So why is this getting so much praise? Everyone seems to be loving the movie and saying it is clever.
It seemed really generic and silly, especially all the demon sounds, CGI and over the top throwing against the walls. There was no twist or mystery. Also I didn't feel like any of the kids were in danger.
Really enjoyed the painting scene, but they managed to ruin the creepyness with a spoopy scare.
Thoughts?
wtf is that?
>mfw plebs think the demon or the crooked man were CGI and not camera tricks and practical effects with slight CH touches
>mfw plebs think Wilson didn't sing and play the Elvis song
>mfq plebs don't recognize that in a sea of cynical horror - a stagnant genre for the most part - this film sticks to traditional values, holds an uplifting message of the importance of family, has top tier filmmaking craftsmanship, and even in its overuse of jumpscares they are cleverly thought out.
>mfw plebs don't appreciate Wan's impeccable camerawork and atmosphere.
>mfw plebs are so used to tearing film apart by scrutinizing plot holes and 'ironic watching' that they can't appreciate all this
It might be mainstream horror with wide appeal but it's really well done, and that's the reason why it's successful.
So just like most Marvel films?
I agree actually, but the Crooked Man did look pretty shit.
Conjuring the money 2: Box office bust
>marylin manson is scary now
Since when?
Well maybe my problem is that I didn't see a lot of recently released shit horror movies, so that the one which is okay doesn't seem like the best thing ever. Maybe if I went through all of the garbage like Unfriended I would appreciate it more.
>people saying what characters should do in a theatre
>people making stupid sounds to scare thir friends
>people yelling - oh my god, the picture is going to move!!!
I am jot surprised that soon enoguh there will be more shootings in theaters because of it's audience.
>projecting
no, I hate them actually
You mean the Babadook clone?
Feels good not being American.
There was a group of teenagers behind me and they were silent for most of it, only after some jumpscares they giggled a bit and shut up shortly afterward.
Based on a true story.
The movie scares due to its true based events. Several witneses, including officers. In the firt conjuring, the same thing happened.
Nowadays. Nothing really happens. No one investigates anymore.
The Crooked Man CGI was kind of poo, but thankfully there isn't too much.
I like the actors and portrayal of the Warrens, they are good people who love each other.
The cinematography was really well done as well, and it was pretty fucking scary.
I liked it, just as I liked the first one.
REEEE the crooked man isn't CGI.
Just the dog transformation and that looked good, just some CGI refinement ay best.
It is not based on a true story. There is nothing. No ghosts, no demons, no gods. It is all in your head.
>hating Conjuring 2
Obvious sexist pig
>transgender Emperor Palpatine
>still getting autistic over that
Welcome to like 10 years ago
What sets it appart from other horror flicks are the lovable characters and the fact that the main child actor wasn't shit.
I didnt get why would the nun go to England to terrorize a british family to get at the Warren woman.
The demon wanted the child, regardless if the Warrens showed up or not, incidentally it had been harrassing Lorraine too for some time.
So she being given visions of her husband dying in England by Valkar while he was terrorizing the family was a coincidence too?
It seemed really overdone. Like it was almost laughable at some parts.
and the CGI for the crooked man or whatever was almost as bad as the rock as a scorpion in the Mummy returns.
I think if they stuck to the true story it would have been so much creepier and disturbing. That real tape of the girl that played in the credits and showing the actual photos was scarier that the movie itself.
I read somewhere that God gave the visions. It would make sense. It looked like a warning, but it actually gave the wife the weapon to save Ed.