1. The internal comparison of the Conjuring series is basically a negative review
First of all, the story is too complicated, and a little love in Insidious 4 is superfluous, and the film even uses the "evil spirit's plan".
When it comes to dealing with evil spirits in horror themes, apart from "pretending to be a ghost", it is best not to have any play, as long as play is doomed to failure.
Take this film as an example, since the evil spirit can plan such a complex conspiracy, how can it be so easy for you to defeat it?
And, what is all this planning for? The effect is not as good as a head-on conflict.
Secondly, the center of the story, the horror is too far, it doesn't look like a horror movie, but a love or family ethics movie.
Story, or to be loyal to the subject.
A horror story, two lines, a family line, a love line, is no horror. This is embarrassing.
Some movies can create a genre, but this one can't.
Although the lyrical part of the film is not superfluous, it has a high-level sense.
Horror love, quite intimate, generally Thailand likes to play like this. (Many ghost husbands and ghost wives use this kind of routine)
In the end, the evil spirits were completely forgotten,
In the entire Soul Conjuring series, there is only the evil spirit in this film. There is no beginning, no end, no reason. Who is it and where does it come from? What to do? Totally ignored.
This is not appropriate. Use lyricism to divert the sight of terror, no matter how good the lyricism is, it is off topic.
To a certain extent, limited by the religious sensitivity of horror themes, changing the subject is a feature of Western fear.
A terrifying fig leaf/excuse has to be found, such as the consistent house in The Conjuring Universe, which is not a host at all.
Like Annabelle doll, what can fear have to do with toys?
There is also the over-the-top Conjuring 2, which did not even make any excuses for fear, and directly replaced fear with "love".
Excessive entertainment is really bad, destroying the charm of horror itself.
Of course, having said that, the market will never refuse to entertain, and although The Conjuring 2 is extremely irresponsible in its handling of horror, that doesn't prevent audiences from liking it.
Entertainment is the protective color of humanity in this era.
Without embracing entertainment, any humanities are dead ends. Including the most humane and serious horror themes.
So, you say the horror handling of The Conjuring 2 is good or bad?
Replenish:
American horror is a typical Christian ideology. Audiences without a religious background may not know what "evil spirit planning" is in a religious context, so they can only see "family and love" in this film.
America is not as pure as Japan. In Christian ideology, terror must follow religion, but religion is a taboo in business. So they found the greatest common divisor of terror and business: family and love.
I hate American horror because it consumes religion in a clever way.
This may also be a cultural conflict, for Americans, there is nothing that cannot be consumed.
2, Summons 1,2 summary;
Conjuring 1
-- A couple, evil spirit hunters. The mistress of a family, corrupted by evil spirits. The former helps the latter to exorcise the story.
--The best part of Soul Conjuration 1 is the addition of a "scientific theology" explanation of evil spirits.
Conjuring 2
-- Or the couple, a British family, a little girl, eroded by evil spirits. The story of a couple fighting against evil spirits;
——It is no longer a horror movie, forgetting the evil spirits, and becoming a family ethics drama.
3, lurking -- Annabelle -- conjuring -- nun;
They are all very typical Western-style horrors. On the whole, the horizontal contrast is the core of the horror story based on the spirit. Annabelle and the nuns can basically be ignored.
A longitudinal comparison with the horrors of the East. In terms of terror, none of them have the strength to challenge the fear of the East. Summoning the soul universe together, it is not worth a grudge. Of course, this is not a question of ability. At the expense of terror, in exchange for entertainment that Oriental Fear does not have at all. At the same time, in terms of the integrity of the story line and the production process of the scene, more than one street of oriental horror has been thrown away.
Through horror stories, it is the most interesting place that allows us to penetrate the completely different ideologies of the East and the West, within and outside religions. (Fear and eroticism are the foundation of humanity.)
4. Digression: Churches only need credibility
If you can't provoke Jesus, then scold the church.
Flirting with the church or the priest is almost the only way for Western film stories to express their religion.
The film's criticism of the church is very typical: if you have nothing to do with bullshit religious theories, if you have something to hide, pretend to be pure, and finally argue the dignity of theology.
If a supernatural event really happens, you have to be a good person among the people, self-sacrifice, and help the suffering, so it is said that the Bodhisattva is a good person.
It's interesting to think about it, Jesus has always been Jesus, but the church of Jesus has always been less of Jesus, so Catholicism has split, and Catholicism has split again. ．．The story of the separation of Catholics is much more exciting than the Bible.
Having said that, it is not entirely a subjective sin of the church.
The church is the last unit in the world that does not want to be associated with evil spirits. This is determined by the teachings of Christianity.
If you are unfortunate enough to encounter evil, the church will be more afraid than you.
Although the work of the church is to defeat the little devil and save the soul.
Why is there such a contradiction? In fact, it is very simple, but the movie is inconvenient to say. 3 reasons.
①It was all caused by Jesus
In the Age of Law and the Age of Prophets, religion was a technical task. The giant Moses, the sacrificer, and the prophet Joshua, all possessed unique skills.
But in the age of the New Testament, that is, the age of Jesus, all that religion can do is sacrifice. The clergy is the bodhisattva who saves the suffering, and there is no lotus seat of the bodhisattva.
To put it bluntly, religion has changed from a technical job to a life-threatening one.
As for the servant of God, once you meet a little ghost, no matter how big or small, it is enough for you to die once. This is called a life worth a life. Jesus confiscated all the magic weapons. If you want to save people, you must die first.
In Christian words, "If you don't go to heaven, who will go to heaven."
Otherwise, you should give up the establishment of Christianity, which has food, drink, and women, and convert to Judaism with internal and external troubles + constant wars.
This is the most popular understanding, and it follows the sacrifice logic.
②, there is a little more complicated.
Leaving aside the theory, to put it simply, "it's not easy to meet a kid."
The kid is not a matter of luck, but a matter of immortality, very serious.
Meeting a little devil proves that you are not pure and that you do not have Jesus in your heart.
Because Jesus and the little devil were like fire and water, the little devil did not dare to appear in front of Jesus.
As a clergyman, if you claim to have met an imp, where do you put Jesus' face?
The kid didn't kill you, and the other clergy had to kill you too.
So, for the church, in any case, we have to say, "We haven't seen the kid."
Remember, this sentence is "the core religious value of capitalism", which has been empowered by politics and cannot be questioned or defied.
This problem is actually very complex, easy to understand, I just briefly explain.
To add, the little devil is the test of the servant's spirituality, and apart from Jesus, no one's spirituality has so far been able to pass the test, because the symbol of death - original sin. It's true that the kid can't do Jesus, but it's okay to do you.
③, Christianity is a religious brand, the church is a religious company, and the priest is the spokesperson of the religious brand
The above two explanations are all interests analysis. For those who are not involved in religion, it is quite reasonable. But for "religious people", it can basically be ignored.
For example, for the "head sheep", sacrifice is a kind of glory, and the kind of glory that very few have the opportunity.
For a priest or priest, sacrifice is the meaning and expectation of that role.
At the same time, sacrifice is a kind of atonement logic, it is wrong wages, whether priests or ordinary people, must pay the price of "original sin".
With that being said, it’s over, so why does the church still keep away from evil spirits? (Take Christianity as an example, no other religions are involved)
There is really no way to make this question simple, I will try my best.
Because he has not given the answer to this question.
In other words, even if the priest sacrificed his life to kill the church in order to fight the kid, he couldn't handle the kid. (if there is a kid)
(The little ghost here only refers to evil spirits in a religious context, and readers without religious stance will regard it as a mental illness)
But the problem is that the irrefutable evidence base of religious history shows that it was once possible, and that it has become increasingly unsettled by humans, until now at all.
x revelations
a. In the beginning, religion was a political hoax
In this respect, the clever party of such and such has done something stupid, and it must be regretting it now.
Religion is a very handy political tool, but a certain party has engaged in atheism
But this also proves that at least xx was indeed populist at the beginning.
That said, the kid is a misunderstanding
b. In the beginning, religion was not a hoax, but now it is
This time point is Martin Luther's religious reformation
Christianity after the Reformation was thoroughly designed as a "political tool"
Today, the Vatican is obviously weak, Christianity has become a state-owned religious brand in the United States, and various countries have set up branches - churches, and selected suitable people as brand spokespersons - pastors.
This view is partially correct, if not entirely correct.
The American church manipulates the dissemination of Christianity.
That said, the kid is also a misunderstanding
c. Religion has nothing to do with politics
First of all, religion cannot be irrelevant to politics. All political models are derived from religious theory.
It doesn't matter here, it means that religion is not a creation of politics
It's just a discipline and has been replaced by science
Well, the reason for not touching the kid is very simple, because science can't solve it
Neither prove nor disprove
Religion as a discipline has become less and less like a discipline
For hundreds of years, public opinion and superstition have regained momentum, but there has not been any substantive academic breakthrough in religion.
Sociology created a new moral order that religion could not explain and assimilated sociology
In human history, religion, whether as a politics, as a discipline, or even as a folklore, has never been so depressed as it is now
We are living in an age where the sense of religion is at its weakest
The death of "human religious life" and the collapse of the religious hematopoietic mechanism - the collapse of the temple and the loss of the holy blood supply are enough to destroy the determination of "clerics" to sacrifice themselves
If religion is regarded as a discipline, then the functions of the priesthood have already been degenerated, and they are no longer capable of five loaves and two fish. Coupled with the blood supply, faith is still being tested
In other words, in this era, let alone attacking little devils, it is too difficult to be a priest with peace of mind (except for those who are mixed, and die with holy blood)
d, religion is not science, theology is true
All visible evidence shows that religion is a hoax
The invisible part does exist, there is no way
Let's first assume that religion is true. Taking Christianity as an example, then the current religious situation is very dangerous.
First of all, none of the priests were qualified, they were all abandoned because they couldn't deal with the kid
A qualified priest can completely solve this problem, which is why he became a priest - soul management
Then, not only the priests, but the current religious theory, was also killed in battle
Religious theory is the vanguard of the humanities, a piece of human history that always begins with religion
Martin's Reformation created the Second Industrial Revolution and World War II, ushering in the Industrial Age
Now, technology and numbers have in turn disintegrated religion
As a result, religion only has the function of supporting the elderly or the disabled, which is often referred to as "psychological sustenance"
This proves again that "religion is a hoax"
To sum up, if he is real, then it is really "winter is coming", and the kid has lost control.
View more about The Conjuring 2 reviews
