Review: THE CONJURING 2 (2016)

James Wan directs THE CONJURING 2, a sequel to 2013’s THE CONJURING. This 2016 horror outing features a by-committee screenplay and is based on the so-called Enfield poltergeist, a paranormal case from Britain in the late 1970s. Wan does well to generate the flavour of the era, although some of the cues are a little on the nose – like the employment of the Bee Gees’ “I Started a Joke.” Luckily, a lighter touch is employed with the establishment of sociopolitical context and Thatcher’s famed “Iron Lady” speech makes a neat chiffon appearance.

In 1977, the Hodgson family encounters a series of strange occurrences in their Enfield flat. One of the children, Janet (Madison Wolfe), sleepwalks and is haunted by an elderly entity calling himself Bill. He insists that the Hodgson family home is his. As things spiral out of control and mother Peggy (Frances O’Connor) fears for her family’s safety, the cops are called. And when the police experience a paranormal incident themselves, all hell breaks loose. The media is involved and the Warrens (Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga) arrive to investigate as representatives of the Church.

MK1_5074.dng

Wan’s shrewd recreation of the actual footage from Enfield news reports places THE CONJURING 2 in compelling territory and the onset of cynics and paranormal investigators deepens the folk narrative. Simon McBurney’s Maurice Grosse is particularly interesting, as he seems almost too eager to believe. This touches on the notion of whether the Hodgson tale is a ruse, but there’s little doubt when it comes to the perspective of the audience. We are shown spirits and all sorts of paranormal incidents from a concrete point of view, plus the conclusion leaves little doubt.

THE CONJURING 2 also wavers when it focuses on the Warrens as protagonists. This forges a needless dichotomy and pushes the film about a half hour too long. A prologue top-loads a reference to Amityville that doesn’t matter much, while Lorraine (Farmiga) has visions that add redundant theatrics. It is hard to shake the triviality of this supplementary drama, especially given the pure skill behind the production. Wan is so adept at managing motion, space and timing that he almost overcomes this movie’s distended sensibility. Almost. For every glorious tracking shot or lunging face in the dark, THE CONJURING 2 bogs itself down in exposition and tepid character development. It’s too bad, as Wan’s pure technique deserves better.

8 thoughts on “Review: THE CONJURING 2 (2016)

  1. Apparently all the Nun stuff was reshoots. I agree with you that the “is it real/isn’t it?” aspect is the best and the most ingrossing (pardon the pun. Or don’t. I chose to leave it in), especially as it’s the most interesting part of the “true story” and took into account the fact the girls did fake at least some of it.
    But I laughed out-loud quite a lot as well, the Crooked Man, music box and bell stuff was so cliched. And the nun stuff was ridiculous. Why would she give her name if it was her sole weakness? Why would she run at someone while holding a picture of her own face. That was just farcical.

    1. Oh, the cliches are abundant in this one. I did think the true story was rather fascinating, especially considering how it hinged on how badly some of the participants wanted to believe. Would’ve made for an interesting psychological horror. Alas, nun of that seemed of interest to the filmmaker.

  2. This is kind of disappointing. I haven’t seen it but really liked the first one and I love most of James Wans stuff. Guess he can’t be great all the time.

What Say You...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s