Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Suman Roberson It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Michael Ledo "Bind" and "American Conjuring" are the same film. A family takes possession of a haunted house and vice versa. Ghost film turns into a slasher and Darren Matheson's character turns the movie into a stinker. The acting was bad and the drama written for the couple didn't make any sense...and speaking of no sense what was the do-over? Where did that suddenly come from? The other stupid twist would have been better if the audience knew about it, which would have explained why "dad" had a "stick up his.." and mom wasn't much better. .Then there is the moody 17 year old daughter (Mackenzie Mowat) who hates her step-dad and half-sister. She is not allowed to say the "S" word, but has a smart phone cover with the "F" word spelled out. Go figure that parenting.Would have been decent if they had been able to script a better character for Ben without the cliché lines.Guide: F-word. brief sex. Some gore with sledge hammer, knife, drill, and ax.

littleton_pace One of the worst pieces of "acting" I have ever seen comes from the father in this movie. He was hideously awful as an actor. Every one of his lines came off like he was reading the script right in front of his eyes. Not only him, everyone's lines in this movie were terrible. No one talks like this. Why do movie writers insist people talk like people in a soap opera? Like the mother alone saying: "Oh, crap I forgot the washing detergent" or the daughter alone saying "this phone never gets signal". And why the hell was the mother so insistent her daughter call her step-father Dad? She's 16, she can call him whatever she wants and Dad wouldn't be one of them. Stupid idiotic movie. Saving grace was the scares from the ghost woman, but they don't save what is a vomit-ridden crap-fest of lazy dialogue, terrible acting and an hour and a half of my life worse off than before I started watching.

Paul Magne Haakonsen I fell for the title of the movie, even with its blatant cash in on the recent successful "The Conjuring" movies. But hey, it is a horror movie, so I still decided to give it a go.And I did, and I managed to survive perhaps a whole 20 minutes or so into the ordeal that was "American Conjuring" before I just threw the towel in the ring and gave up, getting up and left to watch something else. Actually, not just me, but my wife did the same.I can't really give a proper synopsis of the storyline in the movie, because the movie wasn't really in gear or had gotten to any milestones by the time I gave up.What made me give up was the lack of a compelling storyline. There just was nothing that captured me and kept me in the seat. The was nothing scary anywhere in the 20 minutes that I endured. And the acting wasn't really a factor that worked in favor of the movie either, just added fuel to the reason for why I gave up.I haven't the faintest of clues what directors Dan Walton and Dan Zachary set out to accomplish with "American Conjuring", nor can I claim to have any further interest in finding out. But thumbs up for actually managing to make a movie nonetheless.I have no intentions of returning to finish "American Conjuring", not even if I got paid to do so. Once a movie fails to impress and captivate me, then the race is over, so to speak. I am sure that there are someone, somewhere out there that would find some kind of enjoyment in "American Conjuring", it just wasn't me...

S. Soma It's illuminating, I think, to consider the fact that "bad" movies have as much complexity and dimensionality, in their way, as "good" movies. After all, there are nearly as many facets to a bad movie is there are to a good movie. Just like a good movie, a bad movie must have music, sound effects, visual effects, a story, actors and acting, lighting, recording, editing, and so on.In the same way that you could take an entire university course on what made "Citizen Kane" a great movie, you COULD similarly take such a course on what made "American Conjuring" a bad movie. You wouldn't want to do it, of course, but the point is that there would be that much information to study and learn about what made it such an incredibly awful picture.That being the case, it would take far more than the space I have here to fully elaborate on the depth and breadth of the execrable- ness of this movie.But I will make one observation. For every human endeavor, and especially in art of any kind, sometimes an example is so incredibly appalling that it makes you feel bad for the people involved with it. You get the sense that they've "been punished enough" by simply being associated with such a steaming pile that you don't want to be responsible for adding to their misery. Let them mercifully scatter into the dark and concealing night."American Conjuring" ALMOST achieves that forgivable state. Almost.The reason it DOESN'T is because the movie is CALLED "American Conjuring". Anyone with a suspicious mind might think that the creators of this movie were attempting to capitalize on the success of other relatively recent but unrelated movies that have the word "conjuring" in their titles, and that they were hoping to confuse people into paying good money to watch this fly-blown manure accidentally. This would suggest evil intent and malice aforethought rather than a sad and hapless set of talentless people tragically exposed for their artlessness.Personally, I'm not suspicious of such a thing at all. Nope. Not suspicious.The sound and video masters for this movie need to be taken out on a moonless night and buried deep beneath cursed ground, sprinkled with salt, and hosed down with holy water. I'm precluded from suggesting what should happen to the people responsible for it.