There were concerns that without James Wan in the director’s chair, this “Conjuring” spin-off would be unwatchable, but fortunately, those fears were unfounded.
In 1969, John and Mia Gordon are expecting their first child. As Mia is about to give birth, the couple witnesses a bloody massacre in their neighbors’ house, committed by members of an occult sect. One of the killers wounds Mia, and the other commits suicide while holding a doll that John recently gave his wife. From then on, inexplicable paranormal phenomena begin in the Gordon family, which do not stop even after they move.
James Wan may not be a visionary or a reformer, but he is one of the most skilled and technically proficient directors working in the horror genre today. His “Insidious” and “Conjuring” films revived the popularity of old-fashioned mystical horror movies – well-staged, well-told, well-acted, and well-shot. A kind of gold standard that everyone trying to work in this genre should aspire to. Alas, “Furious 7” lured the director away from horror, so others took over what Wan had started – Leigh Whannell, the screenwriter, is directing “Insidious 3,” and John R. Leonetti, the cinematographer, got the “Conjuring” spin-off.
Leonetti is no stranger to taking over other people’s projects – “Annabelle” is his third feature film, preceded by “Mortal Kombat 2” and “The Butterfly Effect 2.” Leonetti worked with Wan as a cinematographer on “Insidious” and “The Conjuring,” so he reproduces his “signature” wanderings through rooms quite convincingly, and he builds suspense effectively. The scene in which Mia can’t get the elevator to work in the basement is very effective precisely because Leonetti, like Wan, doesn’t jump at every opportunity to stun the viewer with an orchestral blast – silence and the anticipation of a scary moment can be much scarier.
Annabelle: A Familiar Horror Tale
Nevertheless, “Annabelle” is not “The Conjuring 2.” Its concept, no matter how you look at it, feels very derivative and, in some ways, ties the hands of its creators. Annabelle is not Chucky from the famous horror series; she doesn’t chase her victims with a knife, frantically rolling her eyes; she doesn’t even (spoiler!) move on screen. In fact, if you think about it, the presence of this doll in the film is not so necessary. With a slight rewrite, the plot could be reworked into “Paranormal Activity,” because the focus is on the confrontation between a family and a demon that is somehow connected to this doll.
Genre Tropes and Predictability
And this confrontation develops according to all the canons of the genre – doors close, some vague silhouettes flash, the sewing machine and stove turn on by themselves. The story will not do without a sympathetic priest, a wise elderly African American woman, and the study of ancient books on occultism – as you can see, a complete set of familiar genre clichés is present, and it cannot be said that they are played out in the script in any unusual or fresh way.
Final Verdict
Leonetti doesn’t manage to pull the film into a positive area with such initial conditions – somewhere there is a lack of directorial grip, somewhere the predictability and triviality of the plot let him down. However, it is impossible to talk about failure here in any case. This is a passable but not shameful horror film, which also benefits from the successful casting of the lead actress – Annabelle Wallis, even though she is not yet very well known, perfectly plays both horror, confusion, and maternal determination.