We’re back with the ghouls and goblins…
Insidious: Chapter 3 (2015, Dir: Leigh Whannell)
The Conjuring 2 (2016, Dir: James Wan)
The Conjuring (2013, Dir: James Wan)
I’m lumping these three together as they’re all entries in the Wan/Whannell jump-scare franchises, which share cast members as well as directors and crew.
James Wan, in terms of box office, is surely the most successful horror director right now and all these films, along with the first two Insidious entries are fine, good fun. I went to Alton Towers earlier this month, and these movies amount to the same thing – once you’ve ridden a roller coaster once and know exactly what to expect, it doesn’t necessarily make it any less enjoyable to do it again. Just don’t expect the lasting chill you’d get from a ‘proper’ horror film. These are ghost train movies. They’re designed to elicit as many jumps as possible. That’s great fun in a cinema. Bruce Campbell, who knows a thing or two about horror movies, recently made the point that only comedies generate a similar physical response from an audience.
Of the three, I enjoyed The Conjuring 2 the most, because of its London setting and the authenticity of the film when compared to footage at the time of the events of the Enfield haunting. I found the first two-thirds of the film most interesting because again, this was closest to the real-life events. The film became less fun the more it upped the ante for the climax, but it’s still worth a watch and there are some decent chills to be had.
The third Insidious entry was also surprisingly good and managed to bring the feels as well as the jumps. It probably had the best characters of these three films.
Which leaves the original Conjuring. Hmm, it’s okay, I guess. The story takes what should be a more disturbing/affecting turn toward the end, but it never convinces you that anything really bad is going to happen, it lacks conviction. And I can’t figure out what was going on with Ron Livingston here… he just seems to sleepwalk through the whole thing, as if the hypnotism he went through in Office Space (awesome, awesome film) never wore off. It’s a shame because I really like the guy, so I was disappointed.
The only other criticism I have of them is that they insist demons are scarier than ghosts. Sure, demons imply greater evil intent, but I reviewed Ring yesterday, which is a straight-up ghost story and way, way scarier than anything here. When you start talking about demons, then you head into the territory of The Exorcist. You, er, damned well better bring your best game when you do that. No matter your opinion of The Exorcist, it was the first horror film nominated for a Best Picture Oscar at a time when (to borrow another of Campbell’s observations) the genre was basically considered one rung up the merit ladder from porn.
Overall though, these movies are harmless fun and definitely worth a watch if you fancy a seasonal thrill on Halloween.
Stigmata (1999, Dir: Rupert Wainwright)
This is one of a whole bunch of movies I revisited from my DVD collection that I remembered being pretty good. Unfortunately, this was probably the most disappointing. It doesn’t help that the movie tagline gives away the whole plot, so even after two decades, there were no surprises.
Patricia Arquette plays an atheist receiving the five wounds of Christ (stigmata to the wrists and feet, scouring, the crown of thorns, and the spear to the side). Gabriel Byrne is a priest-scientist sent to investigate, and together they stumble upon a conspiracy. There’s a good film here trying to get out. The plot could be an interesting takedown of organised religion versus real faith, but sadly it’s a mess. The whole thing looks like a sloppy, low budget music video and neither Arquette nor Byrne are given a chance to shine. They each look like a million dollars, but both of them are great actors too and you never get to see it here. A real disappointment.
Stir of Echoes (1999, Dir: David Koepp)
Another one I had fond memories of. It plays out much more like a supernatural thriller than a horror movie and there’s certainly nothing to spook a horror aficionado, but it’s okay. I always liked Kevin Bacon until he started pimping himself out for all those bloody adverts, and he’s his dependable self here at the centre of what amounts to an extended X Files style whodunnit. The cast around him and the writing is remarkably naturalistic and believable. There’s a sense of real, breathing, relatable people, despite the short running time and tight focus. If you like What Lies Beneath, then give it a try.
The Mothman Prophecies (2002, Dir: Mark Pellington)
Another one that is based on true events and all the eerier for it. The rush of these types of films at the turn of the century is no doubt due to the success of The Sixth Sense, with this one, in particular, cast with mature stars (Richard Gere and Laura Linney) and calculated to appeal to an older and more sophisticated crowd than the teen horror fare that dominated the 80s and 90s. Again though, that tipping point was hugely influenced by the tide of Japanese and Korean films that prioritised genuine chills over cheap shocks. And Mothman still stands up. The story, direction and acting from the whole cast work together like a well-maintained derailleur, enabling changes of tone and pace at will, and infusing the whole thing with an air of dread that remains wholly, creepily believable. A proper film. No gore, no jump scares, just a lingering doubt that stays with you after the film, particularly if you look into the real events. A whisper in the dark that says what if it was all real?
The pace picks up tomorrow! Come back for…
- Ginger Snaps
- The Eye
- Life
- Fallen
- Mimic
- Frozen (no, not that one)
- Jaws (yes, it is horror, shh)
- Lights Out
- Kairo/Pulse
What do you think? Did you find anything you liked? Do you have recommendations? Comment and let us know!
