Showing posts with label Stephanie Sigman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stephanie Sigman. Show all posts

Tuesday, 22 August 2017

Review: Annabelle - Creation





Annabelle: Creation
Cert: 15 / 109 mins / Dir. David F. Sandberg / Trailer



Since the early days of cinema, film-makers have had a fascination with children's toys and the macabre. There's a certain uncanny juxtaposition to be made between the enforced innocence of cherished playthings and their often rigid, mechanical facsimile of the living. I only mention this now because mechanical facsimiles of beloved things may well come up again later.
**look to camera**

Taking place twelve years before the events of Annabelle, we join retired doll-maker Samuel Mullins (Anthony LaPaglia) and his wife Esther (Miranda Otto), living alone in the US dustland and distraught after losing their only daughter in a tragic accident years earlier*1. In a bid to inject some purpose back into their lives, the couple open their home to the church as an orphanage*2. But the ghosts of the past are more than emotional, and one in particular wants to come out and play...

On the plus-side (because I think we all know where this review is heading), at least the series seems to have stopped trying to convince the audience it's based on 'true events'. Relieved of the crippling burden of disbelief-suspension, the audience can at least enjoy the film for what it is - an efficient, if thoroughly heavy-handed, supernatural horror. Taking a format we're all familiar with and an outcome that's pretty much defined by earlier (although chronologically later) entries in the series, Annabelle: Creation executes its frights with practiced ease (even if they're telegraphed to the point where each jolt is nothing more than a physical response to a face appearing on-screen and the subwoofers jabbing into life).

For the most part, the performances here are all par for the genre, with the exception of the young leads Talitha Bateman as Janice and Lulu Wilson as her best friend Linda. Spirited and convincing performances from 'child actors' are a rarity even these days and given the potentially-traumatic subject matter, these two excel in their roles. And not to jump too far ahead, but the film's final link to another chapter in the series is a nice touch, too.

It's just that... well, here we go. The budget for this prequel may have risen ($15m from Annabelle's $6.5m), but the levels of imagination haven't. And it's not that Creation relies on jump-scares so much; that's actually what the film consists of. For me to complain about their presence here would be like griping about a Jim Carrey comedy which features gurning. The problem is that after the first act has set up its plethora of callback-dominoes, the scares are used as the connecting thread for a procession of well-worn horror tropes. To wit:

✓ An overtly creepy doll to replace a lost child (forgivable given the film's subject)
✓ An empty/abandoned nursery containing carefully placed children's toys
✓ One of which is a dolls house with a locationally-symbolic inhabitant
✓ And a gramophone playing a jaunty record in an errie fashion
✓ Someone being dragged screaming across the floorboards into a darkened room behind them
✓ That thing where someone steps into the shadows and their eyes glow
✓ A franticly scrambling creature under the house
✓ A burgeoning cloud of darkness spewing out of a room
✓ The requisite amount of possession and telekinetic carnage one expects with this sort of thing
✓ And let's not forget the well, outside

Much like Hellraiser IV where we see the origin of the puzzle box*3, delving further back into the doll's past threatens to dilute any sense of mystery and threat. Annabelle's reputation rests on it having to murder pretty much everyone on-screen by the time the credits roll. Now that didn't happen in her first standalone film, so...

The cinematic equivalent of a ghost train, Creation is meticulously constructed, but nothing leaps out that the paying punters haven't seen before. If Quiet-Quiet-Bang™ is your thing, you'll probably have fun; it's better than the first Annabelle movie. Although so is herpes.

Best line, from curmudgeonly Samuel, showing the new arrivals round the house:

"Me and my wife stay in this room, the rest of the house is yours to do as you please. Oh, apart from the locked bedroom upstairs that I'll conveniently forget to mention until your hand is on the door later. And I say 'locked', it isn't. You'll see.
So yeah, the whole house apart from our room and the room upstairs.
Oh, and barn.

[sigh]
I'll come in again..."



So, watch this if you enjoyed?
Pretty much any studio-horror movie of the last ten years.


Should you watch this in a cinema, though?
The jump-scares are more enforced on a big screen, so if that's your thing…


Does the film achieve what it sets out to do?
Continue the franchise? Yep.


Is this the best work of the cast or director?
Hang one, you've got a young actress with long dark hair whose name is Samara and you've put her in this instead of a Ring movie..?


Will I think less of you if we disagree about how good/bad this film is?
Not unless you say something stupid like 'it's my favourite film in the world ever'.


Yes, but is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
There isn't.


Yes, but what's the Star Wars connection?
Level 2: Miranda Otto is in this, and she was in those Lord of the Rings movies with (amongst many others) Sir Christopher 'Dooku' Lee.


And if I HAD to put a number on it…


*1 Not that it's a spoiler at all, but the Annabelle strand seems to work in 12-year cycles of events. I'll be interested to see if anything more is done with that in the future. Either that, or if it's already been revealed why the 12-years is significant and I've just missed it because I've been rolling my eyes throughout each film. [ BACK ]

*2 You can see the reasoning. "We've got unresolved bereavement issues over our little girl, an untouched room full of her stuff and a haunted doll that we're still terrified of. Naturally, the best thing we can do here is give a bunch of already-vulnerable kids free rein to poke around the house. What can go wrong..?" [ BACK ]

*3 Speaking of such an era, the trailers before this movie were for the upcoming remakes of Flatliners and It. Other than the stragglers of my vintage band shirt collection, I'm not sure I'm ready to relive the early nineties just yet, thanks... [ BACK ]


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Saturday, 22 October 2016

Review: War On Everyone





War on Everyone
Cert: 15 / 98 mins / Dir. John Michael McDonagh / Trailer



Well. When a movie gets three separate walkouts in the first twenty minutes, you know it's doing something right. John Michael McDonagh's War On Everyone isn't so much boldly provocative as lazily insolent, a trait which proves, over the course of an hour and a half, to be both its best and worst points.

The setup goes: something something, dysfunctional cop-duo; something something, crime-lord; something something, do whatever it takes to get the job done including swearing a lot and shooting everybody. With the best will in the world, there's little that's new about this film other than the head-scratching excess of it all. While the more controversial moments in the film still aren't as hateful as many mainstream movies offer, War On Everyone does seem to reinforce the belief that if you make your characters deplorable enough you can get away with having them be as openly misogynistic and xenophobic as you like, with no comeback. And making the film's villain a sociopathic paedophile hardly balances the scales; pointing and going "yeah, but this one's worse, look!"

War On Everyone is a film that's barely even aware that the line of good-taste exists, never mind if it's being crossed. And it's not facile, adolescent posturing, more that the film comes off as The Nice Guys but with far fewer fucks given; a buddy-cop duo where both partners are the world-weary, grumpy arsehole. Alexander Skarsgård's Terry displays a disdain for the world that's only matched by the treatment Michael Peña's Bob reserves for his own family. And yeah, Bob & Terry. How many Likely Lads references have you enjoyed at the cinema recently?

Which leads me to wonder, did this film get made as a result of someone winning a bet? Or was making this film how the bet was won? Because I can't imagine War On Everyone being formulated through anything other than cocky, wilful, nihilistic cynicism, and that's not typically how the studio system tends to operate.

The 1970s aesthetic sits at direct odds with a story which is demonstrably set in the present-day, many of the characterisations in the film are illogical at best and the story goes to Iceland (the country, not the supermarket) and back for no discernible reason. The soundtrack contains what can only be described as a dangerous amount of Glen Campbell, and even then the Rhinestone Cowboy dance sequence seems like it's been dropped in from another film…

And speaking of other films, I think the gruff-voiced, hunch-shouldered fight scenes may be used as the backbone of Skarsgård's Batman audition-tape. Michael Peña is great fun (although he always is), Theo James overacts delightfully as the criminal mastermind, Tessa Thompson tries her damnedest to treat the script like a regular film and Caleb Landry Jones steals the show as the campest (yet still utterly despicable) henchman you've ever seen.

What can I say? It's patchy as hell but quite a lot of fun at times. The film's not setting out to shock you; it genuinely doesn't care what you think, and I suspect you'll only really get out of this what you take in.
I enjoyed War On Everyone, I'm just not sure who really benefits from its existence…



So, watch this if you enjoyed?
Well, a bit of The Nice Guys, but also a bit of Scarface.


Should you watch this in a cinema, though?
You won't get much more from a big screen than you will from a smaller one.
Especially if your friends/family start walking out
.


Does the film achieve what it sets out to do?
Well, if that's 'being a petulant v-sign to the mainstream buddy-cop movie' then yes.


Is this the best work of the cast or director?
Not really.


Will I think less of you if we disagree about how good/bad this film is?
Not at all.


Yes, but is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
There isn't.


Yes, but what's the Star Wars connection?
Level 2: Co-lead Alexander Skarsgård underwhelmed me earlier this year in The Legend of Tarzan alongside Sam 'Windu' Jackson.


And if I HAD to put a number on it…


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.