THE CONJURING 2

Three years after the first one, The Conjuring franchise is ready with a sequel. The Conjuring may not count as one of the classics when it comes to horror movies, but it certainly has been the benchmark over the last few years, maybe being outshone only by the Paranormal Activity franchise, which normal cine buffs might find a bit too intense for an evening’s entertainment. The Conjuring has perhaps found the perfect middle ground of scaring just enough without putting the average viewer out of the comfort zone. The years that have intervened between the first one and the sequel have been flocked with horror flicks dime a dozen. Most of them have been underwhelming, including The Conjuring offshoot Annabelle and the highly anticipated Insiduous 3. So, hopes were indeed high while walking in for The Conjuring 2.

It starts off reminding us about the Amityville haunting which is perhaps the most talked about

haunting incident around the world. So, something similar is happening thousands of miles away in Enfield England, says a scrolling text as we’re shown The Conjuring 2 in the familiar bold yellow font. The setting is quite similar to that of The Conjuring, or any horror movie for that matter. Big house, 4 kids, man rooms, a cellar, a stair, plenty of stuff with which any supernatural entity can play havoc! It starts off as minor incidents – someone is sleepwalking, someone is thirsty in the middle of the night, some noises are heard thudding up and down the stairs, but no one really wants to take all that seriously. But then, someone decides that there’s been enough of the funny small stuff, and takes it up one notch. Now, we have a terrified bunch of kids and their mom who are sure that there is something in their house that wants them to leave. The police want to help but find nothing that they can do, the media gets in the act and soon it’s all over the papers, and before you know the church wants their experts to have a look at the place to confirm whether all this is real at all or just a hoax. That brings in Ed and Lorraine Warren.

All the way from America to Enfield England, they fly to know whether anything that is going on in the house is supernatural. They come, and they do get to see a few events, but nothing that makes it plainly clear. Quite surprisingly, the entity that didn’t seem too bothered about all events being public is not too eager about the Warren’s getting a good look at it. As Lorraine says, she just can’t sense anything. So, what is going on? Is it a hoax? Or is it something worse, more powerful, more evil than they have ever seen before?

The plot of The Conjuring 2 is as solid as the first one. The characters are quite relatable and draw empathy from the audience which is a major victory for a horror flick. The film is not a straightforward narration of the haunting. At different points in the narrative, we shift to the Warrens, who are not yet aware of the Enfield haunting, and we are shown that they are somehow connected or being dragged into this, just like the demon in The Conjuring wanted to harm their daughter. This thickens the plot. There is one particular scene in the Warren household with Lorraine Warren locked up in a study with an evil entity, which is quite chilling. The visual depiction of the entity is quite difficult to shake off for a while after the movie has ended.

As with any horror flick, The Conjuring 2 is all about how many times we jumped out of our seats.

The initial hour, where the entity makes the household aware of its presence is quite interesting and there are a few genuine jump scares and slow spooks. But, once the presence is established, and the psychological breakdown of the victim begins, things get a bit predictable. Some scenes, like the Crooked Man scene, fall flat. Once the Warrens enter, the tempo continues to be a bit flat for a while before it picks up right before the finale. It might be that we are quite used to the James Wan style by now and know where to expect the scares from, and so are not very surprised at ever event. But it all picks up with that one scene in the train where the recordings come together to make sense.

Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson continue to do the fine job they started in The Conjuring, with Vera growing even more into the role of Lorraine Warren. The music is a shade less effective than in The Conjuring while the camera does a fine job of keeping us guessing of what lies beyond the light. The Conjuring 2 is not as good as its predecessor, but it still has some genuinely scary moments and a good story. Easily the best horror flick in over a year from Hollywood. Go watch it.

Scares you enough to keep you on the edge!

3/5

INSIDIOUS 3

Only the most successful horror movies like Omen and Exorcist have spawned sequels which went on to become franchises. Horror films are not generally considered franchise material, but Insidious has quietly crept up and become a noted franchise on its own; not hugely successfully, but having a unique marquee value. The challenge with a horror movie is to scare the audience in spite of the fact that they know that they are going to be spooked. That is, the director has to stay one step ahead of the audience. But, in a franchise like Insidious, the challenge becomes even bigger because the fundamental layout of the plot remains more or less the same. Therefore, Insidious 3 becomes a movie that relies more on the scenes and the moments that are created in these scenes rather than the storyline itself.

Much of the plot will not be revealed in this review because of two things. One, it could possibly

serve as a spoiler to a newcomer to the Insidious franchise, and second and more importantly because the plot seems to be of secondary importance to the way the scenes are set up in the movie. The entire movie is built around the few startling instances of haunting and the journeys that the protagonist makes to the other plane called ‘The Further’. To be fair to the director, he has managed to create enough adrenaline through these few scenes to make us sit through the movie without becoming indifferent.

Most of the good scares come in the first hour where we are not sure who are what exactly is responsible for the eerie happenings. But, the recent spate of horror films and paranormal terminology that they bring has ensured that we do not take too long to guess what or who is doing the damage. Having said that, the first hour has its jolts that keep us on the edge. Come the second hour and the fight begins between the entity and the protagonist. This is where Insidious 3 kind of strays away from its path. It is about retrieving the partially lost soul of a young girl, but it is also about a small personal fight that the protagonist has to endure. That would have been an interesting combination had we known the reasons behind all this. But, sadly, there seems to be none. The only explanation given is that once you go ‘Further’ and come back, there is a good chance that something might follow you. That’s a vague explanation and greatly dilutes the impact of the story. It is about one greedy entity.

Also, overuse of darkness kills the impact and one feels the second half has bit of overkill of scenes

in the ‘Further’, so much that we get kind of familiar with it, our hearts are no longer pumping as hard. And then, instead of delivering surprises out of corners, we are shown a bit of action. Yeah, you don’t need crosses and holy water and The Bible when the ‘entity’ can be shoved out of your way. However, the interesting imagery of the ‘Further’, the use of blue shades of light; these things keep us engaged on screen. And, the fag end has a bit of an emotional hook attached to it which you might like.

The movie really belongs to two people, Lin Shaye and the director Leigh Wannell. Lin as Elise brings the air of mystic and vulnerability that the script demands; apt casting. That apart, the cinematography department has done a good job, especially when spooky scenes have to be shot during the day.

Insidious 3 might not live up to the previous Insidious movies. It lives in its moments and scenes, but falls short in the overall outcome. But, a few good scares in the first hour and some interesting imagery in the second hour make it an interesting one time watch. And, one thinks that plans for a sequel are afoot!

A limited dose of spooks

2.5/5

The Woman in Black: Old tricks for some chills!

'An abandoned mansion, a young man, vengeance that lies unabated for years and many dead children........'

There is something that new-age cinema lacks: old-school horror. It has been quite a while since we have seen something that banks on the good old ways of sending some chills up your spine. Weird forms, apparitions, wails, dark rooms, sinister corridors, haunted castles etc.. The new and intelligent cinema cares a whole lot about reasoning and plausibility to unleash such middle-age tricks on screen. But, guess what? It still works; as it is proved by The Woman in Black.

Set in what presumably must be the late 19^th or early 20^th century England, The Woman in Black takes us into the journey of a lawyer who is sent on an assignment to a county that is not yet urban. He is there to finish off the legalities of a mansion left behind by woman; a simple job, it must seem. But, he doesn’t seem too welcome there. Someone is uneasy knowing what he has come for; obviously, they do not want him to get on with his work. What is it that makes them apprehensive about a lawyer settling matters of a mansion? We do not know, nor does Arthur Kipps, the lawyer. He finds out, but not before it has caused the deaths of two young children in the county. What lurks in the mansion and why does it have to bring about the pretty gruesome deaths of children? Well, you have to find that for yourself.

The thing about The Woman in Black is that it hinges not so much on its story than on its imagery and placement of thrills. There is not a bright or sunny moment in the entire film. Arthur Kipps is despondent right from the start, for personal reasons, and this sets the mood for the movie too, which is almost morbid with an almost upsetting silence about it all the time. It does take the film quite a while to get firmly set on its course. Almost the entire first hour is a series of scenes where Arthur Kipps keeps sighting strange figures here and there in a mansion that was reportedly abandoned. For most part, these figures fail to give you any chills because you are half expecting them to jump out any time. Deep into the first hour you might also begin to wonder whether the movie has any intention of getting on with it or whether it is going to be just a series of strange figures popping up here and there followed by a gruesome climax. Thankfully, the first real thrill arrives right then and the plot begins to unravel itself. From then on to the climax, which is short of an hour, you will find yourself engaged in the story behind the mansion, why the people fear it so and why children in the county keep dying. And, one must say, its good while it lasts, especially the attempt by Arthur Kipps to find an appeasement for the wandering soul.

As said earlier, as a movie, The Woman in Black is more about the images than about the plot. What surprises us most is that even in this era of 3D and rich colors, a film that seems to be just black and white for almost its entire duration can still hold our attention. The director deserves a round of applause for pulling this off, for reminding us that cinema still hinges firmly on its ability to engage with the audience at the content level ahead of any technical wizardry. The marshland, the mansion, the dark corridors, eerie windows all are just right for the kind of movie that this is. The minimal use of sounds is also one good aspect, those loud wails and screams have an effect of us mainly because of the otherwise eerily silent proceedings. The director has strode the thin line of using cheesy thrills just in the adequate proportion; a little more and the audience could have taken it more as a spoof rather than a serious horror movie. Finally, after all the arduous efforts at appeasements, the closing minute is the one that will wrench at your heart. Of course, horror movies are supposed to have such endings!

Daniel Radcliffe proves that he doesn’t need a magic wand for company on screen all the time. He is present in almost every frame of the movie, and for most parts, he is alone. His screen presence is one of the most important factors of the movie and he carries it off well. And, one must say that the constantly morose look does suit him. All other characters are etched well and build towards the unravelling of the history behind the mansion.

The Woman in Black is horror in the good-old way: darkness, shadows, ajar doors and a mystery around a grave. The style of imagery suits the mood of the movie and never once does it deviate from the set course. Of course, it does take a lengthy prelude full off shadowy occurrences before the movie embarks on its actual course. You can watch it once; it may not be a spine chilling horror flick, but it definitely is a good deviation from the loud and bright kind of cinema we get these days. The Woman in Black is an occasionally chilling movie which can be watched mainly for its imagery and minimal use of sounds; it’s a rare occurrence these days!