'The Conjuring': Stars Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga are the best part of the film

'The Conjuring' centers on 1970s ghostbusters Lorraine and Ed Warren, who investigate a reportedly haunted house in Rhode Island. 'The Conjuring' is better than most horror films but doesn't quite live up to the movies it's referencing like 'The Exorcist.'

Michael Tackett/New Line Cinema/Warner Bros. Pictures/AP
'The Conjuring' stars Vera Farmiga.

As sympathetic, methodical ghostbusters Lorraine and Ed Warren, Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson make the old-fashioned haunted-house horror film "The Conjuring" something more than your average fright fest.

In 1971, they come to the Perrons' swampy, musty Rhode Island farmhouse – newly purchased from the bank – to investigate the demonic spirit that has begun terrorizing the couple and their five daughters – a working class family who thought they had clawed their way into a rustic dream house.

Lorraine is clairvoyant, and Ed is a Vatican-sanctioned demonologist. They're best known as the married, devoutly Catholic paranormal pros whose work with the Lutz family served as the basis for "Amityville Horror." ''The Conjuring," which boasts incredulously of being their most fearsome, previously unknown case, is built very in the '70s-style mold of "Amityville" and, if one is kind, "The Exorcist." The film opens with a majestic, foreboding title card that announces its aspirations to such a lineage.

Does it live up to that? More than most horror films, certainly. But as effectively crafted as "The Conjuring" is, it's lacking the raw, haunting power of the models it falls shy of. "The Exorcist" is a high standard, though; "The Conjuring" is an unusually sturdy piece of haunted-house genre filmmaking.

The director is James Wan of "Saw." In "The Conjuring," he goes classical. Though it comes across as a self-conscious stab at more traditional, floorboard-creaking horror, Wan has succeeded in patiently building suspense (of which there is plenty) not out of bloodiness, but those old standbys of slamming doors and flashes in the mirror.

Roger Perron (Ron Livingston) and his wife Carolyn (Lili Taylor) aren't initially suspicious when their clocks all stop at 3:07 a.m., the family dog – as is custom – turns up dead and one of the girls starts sleepwalking. But the torment grows – bruises appear on Carolyn's arms, the children are visited at night – they seek out the Warrens, whom we first see lecturing on the science of the supernatural.

They, too, have a daughter. Their general philosophy is that a demonic spirit can attach itself to a person or an object, like a tick or unpaid parking tickets. They keep a sealed-off chamber of possessed items (a spooky doll figures prominently, of course), something like a trophy room of evil.

Chad Hayes and Carey W. Hayes' screenplay smoothly melds the story lines of both families. Particularly good is Julie Berghoff's production design, a necessity for a film that spends so much time in one setting. Cinematographer John R. Leonetti's camera creeps slowly through the house.

"The Conjuring" shows its flaws, though, in its occasional digital effects representing the demons. Such choices effectively break the careful, naturalistic atmosphere Wan has created. The filmmakers have told stories of brushes with the supernatural while making the film, which only further contributes to the feeling that "The Conjuring" is too busy overstating its verisimilitude to have anything else on its mind.

But most effecting are Wilson and the wonderful, sad-eyed Farmiga. When the Perrons are in need, the Warrens come with their instruments and understanding, ready to help a family haunted by an unseen demon.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.