I can't believe people haven't figured out by now that "Based on a true story" means, "not actually based on a true story". Yes, there was a family that was supposedly tormented by a demonic force. Yes, Ed and Lorraine Warren are real people, but the veracity of their profession is up for opinion. The devil is literally in the details, here, because with cases like these its hard to withdraw facts, and I'm not speaking as a skeptic. I believe in the supernatural to a certain degree, and I believe that the horrors that the Perron family were subjected to in this film could actually happen (despite, apparently, none of the events of the film actually happening according to one of the daughters of said family.) Yet people still buy into this stuff and they don't bother to do any research to identify the truth. And this isn't with just horror movies, but politics. But that's a horror story for another day. Right now, we're discussing The Conjuring.
Right from the get go, this movie convinces you that it should belong to the Holy-Canon-of-'70s-Horror-Movies, to which The Exorcist, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Amityville Horror, and Halloween belong. Even the font lettering when the title rises up on screen looks like a horror font you'd find in '70s titles.
The plot is your typical "family moves into haunted house" affair that we've been introduced to in films like:
The Amityville Horror
Poltergeist
The Haunting in Connecticut
The Haunting of Molly Hartley
The Haunting of Helena
The Haunting The Haunting blah blah blah why the hell are there so many movies that begin with the words "The Haunting of..."?
Anyway, despite its typicality, the filmmakers take the plot in interesting, atypical directions. Much of the focus is on the investigation by Ed and Lorraine Warren, who the Perrons call to help them with their particularly frightening haint. The characters all act very realistically, too, and I always imagined people in real life would act and react to events like these characters did in the movie.
And lets talk about the haunts themselves. The reason I despise a lot of these movies is because they are so unsubtle about their ghosts and demons. I'm pretty sure it's a direct result of filmmakers trying to emulate the very visual nature of spirits in Asian horror movies, but I feel like hauntings need to be subtle and move subtly to truly spark fear in the imagination. Immediately, the spirits of The Innocents come to mind, as although you see one of them up close, you see so little of him that it retains its creep factor. You are unsure of what you are seeing, and that in turn makes you freaked out more. Hell, the woman spirit in the Innocents is one of the most frightening ghosts I've seen committed to celluloid and it's because she's always seen at such a distance her facial features are either hidden in shadow or distorted. But today, it's all about indulging in a fantasy. This is problematic for a horror movie, because the established rule that has driven all great scare experiences is that the less you see, the more you fear.
This film indulges in fantasy and un-subtlety a little too much for my taste, but the scares are still terribly effective. It's saying something that I can get scared by a horror movie, and I found myself to be terrified of the ride this movie will take you on.
Having said all that, is this movie good? Like, is it good enough to join the Holy Canon forever and ever? Well, no. I have too many problems with this movie to try to elevate it to any status it doesn't deserve. It's frightening, but unsubtle. It's melodramatic, but most of the time in a bad way. I wish it was a more honest movie. The filmmakers don't want us to form bonds with these characters (the family or the Warrens). Their main goal is to frighten us. So why then are you guys trying to stick in some little sappy moment that is so minor it doesn't deserve to have the big payoff it does at the end? If you're going to make a character driven film with emotions and such, make that movie. You can't just awkwardly stick in a moment just so you can say, "well, we have met our emotion goal, lets get back to the scariness". Either do that movie and do it proper or don't do it at all.
The best "haunt" movies have been character driven. The Changeling and Jacob's Ladder come to mind, as well as The Haunting (1963) and The Sixth Sense (1999). These are movies that examine haunts through the eyes and the mind of a certain character, and you get to witness their highs and lows in a realistic manner. This movie is not that. It is just a thrill ride and it should be treated as such, and it should allow the audience to form its own emotions regarding the characters and the situation.
I'm totally giving this film a B+, because it deserves it, but it could've been better. It could've stuck to the "facts" that the family actually reported rather than embellish in scary things that don't actually happen, it could have been more character driven. But it wasn't. However, what it was despite my complaints was a truly frightening experience, and it really doesn't need to conform to the "truth", since The Exorcist and Amityville don't exactly follow the true stories they are supposedly based on either.
