The Conjuring 2

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: James Wan/Starring: Patrick Wilson, Vera Farmiga, Frances O' Connor, Franka Potente, Madison Wolfe, Lauren Esposito, Simon McBurney and Maria Doyle Kennedy

From the case files of the ghostbusting couple Ed and Lorraine Warren comes The Conjuring 2; director James Wan's follow-up to his frightening first film in what will most likely be a small franchise or at least a trilogy. The 2nd installment is a worthy successor to The Conjuring. Based on "real" events, Wan's film tells the story of one of the Warren's more famous investigations, which took place in Enfield, England in 1977. Though the film has its missteps, it nevertheless dispenses effective doses terror and chills. Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga reprise their roles as Ed and Lorraine; characters they've settled into nicely and play with affecting ease.

When the story begins in Enfield in the late 1970s', a young girl named Janet Hodgson (Madison Wolfe) and a friend are caught smoking in a school stairwell. Shortly before they are called to the Headmaster's office, Janet's friend returns a makeshift Ouija board to her (not that thing again), which provides the story dark portent. At home, we get a sense of Janet's home-life as the shabby family abode is conspicuously absent a father. The mother; Peggy (played by rarely seen Frances O'Connor), is a single parent trying to hold her family together with meager finances. Her troubles include her young son Billy's (Benjamin Haigh) speech impediment and Janet herself, whose school life is less than happy.

During one evening at home, Janet shows her older sister Margaret (Lauren Esposito) her Ouija board, which they use to contact spirits, only to experience failure. The board is subsequently cast aside.

Meanwhile, in Long Island, NY, the Warrens investigate the infamous Amityville house after the owners complain of a hostile spiritual presence. During a seance, Lorraine places herself in a trance-like state in an attempt to experience the grisly murders that preceded the house's haunting. The sequence is creepy but less so than what takes place at the Warren's Connecticut home thereafter. Lorraine begins to dream of an entity with a ghostly pallor, dressed in a nun's habit. The malevolent spirit leads her to a basement, where it points to a figure standing in the shadows. The figure is revealed in a later dream as her husband. Lorraine interprets the dream as a threat from something malevolent in the spirit world though she knows not what. The next morning she finds Ed painting a figure from a dream he had the night before--the nun from Lorraine's dream. Convinced of the danger posed by said spirit, Lorraine asks that they suspend their investigations for the time being.

Back at the Hodgson household, eerie noises and strange incidents begin to unnerve the family. Janet begins to sleepwalk, which prompts her to tie herself to the bed. When the creepy occurrences become too much for the family to bear, the police are called to investigate. The police's cursory search of the house turns up little, until the officers see a chair move by itself across the floor. Spooked, the police refuse to get involved but refer the matter to paranormal expert, Maurice Grosse (Simon McBurney), who discovers he too is at loss to help the Hodgsons. When the situation becomes desperate, the Warrens are inevitably contacted and though they are on hiatus, they are persuaded to visit the Hodgsons in England to hear their case. Assured by Grosse their participation will be limited, they are nonetheless fully drawn into the nightmare. Having determined that Janet may be possessed by a spirit, the Warrens, Peggy, Grosse and an academic named Anita Gregory (Franka Potente) investigate the haunting further, needing proof of possession for the Catholic church to consent to an exorcism.

What is particularly interesting about the film is Anita Gregory, who brings unanticipated skepticism to the proceedings--and the film. Convinced Janet and Hodgsons are perpetrating a hoax, Gregory chides the Warrens and Grosse for being taken in though they, Grosse and Peggy insist the haunting is real. Of course the audience knows Janet and Hodgsons are on the up and up but I really thought for a moment the film might actually debunk all the claims of the haunting and possession. I was pleased the movie accepted everything at face value because who goes to a horror movie to be convinced the supernatural is hokum?

An elderly man's voice begins to emanate from Janet's mouth, making it necessary to conduct a test to determine who the spirit might be. While Janet sits on an old leather chair in the living room, Ed holds a question and answer session with the spirit. After the spirit vigorously resists Ed's questions, he identifies himself as Bill Wilkins; a former occupant who died while sitting in the same chair Janet occupies. Wilkins issues a forceful command to the Hodgsons to "leave his home." But as Bill furthers his reign of terror, Lorraine discovers the demonic entity haunting she and Ed's dreams is the very same nether-fiend manipulating Bill's spirit into menacing the family. I found this plot development to be original and very unusual. It's the first time, to my knowledge, that a demon has controlled a ghost for its own purposes in a horror film. In an attempt to stop the demon who is hell-bent (if you excuse the expression) on destroying Janet Hodgson and Ed, Lorraine realizes she must learn its name in order to control it.

The plot comes to a scorching boil when the spirit holds Janet hostage inside the Hodgson house. A desperate effort to gain entry into the Hodgson home by forceful means ensues. A unintentionally absurd moment where Peggy's neighbor tries to break down the basement door using an axe becomes a comically unrealistic, protracted affair. Come on; it's an old, wooden door; two whacks with an axe should have reduced the thing to splinters!

While Lorraine and said neighbor try to gain violent ingress, Ed manages to reach Janet by another route. When the demon tries to make Janet leap from the window onto a lethally pointed tree trunk (foreseen in one of Lorraine's dreams), Ed's life becomes imperiled too when he tries to stop her. Lorraine finally arrives to attempt an intervention.

There is much I found refreshing about Wan's film. Though it called upon some familiar horror tropes to tell its story, it was also eccentric in many ways most films in the genre are not. The aforementioned demon/ghost plot device is one. Another are the dual hauntings; the Warrens in Connecticut and Hodgsons in England, which ratchets up the tension nicely. There were also some moments that felt decidedly non-horror and more dramatic. I've always found it frustrating in horror films when person A tries to persuade person B of a frightening encounter with something supernatural, only for the entity to become silent or unobtrusive, which casts person A as a liar or crank. In Wan's film, this almost never happens.

The movie has its flaws. I find it puzzling that the Warrens, Peggy and Grosse conveniently forget very convincing evidence for the entity's existence--the chair moving on its own across the floor--for instance--when countering Anita Gregory's claims of fraud. How would one doubt what one has seen when the entire house shakes and the lights go out? How could Janet fake that? Billy's tent on the Hodgson house second floor also makes little sense (another of the film's slips; I've seen a similar tent in countless other horror films). Why doesn't he or the family tear down the damn thing after his toys begin to roll out of it?
Why does a demon go to all the trouble to frighten and bully? Why not just kill Ed Warren? And why would the Warrens be much of a threat to powerful forces from beyond? Bits and pieces of the The Exorcist can be found in the story, including a possessed young girl who speaks in male voice and the time-honored Ouija-as-culprit-for-possession angle. I guess there's no way around that film's influence on horror.

But all in all, I found the film to be done quite well and sufficiently scary. Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga are slowly becoming an iconic presence in modern horror cinema. They are quite excellent (and certainly more glamorous than their real-life counterparts) as Ed and Lorraine Warren and never treat the material as a lark. Frances O'Connor is quite terrific, as are the young cast who make up the Hodgson brood.

Wan earned his horror bona fides long ago and continues to hone his craft. He knows how to coax the scares out of the story without resorting to cheap trickery or hackneyed scare devices (or at least not too many).

The Conjuring 2 is one of the few sequels that is worthy of the original. A third film would not be unwelcome. A word of caution to those who plan on seeing the flick. Do not read the case on which the film is based. The real story is more mundane and is most certainly a cheesy hoax. It doesn't bother me that Paul Bunyanesque-size liberties were taken with the real story--who really thinks any of the Warren's cases are authentic or real anyway? All I ask of a horror film is that it frightens me without becoming mired in a bog of cliches and tired scare tactics. Wan's film is made well and a fun experience to boot.

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Christopher McQuarrie/Starring: Tom Cruise, Simon Pegg, Rebecca Ferguson, Jeremy Renner, Ving Rhames, Sean Harris, Simon McBurney, Alec Baldwin and Tom Hollander

One might expect a movie franchise like Mission Impossible to be staggering about and sputtering after its many iterations over a twenty-year span. Every installment has taken its sweet time making its way to the silver screen. Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation is only the fifth incarnation in what's become a very durable and very dependable action series. Like The Fast and the Furious films, which simply refuse to become dull and formulaic, Mission Impossible has remained a thrilling heart-thumper and shows no signs of slowing down (or coming to any foreseeable end). Director Christopher McQuarrie, the helmsman of the very unfortunate Jack Reacher, redeems himself with this latest MI film, which is aided considerably by a tight script and of course, the considerable charms of the IMF, or the Impossible Missions Force, as it is commonly known in the films.

Tom Cruise reprises his role as IMF's super operative Ethan Hunt, who, when the story begins, is knee-deep in a mission. As a cargo plane loaded with chemical weapons makes its way down a runway, Hunt manages to run onto the wing before hanging from the side door. IMF's computer whiz, Benji Dunn (the highly entertaining Simon Pegg) tries desperately to hack the plane's computer to open the side door before Hunt is undone by altitude and ferocious wind-currents. That the sequence was accomplished without CGI and a stunt double is truly amazing. Whether one feels Tom Cruise has taken leave of his senses for attempting a dangerous stunt for the sake of authenticity or dedicated professionalism, the fact remains; the scene is truly spectacular.

Meanwhile, the CIA director Alan Hunley (Alec Baldwin), appeals vigorously to a government committee for the IMF's dismantling; believing the covert group has gone rogue. The IMF's subsequent outlaw status makes Hunt a fugitive, which prompts a CIA, seize and capture operation. While Hunt is on the run, his key colleagues in the IMF; Dunn and William Brandt (Jeremy Renner) lay low as CIA employees; providing their colleague valuable intelligence. Luther Stickell (Ving Rhames), the other member of Hunt's group is virtually incommunicado; keeping his whereabouts secret.

While the CIA searches for Hunt, he is captured by a shadowy organization known as The Syndicate; a network of spies responsible for terrorist acts worldwide. Their leader, Solomon Lane (a delightfully sinister Sean Harris), is a former British intelligence operative who believes his organization can right the wrongs of the world by overturning the status quo. The Syndicate has few qualms about killing and doing so en masse to satisfy their amoral agenda.

Lane's thugs manage to capture Hunt, who is well aware of the Syndicate's destructive aims. While Hunt is tied up in a cell, a Syndicate butcher known as Janik Vinter (Jens Hulten) administers a beating before unveiling his array of tools meant to inflict painful and potentially lethal wounds. Before Vinter can begin, a woman working with The Syndicate helps Hunt to free himself before they escape together. Before he can learn her identity, she runs off while Hunt dodges bullets en route to his own freedom.

In time, with the help of Dunn, who plays video games at his desk in a London CIA field office when his supervisor isn't around, Hunt learns about a Syndicate operation targeting the Austrian Chancellor.

An exciting cat and mouse sequence in the Vienna Opera House finds Hunt and Dunn trying to find Syndicate operatives who are planning an assassination of the Austrian Chancellor. Hunt uncovers a tangle of would-be snipers. Among them is the woman who helped Hunt escape. Though she helped Hunt before, her actions always seem to be at cross-purposes with the IMF team. When the attempt on the Chancellor succeeds, Hunt and Dunn are aware that their presence will only incriminate them, which necessitates a hasty escape abetted by none other than the mysterious woman. Hunt learns she was actually trying to save the Chancellor and when questioned further, he learns she is Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson) a erstwhile member of MI6, who has joined The Syndicate in order to stop Lane.

Hunt, Dunn and Faust learn Lane is interested in obtaining encrypted information held in a digital vault in Morocco, inside a maximum security complex. Hunt and company discover the information they need is securely stored inside a water tank, which is accessible only by a dangerous dive and a formidable swim, which involves holding one's breath under water for several minutes. The sensitive and highly sophisticated alarm systems, which are triggered by the presence of metal, disqualify the use of oxygen tanks, which would compromise the mission. The break-in comes with its own perils, which hardly end with Hunt's harrowing dive into the water tank and his near drowning but with a hair-raising motorcycle chase through Moroccan hills.

Not long after, when Brandt and Stickell join Hunt and Dunn, the group learns the information they've stolen can only be accessed by the British Prime-Minister's retinal-scan, palm print and voice-recognition, which presents one more "impossible" mission they must accomplish. The contents of the stolen disc are of vital importance to The Syndicate but also to Hunt and the IMF. The data on the disc would prove the existence of the Syndicate, which Hunley and the CIA dismiss as a fiction crafted by Hunt.

Showdowns are inevitable and though we don't doubt the various outcomes, it is deliriously entertaining to watch the plot unfold.

One of the wonders of MI: Rogue Nation is Tom Cruise. How a 53-year-old man can manage the stunts and run about if he were still in his mid-thirties is mind-blowing but he does it all with dazzle. Rebecca Ferguson holds her own, engaging in intricately choreographed fight scenes without sacrificing her onscreen sex appeal.
Sean Harris makes an excellent, spy-movie villain. His whispery, raspy voice is a nice touch and his fashion sense is classic movie-bad guy couture; very impeccable and highly stylish.

I think the addition of Simon Pegg to the MI films has proven to be one of the best casting moves in the series. Pegg's natural, comedic flair compliments Cruise's tough-guy, onscreen persona. His levity also keeps the film from becoming mired in earnestness and self-seriousness.
McQuarrie demonstrates he can direct an action film; keeping its pace kinetic and action white-hot. Jack Reacher left much for he and Cruise to atone for.

I thought this might be the last Mission Impossible installment but the film and the filmmakers seemed to have avoided any conspicuous closure, which means we may see more in the future. Or will we? I guess that all depends on whether Cruise can meet the physical demands. But based on his physique, which looks as toned and muscled as everybody else's in the movie, he may be playing Ethan Hunt well into his 80s'.

MI: Rogue Nation is a treat. In a year where Liam Neeson's tough guys have put audiences to sleep and other actors have joined the CIA-trained-bad-ass bandwagon, Cruise's Ethan Hunt outclasses the amateurs by kicking tail convincingly. His character belongs on the super-spy Mt. Olympus, with Jason Bourne and 007.

At last, we have a summer thriller that actually features thrills, rather than just incoherent mayhem. I guess we'll have to wait and see if we see more of the IMF. More wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Or at least another round.

The Theory of Everything

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: James Marsh/Starring Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, David Thewlis, Emily Watson and Simon McBurney

I intended to skip a post for James Marsh's The Theory of Everything and to be quite frank, I also intended to skip the movie, which is out of character for a cinephile like myself. Given its numerous Golden Globe nominations (which mean as much to me as the Oscars, which isn't much), I figured I had better not let it pass without at least a cursory assessment. And given the quality of so many late-year films, the trailer for Theory left me feeling apathetic; with an I-bet-I-can-plot-out-this-flick-without-spending-a-penny-on-it attitude. I've come with tidings--though not necessarily with great joy--to tell you folks that my reservations were sadly realized. The only bright spot in attending the screening was the free medium popcorn I earned with my frequent visitor theater card. If I had only earned a free ticket.

If anyone is deserving of a biopic, it's Stephen Hawking. The brilliant cosmologist has made significant contributions to the fields of astrophysics and astronomy and his book, A Brief History of Time has been an international best seller.

Marsh's film is based on Hawking's former wife Jane's memoir Traveling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen, which chronicles her ill-fated marriage to the scientist.

As the film begins, we see the young Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne)preparing for his doctorate exams at Trinity College at Cambridge University. The bright but undisciplined student finds himself with his brainy chums at a black tie function, where he meets a young woman named Jane (Felicity Jones). The two hit if off, in spite of their divergent academic pursuits. To Hawking's cosmology is Jane's Art, but differences extend to their respective perceptions of the world. Hawking's atheistic view is fed by his scholarly pursuits while Jane makes it clear she is a member of the Church of England. The differing perspectives highlight an interesting, philosophical contrast.

As Hawking prepares for his doctoral defense, he begins to suffer from motor control problems; failing to adequately grasp objects with his hands and stumbling. When the problem becomes acute, he visits a physician, who diagnoses him with Motor Neuron Disease, or as its come to be known, Lou Gehrig's Disease. The prognosis is grim, as Hawking is given two years to live. The devastating news leaves Hawking alienated from his friends. His disease does little to discourage Jane's romantic ardor as she manages to draw him out of his uncommunicative morbidity. In spite of his grave condition, Stephen refuses to abandon his studies. He eventually earns his doctorate as his professors recognize the originality of his theories; one involving a black hole in the creation of the universe.

It becomes clear after some time that the disease isn't fatal, which makes it possible for Jane and Stephen to have children in spite of his severely diminished physical state. And though he survives, his condition demands he occupy a wheelchair and be fed, clothed and assisted in other physical functions.

We begin to see how Stephen's constant care impacts Jane as she divides her attention between her husband and her children. She is able to convince Stephen to take on help and in doing so, she finds it serendipitously. Jane befriends Jonathan (Charlie Cox), her choir master and as he becomes welcomed into the Hawking household, he also assists in caring for Stephen. Over time, it becomes clear Jonathan and Jane are fighting an obvious mutual attraction, which is consummated after Stephen transfers his affections to his next caretaker; a woman named Elaine Mason (Maxine Peake).

Meanwhile, Stephen achieves international fame for his theories and his book A Brief History of Time. Though Stephen and Jane divorce, he invites her to accompany him to his knighthood (an honor he rejects), which involves meeting the Queen. One can imagine the respectful gesture satisfying part of a debt to Jane, whose tireless care ensured Stephen the means to pursue academic and scientific work.

Aside from filling in details for the trailer, the movie does little to make his life as fascinating as his theories. Yes, behind most brilliant and famous men are wives or significant others who toil thanklessly behind the scenes, ensuring greatness isn't troubled with the pesky, mundane details of life but Marsh fails to translate this to compelling cinema. And the theories that made Stephen Hawking a peer of Newton and Einstein are mentioned and explicated in expository dialogue but they seem to be given short shrift. We get a sense of Hawking's fame but not how he achieved it. Or why he was awarded the very prestigious Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge; a position held by England's finest mathematicians; including Isaac Newton. I understand the story is, in a large part, Jane's but aside from her fierce, loyal devotion, why did this story need to be told?

It's tough to make a wheelchair-bound individual a riveting presence on film, even someone with a formidable mind like Hawking's. Try as he might to mimic Hawking's contortive physicality, Eddie Redmayne can't articulate the emotions and thoughts of someone who is bodily inert. And the famous, computerized voice that conveys Hawking's thoughts suffers the same emotive limitations.

But the film in general feels like an assembly-line biopic, in spite of the subject. Where one imagines the story will proceed is where it does, plain and simple. Those two adjectives could effectively characterize the film as a whole.

One effect of a mediocre or bad film is how it makes one eager to see a better film on the same subject. After watching The Theory of Everything, I couldn't help but think of Errol Morris' engaging A Brief History of Time, which not only attempts to make Hawking's theories accessible without dumbing them down, but makes them vital and exciting. Marsh's film seems like a condensed and dramatized, Reader's Digest version of Morris' documentary.

Rather than a Theory of Everything, we get a Theory of Not-Much. Another feat of mediocre film-making is to make a genius like Stephen Hawking seem so prosaic and dull, which this film does exceptionally well. The film also does little to make Jane Hawking appear as anything other than a pretty, put-upon caretaker who once loved Stephen Hawking.

Maybe the story should have been a biopic about Hawking's computerized voice. Hmmmmm....it has possibilities. Maybe I'll cast Nicolas Cage as the Voice. Could be interesting. Or at least more interesting than this film.

Magic in the Moonlight

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Woody Allen/Starring: Colin Firth, Emma Stone, Marcia Gay Harden, Jackie Weaver, Eileen Atkins and Simon McBurney

A world famous magician with the stage name Wing Ling Soo also uses the persona of a Chinese mystic in his act. Offstage, he is an arrogant, peevish British man named Stanley (Colin Firth) who disdains anything and everything metaphysical. His friend, a fellow magician Howard Burken (Simon McBurney), has made the acquaintance of an American woman who claims to be a medium with psychic powers. While Stanley scoffs at the notion of a spirit world, he agrees to meet the woman and sit in on a seance. Howard claims the woman has abilities he can't readily dismiss though his career as a magician has inured him to every kind of spiritualist's trick.

Of course Stanley scoffs at the medium's professed powers; asserting his superiority as a debunker of spiritualists. When he meets the medium/psychic; an attractive, young woman named Sophie Baker (a lovely Emma Stone), he is treated to feats of her psychic powers. She is able to almost guess his vocation though he insists he is in the import/export business. An American woman named Grace (Jackie Weaver) and her son Brice (Hamish Linklater) play hostess and host to Stanley, Sophie and her mother (Marcia Gay Harden) in their vacation home in the south of France.

Before the seance, Stanley and Sophie cross swords over the supposed phoniness of the supernatural and the spirit world. He is determined to prove that Sophie is a charlatan, even it means alienating her and all who are gathered. The mutual attraction between magician and medium is undeniable, which is complicated by Stanley's engagement to another woman and Brice's feeble courtship of Sophie.

When the seance commences, Stanley sits apart from the proceedings, watching for anything fraudulent. When a candle begins to float, Howard excitedly claims he is unable to account for the phenomenon or the attendant thumping sounds. Days after the seance, Stanley begins to believe her abilities are genuine, which has a profound effect on him and his disagreeable personality. The possibility of a spirit world; a world even skeptics wish was real, impacts Stanley's emotional life. His demeanor changes, leaving him more optimistic about life. He also falls in love with Sophie.

While one watches Stanley fall hopelessly under Sophie's spell, one wonders if Woody's rational mind has accepted the possibility of the metaphysical. Later in the film, when Stanley's aunt lies in a hospital bed, on the verge of death, his vigorous prayers in the chapel are a startling contrast to his once unassailable bastion of reason. He abruptly stops praying, realizing that what he is doing is absurd, which leads to his suspicion of Sophie's alleged powers.

The issue of reason confronting the supernatural world should be fertile ground for a compelling drama/comedy but somehow the story and action can't reach escape velocity, leaving us with an occasionally charming romance but nothing more. It's not that Colin Firth and Emma Stone can't sell their characters. Their exceptional acting skills are more than a match for Woody's story. What went wrong? One wonders if Woody hurried the production without fully exploring the philosophical issues at play. Some scenes seem partially lifted from his earlier films, particularly one where Stanley and Sophie happen upon an observatory Stanley has known from the past. It recalls the scene in Manhattan, where Woody and Diane Keaton seek refuge in a planetarium. It's glaringly obvious how and why the observatory fits into the film's theme. Much less obvious is Stanley's reaction to the star and moon-filled sky after the observatory ceiling is opened. It's Sophie who gazes in wonder while Stanley sees the beautiful spectacle more matter-of-factly.

Cinematographer Darius Khondji brings some vivid color to the Provencal landscape as well as Emma Stone's lustrous, blue eyes and her hair's coppery allure. At times her face is bathed beautifully in lambent light. We can see why Stanley would fall prey to Sophie's passive charms.

The dialogue, as one might expect of Woody, is smart and occasionally witty but it gets a little clunky at times when some scenes play a little long.

My immediate assessment wasn't that of some critics who have savaged the film. Maybe I was expecting very little after reading the review in the New York Times, but after the tight, beautifully acted Blue Jasmine, it seems like a letdown. It's probably unfair to dismiss his film so, given the fact that Woody fans hold him to a higher standard. It may also be unfair to expect a Crimes and Misdemeanors from him with every new release.
Magic in the Moonlight isn't a failure but it's far from an artistic success. Save for some magical moments between Firth and Stone, it leaves one shrugging one's shoulders. Maybe the film would have worked better as a farce? Maybe not, but it might have been more fun than what unfolded onscreen. Or maybe not.