Review: Annabelle Comes Home

Annabelle Comes Home
Cert: 15 / 106 mins / Dir. Gary Dauberman / Trailer


A quick and graceless link-drop to save me working them into the review:
The Conjuring | Annabelle | The Conjuring 2 | Annabelle: Creation | The Nun | The Curse Of La Llorona

"Why do you do it to yourself, Ian?" they ask. A valid question. The closest I can come to an answer is that I've watched all of The Conjuring-universe movies at the cinema so far, they'll be far better in that environment than on a TV and while the overall quality is reminiscent of a rollercoaster, I think I just want to see how bad the series can get before someone pulls the plug.

DOLL

Annabelle Comes Home is the third in its particular subset of the Conjuring flicks, taking place after the previous two prequel-type movies and once the killer doll is safely ensconced in The Warren's occult artefact museum. With Ed and Lorraine (Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga) out of the house for the night*¹, they arrange for babysitter Mary Ellen (Madison Iseman) to look after their young daughter Judy (McKenna Grace).

But Mary Ellen's best friend Daniela (Katie Sarife) knows of the Warrens' reputation as ghost-hunters, and has reasons for seeing the inside of their infamous vault herself. To add to this, Mary Ellen's prospective sweetheart Bob (Michael Cimino) seems to have picked the wrong night to come a-courting. Before you can say 'Murphy's Law', the doll is free from its holy glass case*² and all hell is breaking loose. Literally. Will young Judy demonstrate she's a product of her lineage, or is this the end of the line?

DEAD

Short version: Yeah, it's not very good. Longer version: but does it need to be? The Conjuring movies are to the horror landscape what Will Ferrell and Melissa McCarthy are to comedy. An undemanding and often underwhelming baseline by which we can judge everything else, for better or worse (and there is worse). That doesn't necessarily make them bad, although they frequently appear that way upon closer inspection.

And Annablle Comes Home just isn't good. Not as laughably awful as the first Annabelle, but not as committed to its narrative as Creation. Instead, this is a parade of mechanically constructed feints and jump-scares which could have been assembled by a computer. McKenna Grace does quite well given the ludicrous nature of the screenplay, but let's not forget that she was the lead in Gifted, and is far better than this.

HUNTER

James Wan gets a story-credit as the snake eating its own tail, with his input meaning the film is one beat short of going full Insidious (although make no mistake, director and screenwriter Gary Dauberman shoulders most of the blame here). Once Annabelle is out of the box and acting as a spiritual lodestone, that's a license for the movie to start flinging shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. Bob ends up hiding from a demonic wolf in the chicken house (one of the last places, surely?), Daniela is locked in the museum-room with My Decomposing Dad™ and Mary Ellen ends up padding around the house above avoiding spirits who have dodged The Ferryman. The film basically turns into Poltergeist, leaving Judy and Annabelle literally snoozing through the second act of their own story.

The initial setup is by-the-numbers, even for a series as grounded in classical folklore*³ as this one. The sequence with the doll in the bedroom is well executed, but it's over far too quickly and is in the trailer anyway, so you're already waiting for it. Then the dialogue for the third act consists mostly of screaming. Whether it's our three leads in the house, Sackless Bob out in the shed, or the laundry-list of unhappy spectres appearing like the products of a cursed conveyor belt from the end of The Generation Game. The story seems to have abandoned the twelve-year cycle of events alluded to in previous installments.

JEDI

To add insult to injury, the film has the absolute balls to start lecturing the audience in its final moments. Returning for the coda, Lorraine tells Daniela "When I think of all the evil in here, it reminds me of all the good out there…". I nodded in silent agreement, reminded of the other four movies I could have been watching in that same cinema.

2019 has shown us that the most imaginative horror doesn't have to be moored in the supernatural, despite being deliberately outlandish. So you really have to wonder why we're still doing this. Then again, if Valerian can exist in the same release schedule as Blade Runner 2049, I suppose you have to cater for everybody.

DEAD

On the plus-side, Annabelle Comes Home cruises the fuck past the Bechdel Test. That's it. Anyway, here's the summary which could have saved all of these words:

Is Annabelle Comes Home just a dip in the cinematic rollercoaster of The Conjuring? Or does this apparently low plateau signify that we're finally approaching the boarding platform and the ride is over?

I imagine that will depend, as most things do these days, not on the quality of the mechanics themselves, but rather how many people are interested in paying for the ride. We await with bated breath…

The other Conjuring movies. At best.



Not when Midsommar is playing at the same time.



Stream it, then work out if it deserves space on your shelf (it doesn't).



Fuck no.



Fuck yes.



No.



Level 2: McKenna Grace is in this, and she's the young Captain Marvel, in a film with Sam 'Windu' Jackson and Ben 'Krennic' Mendelsohn



That's not because the film is bad on a technical level (even though it's far from great), but just because it's not even trying.


*¹ Ed and Lorraine had the right idea when they fucked off after the first ten minutes. Probably the most sensible thing they've done in seven movies, to be fair. ^{[ BACK ]}

*² You'd think that with the thoroughly abandoned priest sub-plot, they could finally do a crossover with Father Ted? ^{[ BACK ]}

*³ Why doesn't Lorraine just walk back onscreen and say to the camera "By the way, we really want to make a Black Shuck movie, so please create some buzz around these scenes okay thanks bye."? ^{[ 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.

Review: The Curse Of La Llorona

The Curse Of La Llorona
(aka The Curse Of The Weeping Woman)
Cert: 15 / 93 mins / Dir. Michael Chaves / Trailer


New York, 1973. Social worker and single-parent Anna (Linda Cardellini) receives an alert about two young boys being held in apparent captivity at their home before helping them to safety. But relief is short-lived when it turns out their mother was in fact protecting them from La Llorona (Marisol Ramirez), the furious spirit of a Mexican peasant girl who murdered children three hundred years earlier. What she did in life she carries on in death, and now Llorona's attention has been roused, the lady in white has an eye on Anna's offspring…

PRETTY ONE

The sight of Llorona looming sharply into view certainly isn't a pretty one of course, nor is it meant to be. Director Michael Chaves forgoes the classical third-act reveal by using his antagonists's terrifying visage frequently throughout the film, letting the audience know they're not safe from the very beginning.

The basis of our tale here is Mexican folklore. And while these are sensitive times to brandish potential generalisations, the cultural references - certainly when it comes to tackling the demon - are used with a sense of inclusivity rather than belittlement. The Conjuring universe brings Hispanic ghouls to the table in the same way that The Possession did for Hebrew legends.

La Llorona's veil is a twisted parody of both bridal attire and the muslin cloths frequently used to swaddle infants, while her hair-bedraggled face and theme of drowning both manage to borrow motifs from traditional Japanese horror. And much like the classic Ringu, La Llorona's is a curse which can't be outrun by distance once it's set. In keeping with its south-of-the-border roots, the film even manages to throw in a brief homage to From Dusk Till Dawn in the preparation for its final showdown. When the moment arrives, Anna's last-ditch attempt to save her children is worthy of Hammer-era Peter Cushing. This is a film steeped in its genre, a brutal study of PTSD and post-feminist matriarchy which challenges the genre as much as the audience.

MOTOR RUN

The casting here is textbook and Linda Cardellini goes from strength to strength. Having shown she's got a handle on comedy with the Daddy's Home series and held up the more domestic-side of superhero life in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, she now effortlessly turns her hand to horror; not as a threat or shrieking victim, but a saviour and protector-figure.

La Llorona is only connected to the Conjuring universe by means of an incidental character, but is connected all the same, a fitting addition to the macabre family. Scares arrive with dramatic punctuality, Chaves keenly aware that there's no time to drag things out at a lean 93 minutes. He skips the niceties of an extended setup while still respecting the overall form and structure required for a horror movie.

From its first lumbering steps with Bathsheba, through the twisted grimace of Annabelle and on to last year's Valak, the Conjuring series has showcased female antagonists as a contemporary taunt to the testosterone-fuelled slashers of yesteryear in Jason, Freddy, Michael Myers and even Candyman. Although far from pinning the evils of the netherworld on women as a whole, they're more properly possessed by demons here, used as channels and portals, preying upon and amplifying the insecurities of societal expectations.

OFF THE LINE

And that's taken to its logical and horrifying conclusion with La Llorona, challenging the audience's natural instincts to cherish notions of motherhood as the supernatural malevolent force is faced in turn not only by a woman who is a mother, but also a social worker - one who provides care and support to others in times of crisis.

What tragedy has occurred in La Llorona's past that her very soul has turned against the sacred covenant handed down to women since time immemorial, both as a right and responsibility? The more we witness her supernatural crimes first hand, can we develop if not an air of sympathy, then at least understanding? Can some monsters be redeemed, absolved? Should they be? At what point do we as a passive viewer abandon our own humanity in the race to condemn a lack of someone else's?

MY LLORONA*¹

Still the film has a playful aspect, as Anna blithely ignores an episode of Scooby Doo playing on the television, a nod to Cardellini's role as Velma in the two live action adaptations of the high-camp spooky comedy. And during the climactic showdown, Anna's son Chris wears a t-shirt bearing the cartoon image of a dinosaur - a symbol of fact and reason against naive superstition, but one that still acknowledges that the past has its place.

Giving Marvel Studios a run for their money, the next Annabelle-led installment of the Conjuring universe is due to his cinemas in under two months' time, so plan your viewing of this accordingly.

I'm only joking, The Curse Of La Llorona is absolute shite from start to finish.
But where's the fun in writing that review again? *²

The Nun*³.
If you liked The Nun you'll enjoy - nay, deserve - La Llorona.



Look, if you've got a tenner burning a hole in your pocket, give me a shout and we'll go for a pint.



If you're going to watch this at all, wait until it hits pre-paid streaming or TV.



Well what do you think?



If we disagree about this you need medical help, not booze.



There isn't.



Level 1: The voice of Atai Molec's in this.



The film's not offensively bad, although fuck me it does try...


*¹ Not. Even. Sorry. ^{[ BACK ]}

*² To be absolutely clear, the main body of this review should be taken with a pinch of salt so large that it will induce scurvy before the end of the second paragraph is reached. Although that's not to imply that the comparisons made above have no basis, they're just not intended to be complimentary. The only terrifying thing about this tedious, clockwork bollocks is how it even made it past the pitch-meeting in the first place.

How does La Llorona's premise work, exactly? She killed a couple of kids and felt really guilty about that, which is why she kept killing more children as a means of atonement? Wait, what? She can be summoned from Mexico to New York just on a whim? Presumably she's on-call everywhere? This shit's been going on for three centuries and not once has someone said "have you tried just stabbing her with the crucifix, Terry? In the sternum? I think that's how you do an exorcism". And look at that tagline on the poster. 'She wants your children'. Was that one crafted on a Friday afternoon by any chance? The cast aren't trying here and the writers sure as hell aren't, so why should the audience?

Best line: "Now he's a faith-healer. A shaman who operates of the fringes of religion and science…".
Fucking hell, mate. ^{[ BACK ]}

*³ Why did I go so easy on The Nun? It's even more laughably bad than this movie. Must have caught me on a good day, or something? ^{[ 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.

Review: The Nun

The Nun
Cert: 15 / 96 mins / Dir. Corin Hardy / Trailer



I've got a spreadsheet where I list all the films I've watched*¹, link to reviews, categorise them by score, BBFC rating, genre etc. One of those genres available in the dropdown is 'True Story'. Corin Hardy's The Nun opens with a caption-card reading "The following occurred in Romania, 1952". Now, The Nun wasn't categorised in my spreadsheet as 'True Story' before I sat down in screen 5, and it sure as fuck isn't afterward, either. If anything, an early sequence in which our eponymous villain glides slowly down a corridor sees a crucifix on the wall slowly turning upside down the closer to it she gets. As The Nun™ draws parallel to the now-inverted cross, it bursts into flames, and I realised these particular real events have apparently been screenwritten by a 17yr old Cradle Of Filth fan…

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

The Nun is the fifth movie in the Conjuring universe. It is the very definition of A Studio Horror, in which an ancient demon is summoned into the body of a middle-aged woman in an Eastern European convent, and is so furious at this that it then goes a bit mad and kills pretty much everyone at every opportunity. For obvious reasons the Vatican isn't too happy at the ruckus being caused, so they send Father Burke (Demián Bichir) to investigate with a collection of suitcases, accompanied for reasons which really aren't made clear by prospective good-nun Sister Irene (Taissa Farmiga*²). Hell on.

It's the kind of film where a French-Canadian farmer living in Romania answers the door to a pair of strangers by speaking in English. The range of accents here is astounding.

The film's basically fine if that's what you're into. But as is so often the case, you'd have to be pretty new to the genre to be wrapped up in anything it has to say. At this point in the ongoing Conjuring saga, the storyline itself is almost completely linear. But wearing the continuity badge upfront like a press-pass, at least that's expected. If anything, I'd much rather have this movie be middling as part of a series than standing alone thinking it's better than it is. The Nun is well enough assembled, but in a way that suggests no-one involved believed they were making something unique, so just didn't try. The wardrobe and set-dressing are nothing less than meticulous, yet I still didn't believe for a single frame that this was taking place 66 years ago*³.

Oh, and when the power is pulled from a radio, the music will just cease, it doesn't drop in speed and pitch like a turntable. Not even in 1952. Although I'm also aware that nothing else in that particular sequence makes sense either.

The Conjuring series has been up and down like a rollercoaster, but this is an absolute ghost train of a movie. With dusty tombs, papal crisis meetings, an Act II backstory exposition reel and more jump-scares you can throw a crucifix at, it's more a tribute to the genre than a pastiche, but still made with a knowing glint in its eye. And with its motifs of guilt and possession in a Romanian setting, The Nun owes as much to Bram Stoker as it does William Friedkin.

Oh, and when farmer Terry is walking around the catacombs with the flaming torch in the film's crescendo? The audience can see where the inbuilt gas jets are, mate.

Still, the bits with the pentacles made me laugh. I mean out loud*⁴.


The Nun is much like the cave on Dagobah.
"What's in there?"
"Only what you take with you."



Well let's take a wild guess, shall we?



Well, not unless you're a hardened fan of the series.



Not unless you're a hardened fan of the series.



It's not.



Probably not.



Definitely not.



Level 1: Rogue One Dr. Evazan's in this.





*¹ Not that regular readers will be surprised by this, obviously ^{[ BACK ]}

*² And for the record, Taissa Farmiga is a very capable and competent central performer here (given the state of the screenplay), who is the younger sister of Conjuring 1 & 2 star Vera Farmiga, and who looks and acts very much like Vera Farmiga, and whose point in the story's timeline suggests that her character could just be a younger version of the character played by Vera Farmiga, and whose experiences in the film point towards a third-act reveal surprising approximately no-one that 'hey this is really Lorraine from the Conjuring films!', especially since Vera Farmiga appears in the film's bookend scenes, but then that doesn't happen and you have to wonder why the actual fuck Taissa would be cast if the family resemblance wasn't going to be a thing because otherwise it's just really distracting. ^{[ BACK ]}

*³ While watching The Nun, It crossed my mind (because it's the sort of film which allows the viewer's train of thought to wander well off the tracks) that I have no problem believing in Santa Claus when I'm watching a great Christmas movie. Just between the opening titles and closing credits, obviously, and just as a dramatic conceit to tell the story. So why am I so cynical when it comes to supernatural horror? Why can't I just switch off and be 'in the moment'? I suspect it's something to do with caption cards claiming some sort of documentary heritage, but I'm snarky at movies that don't have these, too. Answers on a postcard, please. ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁴ No real code-breaking in this, since I was sat in my local's massive screen 5 on my own for the entire movie. Which I didn't mind at all, as you can imagine. That said, the only worry I had was that I'd look round at one point and there'd be someone dressed as a nun sitting four about seats away. Anyway, that didn't happen. Although if I ran a cinema, I'd make sure one of my staff members was doing that with every screening. ^{[ 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.

Review: Annabelle

Annabelle
Cert: 15 / 99 mins / Dir. John R. Leonetti




You're absolutely right of course, how much was I really going to get out of a spinoff from The Conjuring where the only star to reprise their role is completely inanimate?

Annabelle manages to take a batshit-crazy subplot from one of the most mechanical horror flicks I've ever seen, and fleshes it out into just over an hour and a half of tedious bumping, thumping and shrieking. Complete with a naive young couple (one gullible, one skeptical), grizzled local priest, wise old occult expert with a hidden yet sad past, satanic-cult subplot, plinky-plonk children's mobile, electric hob which switches itself on, record player that not only switches itself on but also moves the needle onto the disc, low-paid actor in a mask and a leotard pretending to be a demon, low-paid actress in a nightshirt covered in blood and dark hair over her face, and the kind of overtly creepy doll that no-one - NO-ONE - would give houseroom to… there's nothing remotely new, scary or indeed interesting here…

Funny however, yes. I did break the Code Of Conduct™ and chuckle audibly at several moments; when the dialogue or the acting delivering it sunk below its reliably shoddy level, or when the audience is reminded (repeatedly) that the film is connected with The Conjuring. Oh, and the bit when the doll 'stands up'. That one's an absolute howler. I can see how this would have looked passable on paper, and I can't lay the blame at the feet of the cast or the director, but Annabelle just fails to work on every level it needs to as a horror film (I wasn't alone, snorting in the auditorium). Even the usual 'quiet… quiet… LOUD' moments, evoking a purely physical response rather than a psychological one, have little effect when they sporadically appear.

Credit where its due, there are two great shots in the film. The first is the little girl running at the door (as in the trailer), and the second one involves a demon crouching, quite still, in a darkened stairwell. It's perhaps telling that the film only succeeds when it's either going full-belt or doing as little as possible, because everything else in the film occupies a middle-ground of lazy writing and half-arsed performances. There's a point, at about thirty minutes in, where you think 'Well, in order for the Annabelle doll to have the formidable reputation it's got in The Conjuring (which only takes place a year later), surely no-one's going to be left alive at the end of this film?'.
I have never been so disappointed at a happy ending, frankly.

You know you're in trouble when the best thing about a movie is the snigger travelling around the room when a UK audience sees a second-long shot of L.A.'s Gaylord Apartments.
Yes, I sniggered, too. Me mordere.

The trailer's actually slightly better than the film, but only just.



Well, I laughed.



Judging by the audience in Screen 1 tonight, not even close.



The film will be ineffectual no matter how/where you see it.



I don't think I have to answer that question.



I don't think I have to answer that one, either.



There isn't.

Really, though? Really? Do we get another spinoff about The Cult Of The Ram, next?

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.

Review: The Conjuring (Spoilers)

The Conjuring (SPOILERS)
Cert: 15 / 112 mins / Dir. James Wan

So, from what I can gather after the very final altercation in Insidious, Patrick Wilson's character Josh got hit by a car, or something, and lost consciousness.
When he comes around, he's in 1971 and has a job as a paranormal investigator. Is he mad? In a coma? …or back in time? If he can use his paranormal knowledge to crack the case of a local family who've moved into the area and are experiencing ghostly visitations, then maybe he can figure out why he's here… and find a way home.

Not really. I wish my interpretation of events had been the case, because it would have been a damn sight more entertaining than the film I saw tonight. The problem is that it never lives up to its promise. It's a very slow start for not-enough-payoff, and while the cast do an admirable job of playing things straight, they're working with a dud, frankly. The film draws from the well of recent horror movies as deeply as it does from 'the old staples', but seems to add nothing of its own. Everything from slaughtered pets, stopping clocks and a boarded-up cellar, all the way through to a creepy doll, a creepy music box and whispering voices on a tape is ruthlessly mined for shocks which arrive with thudding, clockwork regularity.

Whether it's the child-murdering-possession of The Woman In Black, the multiple-ghosts-appearing of Insidious, or just the birds-crashing-into-the-house of Dark Skies, you've seen it all before, and you've seen it all better. The final act plays out like a mashup between The Evil Dead and Ghostbusters, and is every bit as funny as the image that evokes, sadly. The screen I saw the film in was five seats short of selling out. I thought this would make for a great atmosphere, as any tension and resulting release would be exaggerated throughout audience. We jumped once, and that was in the first half hour.

So, usually in this sort of thing an expository section between acts two and three fleshes out why the main victim is being harassed/haunted/possessed, and details the horrific events which have led up to the present case. In this story, we get Vera Farmiga sifting through some photos and pointing at a map. Any ghost aside from the main bad-girl, Bathsheba, is given half a line of dialogue to justify their presence, and then never seen again. As for bad-mamma herself, she's disposed of so easily (and with so little fallout or consequence) as to be laughable. But the film does end with a twist, in that when you're watching the family step out into the sunlight, hugging and relieved that it's all over; you're expecting the demon to resurge one last time before the credits… and it doesn't.

And while I'm on the subject, what the hell has Bathsheba got to do with Annabelle The Possessed Doll™? The film explicitly states that the possessions and murders only take place on the original plot of farmland, so unless The Warren Ghostbusters live on that land, it doesn't matter how many sentimental lockets Lorraine leaves in the basement, The Ghost™ shouldn't be able to just text The Demon™ and ask for a favour, surely? I imagine the Warren's Indiana Jones' Warehouse of haunted artefacts will be exploited in the sequel. Can't wait.

Despite all my pissing and moaning, it's not a "bad" horror movie, but it's so on-par with everything else that's being released these days that it's robbed of the very thing it needs to succeed: horror.

If anything, it oversells it.



Not really. And neither did the sold-out audience I watched it with.



Nope.



DVD, at best.



Yes. Yes, I will..



Nope.



Nope.

So does "true story" mean "it's true that someone told this story"?

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.