. It had a great backdrop, excellent ghost/ villain (although he was a virtual clone of Darth Maul), and above all else didn't insult your intelligence with "quiet to loud" segments that don't necessarily scare you, but jolt you. That's not a horror movie. That's a way to make someone have a seizure, no offense.
Insidious Chapter 2 is a great sequel, but not a great movie. It does just what the first movie didn't, or left out, on purpose to "tee" up a sequel. This was done in a very sneaky way, which gives me more of an appreciation of Insidious. It had so many cheesy scares in it with loud noises, that I thought I was watching a Friday the 13th movie. The title sequence was also very annoying. I didn't mind it in the first one, but in this one, it didn't make sense. No offense to the music, but it just didn't "fit" in this one, the title scene that is. The music in this sequel was one of the only stand out elements and my hat's off to the composer.
Why is this movie a great sequel? Well, because all the twists and turns were inspired and created from the first movie, especially the part when the first scare happens in the original and the door remains open. I loved the way that the medium shows up in the second one as a younger version. However, that just vindicates the first movie, not this one. I will go out on a limb and say the villain/ ghost was terrible and not at all as scary as the first villain. Plus, it needed so much explanation it made the plot draaaaag on, no pun intended.
This movie is short, about 1 1/2 hours long, although it felt very long. Patrick Wilson did a decent job, but his acting starts to get very predictable. Perhaps it's the fact that he was just in The Conjuring. If you see my initial review of the first movie, I wished that the medium died. Luckily she did die and that was one of the best parts of the movie. The only issue is that she returns in this one. WHY?? Plus, I'm sorry, but the Ghost Hunters are tiresome and this movie didn't need any more comedic elements. The shaky plot was enough. I get it that he wears a Banksy shirt and likes Hot Pockets. He had one funny part, but overall, it screamed desperation on the part of Wan to make some funny parts. People laughed, but I really didn't.
I enjoyed the parts of the "Further", so that was the most redeeming element of the movie. I also didn't mind seeing the medium's house. The scene between the male medium and a possessed Patrick Wilson was excellent. BUT, the piano bit and the little baby's toy that kept going off was extremely annoying. This movie also made me think of M Knight. Why? Because it showed how a director can hit a peak and than fizzle. Hopefully this is only because this was only meant to be Insidious 1 1/2. The ending was laughable. DON'T MAKE A THIRD ONE!:::::75%
The Conjuring wins hands down!
No comments:
Post a Comment