"Your Name" weaves a delightful tale of two high schoolers, Mitsuha and Taki, whose lives take an unexpected turn when they start swapping bodies. The unique and captivating plot keeps you on the edge of your seat, as you follow their incredible journey of self-discovery and connection. With a perfect blend of romance, humor, and emotion, this movie is a must-watch for anyone looking to experience a magical and touching story about the power of fate and friendship. Highly recommended!

Your Name is a film that captivates its audience from beginning to end with its superb and incredibly unique storyline. The body swap genre is one that has been explored in various films, but the way it was intertwined with a love story in Your Name is brilliant. What sets this film apart is its refusal to hold the audience's hand. The first act is dedicated to determining what exactly is going on, and this ambiguity only serves to make the movie better. The final act is incredible, with high stakes and quiet moments that help the audience process the intense emotion the characters are experiencing. There is so much to like here, and I truly think it is one of the best animated screenplays ever created.
The performances in "Your Name" are also noteworthy. Watching the dubbed version, I felt that everyone did a fantastic job. The chemistry between the characters was superb, and nothing was overly acted, which is a problem in some anime. The voice actors managed to convey the emotions of the characters without overdoing it, making the performances feel natural and believable.
The direction in Your Name is nothing short of amazing. There were so many unique scenes that can only be done in animation, and each one was painstakingly crafted in such a way that portrays the larger narrative. The animation itself was breathtaking, with fantastic landscapes and 3D integration. It is the best animated visuals I think I have ever seen.
In conclusion, Your Name is a masterpiece that deserves all the praise it has received. Its unique storyline, great performances, and stunning visuals make it a must-watch for anyone who loves animation. The film's direction is impeccable, and the attention to detail is outstanding. I highly recommend this movie to anyone who wants to experience a heartfelt, emotional journey that they will never forget.
Score: 98%
Verdict: Masterpiece

The most romantic movies I have been seen. This is a must watched movie in lifetime!

An absolutely stunning film!
There is nothing to even marginally dislike about 'Your Name'. The animation is sensational, breathtaking in fact. The amount of detail, particularly in Tokyo, is insane. It's utterly gorgeous to watch.
Then you have the magnificent story, which is filled to the brim with feeling and meaning. I felt everything that it intended me to. It's also paced to perfection and is told through two memorable characters in Taki (Ryūnosuke Kamiki) and Mitsuha (Mone Kamishiraishi).
Kamiki and Kamishiraishi are excellent in the lead roles. Of course I don't understand Japanese and was using subtitles, yet I still felt every intended emotion from those two. Class from them. Of the others, Ms. Okudera (Masami Nagasawa) is the one that sticks out most to me.
If all that wasn't enough, you even have a tremendous soundtrack and score to boot. It really does all make for a fantastic viewing experience, one I will be revisiting no doubt and one I would undoubtedly recommend.

**They're no strangers, yet they've never met.**
Probably the most anticipated anime since the final film of Mr. Miyazaki. Because people know what these guys are capable of. This is one per cent sci-fi and 99 per cent fantasy. The concept is not new for us. From 'Freaky Friday' to 'The Lake House', even the recent American television film 'The Swap', you will remember a handful of names once you read this film's synopsis. Yet the film was so good, because of how well the theme was utilised.
We all know the technical brilliance of '5 Centimeters Per Second' and the beautiful romance from 'The Garden of Words'. This is an excellent mix of those two. If love either of them, or both, then you will love it as well. But if you ask me, my favourite is still 'The Garden of Words' from this director. I liked this film, enjoyed thoroughly, so liking it less than that means not a bad flick. Surely a film to recommend for anime fans, as well as for animation's (western audience).
The story of two teenagers, one from the rural Japan mountain region and the other one from Tokyo. The plot revolves around a comet that is to pass by very close to the earth. But before that event, the girl is bored with her life, so she dreams of living in a big city and that too as a boy. One day her wish comes true when she wakes up as she swapped bodies, including most of the memories with a boy from Tokyo.
For her, it is to live as she wanted and make use of the opportunity. But for him, it is like a curse, hence becomes rebellious. This thing keeps happening frequently for days and weeks. After some times, realising the phenomena is between two, they make a deal and strict order of Dos and Don'ts while away. All this until the day of comet and everything changes forever. Searching for the truth and the result of it leads to the end of the tale.
> ❝Treasure the experience. Dreams fade away after you wake up.❞
Unlike Miyazaki, Makot Shinkai's storytelling is quite for the matured audience. It targets adults more than the children. Particularly for not shying away to include naturally occurring events in such situation as the story develops, despite/even though the film revolves around the teens/kids. As for this flick, the concern is not big, but it depends on the nation and its culture you belong to. It is very much acceptable and as the story progress, the best things keep replacing another till the finale. So hooked to it is assured.
The film length was good and so the pace of the narration. Well written screenplay, which was based on the book of the same name. But the director admits the inspiration from the previous flicks with similar themes. They have used the real places of the anime version with fictional names, but most of the Tokyo remains same and they all were awesome.
In many scenes, the camera panning was a treat. Especially the framerate was high, so no jerks, hence very pleasurable visual experience. Like I mentioned earlier, this is a unique film, despite not a original idea. The film proved the Japan is not overshadowed by Hollywood, particularly after the decline of animes in the recent years. It's up to the quality of the product, if so, then those glory days can be brought back for animes. Anyway, now this film holds the record for highest grossed anime.
Apart from technical dominance, the story is also enchanting. If you like romance theme, this will serve you well. A good film for date night. But usually people would skip animation for such occasion and one should not mix up that with anime. Because why I always put apart the anime and animation is, the animes are good at beautiful romance, while its counterpart from the west focus more on comedy and adventure. But the common thing from them is the well explored fantasy theme.
Usually the ends are guessable for a film like this and the same case for this in here. Only as a result of the story, you would know what's coming, but not the frame by frame scenes of it. Yeah, I liked this conclusion, the final lines said might bring you tears in your eyes, romantically, if you are an emotional person. One of the best endings, even though it was clichéd. And the credits start to roll up, while you begin to recall everything you just saw in the last 100 minutes. A must see film, so highly recommended by my side. Now I've to wait for another couple of years for such film.
_8/10_

It has beautiful animation and beautiful characters. It is a funny, sweet and emotional roller coaster of a crowd-pleaser that manages to win your heart.

I would never take it away from anyone, but I was underwhelmed.
_Final rating:★★ - Definitely not for me, but I sort of get the appeal._

Following the outbreak of "Simian Flu" that has all but wiped out human civilisation, an exploration into the jungle to inspect the remnants of an old dam introduces "Malcolm" (Jason Clarke) - rather aggressively - to the apes that occupy the woods. "Caesar" (Andy Serkis) is their leader, and keen to ensure a peace so he makes it clear that each should stick to their own territory, and leave each other be. It seems the folks need the dam, though, and after a bit of toing and froing, they manage to convince the apes to allow them to try to make the dynamos work - before what's left of their city runs out of power. This uneasy truce has opponents on both sides, but it's the scheming "Koba" (Toby Kebbell) who finally takes a step that ensures that war cannot be avoided. Which will win out in the end? Will either side actually win at all? Matt Reeves plays his cards really well here. He manages the sense of menace between the two parties with an expert hand, allowing the initial feelings of partnership and hope that turn into fear, betrayal and malevolence to enthral us. The characterisations - especially amongst those long fed up of living at the whim of humanity - deliver effectively too. "Koba" exudes an almost evil persona, an unscrupulousness and ruthlessness that would make the original Caesar blush. The photography is cleverly directed using the ruined urban and similarly dense forest scenarios to add richness and peril to the pyrotechnics, the superbly authentic looking visual effects and the general look of violence and chaos that descends as the film reaches what is clearly just the end of part one. It's a solid, characterful, story that isn't necessarily an improvement on the originals, but is certainly a strong and worthy successor.

The story may not be the most original, with its Shakespearean turn overs, but it is well shaped and Serkis performance is remarkable.
The animation of the apes, which was already superb in the previous movie, finally reaches a level in which you can believe they are more real than the human actors.
Maybe a bit too long, but a good time for a not totally dumb movie.

Very epic movie, strong storyline and also stunning graphics.. This is very recommended movie to watch with entire family.

Might be my favorite Disney movie. My girls love it, and the hidden relationship metaphors are fun for adults to figure out.

An enjoyable tale about Rapunzel.
'Tangled' kicks off Disney's animated releases for the 2010s in very strong fashion. It's nicely created, with fun characters and a hearty storyline. It actually sets a lot of the foundations that 2013's 'Frozen' uses, there's a fair amount of similarities between the two.
Mandy Moore does a terrific job in the lead role, she's brings an energetic edge to the character alongside good humour. Zachary Levi (Flynn) and Donna Murphy (Mother Gothel) are more than decent in their respective parts. You also have the amusing (non-speaking) Maximus.
It's still very much the usual fairytale/princess thing, but it manages to add a lively turn to proceedings which keeps it entertaining.

Been wanting to watch this movie for quite some time. But then I wasn't sure if I really wanted to watch this or not because it might be just like Frog Prince (which I haven't seen completely yet). Even if I was tired (slept late the night before and woke up early when we got a phone call that Matt and Toby will come over to play Wii) and I didn't have money anymore, I wanted to watch this movie just to keep Matt entertained.
I wasn't disappointed. I really like this movie. It was like a classic Disney movie: a Princess, her prince charming, animal sidekick, and the best of all, MUSIC! I liked how the Princess was not the typical Disney princess. Rapunzel was strong and active. She wasn't very timid and proper like the usual Disney princess that I grew up watching. Flynn Rider was really cute which was a big plus. He was really charming. The animal sidekicks, Mascal and Maximus, were funny. All in all, I really like this movie and I strongly recommend it to all.

Tangled main characters really remember Aladdin's. The chameleon character could have been more juicy and it also repeats with stubborn determination Disney's intent of making any other animal to behave like dogs.
All in all, it is a stereotypical Disney movie that nails the template but it does it so well that it is also really entertaining. In addition, they get to add some of the fresh characteristics brought by Shrek to the scene.

Seeing _2001: A Space Odyssey_ on the big screen for the first time is an eye-opener. The vastness of space, the eerily precise shots of the spacecraft, and the careful pacing all come to life in a way a TV could never match. The immersive sound design, from the opening hum to the famous orchestral music, and in particular the equally orchestrated silence filling the cinema, makes you feel like you're part of the journey. Details that might seem faint on a smaller screen are clear and striking here: the textures of the spacesuits, the contrast in colours, and the scale of Kubrick's vision. This unique visual and auditory experience in a cinema is a must for any film enthusiast, as it genuinely lets the film's grandeur and mystery sink in.

Pleasing on a technical level, even with barely anything to grasp story-wise.
'2001: A Space Odyssey' looks and sounds exquisite, it really is seriously impressive in that regard for a film from 1968. That is, however, the only reason that this gets a passing rating from me if I'm to be totally truthful. The plot itself is rather disappointing, with not much meat on the bones.
I get it's evidently going for the more artsy approach, made clear by the lack of dialogue/bona fide narrative alongside plenty of ambiguity. It's a Stanley Kubrick film after all, not that I've seen much of his work (this be the first, in fact); moreso what I've heard through the grapevine down the years. There are also a lot of long held, empty-feeling (as intended, I'd imagine) shots that bothered me throughout. It just didn't entice me, that's all. I can still respect it.
Given the aforementioned, the cast are basically nonentities - as harsh as that may sound. Douglas Rain does a good job, in fairness, and William Sylvester is alright. I can't say I blame those onscreen all that much, as they aren't exactly given much opportunity to showcase themselves.
As has been the case with a couple of other movies down the years, I'm certainly content to file this one with the 'I clearly didn't get it and I'm cool with that' tag. I'm still glad I watched it. I do appreciate it, if only technically, and naturally love that others love it.

This is the most pretentious crap ever made - but is it an amazing film? No. But it is an amazing _**piece of art**_. This is worthy of the label of film, but the label of film is not worthy of this. Kubrick has crafted a stellar and surreal experience, one of the greatest **_pieces of art_** ever made. Why, you ask, do I obtain from referring to this as a film? Because it is simply not, it is an overpowering sensory experience, not a film. If I seem to be losing my point, here is it straight. It’s too good to be a film. I wouldn’t say this is enjoyable, or entertaining, but it is a stunning experience. One of the greatest **_pieces of art_** ever made. I only lost a point because it’s not a film. Kubrick is often critiqued for his icy cold view of human emotion, and this is no different. The most affecting and human sequence in the film comes ironically (spoilers) from the death of a machine. Check this out, it may not be entertaining, but it IS worth it.

Absolute classic, must see, one of the best scifi movies ever made

From the opening bars of Richard Strauss's "Also spracht Zarathustra" you just know that this is going to be something unique - and that it is. Apes, playing by a puddle - occasionally engaging in some noisy territorial warfare with their neighbours until one morning, this great black monolith appears. Shortly afterwards these creatures have realised that old bones make new weapons - and that these weapons can kill! The next phase jumps forward four million years later to a mission to Jupiter where a crew of five astronauts under the helpful gaze of their "HAL" computer are making their way across space. Two of them: "Poole" (Gary Lockwood) and "Bowman" (Keir Dullea) are not in hibernation and are regularly engaging with there outwardly affable digital companion. It doesn't take the humans long to conclude that "HAL" might be both malfunctioning and malevolent, and all of a sudden the life of all the people on board becomes precariously balanced. Is "HAL" malfunctioning, or is it fulfilling it's programming and the crew are just not read in? What might that objective be? We know that the monolith has been seen since the apes, what does that mean? What is the symbolism of this perfectly hewn tablet of granite? Kubrick was visionary with this work. It is a tale of evolution, or progress - of intelligence. It doesn't always make immediate sense, but after you've watched it a few times, there are extra ingredients to this potent mix of adventure and intellect that emerge. The ending is a tad surreal for my rather non-lateral-thinking brain, but the trip they take and the trip we take are eventful and thought provoking. Of course, back in 1968 2001 was a lifetime away and obviously none of this came to pass, but if we renamed it 3001 and recalibrated, well I wonder...! Great stuff.

**A magnificent film, with beautiful music and great visuals... but smug, empty and unforgivably overrated.**
Stanley Kubrick is, for me, one of those directors who so quickly impresses us with a great film, as it makes us doubt his competence with an absolutely pathetic trash. I know that the director's fans are going to crucify me, but that's how I think, and I even say more: with each Kubrick film I see, I am more convinced that an aura of unjustified “cult” genius has been created around him. I loved some of his movies like “Spartacus”, “Dr. Strangelove”, “Shining” and “Eyes Wide Shut”, but thinking about them and trying to compare them with “Clockwork Orange” and “Full Metal Jacket” is strange. They don't look like the work of the same director.
Released in the 1960s, at a time when the space race was at its height and when the future of Humanity seemed, more and more, to be outside our planet, the film addresses the question of the evolution of the human species in a “sui generis” way: it starts with monkeys and goes to the first contacts with extraterrestrial beings. The film was considered one of the defining milestones of sci-fi as a cinematographic genre, and I believe that this is indisputable. It's also one of the rare sci-fi movies that seems concerned with being scientifically credible, yet not without flaws that a good scientist will spot (and we might not).
Set in a hypothetical future, the film shows what space explorations and life in colonies made in space and on the Moon would be like. However, it is still ironic that, after the 60s and 70s, space exploration has been so secondary that many questions, even today, whether we really should spend industrial amounts of money and resources on it. The future that Kubrick imagined in 2001 seems, in 2022, even more imaginative and far from happening than when the film was released. However, some things really did happen and are, today, normal: this is the case of video calls and the extraordinary advances in robotics and artificial intelligence.
Among the various merits of this film, we have to highlight the extraordinary visual beauty, the way the director worked with the visual and special effects and the excellent camera work. At a time when CGI was a mirage far from a filmmaker's mind, this film gives us images and visuals that look like they were made this year. The film simply hasn't aged a single day: we have clear images, magnificently crafted light and details, excellent sound effects, a cinematography that makes envy to many 21st century films and, also important, a magnificent soundtrack where “Blue Danube” and “Also Sprach Zarathustra” stand out, helping to popularize these melodies.
Despite these indisputable merits, I think this film deserves to be on the list of the most overrated films I've ever seen. And this is due, in good part, to everything else that I didn't say, and which is essential in a good film. Let's start with the absence of a script and horrible pace: for almost three hours, the film drags on unbearably in scenes of great beauty, but with nothing to say. It's truly exasperating. The only moments where the film really gains interest are when the ship's supercomputer turns against the astronauts, and even that segment feels loose, as if the script were a patchwork quilt. The allusions to aliens didn't fascinate me either, it's a regular cliché when making a movie set in space. One point that also didn't help is the lack of good actors, or any decent work for them to do, and the fact that Kubrick shows us life on the space stations as if it were a stay in a luxury hotel. And what about the extraordinary sense of arrogant conceit that the film conveys? We are the ones who have to recognize if the film is good, it can't be the film telling us that every minute!

I saw it for the first time when I was in middle school. I thought it was the worst movie ever. Then, some time later, as an adult, I rewatched it and was amazed at how wonderful it was. It was so beautiful and magnificent that I could not believe it was made in 1968, and I thought it was an unprecedented and solemn historical work, like Goethe's "Faust" in literature, one of the greatest masterpieces of cinema that mankind has ever possessed. First of all, it is a film in which dialogue is reduced to the utmost limit, and even if it had been in black and white, I could have watched it ten times without getting tired of it, regardless of whether I could have endured the "silence. It's Kubrick's magic that you can watch this film without any annoying sound effects like in "Jaws" but with classical music and with your heart rate regulated like in Charlie Chaplin's silent films. I don't know how well this film was received in the U.S. at the time, but in Japan, many people shy away from it, saying it is difficult to understand.

_**Inscrutable space science-fiction as cinematic art**_
The discovery of an ancient extraterrestrial monolith on the Moon leads to a mission to Jupiter, but the astronauts have unexpected complications with their vessel’s onboard computer, HAL 9000. William Sylvester plays an official of US Astronautics in the first hour while Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood play the two functioning astronauts in the second half.
Created by Stanley Kubrick (director/writer) and Arthur C. Clarke (writer), "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968) is an artistic sci-fi film about human evolution, advanced technology, the wonders of space, the routineness of space travel, artificial intelligence and the mystery of extraterrestrial life. It mixes elements of “Planet of the Apes,” which debuted over six weeks earlier, with aspects of “Star Trek: The Motion Picture,” which came out eleven years later and was obviously influenced by this one-of-a-kind movie.
It begins with the “dawn of man” as a curious introduction before jumping forward to the 21st Century, which has been called the longest flash-forward in cinematic history. The depictions of space travel and life-in-space feel wholly authentic.
But “2001” is peculiar in that it rejects traditional techniques of narrative cinema and is often a nonverbal experience, which leaves some viewers in awe and others bored. It’s not about conventional thrills, but rather disquieting awe. It’s not easy entertainment, but meditative, transcendent art. The 1985 sequel, “2010: The Year We Make Contact,” is more standard and less ambiguous yet a worthy companion piece.
The soundtrack mixes classical compositions, e.g. “Also Sprach Zarathustra” by Richard Strauss, with four creepy modernistic compositions by György Ligeti. The parts of the movie that utilize the latter pieces really evoke an unsettling sense of the unknown.
My favorite part is the astronauts’ exchange with HAL, which involves almost an hour of the runtime and is the only part of the film that generates a low-key sense of suspense.
Personally, I don’t believe that humankind began as apes (rolling my eyes). But, even if this were true, where did the apes come from? Did they just spontaneously manifest by accident? If so, when? How? Biogenesis is a scientific axiom meaning “life proceeds from life.” So what life form originally created the apes or the simple organisms that supposedly evolved into apes?
The film runs 2 hours, 29 minutes.
GRADE: A-/B+

I got this movie recently when it came out on Ultra HD Blu-ray simply because it was missing in my collection and, being a Sci-Fi fan, missing 2001 in my collection simply would not do. It is a movie that was made to rely almost entirely on the visuals. It could be said that it is a visual symphony if that makes sense. Thus it was filmed on 70 mm film and in 6 channel stereo which, at the time was a huge thing. Thanks to this it actually made some sense to transfer this movie to Ultra HD Blu-ray since the originals were really good enough even though the movie was made in 1968.
I remember watching this movie as a kid and was profoundly disappointed. I thought come on, where’s the adventure, not to mention any form of action? Today I can more appreciate it for what it is. A visually stunning movie. I also can more appreciate the fact that the movie is trying to be scientifically accurate instead of going all out on the fiction part. The parts where gravity, or rather the lack thereof, was portrayed, that was really high tech movie making at the time. I also noticed now, when re-watching it, that all the screens are actually flat which also was really far in the future at the time. Actually it was still pretty much in the future back in 2001.
However, even today, I have to say that I find the movie excruciatingly boring. It is two and a half hour long and it moves very, very slowly. It takes 50 minutes of movie time before we actually get to the main part of the movie and get onto the Discovery for instance. No matter how great the visuals are, there’s only so much boredom I can stand before it starts to get to me.
In the last 30 minutes or so the movie starts to become very psychedelic. The part where Bowman is pulled into the vortex, the stargate, is going on forever and in the end it just becomes a blur of headache inducing color effects. The final parts of the movie with the three Bowmans of different ages is just weird.
So,as this is a non-professional and personal take on the movie I cannot really motivate more than 3 out of 5 stars.
I hadn’t actually planned to review this movie. Everything has really already been said about it but I could not refrain after having read this crap at Rotten Tomatoes:
Critics Consensus: One of the most influential of all sci-fi films — and one of the most controversial — Stanley Kubrick’s 2001 is a delicate, poetic meditation on the ingenuity — and folly — of mankind.
It’s pretty well known that Rotten Tomatoes is the absolutely worst movie rating site around and the so called “critics” are useless culture elite morons with an over-inflated opinion about themselves at best and politically motivated SJW asswipes at worst but still.
What the hell is controversial about it? Reality check, there’s really nothing controversial about it at all. It is just a fictional story in the future. Then we have that crap “the folly”. What bloody folly? If anything the movie shows a much better future than what we got. A future where the politicians apparently promoted advancement of science and space exploration which is the direct opposite to the money and oxygen wasters we have today.
Sure, if you indulge too much in smoking funny mushrooms or are politically motivated you can probably “interpret” the hell out of any movie and “find” whatever message you want but it is still bullshit.
Well, that was my (controversial?) take on 2001.

The eighth wonder of the world. Easily 30+ viewings since I was a little kid. Nothing new to say here; simply wanted to add another pair of hands to the ocean of applause for my absolute favorite thing, the only indisputably perfect movie, the answer to the question of Is Life Worth Living, Man's greatest achievement, two thousand one a burger-flipping space odyssey

I believe that we should call it a modernism show, albeit exhibited in the form of a movie. While it might feel "boring", it forces you to rethink what philosophical level that a two-hour film can achieve. The focus on questions about life, intelligence, and time, is worth more attention than the sci-fi part (though the special effect of this movie is already way ahead of its time).

There are many great predictions hinting to future (it is from 1968 - can you believe it?) innovations throughout the movie. I might not have found all them because I keep falling asleep while watching it but I will keep trying to find them all.

Touching!
Despite evidently not watching this until today, I've always heard about the sad tag that many associate with 'The Notebook' - and I can see why. Given I didn't know anything other than that, I was not anticipating how the film portrays its story - which is effective and rather heartbreaking. I'm not one to get properly emotional to movies, though hit the feels this one does still certainly do.
The film features impressive performances from Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams, as well as James Garner and Gena Rowlands. In smaller roles, Joan Allen and James Marsden are relatively solid too. If I had to nitpick, which it would very much be, I would've shortened the run time ever so slightly; could've been wrapped up quicker, but no biggie.

A gently touching look at an elderly couple who must deal with present day mental illness told through a retrospective of their not uneventful lives. Rachel McAdams is "Allie", a young girl from a wealthy family who falls for "Noah" (Ryan Gosling) but her mother wants much better for her, so takes her away to their city home and keeps all of his (365) letters. He joins the Army and fights in WWII and, after time, she meets the handsome, wealthy James Marsden ("Lon") but before she marries, she returns to their old stomping ground and... To be fair, the young love/boy from the wrong side of the tracks story elements of the plot are a bit old hat. It's the delicate mechanics of the film that work best - James Garner ("Duke") is reading a story to dementia suffered "Allie" (Gena Rowlands) about the shenanigans of a young couple in the 1940s without us necessarily realising how poignant and apposite his story is. Gradually we become more invested in their lives and as the story starts to knit together, we start to appreciate just how hard it can be for a couple where one has this most cruel of illnesses. Good performances all around, and from Joan Allen as her interfering mother make this an engaging drama with a sharp end!

'The Conjuring' is an extremely solid supernatural horror. I admit that I did find it less interesting as it went on, but even so I did comfortably enjoy seeing the progression of the story; I like that the plot doesn't majorly meander, each stage is clear.
It doesn't rely on cheap jump scares either, which is something I was expecting it to utilise. The supernatural elements here are very well done, we don't see terribly much of the demons, at least early on, so any appearances are effective. The stuff with the kids/mum is convincing too.
I was happy to see Vera Farmiga appear onscreen, I remember her fondly from 2011's 'Source Code' and have wanted to see her in lead roles since - she's excellent in this. Patrick Wilson and Lili Taylor are also notable performers, while Joey King has one particularly great scene.
I'd class this as more creepy than scary, admittedly I seldom find movies scary (just the way my brain is wired with fiction). I can obviously still sense when something is unsettling though, anything with kids being possessed does the job in that regard.
How this franchise has ten features and I hadn't even seen one is a mystery to me. Better late than never, hopefully this strong first entry is a sign of things to come.

"Ed Warren" (Patrick Wilson) and his wife "Lorraine" (Vera Farmiga) are renowned paranormal investigators drafted in by the at-their-wits-end "Perron" family to their remote Rhode Island farmhouse that they are convinced is possessed. It doesn't take them long to realise that this whole area has been the scene of Satanic worship since time immemorial, and those lingering spirits have got it in for the new occupants of the house - and their five increasingly hysterical daughters. James Wan really does develop this story with an effective degree of menace and Ron Livingston and Lili Taylor work well together as the parents scared out of their pants by the goings-on in their dream home that is turning into a nightmare that perhaps even an exorcism won't resolve. Joseph Bishara presents us with an eerily effective musical accompaniment to this story and the acrobatic and prosthetic visual effects all contribute effectively to create a real sense of malevolence that, unusually for many in this genre - it has a degree of plausibility too. Big screen experience is better especially in a busy cinema, and well worth a watch.