Horror is in a poor state.

As mainstream production companies continue to blatantly ignore the genre unless it fulfills their ignorance by mass producing slash-and-burn style schlock-fests, indie producers are creeping their way from the woodwork with the grace of a wet cat, pumping money into smash-and-grab found footage jump-fests. Directors of horror are finding themselves increasingly hard pressed toward true originality to such an extent that ‘horror’ itself has stretched its terminology even farther than its already malleable state. Money has often been the plight of the horror film, in tangent with outright neglect. Like a bastard child in a broken home, the scary movie must struggle for the crumbs beneath the table, greedily gobbling down whichever sizable morsels fall astray before the family dog decides to fight for them.

A textbook example of the degenerative nature of finance on horror is the “Saw” franchise. What began in 2003 as an Australian short film tag teamed by director James Wan and writer Leigh Whannell escalated to a pitch that landed them the minute finance to enter their feature film in Sundance by 2004. The humble beginnings of just over a million dollars to create landed them in the number two slot Halloween weekend, grossing over 18 million. The obvious success caught the eye of Lionsgate, who gave directing over to Darren Lynn Bousman, who continued on for the next three films.

Breaking down the numbers: “Saw”‘s estimated budget of 1,200,000$ and opening box office was a result of 15xs that at 18,000,000$. “Saw II” made almost twice that in its opening weekend with over 31,000,000, but with an estimated budget of 4,000,000$; this is only 7xs improvement. And “Saw III”, with an estimated budget of a whopping 10,000,000$, barely made more than its predecessor with 33,000,000$, a measly 3xs increase.

Which might be justifiable, if the total gross was significant enough to warrant further debate. And yet this is hardly the case. “Saw” comes in with total of 55 million domestic total gross, wheres and both Saw II” and “Saw III” just make it at 87 million and an even poorer 80 million respectively.

Which is precisely why James Wan’s “The Conjuring” is a well deserved fist-raised-in-the-air for horror fans. It is an exemplary portrayal of Wan’s capabilities as a director of horror (which, if recent reports are accurate, may no longer be the case); here is a great showcase of his strengths and weaknesses, both prevalent but neither substantial, tied with a neat ribbon of accessibility and style.

There is little denying Wan’s ability to craft tight and atmospheric “mood-lighting” in his horror. It is not often that the word ‘spooky’ is used in the horror genre without irony, yet here it is a resounding compliment. Wan blends the eerie and entertaining with great success; I cannot remember the last time I had so much fun at the theater. Un-oiled, creaking hinges, shattered light bulbs, fallen picture frames and jerking bedsheets are just a small handful of the creepy tropes that have become all but banal in recent years of dime-a-dozen scream-shows that Wan has managed to rekindle with a spark of wonder and horror.

The story dabbles (with little success) in the “true story” behind Ed and Lorraine Warren, a pair of paranormal investigators. Ed a demonologist and his wife a clairvoyant, have investigated everything from the supposed Haunting in Connecticut to the “actual” Amityville Horror. An evident weakness of the film is its bookend-style reliance on “based on actual events” for opening and ending scares, but luckily this is conveniently glossed over during the meat of the venture for more sinister goals.

Vera Farmiga’s maternal longing, look of lost innocence and estranged eyeballs make her extremely comfortable and well suited for horror. A surprising degree of believable relations coexist with Patrick Wilson, already contented to Wan’s brand of fright despite the fact that he always, always, looks confused in any scene he is in.

Does Patrick Wilson even know when he is in a movie?

What Wan truly lacks in his recent horror is compelling storytelling. His directing is often top notch and, if anything, neglecting true appraisal by his peers, yet he often weaves meandering and seemingly mindless excuses to lead us to the intended moment of dread. He rarely, if ever, fails to deliver once we get to the end result, but his reliance on a suspension of disbelief (and an all too often religious crutch) make the journey feel like one is enjoying a nature walk, but without the comfort of a trail or map. Or compass. Or travel buddy.

But despite all of this, it is important that I bring it all around. “The Conjuring” is a horror film by a more than capable director that, despite a budget of 20 million and a weekend gross of 41 million, has since grossed a total of over a 130 million (even Forbes is impressed), despite its harshly unjust R-rating. “Saw II” and “Saw III” combined just outdo that.

I’ll let you do the math.