LoupGarouTFTs This movie can be summed up in one line: If the family owns a dog, kill it. Yep, that's the quality fill it is. The dog barks, so the guy chops it up with an ax (off camera), with barely anyone giving it a second thought.There was absolutely no attempt to build tension, develop characters, or create an atmosphere. The movie opens with the murders at the orphanage, then does a quick cut to a reporter telling all, followed by the family buying the house. Why? At least in the Amityville Horror, the family knew that they were gettig a deal because of tragedy. Even when the girl comes right out and says, "you don\t get a house for the price Ben is paying," the stupid parents don't think a thing about it. All of a sudden, there is bloodletting everywhere. And not even good, schlock horror bloodletting. After a while there is even a "Christine" moment, when headlights come on accompanied by the same musical sting as in Christine. Ugh.Finally, the twist ending doesn't work. Did the house decide it made a mistake and hit the rewind button? Did time really rewind, meaning everyone (including the dog) was still alive? Or did the house just say, "Okay, Ben, you had your chance and you went nuts too fast on me. Let the girls play now" and incapacitate him long enough for them to kill him? Either way, except for the dog, I don't think I really care.It was bad. Just bad. If you can't catch it on free Pluto TV, like I did, then don't try to catch it at all. Even a Red Box rental is too much to pay.

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...

Karl 'Moonpig' Frost I watched this as part of my usual Halloween horror marathon without expecting much and was pleasantly surprised. Okay it's not exactly groundbreaking, but for anyone who likes horrors anyway it moves along nicely with plenty of varied events throughout to keep you interested.I'm not going to say it's overly original, although it certainly has fresher ideas than some movies out there, and the acting in the first 10 minutes/some of the makeup is woeful, but once you get past the opening and get into it there's an entertaining enough film.It has no similarity to The Conjuring at all, and would have avoided any comparison and been viewed more favourably had it stuck to it's original title of Bind.

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.