Skip to content
The Conjuring – 2013 Wan
- James Wan’s The Conjuring starts, effectively, in medias res with the Annabelle prologue before the “true story” titles and the magnificently designed “The Conjuring” logo slides down.
- The strong start continues with Wan’s active camera pushing through the haunted house to the window as the station wagon of the Perron family (led by the talented Lili Taylor) arrives.
- Like Wan does with The Conjuring 2 (2016)—and this film here, the first, simply is not as good as the sequel- he makes a real effort to have the camera twirling (like a spirit) in the house, there’s one shot early (above), tracking the movers and couch, then with the family, through the kitchen pushing to a shot of the eerie backyard and tree.
- Strong details tie the film to the 1971 period—the great housecoat that Taylor wears, the sideburns for the male actors, the wardrobe- massive lapels, the Afghan blankets, The Tommy poster
- Wan uses a nice little dolly zoom on the house—this is just good style meets content with the nature of the film and the house
- It is certainly worth applauding that The Conjuring is one horror film that does not skimp on the casting of acting talent. You see bad actors and poor acting in so many horror films. Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga especially—are very good actors- even if they are occasionally betrayed by the script (Wilson has one line that is essentially “sometimes when you get haunted, it’s like stepping in gum- it sticks to you”- yuck).
- Sadly, Wan doesn’t keep up the pace as far as the film style on display early in the film- there is (above) a nice narrow, low-angle shot of the Warren’s daughter with the 1970’s wallpaper surrounding her on the stairs though
- Recommend, but not in the top 10 or that close for 2013
Drake2021-06-04T15:46:11+00:00
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!
Are you going to skip the 3rd Conjuring film because it isn’t directed by James Wan? The critics are saying it is weaker than the first two and it sort of have mixed reviews. Highly unlikely that it will make the archives.
@Anderson- I am watching it tonight actually
How was it? Is it good enough to make the archives? Or way below the quality of the first two?
@Anderson- I didn’t archive it- but it wasn’t a waste a time. It is the third best of the three.
What are your thoughts on Saw? I saw it last October and would probably give it a Recommend off of one viewing but I feel I could go up to a HR or even a HR/MS (really pushing it there) with a second look. I found trouble with some of Wan’s violence that starts alright but eventually got just way out of control as I felt it laid more on the side of mean than meaningful.
@Zane- wow really? What were you impressed by? It has been 10-15 years at least since I’ve seen it but I didn’t archive it at the time.
The film’s main plus is its narrative structure which is nonlinear and zips around from place to place while never making the viewer feel lost, sending us through a variety of interesting set pieces and traps. I also appreciated its varying use of slow and fast motion photography from time to time (at least that I can recall?) and some of the mise-en-scene, though at times the low-budget nature of the film works to its detriment in regards to being good-looking; Wan said it would’ve been more Hitchcockian with a higher budget and more time for principal photography and it’s a bit of a disappointment that he was not able to attain that as I’d say – retrospectively of course – that it would strengthen the film. That being said, it is a film that I desperately would need to rewatch before I can really say anything more concrete, and if I give you too much hope for Saw I should tell you I actually think I’m more likely to drop it from the archives with a rewatch than I am to raise it a grade, but I personally am not going to give up on it so easily. Your entering The Conjuring and The Conjuring 2 into the archives certainly gives me hope for Saw.
@Zane- excellent work here- thanks for sharing Zane!