Ouija (2014) & Ouija 2 – Origin of Evil (2016)

Ouija (2014 is an effective horror film that manages to quickly establish a dark, eerie atmosphere conducive to fear. Unfortunately, Ouija starts well, but eventually sinks and leaves you feeling like you’ve wasted your time.

Director Stiles White captures our attention with a particularly disturbing atmosphere… You can feel that something frightening is about to happen and you’re waiting with bated breath!

OK, the script isn’t very innovative. Besides, there are plenty of other stories that revolve around ‘ouija boards’, of course! But if you’re still a little uneasy about seances, don’t hesitate for a second to see this film, which is sure to entertain you… But be warned: ghosts may be lurking in the shadows behind your doors! Don’t turn off all the lights… unless you really want to experience the fear to the end!

On the other hand, if you’re a fan of Conjuring (2013) this film will seem flat, even insipid.

Initially scheduled a little ahead of schedule, Ouija has been a long time coming, with a number of twists and turns in pre-production delaying the start of production. Nevertheless, released in due form, this little horrific production arrives with a few cards up its sleeve (the lead role is played by Olivia Cooke (Bates Motel), Lin Shaye (Insidious) makes an appearance (and her little presence is excellent!) while McG (Terminator Salvation) was assigned to direct before withdrawing). In the end, it was a lucky hand that wasn’t exploited all that well, judging by the result. Relatively classic in its development, with its paradoxically predictable and dynamic little scares, and dialogue that’s been seen over and over again, the film only goes off the beaten track on very rare occasions, which means it will eventually be forgotten once it’s withdrawn from cinemas.

It’s a decent film, but nothing more than that, because there are far worse things out there. The theme is interesting, and the first part of the film is pleasant and intriguing. But the result is disappointingly average, with an interesting subject that ends up being a failure. You’d be better off watching films such as the masterpiece The Exorcist or Insidious 1 and 2, which are excellent and have spirits as their subject (even if they don’t have Ouija, where people evoke, talk about and play this famous game), than this one.

For those of you who only watch these films for the eye candy, you should know that they also feature the more or less pretty Ana Coto, Bianca A. Santos and Shelley Hennig.

Aside from the disappointing collaboration between Jason Blum and Michael Bay, Ouija comes as no great surprise. Despite the use of tricks that still have their little effect, we feel that the whole thing could have been a lot scarier if it had gone a little deeper, like the sound effects, for example. The digital special effects are often very ugly. The less demanding will be satisfied with this half-baked result, while others will find Ouija hollow and will be left wanting more.

★★

Finally, its sequel – Ouija: Origin of Evil (2016)

Not bad, but nothing really new. Not as bad as a lot of people are saying… but far from an excellent film, unfortunately. In fact, looking back, I’d say it’s not even good. I was obviously expecting much better. It’s nice, but nothing extraordinary. The film follows the usual horror motifs. I was as taken by the beginning of this film as I was disappointed by the end, and that’s exactly how I felt about the first one.

In the first film, I’d already said to myself that the pseudo-twist at the end was pointless (‘We’ve still got a bit of film: what are we going to do?’), but that didn’t change anything, because everything had already been said: the obligatory trip to the psychiatric hospital, the curse stemming from a dark family history, the lamp that flickers at the wrong moment and a whole host of doors that don’t obey very well.
In short!

Perhaps more successful than its predecessor, ‘Ouija: Origin of Evil’ is not a great horror film. It sorely lacks the tension to keep us glued to our seats and is too sanitised to convince true fans of the genre. Like the first, it remains a horror film for teenagers, more designed to sell more Ouija boards than to make a mark in the annals of fantasy cinema. But it’s still worth seeing just for its two young actresses, who are worth keeping a close eye on. The characters have a certain depth and are superbly well acted (the excellent Elizabeth Reaser and little Lulu Wilson, creepy as can be), and it’s effectively directed, so ‘Ouija: Origins’ surpasses the first part, but its qualities never really manage to make us forget the classicism of a story whose conclusion we already know in advance. A good effort, then… but it’s not clear that we’ll be clamouring for a third episode just yet.

Thanks to its vintage Universal logo and the presentation of its title, ‘Ouija: Origins’ easily sets the mood for the 60s, as does the excellent soundtrack. The director has tried to add an old-fashioned grain to the image, and it’s a great success. There’s a certain carefree quality to it, just as there is here in the first love affair of the eldest daughter. But the family lives in the shadow of its father’s bereavement and its consequences. The mother’s financial difficulties have dragged her into this dishonest spiral, and when the youngest daughter reveals genuine supernatural gifts, she chooses to exploit them, convincing herself inwardly of the validity of her action by the relief it brings her client. Alas, the deception she herself has previously demonstrated is about to backfire when an evil being deceives her in turn through the intermediary of her daughter.

The intelligence with which this story is told, through a mirror effect, contrasts sharply with the stupidity of the first film and its hollow characters. There’s an almost immediate attachment between the viewer and the mother and her two children, characters who are much more fully developed than usual and whose confrontation with supernatural forces will inevitably involve resolving their inner ills. It’s intelligent and it feels good!

I found a review that I’m going to quote in part: ‘However, by choosing the prequel route, Flanagan shoots himself in the foot. Because of the first opus, the viewer now knows the family’s fateful fate. No matter how hard the film tries to add to the background of the curse, it does nothing! The ins and outs of the story already seem to be known in advance and never manage to be transcended by a very successful form conveying a heavy atmosphere or by an increase in the power of the paranormal manifestations on screen.’

Clearly I couldn’t have put it better myself! The mechanisms of horror are not easy to put in place. Every audience has its own sensibility and vision of horror, as well as its own favourite subjects. A horror film is a game in which the director makes the viewer believe things, through the music, the angle of the camera and subterfuges that everyone thinks they are anticipating, but in vain. That’s what the fabulous James Wan has understood, for example, and he’s a model to follow in genre cinema… even if I didn’t love Malignant (2021)!