|
Didn't see a thread for this.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyA9AtUOqRM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFsmuRPClr4 https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_conjuring_2/ Currently at 72% on RT with the consensus: "Conjuring 2 can't help but lose a bit of its predecessor's chilly sting through familiarity, but what remains is still a superior ghost story told with spine-tingling skill." Saw it tonight and my theater had cheers and claps at the end. It's better than the first one in every way so go see it.
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
conjuring 2 status: good, but not as good as the first. more formal experimentalism and some really powerful shots, but has pacing issues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 08:02
|
|
|
I saw this a week or two ago for a free screening. Usually people like to clap and poo poo after, but it was silent. Weird. I really loved it though. It started to function as a weird remake of A Nightmare On Elm Street where it mixes the plot of the first 3 films into this neat little thing. Like what if these two paranormal investigators showed up to deal with Freddy, rather than the kids. It also helped I got a huge Freddy vibe from Bill Wilkens. Anyway some spoilers with going along with this read. What really started clicking with me, is this villain character...he's just loving mean. Just a nasty old man who loves to gently caress with children. The way he just goes after the kids is really nasty. I dug that quite a bit. I like a good old mean villain. Also a lot of use of Nun imagery. Nuns and the ANOES series are fuckin hand in hand. But what I loved about the film was the twist. The twist that, no, Bill Wilkens isn't a monster. He's a man who literally got left behind. Both in our world, and the next. And now a demon nabbed him, forcing him to do all these horrible things. THAT is what the ANOES remake should've been. Freddy isn't a bad person. He's just a soul being manipulated by something far worse. The fact that the Nun is the villain is super cool to me. It's a great subversion. Even though that nun looked super creepy. But it was cool that the nun was THE demon and not a lackey of it or something. Alright so getting off the ANOES dick for a bit, I have to say...you can get all "WELL I HATE THESE MOVIES BECAUSE THEY ARE ABOUT THESE HACK FRAUDS WHO EXPLOITED PEOPLE AND ARE BAD AND BLA BLAH BLAH" but I say, who gives a poo poo. These are characters in a movie inspired by real people. And those characters are loving pitch perfect. Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson are terrific. I could watch this film couple all drat day. They fill the film with so much heart, much more than most horror films and it just sells it. The vision stuff is hokey, but I'll be damned if I wasn't a little nervous by the end. I think everything else is fine. I don't like this family as much as the one in the first. Maybe it's because there was like too many kids. I forgot there was an older sister every once in a while. But they were sympathetic. I just like that this horror movie gives a poo poo about the people as people and not as props for spooky things to happen to them. I have a few small issues. There's a monster thing near the end of the film that didn't look as spooky as it should've. I really think it was because it was CGI. The film is very practical, and this CGI thing comes out and it's like...ehh. I get the point, and the point is really cool and a great pay off moment...but it just looks wonky. Oh and it's insanely long. I liked that, but my buddy didn't. So your milage may very and all that. Good film. I give it double 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I have a few small issues. There's a monster thing near the end of the film that didn't look as spooky as it should've. I really think it was because it was CGI. The film is very practical, and this CGI thing comes out and it's like...ehh. I get the point, and the point is really cool and a great pay off moment...but it just looks wonky. Disagree. That monster thing was only on the screen for a few seconds (and looked real) and holy gently caress it was one of the scariest moments. Nothing topped the scene with Lorraine alone in her house/that room with the demon nun. That was magnificently well shot from start to finish.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 08:48
|
|
|
Good god, this movie is 2 hours and 14 minutes long? What the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
Immortan posted:Disagree. That monster thing was only on the screen for a few seconds (and looked real) and holy gently caress it was one of the scariest moments. I didn't it. I wanted to though. It was a neat look. Def gave me more of a Freddy vibe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Alright so getting off the ANOES dick for a bit, I have to say...you can get all "WELL I HATE THESE MOVIES BECAUSE THEY ARE ABOUT THESE HACK FRAUDS WHO EXPLOITED PEOPLE AND ARE BAD AND BLA BLAH BLAH" but I say, who gives a poo poo. These are characters in a movie inspired by real people. And those characters are loving pitch perfect. Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson are terrific. I could watch this film couple all drat day. They fill the film with so much heart, much more than most horror films and it just sells it. As ambivalent as I am about the use of real-life "ghost hunters" in this series, I do not and have never had a problem with the performance of the actors portraying the warrens; I just saw the first one again, and they really do a great job at portraying this lovely, clean-cut, frankly adorable couple- the sort of folks who would bring over some cake for new neighbors- who also happen to fight demons and evil spirits as their day job. And yes, it does help the film that you genuinely don't want anything bad to happen to them; it raises the stakes quite nicely. So I'm glad to hear that it's at least as good, and possibly better than the first; I'll have to check it out (probably not this weekend, though, as I'll be visiting with people that really don't care for horror...)
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:Good god, this movie is 2 hours and 14 minutes long? What the gently caress? It's a journey.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Just saw this movie. It's a little slow at first, but once it picks up it's a lot of fun. It does have one attempted scare scene that ended up so dumb it was funny though. I noticed the monster's name was spelled out in several locations in the Warren's house.CelticPredator posted:I have a few small issues. There's a monster thing near the end of the film that didn't look as spooky as it should've. I really think it was because it was CGI. The film is very practical, and this CGI thing comes out and it's like...ehh. I get the point, and the point is really cool and a great pay off moment...but it just looks wonky. Yeah, I thought that thing's appearance kind of contrasted with the film as well. The Watch fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Jun 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
I saw Conjuring 2: Never Stop Conjuring last night. I'm starting to feel like the Warrens are veering dangerously close to the kind of flawless protagonists of bad Christian movies. Also it was weird to see the film address the truth about Amityville. I'm honestly fine with the whole "based on a true story" gimmick. The real photos used at the end work as chilling epilogue for the films. They also kind of force the movie to do things differently than most horror films. They can't rack up a body count, they can't eliminate certain characters if they want to keep their spooky ARG credits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
The Watch posted:I noticed the monster's name was spelled out in several locations in the Warren's house. I saw this yesterday and thought pretty much what's already been mentioned-- some scenes were just great and well-shot, that CGI was bad and distracting (although I liked their first use of it, in the shadows), and also I got tired of the Warrens and everyone on their side being just so saintly and wonderful, and all the skeptics being people we obviously weren't supposed to like. I also noticed VALAK all over the house-- in those stick letters behind the breakfast table, spelled out in decorative letters on some bookshelf, the V in 'love' being really big on a little poster and then 'ALAK' just kind of shoved under it on the wall, the daughter's bracelets-- and it was kind of neat to see the payoff, but thinking about it makes absolutely no sense. Someone had to go buy those letters and put them in the house. One of the Warrens never went "Honey, who's Valak?" Whoever bought/rearranged the letters didn't remember or notice what they were doing? No one looked at the daughter's bracelet and asked her about it? Lorraine didn't hear about the demon's name and think "Oh poo poo, all those mysterious letters appearing in my house!" I guess maybe they were meant to demonstrate the control Valak had over the family, but drat. No one got their mind back for any space of time throughout those years this was going on? Ever?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
So much fun squirming in my seat along with everybody else in a packed theatre. There was a girl in my row who was literally off her seat on the ground peering over the seats in front it was amazing. Us kiwis are usually quiet reserved at the pictures so it was fun. Everybody stayed for the credits though which was weird. Did I miss a post credit scene? thoughts while still fresh: -those kids were brave! Does nightmare on elm street also have brave kids? this movie has ignited interest in the classics I haven't seen yet. -I love how ghost hunter man went up through the floor boards in the climax. loop holes! -I agree with the above poster about the scary scene with the nun painting. holy crap that was composed. -There were a number of instances where there was potential jump scares but none occured. Not in a hokey obvious way - really subtle background stuff. I can't think of any examples right now. -were the kids in the first sequence the kids from the story? I didn't really follow that opening scary bit. Was that an earlier case? -Yeah the movie was fantastic at manipulating the audience's moods. I felt the whole theatre lurch, gasp and relax at the same time. Lampsacus fucked around with this message at 13:36 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
Did the first movie have such a huge Christian push? I know it can't have struck me as odd as it did here, cause I'm just now Googling and discovering the screenwriters had a very definite aim to give you some God in your blockbuster horror movie. I thought the first hour of haunted house stuff was so well done that it was a bummer when the main characters entered the story. Apart from the out of focus interview scene and the Elvis part, they sucked the life out of the movie. Then it started with the CG Slenderman. Oh well. It's really long, but I appreciated that letting them take the initial haunting nice and slow without the Warrens getting involved for a good while. Then there's enough laughable and quirky stuff to sit through the with worse half that I'd fully recommend going. Lampsacus posted:Does nightmare on elm street also have brave kids? this movie has ignited interest in the classics I haven't seen yet. It has kick rear end dream warrioring 80's teens if they count (especially in PT3, obviously.) See Nightmare anyhow. Teenage Fansub fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
For the first hour or so I genuinely thought they were going for the whole Exorcist thing where the set is rigged like a magic trick. No CGI. The crooked man materialising really diffused the magic for me. Still a cool film though, just not the masterpiece I thought it was gonna be in the first hour or so. Not that I am really anti-cgi particularly. It just took something away from it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 10:25
|
|
|
For all the people talking about CGI in that scene, I'm pretty sure Wan said that there isn't, and aside from impossible camera moves etc, he tends to stay away from it. I could be wrong though. Also of note was that the Nun was something that Wan came up with after shooting was over, and was originally just a generic demon (I think you see it briefly at the end), he convinced the studio to let him shoot the sequence in the house about 3 months before the movie actually came out. Also, lol at the use of London Calling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 10:41
|
|
|
I guess you can take my use of the acronym 'CGI' to be synonymous with 'it looked like poo poo' regardless of how it was done, if indeed not CGI. Up until then it looked loving brilliant. The scene where it fades from nightmare to daylight in a single shot was loving brilliant. Really, really creepy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
The Crooked Man is not CGI. It's just Javier Botet doing his thing. I imagine they might alter his movement a bit in post, like cut out a frame or two, here and there, to make it look more stilted and unnatural but being really spindly and moving strangely is literally his job and he's really good at it. Case in point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq5j6Zt6VHg FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Jul 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 17:12
|
|
