Funny thing. The day after I saw this movie, my wife and I were doing some chores and she turned on the TV right in the middle of the 1961 film “Judgment at Nuremberg,” a movie I had seen a few years before. While we were prepping lasagna in the kitchen, I occasionally paid attention to the TV. I had seen so many mediocrities in the past months that I had been almost inclined to think that some of them, like “The Conjuring 2,” were good because they weren’t as atrocious as the vast majority of films and programs available. I had forgotten what a really great film was like. Then, while watching “Judgment at Nuremberg,” I remembered.

I had actually given the first movie in the franchise, “The Conjuring,” a significantly higher rating of 75%, pushing it into my category of recommended movies. Why? The first movie relied on acting, story and mood; since it apparently didn’t have the budget to create splashy effects, it created none and therefore added a realistic feel to the horror scenario. This second one still has the acting, by two great and charismatic performers (Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson), and their presence elevates the movie maybe 10 percentage points from what it would have been otherwise. But due to the big success of the first “Conjuring,” the filmmakers apparently had a much bigger budget for the second one, and unfortunately, they used it, creating splashy effects of supernatural beasties with the traditional glowing contact lenses, fangs and other common horror makeup accessories, and removing the sense of realism that gave the first “Conjuring” some of its power. The mood is sporadic at best, and the story of do-gooders attempting to rescue a demonically-possessed adolescent girl has been done repeatedly ad nauseum over the years. The filmmakers confuse “disturbing” with “scary,” making things ugly and thinking that this will create a sense of fear.

There are a few parts that are definitely good, specifically the opening scene, the protagonist’s first interview with the girl, and most of all the end credits that compare photos with the actors with the photos of the “real-life” characters, accompanied by the “real” recording of that first interview and creepy music. Everything else ranges from dull to mildly amusing. This is the face of mediocrity—a mix of the bright and the dull, and mostly the dull. Which brings me back to “Judgment at Nuremberg.” Five minutes from the trial scenes of that movie are more powerful, and at times more horrifying, than ten “Conjuring” movies put together. The fact that “The Conjuring 2” belongs to the much-maligned horror genre is no excuse, as such great horror movies as the original versions of “The Haunting” and “Poltergeist” can attest. The movie industry can produce great intelligent films, if they thought we were interested in them.

The “Conjuring” movies are a step up from the ultimate stupidity of most horror films, so apparently Hollywood does understand we don’t want idiocies any more. But it seems that these days, they produce films as products defined by market research and focus groups. So they try to put a little bit of mood, a little bit of romance, a little bit of intelligence and a lot of splashy special effects, as if you could create great films just by following a recipe. The result is mediocrity in many shades. Watchable, yes. And this movie may be just fine for younger generations who haven’t been repeatedly exposed to the same horror gimmicks and stories over and over again. “The Conjuring 2” is mediocrity in one of its slightly better shades.

Not for Kids

Extra:

• I put “real-life” in quotation marks. Remember, this is not a documentary, this is a movie for entertainment. How much “truth” there is to any “real-life” movie is extremely debatable and, ultimately, irrelevant because films like these are designed to entertain and not inform. If you need to believe that there’s some factual truth to make a horror movie scary, then there’s a problem with the movie.
• The sound effects of this movie in a surround-sound system are great. You feel like something is thumping within your own walls.
• Using children in portrayals of demonic monsters is bad, in my opinion, especially for the child actors involved. I thought Hollywood had moved past this kind of thing decades ago. When I’m watching this, I feel like I’m witnessing the real-life abuse of a child.
• In general, focusing on the specifically demonic is also a bad thing, regardless of your beliefs. If you believe in God, then putting too much of a spotlight on His enemies is obviously bad. And if you don’t believe, then it’s still a focus on negativity that can spawn more negativity, like focusing on Nazi philosophy. I probably won’t be seeing “The Conjuring 3.”