The Conjuring 2 (2016)

Fair warning: this is the first installment in this franchise I've seen, so if there's context in the first movie that provides depth or meaning to its sequel, or if subsequent films build off the ideas or characters introduced here, I honestly don't give a damn.

That was harsh. Let's back up. The Conjuring is a series of interconnected movies that, depending on how you define the term, may constitute a shared cinematic universe. I'm a little reluctant to use the designation, because - to my way of thinking - a shared universe is a phenomenon generated when multiple franchises share a single setting more expansive than any single component. The Conjuring movies, as I understand them, are built around the characters of Ed and Lorraine Warren, with a handful of spin-offs following associated characters (or entities, if you prefer) introduced in the core movies. Since the spin-offs are offshoots of the core franchise, this is still a contained series, at least in my opinion. Now if Annabel fought Chucky or the Nun battled GI Joe or something, it'd be a different story.

Actually, I kind of want that Nun vs. GI Joe Movie.

But enough with semantics. Let's talk about this movie. Or this series. Of which I've only seen one of the nine movies. But I'm going to say a few more things about that series, anyway.

Really, I want to talk about the Warrens, who were - in a manner of speaking - real human beings who went on real adventures involving demons and spirits. In a more accurate manner of speaking, they were real people who went on very fake adventures that they lied about in order to turn a profit (I'll leave it to you to decide whether demons and ghosts exist, though I'd recommend a healthy dose of skepticism, particularly towards anyone trying to monetize the supernatural as nonfiction). Whatever you believe in, it's difficult to take the Warrens' claims seriously, both because they're comically outlandish and because of the criticism they received from others investigating those claims alongside them. For example, there are accounts of Ed Warren excitedly discussing the monetization possibilities of the "Enfield poltergeist," the event this movie is based on. This isn't even getting into the (exceedingly strong) evidence the entire phenomenon was a hoax created by the teenage girls at the center of the incident. Hell, that even makes it into the movie, albeit with a rather forced supernatural justification for having one of the girls fake part of it in the hopes of placating an evil spirit.

All of which raises questions on whether it's ethical to adapt this as a "true story" and depict the Warrens as heroic adventures using their powers to overcome the forces of evil. I suppose it's not the worst thing Hollywood has done, but the whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

That doesn't touch on whether this is good or bad as a piece of entertainment, however. That question, well... that one's complicated. On one level, this is actually quite good. The movie had a sizable budget considering the genre (around 40 million), as well as a director who knows how to build a scene. I'm mostly familiar with James Wan from the Aquaman movies and Furious 7, but he built his reputation in horror by creating both the Conjuring and Saw franchises, none of which I've seen (other than Conjuring 2, of course). As a series of creepy sequences featuring a variety of scary entities, this is quite well done, if a tad cliche at times. But the production values are impressive, the imagery unsettling, and the jump scares effective.

But I said it was good "on one level," not all. That's because there's a price to basing this on a real fake story: in its attempts to appear legitimate, the movie trades a satisfying narrative for the ability to check off a bunch of documented events. This also limits the interactions between its heroes and the people involved with the hoax real demonic possession - apparently there were limits to what the filmmakers were willing to manufacture.

As a result, the movie feels disjointed. The Warrens are almost peripheral characters with uncompelling arcs - Lorraine learns to have faith in her visions' power to protect them, and Ed just sort of does boring hero shit. They're not likeable or interesting, and the movie's inability to actually complete their arc (Ed really needs to die for this story to work) leaves the whole thing feeling unsatisfying. It's difficult to convey just how forced the resolution feels, as Lorraine pieces together clues that seemed to be dropped in front of her randomly. It's presented as a mystery, but the solution is essentially handed to them.

The stuff with the family being plagued by ghosts and demons makes for a more interesting story. A version of that with the serial numbers filed off, the Warrens dropped, and the plot rewritten so the family solves their own problem would have made a much better movie. But this wants to sell the illusion this is real, complete with photos comparing locations and characters with their real-life counterparts in the end credits. I can't deny that must have appealed to a lot of people - this made a hefty profit - but I'd have preferred something content to be a good story.

At the same time, I really can't dismiss this entirely, both because so many sequences work in isolation and because the thing the movie is actually doing - while now unfashionable - is being done exceptionally well. That thing, incidentally, is worldbuilding: while I stand by my (arbitrary) definition of a shared Universe, this was clearly following Marvel's playbook around peppering the film with potential story hooks and iconography they'd have the option of circling back to in the future. This introduced both The Nun and The Crooked Man to the series, both of which were striking. I also thought the ghost (who bore a slight resemblance to Ebenezer Scrooge at times) was effective until a twist revealed he was an innocent spirit being weaponized by the real monster.

That Scrooge thing isn't the Christmas connection, by the way. The movie is set around Christmas, though I don't recall it being explicitly mentioned. But televisions are showing holiday shows, ghosts turn on Christmas music, the house is decorated... it's unambiguous even before the Warrens drop a date as they record an interview: December 21st, 1977. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess this aligns with their actual visit to the house. If so, that implies the setting may simply have grown out of that simple date stamp... with the caveat the "real" haunting was spread over several years, as opposed to the month or so implied by the movie's narrative.

Regardless of the reason, the movie certainly fits into the mold of a Christmas ghost story, all the more so due to the fact it's set in England. Perhaps the setting is a nod to this, if I'm wrong about the timing having some historical connection to the Enfield poltergeist. Of course, it could be both.

As popcorn entertainment playing into the fantasy all of this really happened, I can't deny it's visually impressive. I don't find jump scares particularly fun, and I'm certainly not a fan of the Warrens, so this all rings pretty hollow for me. But at the same time, I can absolutely see the appeal here for anyone who gravitates towards this the way I do towards space operas and superheroes. This is ultimately a popcorn movie designed to be experienced as a sort of cinematic amusement park. It really does replicate the sensation of stumbling through a haunted house, complete with various attractions that jump out at you, and those attractions are visually striking. If that appeals to you, there's a good chance you'll feel more generous towards the film and be willing to overlook some awkward pacing and bad dialogue (God knows I do in genres I prefer).

This one didn't really work for me, but I can tell a lot of that comes down to taste. If this is the kind of thing you usually love, well... I guess my recommendation is meaningless, because I'm probably the last person alive to watch a Conjuring movie, anyway.