MovieChat Forums > The Conjuring 2 (2016) Discussion > why do people rate this film?

why do people rate this film?

posted 8 years ago by simonwilliams555
15 replies | jump to latest

Let me start out by saying that this is just my opinion and if you guys like this film i totally respect your views these are just mine on it.

I'm a huge horror fan and i was pretty excited when i went in to see the conjuring 2, as i enjoyed the first film for what it was, a pretty decent modern horror, sure the original had all the expected cliche's that we've grown accustom to but the characters were interesting and likeable, the script was decent , the camera work was interesting as a movie on the whole it was pretty good.

This on the other hand isn't, my first problem with the film is that it overuses one of the worst aspects of modern horror, jump scares.

Jump scares are not frightening at all and in this film they cheapen scenes that could have been excellent, the portrait scene for one where the nun glides bringing herself in line with her own portrait is a really creepy image a really well set up moment that is completely ruined by how laughable it looks as it runs towards the camera.

It might as well have said "boo!" as it did it, completely ruined the whole set up of the scene for a cheap jump scare, this is my problem with a lot of horror films at the moment, there is a difference between being surprised and being scared.

A loud noise can be surprising, it doesn't frighten you but it makes you jump, being truly scared is quite a different experience, it's a feeling of dread, of tension, it's horrific imagery and a tense morbid story that stay in your mind as you go to turn out the light, that is what good horror is.

Another problem this film suffers from is that the villain is extremely weak, sure Valak looked mildly frightening but we have no real encounter with the demon, it's simply defeated in the climax of the film within mere seconds of it making it's presence known, we see it a handful of times building up to the end one of them mentioned above, it was a fairly interesting looking character that was completely underused and felt like it was thrown in at the last minute.

The crooked man was completely ridiculous, he looked like jack skellington for christ sake.

The relationship between the Warrens was so cheesy in this film, it felt so forced in comparison to the original , that moment where Ed Warren sings a WHOLE ELVIS SONG to the kids is just ridiculous, it was completely unnecessary and a waste of four minutes.

I just don't understand how films of this type scare people, they're extremely tame and safe.
If you enjoyed it and disagree i'm curious as to what your opinions are on it, did you find it frightening? , what do you think of the use of jump scares in horror? and just any thoughts you have and arguments for this film would be interesting to hear.

[–] ForrestHump 8 years ago

I'm seeing this question on IMDB more frequently nowadays. When did this phrase become acceptable?
ie. Instead of saying "why do people rate this film positively", people just say "why do people rate this film". That makes no sense. A rating could be good or bad. It doesn't come with a default, automatically implied value.

If you're asking why people are taking time out of their busy lives to rate films then sure, it makes sense but why would anyone ask such a question in the first place?

[–] Dejay 8 years ago

Was asking myself the same thing and I can't even

[–] ForrestHump 8 years ago

Lol. Well played :D

[–] beersandshots 8 years ago

Speaking just for myself, I rated this because I saw it.

"In a time of universal deceit,
telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
George Orwell

[–] simonwilliams555 8 years ago

Three people and not one of you has addressed the points i made you instead chose to focus on the wording of the question. it's a little frustrating as I made sure to phrase my argument in a way that wouldn't be offensive to anyone who enjoyed the film and i'm really just looking for your opinions on it and not to have a pointless discussion online about how articulate i am, i don't see any point in being needlessly verbose it's quite clear what i meant was why do people believe this film is a good horror film.

Could you please actually read the points i made and respond to them instead of picking at the way i chose to phrase them, I see your point with the way i phrased the title however at the same time i think it's unfair of you to ignore what i have to say just because you disliked the way i said it.

Here are the questions i'd like you to answer if you could, how can this film be considered a particularly good horror film if it relies heavily on jump scares and the same old cliche's we've come to expect from a modern horror film of this type , did you find this film frightening at all?.

If you disagree with my opinion, lets have a polite conversation as to why , i'm obviously interested in hearing what you have to say or else i wouldn't have posted it in the first place.

I look forward to hearing your opinions on The Conjuring 2.

[–] spiiidey-1 8 years ago

To me the scene you're referring wasn't a jump scare at all because I expected that the demon would not just grab its portrait and leave again ...

The Elvis singing scene was absolutely great in my opinion. I would have never expected it in such a film and that's one reason why I loved it.

[–] simonwilliams555 8 years ago

surely wether you expected it or not it was a jump scare, and fair enough man you like the scene and i hear what you're saying about it being expected, i myself found it a little cheesy but i'm sure we can both agree that Patrick Wilson has a surprisingly good voice.

as i look back there were a few scenes i really enjoyed for example the scene where Bill Wilkins appears in the chair just slightly out of the shot and we can barely see him as his features are obscured and blurred, really good scene.

but for me the film just didn't hit the mark scare wise and fell apart in the third act, i feel Valak was just so easily defeated for what could have been a great confrontation it was over in a matter of seconds, what do you think?

At the same time just out of honesty i will say that my opinion on the film may have been slightly influenced by how extremely loud some of the audience were during the film...which was admittedly massively distracting and pulled me out of the experience, perhaps i'll change my mind after watching it in a different setting.

[–] danloki 8 years ago

it's a feeling of dread, of tension, it's horrific imagery and a tense morbid story that stay in your mind as you go to turn out the light, that is what good horror is.

Agreed. I didnt get any of that from this movie. The only time I jumped was at a jump scare and it was because of the sudden deafening sound. So done to death and I'm disappointed because I thought that trend was over.

For those who love this movie, that's great, and I'm very happy it was such a box office hit for the film makers, But I thought this was pretty bad. Vera's overacting made me want to pull my hair out, and wtf was the end scene with them dancing? I must have nodded off like I did with the first one. Also, as mentioned in another thread, is Wan so young he didnt realise those shtty old tvs didnt have remote controls, or was that an inside joke that flew over my head?

[–] clickbait 8 years ago

well put OP...I agree with everything, this was a lame floow up to a decent horror movie, James Wan is just overrated when it comes to horror.

~If the realistic details fails, the movie fails~

[–] nl_pics 8 years ago

Hey there. I disagree with almost all of your points, but I understand where you're coming from.

As an upcoming horror director myself, when you really, really study the genre (as in, from the early 1900s, to the 20s, 30s, all the way to now) you notice trends and periods in horror. You have the Gothic-horror trends, exploitation/slasher trends, etc. Then, branching off of those trends you have people trying to put their own unique spin on them, and to varying degrees. There are a multitude of horror films and the "levels" of their horror, mostly boiling down to the director's craft and motives.

The Conjuring (and its sequel) is a horror film that, to me, was a love-letter to the 60s and 70s cult horror films that dealt with demonic themes and themes about cults (obviously). It is a period-piece horror film that used many familiar set-ups that audiences have seen countless times before, but it did them well and with true craft.

Looking at James Wan as a director, I would say that he is a very good visual storyteller who has a true grasp on how to build tension through slow, lurking camera movements and through long, unbroken takes. He knows how to use set design and costume design to effectively transport the audience into the story and into that time-period, which is vital for a VISCERAL horror film. However, there is a difference between a visceral horror film and a psychological horror film. The Conjuring was NEVER intended to be a horror film that was a truly slow-burning, psychologically distressing film with complex, thought-out characters. Like I said before, it was intended to be a love letter to those cult horror films from the 60s and 70s. The Conjuring swaps out the psychological aspects for the visual aspects of horror, which when done right is very effective, as The Conjuring has proven. You can create a very scary film by using good set design and costume design because you're subconsciously reeling the viewer in and making them believe for the length of the film that what they're seeing could be real. But that's about as scary as a visual horror film gets. They're like an amusement park attraction or a haunted maze you go to at Halloween time. They're full of frightening visuals and such, but they're not scary in the sense that they make you contemplate any dark, deep themes.

Piggy backing off of my haunted maze analogy, this is where jump scares come into play. Now (and I hate to be blunt) I really, really dislike people who are intensely and extremely dismissive towards jump scares. This seems to be a recent trend, dismissing jump scares and trash talking them and getting all worked up and angry about them just because evvvveeeryone else is doing it. I understand to a SLIGHT degree the basis for people's dissatisfaction for them (more on this later), but they're a STAPLE of horror films. They're in COUNTLESS classics and they (wait for it...) CAN be effective.

Now hear me out. Going back to what I said earlier about James Wan being a good visual storyteller and how there are visceral horror films: when you are capable of using lighting techniques to create a dark atmosphere, use creepy sound design to set the mood, and use long, unbroken takes to make the audience anxious, you have the ability to draw them in to the scene and really just make their nerves go crazy. You're making the audience member question everything that is happening and they're really on edge, and this is where a good jump scare can come into play. Just like in a haunted maze, you're on edge and you're walking through this maze hoping someone doesn't pop out and scare you. BUT, sometimes you can see it coming. To me, that is the equivalent of a BAD jump scare in a movie. Where the atmosphere is lacking, the camera work is less than stellar, and the filmmaker makes it obvious that they're about to make you jump. OR (and this is probably the source for so much jump scare hate) the filmmaker FAKES the audience out and fails not only at the build up, but by not providing a frightening image to accompany the jump scare. When a cat pops out of the dark, or someone turns on a light and a friend is standing there, THAT is cheap. However, if you can pull the audience into the scene, introduce a scary element that "makes" a character "have" to investigate and it is realistic enough for the audience to go along with it, you can set up this really good build up that is like a haunted maze and have it pay off with a loud jump scare and a frightening visual, and it's almost fun to experience! That is all The Conjuring and its sequel, and really films like Insidious and Ouija are all about. They're visceral horror films that aren't intended to make you question the true horrors of life, like serial rapists or killers. They're like a roller coaster. If you go into them knowing what to expect (and it's all about expectations) you will find yourself enjoying these films so much more.

[–] simonwilliams555 8 years ago

Firstly the fact that you're a director doesn't mean that you understand what makes a good horror film more than I do, it's a little condescending and egocentric to assume that, sure you may have an insight as to how one directs a film but that is only one element of what makes a film, admittedly an extremely important one but still don't assume that because you're a director you know more than I do about this subject, it's like if I were to say because I'm a horror writer I therefore am an authority which I'm not and neither are you.

"The Conjuring (and its sequel) is a horror film that, to me, was a love-letter to the 60s and 70s cult horror films that dealt with demonic themes and themes about cults (obviously)."

...There's no mention of a cult in The Conjuring or The Conjuring 2 also they are both very clearly influenced by the horror films of the mid 70's and 80's the original is very clearly influenced by The Exorcist and The Amityville Horror along with Poltergeist etc etc, not the horror films of the sixties.

"Looking at James Wan as a director, I would say that he is a very good visual storyteller who has a true grasp on how to build tension through slow, lurking camera movements and through long, unbroken takes. He knows how to use set design and costume design to effectively transport the audience into the story and into that time-period, which is vital for a VISCERAL horror film. "

James Wan is a talented director in terms of his camera work, I've never said anything against the way in which the film is made, it's a very well directed film in terms of it's cinematography, I never said anything against the costume design.
also it's not a visceral horror film, the images are hardly particularly striking on the one hand you're saying that it's a fun haunted house experience and not to expect anything more than that and on the other you're trying to defend it as being art haha.

Make up your mind, which is it?.

" You can create a very scary film by using good set design and costume design because you're subconsciously reeling the viewer in and making them believe for the length of the film that what they're seeing could be real."

Set design and costume design does not make an effective film, sure it may look very pretty but that doesn't mean it has any real substance or that it is well paced or that it's scares are effective all you've said here is that it's a well made film in terms of set design and costume design.

The Cell for example has interesting set pieces and costumes however it isn't what you would call a good film on this basis alone.

"They're like an amusement park attraction or a haunted maze you go to at Halloween time. They're full of frightening visuals and such, but they're not scary in the sense that they make you contemplate any dark, deep themes. "

The visuals were not frightening, they were over polished and cliche, a nun that looks like marilyn manson is not frightening to me because i've seen far too many horror films to be scared or intrigued by something that formulaic and unoriginal.

On jump scares, jump scares can be utilised in a way that is effective , jump scares are used in every single horror film at least once my issue with them in this film is that they aren't used effectively and are overly relied upon, the scene with Valak's portrait is brilliantly set up, the atmosphere is extremely creepy and suspenseful until it is ruined by the CGI face that runs towards the screen and is essentially shouting "boo" at the audience.

THAT IS A CHEAP SCARE!.

I can enjoy what i consider to be sort of middle of the road horror films if they have some originality and some substance along with some great imagery and well paced suspense, it's all down to our subjective view points at the end of the day, you enjoyed the film , i was severely disappointed by it.

[–] nl_pics 8 years ago

Didn't bring up my being a director to be condescending, I was simply letting you know that because all I study is film, and specifically horror films. Sorry you took such offense to that, it wasn't my intention at all.

There's no mention of a cult in The Conjuring or The Conjuring 2 also they are both very clearly influenced by the horror films of the mid 70's and 80's the original is very clearly influenced by The Exorcist and The Amityville Horror along with Poltergeist etc etc, not the horror films of the sixties.

The Exorcist came out in 1974, Amityville 1979. I said films of the 60s and 70s. Cult horror films deal with cults, obviously (Rosemary's Baby), but they can also deal with themes about demonic possession, etc. Movies like Black Sabbath (1963), Black Sunday (1960), Beyond The Door II (1977) (which the Annabelle spin-off even borrowed a scene from). Hell, just look at this list of films: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls077351014/. THESE are the films that inspired James, and he has said it before. Gothic horror films with dramatic lighting focusing on shadows and what's hidden in the dark, all stuff from the 60s and 70s era of horror. The very late 70s and 80s horror films were mostly slashers, so these films weren't inspired by that.

James Wan is a talented director in terms of his camera work, I've never said anything against the way in which the film is made, it's a very well directed film in terms of it's cinematography, I never said anything against the costume design.
also it's not a visceral horror film, the images are hardly particularly striking on the one hand you're saying that it's a fun haunted house experience and not to expect anything more than that and on the other you're trying to defend it as being art haha.

Make up your mind, which is it?.

A visceral film is a film that entertains through visuals rather than deep sub-contexts and complex characters and plot lines. The Conjuring and its sequel seek to scare the audience through their visuals which, whether you agree or they meet your criteria of a "visually striking" or "breathtaking" image, are very well done and thought out and aren't typical of a movie that isn't trying to entertain through the visuals. That's the whole reason I brought up James and his camera work. These films are a visual experience, and that's pretty much it. I'm not saying these movies are artsy fartsy and a visceral film does NOT mean they're trying to be overly-artistic and pretentious. It simply means it seeks to tell a story through a predominately visual way, without having the audience have to pay very close attention to dialogue and piece things together.

Set design and costume design does not make an effective film, sure it may look very pretty but that doesn't mean it has any real substance or that it is well paced or that it's scares are effective all you've said here is that it's a well made film in terms of set design and costume design.

They very, very much do make an effective film. Why do you think THE WITCH was so frightening? It LOOKED real and it helps put you in the story. Sure, great set and costume design doesn't automatically equal a great film, but it is a HUGE part of why The Conjuring and The Conjuring 2 work. That's the only reason I brought that up, and to help add to how James uses visuals to fright. Costume and set design are all a part of building that visual world.

The visuals were not frightening, they were over polished and cliche, a nun that looks like marilyn manson is not frightening to me because i've seen far too many horror films to be scared or intrigued by something that formulaic and unoriginal.

Simply your opinion, but again, your opinion is yours and there are many, many people who would disagree with you on this. This basically answers your question of "why do people rate this film?" Simply because they had a different opinion than you. Is there something wrong with that? You say yourself: "it's all down to our subjective view points at the end of the day, you enjoyed the film , i was severely disappointed by it." So why make the thread? If you already know you don't like the movie, and you're going to sit here and argue anything against it like you are with me, why are you wasting your time? Next (and last) point, I guess...

On jump scares, jump scares can be utilised in a way that is effective , jump scares are used in every single horror film at least once my issue with them in this film is that they aren't used effectively and are overly relied upon, the scene with Valak's portrait is brilliantly set up, the atmosphere is extremely creepy and suspenseful until it is ruined by the CGI face that runs towards the screen and is essentially shouting "boo" at the audience.

THAT IS A CHEAP SCARE!.

No, it isn't a cheap scare. That jump scare did EVERYTHING right! It had the plot device that made Lorraine have to investigate (seeing the nun at the end of the hall). It had an insanely well-done build up (the door slamming shut, the lamp flicking off and the painting looking like it's actually Valak, the shadow on the wall). All of this was done to put the audience on edge and work them up towards that final scare. And obviously the build up worked, even for you as you say. There was BOUND to be some kind of pay off. What were you expecting to happen, all of this crazy build up and then it just goes to another scene? That wouldn't have been effective, it would've made the audience go "okay, what's the point?". The painting scene is a perfect example of a GREAT jump scare. And if you can't see that, then I'm sorry but you really just have a very poor opinion of jump scares AND that just leads me back to expectations. I don't know what you would go into this film expecting, but that's what they are. They're full of well executed jump scares and they're meant to be fun, visually entertaining horror films. They're not meant to leave a lasting impression or anything. That's why I keep comparing them to a haunted maze.

It's like you're looking for so much more out of these films when that's not what they were trying to deliver in the first place. And because of that, that doesn't mean it's a bad movie. Just because your expectations weren't met doesn't mean the film is bad. The film is very competently made and it IS scary and succeeds in being scary in the way that it's TRYING to be. End of story. So to answer your awfully worded question in the first place: "Why do people rate this film?" Because THEY enjoyed it, THEY have an opinion, and the film succeeded in doing what it was supposed to do to them.

[–] simonwilliams555 8 years ago

Wow , yeh great job at not sounding condescending there mate.

Like i said, i have a different opinion to you, i hear what you're saying about why you like this film, i disagree, why did i start this thread because i was interested in hearing other peoples points of view.

I'm interested by the content of what you had to say , that doesn't mean i don't think you made yourself sound like a bit of an arse, when it comes down to filming techniques you are far more informed than i am but please at least be aware that you are being condescending when you are telling me what a visceral style of filmmaking is, I know what that is.

I just don't feel for me personally that images like the demonic nun were particularly effective, sure it may be trying to have that effect but to me it just didn't feel particularly striking or frightening, that's my personal opinion understand that everything you're saying is yours, just because you study film doesn't mean what you have to say is anything more than an opinion, we just feel differently about this film.

There is no right or wrong, it's not that i do not understand what this film is trying to do or what type of film it is, it's purely that i didn't feel it was a particularly effective film, end of story, i'm open to discussing our differing views on this but i'm not open to you talking to me like i don't know what i'm talking about.

Reg the jump scare, of course there's suppose to be a pay off, i just didn't think it was an effective one, you disagree and that's ok.

What did you feel about the entire Elvis song in the middle of the film, didn't that feel cheesy to you at all?

Attacking the way i put my question doesn't give anything you've said any validity it just makes you come across like a ponce, by the way The Exorcist came out in 1973.

[–] nl_pics 8 years ago

What did you feel about the entire Elvis song in the middle of the film, didn't that feel cheesy to you at all?

I didn't find it cheesy. Ed was trying to bring the family together and make the kids happy, and plus his voice wasn't half bad. It was a sweet scene in the midst of all of this horrific stuff going on. I can understand you finding it cheesy, I just didn't.

Attacking the way i put my question doesn't give anything you've said any validity it just makes you come across like a ponce, by the way The Exorcist came out in 1973.

I don't understand if you're purposefully trying to be ironic here, but attacking my mistake of being one year off on the release date is just as trivial as my attacking your wording of your question.

[–] simonwilliams555 8 years ago

Don't get me wrong he has a really good voice haha, it just brought me out of the film a little and i felt a whole song just felt a little out of place and the scene to me was a bit cheesy, their whole relationship didn't grab me this time around, sorry if i got your intention wrong before , the nuances of conversation can be lost in translation online it's possible that i just read you the wrong way.

The reason i mentioned it was just saying look, i know as much about horror as you do, wether our opinions differ on a film is another thing but i'm as well versed in the genre as you are, albeit perhaps not from a directorial stand point that's not my field, but as an avid fan of the genre i would certainly say i'm pretty informed on it , i've watched enough of them as I imagine you yourself have.