My interview with director James Wan:
http://www.wickedlocal.com/sudbury/fun/entertainment/x1808712259/James-Wan-offers-new-terrors-in-Conjuring

Did you see the film as well? The early buzz is pretty good.

Very effective, damn scary, nicely acted and constructed horror film. Best part: No gore!

ed symkus wrote on Jul 13^th, 2013 at 5:02pm:

Very effective, damn scary, nicely acted and constructed horror film. Best part: No gore!

Scary? And no gore?
What has happened to horror films these days.

I'll be seeing it in Montreal on Thursday, looking forward to it.

From what I've been reading, the director isn't exactly upset by the R rating, but he was thinking more along the lines of a ghost story that you could bring anybody to see.

Here's Wan's quote on getting the R, from my roundtable interview in San Francisco:

"I set out wanting to do a PG-13 movie. That was my goal. I wanted to make a bloodless movie that was about atmosphere and chills. I set out to make a movie for everyone. That’s why I held back on a lot of things. I wanted teenagers who were not over 18 to be able to see it because I think they would enjoy it. But it’s so intense towards the end, it hit me why the MPAA thought it was too frightening to be anything but an R rating."

This has happened before. It's another in the seemingly endless confounding "rules" the MPAA enforces - or just plain makes up - when rating films.

In essence, what Wan (and other before him) are saying that their movie was "too good" at creating suspense and horror, so it gets an "R", while inept films that are bloodier and gorier get a PG-13 because they suck!

So, you get penalized for doing a good job! Of course, the other thing often at play is that the big studios with big stars often get the PG-13 rating over indies. THE CONJURING had only about a $12M budget and as good an actress as she is, Vera Farmiga isn't a superstar. If this had been a $100M budget studio pic with Julia Roberts, it probably would have gotten the pg-13



ed symkus wrote on Jul 16^th, 2013 at 12:09am:

Here's Wan's quote on getting the R, from my roundtable interview in San Francisco: "I set out wanting to do a PG-13 movie. That was my goal. I wanted to make a bloodless movie that was about atmosphere and chills. I set out to make a movie for everyone. That’s why I held back on a lot of things. I wanted teenagers who were not over 18 to be able to see it because I think they would enjoy it. But it’s so intense towards the end, it hit me why the MPAA thought it was too frightening to be anything but an R rating."

Eh. It's ok for some cheap scares. Of course, I didn't expect much from Wan, the SAW 'auteur', not to mention the very very similar INSIPID...er...INSIDIOUS. Even though it's mostly bunk, the 'based on a true story' backdrop does force Wan to play by at least a few rules of horror film "reality".
The biggest issue is a meandering screenplay which, rather than build to the climax, seems to take as many detours as possible before finally getting to the meat of the story. When it does, it's fairly effective, largely based on some decent acting, particularly by the eternally underrated Lili Taylor. Let's face it, if Taylor looked like Taylor Swift, she'd be a huge star.
Not bad, but, don't expect any great shakes either.

P.S. On a technical note. The digital photography and vaunted "4K Projection" still makes the film look like $#!+ at times, particularly with all the dark and shadowy scenes.