The Conjuring Universe

[Silver Nemesis]

For as likable and sympathetic as the Elise character may be, the production is facing a challenge with her inasmuch as she only has a finite amount of runway before her character dies. Now, in the mythos of the Insidious universe, the character can still somewhat continue. But now there will be constraints on her.

So, it seems obvious that the Imogen character is sort of meant to eventually pick up where Elise will leave off.

I'm totally fine with that. But it needs to happen sooner or later.

And while I haven't seen The Last Key yet, I don't see Imogen listed anywhere in the official credits. So, I'm not sure what the series will do with the character going forward.

After seeing The Last Key, I'm inclined to say that killing Elise off in the first Insidious movie was a miscalculation. They've had to find ways of working around that event in every sequel and prequel since, when perhaps it would've been wiser not to kill her in the first place. Maybe they didn't think the character would prove to be integral to the mythos, or maybe they weren't expecting a sequel. Either way, her death seems ill judged in retrospect.

[Silver Nemesis]

Here's the trailer for the next instalment of The Conjuring Franchise, The Nun II, which hits theatres in September.

And here's the poster.

[thecolorsblend]

I have seen exactly zero Conjuring spinoffs. Guess I should probably rectify that.

Based on the glimpses of The Nun from the main series, she does seem like a compelling villain. A truly menacing presence. And considering the Warrens' avowed Catholicism, they probably consider The Nun's very existence to be profane.

She seems like a villain practically tailor made for this franchise. And who knows, maybe she was, I have no idea if the irl Warrens ever mentioned a presence/entity like The Nun.

[Silver Nemesis]

I have seen exactly zero Conjuring spinoffs. Guess I should probably rectify that.

I've seen all of them except the first Annabelle movie. They're a mixed bag. None are as good as The Conjuring I & II, but some are decent. Ed and Lorraine make cameos in most, and they have a surprisingly large role in Annabelle Comes Home.

To reiterate what I wrote about the first Nun film in another thread, I thought it was strong on atmosphere and gothic visuals, but weak on plot. The story begins on a note of intrigue, with a priest and a young nun journeying to a Romanian convent to investigate a mysterious death in 1952. It starts well, but eventually degenerates into a series of creepy set pieces lacking in dramatic impetus. The characters go into a room and something creepy happens, then they go into another room and something else creepy happens, then they go into a corridor and something else creepy happens, and so on and so forth. It needed a stronger emotional hook to tie it all together. It's not awful, but I wouldn't rate it more than a 5/10.

If the sequel can preserve the strong visuals and atmosphere of the first film, but ground it all in a more engaging storyline, then it should be an improvement. My expectations aren't terribly high, I have to admit, but I'm still mildly enthusiastic to see it. The director behind The Nun II is Michael Chaves. He didn't direct the first Nun film, but he did direct The Curse of La Llorona and The Conjuring 3, which means he's now directed more entries in the franchise than any other filmmaker.

Based on the glimpses of The Nun from the main series, she does seem like a compelling villain. A truly menacing presence. And considering the Warrens' avowed Catholicism, they probably consider The Nun's very existence to be profane.

She seems like a villain practically tailor made for this franchise. And who knows, maybe she was, I have no idea if the irl Warrens ever mentioned a presence/entity like The Nun.

According to an Esquire article, Valak in The Conjuring 2 was inspired by a presence Lorraine encountered in her home one day. This description comes from her son-in-law, Tony Spera:

"Lorraine was at home in her bed, reading, when she started to feel a presence" Spera says. "Something wrong, and she saw a black whirlwind of black mass enter the room, it was like a vortex blacker than the night."

Lorraine prayed to be released "from the forces of evil," he adds. "She told it, 'Leave and go back where you came from!' It vanished as she kept repeating those words."

https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/a23106047/the-nun-movie-true-story-ed-lorraine-warren/

James Wan said he didn't want to represent the presence as a CGI vortex, so opted for the nun instead:

I didn't want to do that. And so, it kind of took me awhile to cement in my head what this vision was. And it came across eventually in a very organic way. Because it is a demonic vision that haunts her, that only attacks her, I wanted something that would attack her faith. Something that would threaten the safety of her husband. And so that was eventually how the idea of this very iconographic image of a holy icon cemented in my head."

Spera has also conceded that the nun might have been inspired by the Warrens' investigation of Borley Rectory, which is famous for being 'the most haunted house in England'. Borley was purported to have been built on the ruins of an old abbey and to have been haunted by a nun who was bricked up in its walls after she was caught having an affair with a monk. The story about the abbey and the nun is now thought to be a myth, but a lot of people have reported strange occurrences at the rectory and several films have been made on the subject. When Lorraine was there in the 1970s she claimed to sense the presence of a nun haunting the place.

Here's a photograph of Lorraine taken at Borley church using infrared film. Some claim you can see the ghost of a nun in this image, while others dismiss it as an optical illusion.

In creating Valak, I suspect Wan might have been inspired by a 1978 Armchair Thriller serial called Quiet as a Nun, which was adapted from the novel of the same name by Antonia Fraser. The TV serial ranked among Channel 4's 100 Greatest Scary Moments back in 2003, and the following scene in particular made a lasting impression on the original audience. Watch from the 2:45 mark.

I don't know if Quiet as a Nun was ever broadcast in Australia where Wan might've seen it, but it definitely aired in the UK and the US. And the image of the faceless nun is directly referenced in the first Nun movie.

Judging by the trailer, they're reusing it in the sequel as well.

An interesting note about the casting – the central protagonist in the Nun films is Sister Irene, who is played by Taissa Farmiga. In real life Taissa is the younger sister of Vera Farmiga, who plays Lorraine Warren.

[thecolorsblend]

Spoilers for Insidious: The Red Door ahead. Read at your own peril.

In a thread ostensibly about The Conjuring, by all means, I'll talk more about Insidious.

Finally saw Insidious: The Red Door tonight. I choose to take the charitable viewpoint of primarily evaluating this thing on the strengths of Patrick Wilson's direction. Because to watch Insidious: The Red Door, no, you won't ever think James Wan is the director.

But still, Wilson does a commendable job. I suppose spending all these years starring in horror films has done a lot to build his acumen. He's got good instincts for what's dramatically correct for a horror film.

Where I could criticize the film is the pacing. In a way, I would compare Insidious: The Red Door to Hulk (2003), where in both films the audience is typically between 10-20 minutes ahead of the narrative at virtually all times. When a new story development comes along, you can pretty well guess where things will go. And you'll probably be right too.

Which isn't Patrick Wilson's fault. But it IS his problem and he doesn't do a whole lot to solve it.

There's also the implausible story premise. Specifically, Dalton and Josh are hypnotized into forgetting anything they ever learned in the first two films about astral projection, The Further, Elise, Specs, Tucker, etc.

I simply don't buy that Josh would do that. He would know that his ignorance is what caused all the problems in the first place. In agreeing to be hypnotized into forgetting AGAIN, he's basically showing that he learned absolutely nothing from his experiences.

And lest any of us forget, his experiences included a prolonged haunting incident, Renai almost having a nervouus breakdown, Dalton's "coma", Elise's murder and probably other things I'm forgetting.

Now, the core theme of the movie, that it's better to live with a miserable memory than to live with a blissful lie, shows Josh the error of his ways. But the problem is it shouldn't take the events of this movie to teach him that lesson. He should have already gotten the memo by the end of the second film.

Now, there are some touches. Dalton is once again played by Ty Simpkins while his little brother Foster is played by Andrew Astor. I found it very impressive that the production was able to bring those actors back when recasting both roles HAD to have crossed somebody's mind. So, kudos on good continuity there. And Rose Byrne is as fetching as ever, even tho she's not given a whole lot to do in the film.

Insidious: The Red Door is worth seeing. I'll even say that it's (just barely) worth financially supporting while it's still playing in theaters. But fundamentally, this entry in the franchise feels like a step backward. The Last Key went so far as to fill in a lot of backstory for Elise while also position Imogen as the new seer and expert in the franchise.

The Red Door advances precisely NONE of that. Imogen is nowhere to be found in the film (even tho a superficial glance at the movie's storyline offers plenty of room for Imogen to get involved) and, frankly, this film does basically nothing to advance the story. Like I say, it rolled things back rather than move them forward.

If this franchise is going to have a future, then sooner or later it WILL need to move things along. And Insidious: The Red Door simply does not do that. It doesn't even ATTEMPT to do that.

All things considered, I think I'm being very fair with the film. Because I'm still sort of aggravated about what a miserable theatergoing experience this was. Tonight pretty much typifies why I despise movie theaters. But maybe that's a rant for a separate thread.

Postscript 01: The Darth Maul Demon makes several appearances in Insidious: The Red Door. And once again, nothing much is done with him. Since he appears to be the overarching baddie of this franchise and since these films desperately need to advance the storyline, one wonders why nothing has been done with Darth Maul. And frankly, I don't have a very good answer to that. I wish I did. But I don't, sadly.

Postscript 02: The Nun II trailer played ahead of Insidious: The Red Door. And while I know pretty much nothing about The Nun sub-franchise, it does seem more promising than The Red Door.

[Silver Nemesis]

From your description, it sounds like a play-it-safe retread cashing in on nostalgia for the original. I'll see it eventually, but I don't mind waiting for it to appear on streaming platforms so I can watch it free.

It's been a while since I saw Insidious 2, so I can't remember if Darth Maul appears in that one, but he makes appearances in the other four films. If the series isn't going to progress beyond that storyline, then they should stop milking it and wrap things up. Your suggestion for passing the torch to Imogen could extend the franchise's longevity, but if they're determined to connect everything back to the first movie's plot then they might as well stop. That story is played out.

I know there was talk of doing a crossover between Insidious and Sinister at one point, but since that doesn't seem to be happening they could always do a crossover with The Conjuring instead. The final showdown could end with Ed Warren somersaulting over Maul and cutting him in half with Lorraine's nail file. Then we'd see the two halves of the demon's body falling down a pit into Hell. No one would see that coming.

Speaking of milking franchises, I said I wasn't going to watch any more Paranormal Activity movies after the fifth one... but Next of Kin was on TV last night, so I watched it. It doesn't really connect with the other films, nor is it a pure found-footage movie. The camera frequently cuts to external viewpoints to give us multiple angles on each scene, and since the difference between the 'found' footage and the other shots isn't clear – at least not to my eye, it wasn't – they might as well have just shot it like an ordinary horror movie. But I found the storyline more compelling than some of the other sequels. Blumhouse really needs to give that franchise a rest now.

[thecolorsblend]

I agree with you. The producers need to figure out a way to carry on the story in a way that's fresh.

And honestly, an approach is sort of staring them in the face.

Keep Elise's ghost around. She's a great character, so why get rid of her?

But maybe now Dalton can take up the storyline himself. Josh's story has been told (arguably twice now). So, pass the baton off to Dalton.

Imogen and Dalton can join forces in the next film to FINALLY vanquish the Darth Maul Demon. He's been lurking on the periphery for five films and twelve years (decades in-universe). It's high time something be done about him.

Hell, you could even turn the showdown with the DMD into a two-parter film. There are many story possibilities. Dalton's wife or child is "abducted" by the DMD just as he was, Dalton realizes he's just plain not strong enough, he links up with Imogen, she guides him, things go haywire, now Josh has accidentally unleashed the DMD into the real world, cliffhanger, roll credits for Part I.

To raise the stakes, set up that the other inhabitants of The Further are getting restless. Before, they wanted to escape The Further to live again. But now they want to escape the DMD because that's how evil and powerful he's becoming.

I don't know, that's just an idea.

The point I'm trying to make is that it shouldn't be this hard to progress the storyline with such a decent baddie waiting in the wings. But I guess every horror franchise eventually hits rock bottom and there's nothing left. Maybe that's the state of the Insidious franchise?

[Silver Nemesis]

The other night I re-watched The Amityville Horror (1979) for the first time in well over a decade. I didn't think it was worth creating a separate thread about the Amityville franchise. The 'true' story behind the film is briefly covered in The Conjuring 2, which results in some narrative overlap between the franchises, so I figured we could just talk about it here.

I don't know if it's just me, but I could swear The Amityville Horror used to be held in higher regard than it is today. Back in the nineties, articles about classic horror films would often list it alongside such seventies classics as The Exorcist, Jaws, Halloween, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Alien. Nowadays it has low audience and critic ratings. Did something change, or was it always regarded as trash?

Perhaps the franchise as a whole has been devalued over time. Wikipedia lists an insane number of Amityville movies, among which are such titles as Amityville Christmas Vacation, Amityville in Space, Amityville in the Hood and Amityville Karen. These movies aren't officially linked to the 1979 film, but they're part of the broader Amityville brand. A brand which has apparently become a complete joke. Maybe scepticism surrounding the real life occurrences that inspired the original film is the reason people no longer take The Amityville Horror seriously. In any event, I wanted to revisit the original movie and see if it holds up.

My verdict is that it doesn't. For a start the film's far too long. It drags on for two hours with barely enough intrigue to fill half that time. It's padded out with subplots about the family's priest and the local detective, but neither of those storylines leads anywhere or has a satisfying payoff. The occurrence of supernatural events outside of the family house also doesn't really make sense in the context of the haunting. Is it a haunted house or a transient malevolent spirit? If the latter, then how does the family leaving the house at the end of the story solve anything? If the former, then why is the priest continually harassed by evil spirits when he's away from the house? It would've been better if the subplots about the priest and the detective were cut entirely, allowing the story to maintain a consistent focus on the family.

I also think James Brolin's character goes crazy far too early in the narrative. I know some critics raise this same issue about Jack in The Shining, but Nicholson's performance is so riveting that his rapid descent into madness becomes one of that film's most entertaining assets. The same isn't true of Brolin's performance, which, like so much of the film, feels dry and repetitive. I'd have preferred it if he behaved like a normal loving husband and father for the first half of the movie, and then started to act strangely and turn against his family in the second half, once we'd had a chance to get to know and like him.

My biggest problem with the movie is its air of redundancy. There's nothing in The Amityville Horror that hasn't been done better elsewhere. There were superior haunted house films before it, such as The Uninvited (1944), The Innocents (1961), The Haunting (1963) and The Legend of Hell House (1973), and there have been countless more since. If you want a movie about a middle class family living in a modern haunted house, stick with Poltergeist, its 1986 sequel or Insidious. If you want a more psychological film about a father being driven mad by ghosts and threatening his family, then stick with The Shining. The Changeling (1980), Ghostwatch (1992), The Others (2001) and all the Ju-on and Conjuring movies all provide better alternatives to The Amityville Horror. There's really no reason to go back and watch it now. It offers nothing unique.

That's not to say that it's completely without any merit. The score's creepy, and I love the autumnal atmosphere. Many films set at Halloween are clearly shot at a different time of year, but you can tell by the leaves and the angle of the sunlight that The Amityville Horror was filmed during the autumn. Some of the performances are strong too (Murray Hamilton, America's most underrated mayor, makes an appearance), and there are one or two decent creepy moments in the first half of the movie. But none of these strengths are enough to elevate the film above the baseline of mediocrity, or to mitigate the feeling of redundancy I described earlier.

I happened to watch The Amityville Horror II: The Possession (1982) last year, and while that isn't a particularly good film either I'm nevertheless inclined to agree with Roger Ebert that it's slightly better than the first movie. The second film is a prequel focusing on the murders that took place in the house prior to the Lutz family moving in. In that sense it has a more concrete factual basis than the first film's suspect source material, but director Damiano Damiani throws historical accuracy out the window by turning the whole thing into a flagrant Exorcist rip-off.

It's a lurid and highly derivative movie, but I find it more entertaining than its predecessor. It's shorter and better paced, has a more compelling storyline, is creepier, more intense and more visually arresting. Plus it stars Burt Young, whose recent passing is what got me thinking about this franchise again in the first place. If you're only going to see one Amityville Horror movie, I'd recommend The Possession. It's a watchable guilty pleasure.

I have seen Amityville 3-D (1983) at least two or three times, and one of those viewings was within the past few years, but I can still barely remember it. That should give you some indication of how good it is. From what little I remember, it's even more generic and bland than the first one. As the title indicates, it was part of that early eighties 3D trend that included Friday the 13th Part III (1982) and Jaws 3-D (1983). Amityville 3-D is actually worse than those other two films, so I don't recommend it. I haven't seen any of the Amityville movies made after that point, nor do I intend to unless someone can recommend one that's worth my time.

To sum up my opinion of the three Amityville films I have seen, I'd rate them:

•   The Amityville Horror – 5/10
•   Amityville II: The Possession – 5.5/10
•   Amityville 3-D – 4/10

Definitely one of the weaker horror movie franchises, but still worth discussing. If I'm right about the first film having a better reputation in the past, then I suspect its notoriety was more indebted to the media attention surrounding the success of the book on which it was based, and the claims of it being a true story, than to its actual quality.

Or am I being too harsh? Has anyone else seen these movies, and if so what did you think of them? Has anyone seen the 2005 remake? Should I detach this post from The Conjuring thread and make it the OP of a separate Amityville Horror thread? Or are these movies not worth talking about?

[thecolorsblend]

Finally watched Annabelle. And... eh. I mean, it isn't terrible. I don't think it damages The Conjuring as a brand. But I simply wasn't very enamored of it. It's not clear if Annabelle wasn't particularly scary or if I've become desensitized this kind of thing.

Either way, there's not very much tension until maybe the final fifteen or so minutes.

I can't help wondering if part of Annabelle's weakness is the fact that Annabelle Higgins's ghost is occasionally seen doing this and that. It could be that I'm overthinking it. Or it could also be that John Leonetti was underthinking it. But for a movie called "Annabelle", you expect the doll to be the villain of the piece. And it is... in a way. But not actually.

As a result, the narrative tension is watered down (1) by having multiple villains running around and (2) Higgins's ghost seemingly being the more imperative threat.

Worse, seeing Higgins's ghost sort of removes the mystery, suspense and atmosphere. There's less of a sense that the Form family is being menaced by some sort of invisible threat, just always out of sight.

I'm hoping that subsequent entries in the Annabelle sub-franchise correct this issue.

I don't know if it's just me, but I could swear The Amityville Horror used to be held in higher regard than it is today. Back in the nineties, articles about classic horror films would often list it alongside such seventies classics as The Exorcist, Jaws, Halloween, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Alien. Nowadays it has low audience and critic ratings. Did something change, or was it always regarded as trash?

The original film was JUST as respected as the other films you mention. I remember hearing similar things through cultural osmosis back in the Nineties, and even somewhat into the 2000's. Back then, the original film was regarded as a masterpiece of the genre.

Perhaps the franchise as a whole has been devalued over time. Wikipedia lists an insane number of Amityville movies, among which are such titles as Amityville Christmas Vacation, Amityville in Space, Amityville in the Hood and Amityville Karen. These movies aren't officially linked to the 1979 film, but they're part of the broader Amityville brand. A brand which has apparently become a complete joke. Maybe scepticism surrounding the real life occurrences that inspired the original film is the reason people no longer take The Amityville Horror seriously. In any event, I wanted to revisit the original movie and see if it holds up.

I think this is the most likely explanation. I'm not terribly familiar with the franchise/brand, owing in no small part to the ubiquitous sequels of seemingly ever declining merit.

Any franchise has a maximum saturation point. Too much of anything is bad. And the Amityville series seems to be a unique example of a movie series getting absolutely plundered beyond all recognition. Somewhere along the line, I got the idea that some sort of goofy legal aspect of the Amityville brand means that the core idea of it is essentially public domain. I guess that's due to the novel's basis as a supposed historical event?

What it boils down to is there's simply too much STUFF to sort through. Any quality entries in the series are probably undermined by three atrocious entries. There's no way for the cream to rise to the top.

To draw a comparison, there's very little argument that the original Jaws film is the best of that franchise. And for as bad as Jaws: The Revenge might be, we must still give credit to the owners of the movie rights for recognizing that the time had come to pull the plug. Yes, each sequel is worse than the last. But none of the sequels have ultimately harmed the original. Which is a rare example of restraint being shown in Hollywood. Because Jaws: The Revenge looks like it turned a profit, technically. Therefore, a fifth Jaws movie wouldn't have been an insane idea from a financial standpoint based on JTR's box office. But no, the book was closed in 1987. Apparently never to be reopened.

Now, I've seen (and enjoyed) the original Amityville. But as I say, the dizzying number of sequels/tie-ins/derivative works (or whatever you want to call them) all using the Amityville name have turned me off to the series as a whole. Call me cynical. But if you ask me, there's NO WAY you can produce that much stuff without the vast majority of it being unwatchable trash. The law of numbers simply doesn't allow for it.

And it's unfortunate as well. Because it doesn't take much imagination to see how a more carefully cultivated Amityville cinematic franchise might've been a significant player in the horror genre over the years.

What a waste.

[Silver Nemesis]

I still haven't seen the first Annabelle movie. I'll watch it if it's on TV, but it doesn't sound like it's worth paying to see. I did enjoy the sequels though. Neither of them is a great film, but they're both entertaining.

What it boils down to is there's simply too much STUFF to sort through. Any quality entries in the series are probably undermined by three atrocious entries. There's no way for the cream to rise to the top.

Sadly many film and TV franchises have gone the same route. Most of us on this site are old enough to remember when there were no bad Star Wars or Terminator movies. Now the number of bad entries in those franchises outweigh the good. All because the greedy studios didn't know when to quit while they were ahead.