COURTESY: MOVIEPOSTERDB.COM
Rating: F
With performances and a story about as lively as an inanimate doll, “Annabelle” only succeeds in killing any real chance for a legitimate franchise based on “The Conjuring.”
For the film to be named after the doll that horrified audiences in last year’s “The Conjuring,” Annabelle — the eponymous doll — plays second fiddle to a tired, overdone horror trope.
Beyond the doll playing a central role in the first twenty minutes of the film, “Annabelle” progresses into a supernatural realm that reeks rather than inspiring shrieks. Instead of focusing on the creepy, fixed-face doll, the entirety of the film bases upon the main characters dealing with a cheap knock-off of the red-faced demon from “Insidious.”
And when I say cheap, I mean it. Not only is the demon not scary, it’s laughable.
The main characters don’t find it laughable, however, and while the performances aren’t anything to write home about, the performers’ collective perseverance in trying to portray fear is admirable, especially in light of the poor writing and lackluster directing.
From director John R. Leonetti — who was the cinematographer on “The Conjuring” — “Annabelle” begins in 1970s California. John (Ward Horton) and Mia Gordon (Annabelle Wallis) both inhabit a decidedly domestic life in Santa Monica until their lives are shaken up by the murders of their neighbors in true Charles Manson style.
In the process of the murders, the vengeful spirit of the deceased neighbors’ psychotic daughter — who is the doll’s namesake — possesses the Annabelle doll.
The filmmakers decided that a possessed doll wasn’t enough, however; so, in a cheese-laden twist of events, a demon is also attached to the doll.
In the series of events that follow, Mia deals with mental and emotional warfare at the hands of the malevolent demon but finds hope in Alfre Woodard as Evelyn, the owner of a bookstore, who also just happens to moonlight as an expert in the occult. This is probably the largest misstep in the film, as Woodard is an exquisite actress whose talent is completely wasted in this thinly written role.
Even in her minor role, Alfre still outshines the other performances in the film, which is a massive disappointment given the strong acting from almost every actor in “The Conjuring.”
What made “The Conjuring” work so well wasn’t the acting, though. The storytelling and plot development were some of the main strengths in the film, which were absent from “Annabelle.”
Instead of using the building of an eerie atmosphere like in “The Conjuring,” “Annabelle” focuses more on cheap scares. Loud, jarring sound effects don’t equate to real horror.
Had “Annabelle” not been based on a proven film like “The Conjuring,” the expectations would not have been as high. But when filmmakers aim to capitalize on an excellent entry in supernatural horror, the film has to be of equal quality to its predecessor.
Audiences were expecting an adrenaline-pumping, nightmare-inducing cinematic experience like “The Conjuring,” but, unfortunately, viewers will be left severely underwhelmed.
Since it’s officially October, “Annabelle” should have kicked off the Halloween season, but it’s a bigger dud than going trick-or-treating and receiving an apple in place of candy.
If you’re looking for real fright, this film won’t do it for you. But if you’re the type of person that’s scared of your shadow, you may feel as fearful as the squealing girls in the audience when I viewed this poor attempt at supernatural horror.
Save your money. Rent “The Conjuring” or watch another supernatural film on Netflix.
