The Conjuring 2 — Still Nice … !

26th October, 2016.

I have something of a confession to make.

It’s a relatively simple confession to make.

A relatively simple confession to make … about movies.

It’s quite simply this.

I don’t, usually, watch sequels.

I’ve up grown, over the years, with the impression that they’re not a patch on the original film.

With one or two exceptions, I think.

The Empire Strikes Back and The Return of the Jedi were improvements on their predecessor.

Aliens — in going in an action direction — was a very different film from the original: and the better for it.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens … ?

A VAST improvement on The Phantom Menace trilogy: themselves a major argument that sequels aren’t necessarily a good thing.

A few months back, I managed to sit done with the James Wan directed, The Conjuring.

And came away thinking two things.

That The Conjuring was enjoyable.

And that The Conjuring was enjoyable enough to make me want to invest my time in its sequel: the imaginatively named The Conjuring 2.

OK, the name might be unimaginative.

The film itself … ?

~≈◊≈~

The Conjuring — Nice … !

The
Conjuring

21st June, 2016

You know, I knew there was something I forgot to do.

No, really!

The past few months have seen me doing all sorts of things.

Mostly?

Worrying about my health and working.

And writing for both here, and for the Brentwood Gazette.

So … ?

I’ve not had as much time to devote to things I like — occasionally — to do.

Catch up with people.

Read a good book.

Watch some TV: although I’ve done a bit of that, recently.

Oh … and caught a film or two.

I’ve not caught a film or two in a long time.

I’ll be frank?   While I didn’t have much credit in my iTunes account?

I did have enough films in my collection I’d not seen to make it worth my while to go browsing through me, to see what I had.

You’re right.

I did pick The Conjuring … 

And, yes, I think ‘nice’ is a good word.

~≈Â≈~

Insidious: A Review

21st January, 2012

OK, OK, I’ll grant you, it’s not that often I leave a film review, this late.

But I quietly watched a film last night …

And wanted SOMETHING of a clear head when it came down to writing up what I thought.

One that WASN’T clogged up with tiredness toxins, in other words …

»»·««

The film in question … ?

The film in question was the James Wan directed, 2011 film, Insidious.

Insidious sees the young family of Josh and Renai Lambert moving to a new home with their three children.

And moving out, soon afterwards, after a series of events leads to their eldest son, Dalton, ending up in a mysterious coma.

A coma, they’re told, has seen him astrally projecting to a supernatural realm where his soul is in severe danger of possession.

By something …

»»•««

Now … ?

Am I impressed … ?

Am I though … ?

Yes …

Yes, I think I am.

Now, I’ll happily grant that Insidious isn’t necessarily the greatest horror movie ever made: nor the one with the biggest budget.

Much like indie Brit-horror-flick, Outpost, Insidious isn’t an out and out gore-fest. What it IS, however, is a film that does it’s best to scare you silly, by giving you a case of the serious creeps.

And, like Outpost — and possibly the original, 1970s version of The Wicker Man — does so by putting every penny on screen, with creepy backing-lighting and camera-angles, solid acting, and tightly paced, writing: all three of which, for my money, working JUST as well as a going over from Weta Workshop or ILM.

I think I’m going to suggest what I did with Outpost.

And suggest you see Insidious.

Insidious
★★★☆

Saw: Blood, guts and torture porn …

17th December, 2010

You know, I’ve got to admit, I’m not to happy, at the moment.

I’ve just found out my hours for next week.

And I’m not especially impressed.

I think the less said the better, there: but ‘not especially impressed’ is definitely the phrase, I think.

At any rate, suffice to say, I’ve got the weekend off, so to try and do something productive … ?

And make use of the late night … ?

I’m going to tell you about the film that Movie Night Adrian and I managed to catch, last night …

The film in question … ?

Was the smash — and gruesome — 2004 hit, Saw.

And, as Adrian, himself, manage to point out … ?

It’s the first any of us in the Movie Night Gang have managed to catch a horror film that’s that blood-soaked … !

«•»

Saw opens by showing us two men — oncologist, Lawrence Gordon, played by Cary Elwes, and photographer Adam Faulkner-Stanheight, played by Leigh Whannell — trapped in what appear to be an industrial bathroom: with each chained to pipes on opposite sides of the room.

With a dead body in between them.

They’ve been kidnapped.

And been given instructions by their kidnapperª — on dictaphone — to kill the other, within six hours.

Going by the very new clock on the wall, that’s visible to both.

«•»