Write a commentThere are dolls and then there are dolls in a James Wan film. Dolls to him are like time for Christopher Nolan or feet to Tarantino.
Something in Wan's past likely informed this obsession he has with dolls. Between Billy the Puppet from "Saw" to Billy (the ventriloquist doll) from "Dead Silence", Wan has been curating his army of plastic (or sometimes wood) people for over two decades.
Audiences were introdued to Annabelle in the opening of the first "Conjuring" film. The amount of dread and fear that short sequence created was impactful enough (to producers anyway) to warrant a prequel. The story was ripe for it.
"Annabelle" begins with what is probably the biggest sin of the film. A husband gifts his pregnant wife the Annabelle doll. For those who are not aware, the doll is the stuff of nightmares. No caring husband would ever do that to his wife, even as a prank.
The one plothole here is that the actual Annabelle doll was a Raggedy Ann. If it was a Raggedy Ann doll that was being gifted rather than the tiny terror of this film, it would make sense. But, movies like this practically rely upon the suspension of your disbelief so let's just run with it.
The couple is attacked one evening by cultists. One of them bleeds on the doll while dying. Boom, you got yourself a possessed doll. You know the old traditionn of keeping a creepy doll that's been bled on. That old chestnut. After that, all Hell breaks loose.
One of the biggest strengths of "The Conjuring" was the focus on the characters. Wan and his writers wanted you to care about the Warrens and the family. THey were smart enough to know that was the key to the terror. There were plenty of scares and suspense, but it would have been flat.
The director of "Annabelle" doesn't seem to be super concerned with anything besides the scare sequences. Some of them are effective, including a chase sequence with a completely black demon, but you're not invested in most of them because of that key element that's absent. They even try, fruitlessly I might add, to weave in true life events to anchor the film in some kind of reality.
I get the motivation to do a spin-off/prequel to a successful film. It makes perfect sense from a financial standpoint. "Strike while the iron is hot" and all that. Issue is, when the product you're turning out is something like this, which is such a dip in quality from the original, you lose the faith of your audience. It makes people question whether the filmmakers care about the audience beyond their wallets.
Director Leonetti's only other directing credits are the much maligned "Mortal Kombat: Annihilation" and "The Butterfly Effect 2". He's best known as a cinematographer which makes sense considering how some of the film looks. He knows where to place the camera and lighting, but as far as constructing sequences with the precision of Wan, he needs much more help.
In the end, I don't really hate "Annabelle". It's perfectly fine for what it is. If you want a couple of cheap scares, you can do a lot worse. However, when you compare it to what immediately preceded it, the choice is clear. "The Conjuring" has life and energy while "Annabelle" is as wooden and hollow as the doll that headlines it.
Annabelle (2014)
Directed by John R. Leonetti
Cast: Annabelle Wallis, Ward Horton, Alfre Woodard, Tony Amendola
Runtime: 99 minutes
MPAA Rating: R for intense sequences of disturbing violence and terror.
Rating (out of ****): **
"Annabelle" is available on HBO Max with a subscription as well as to rent or purchase on all major streaming platforms.
