‘Annabelle’, who wants this doll?

John R. Leonetti is a specialist, perhaps too exaggerated word if any, sequels or prequels in which stretches an idea of success of previous films. While conducting the photographic work of numerous films and television series, Leonetti extended universes of ‘Mortal Kombat’ (id, Paul WS Anderson, 1995) and ‘The Butterfly Effect’ (Eric Bress, J. Mackye Gruber, 2004) -in a sequel that was based on an idea by John Frankenheimer – and now has finished performing the film ‘Annabelle’ (ibid, 2014), a prequel to the excellent ‘Warren Record.


On the central axis of evil doll that appeared in the preface of that, the film follows almost point by point the work of James Wan, especially in regard to the form. The result has been a worldwide box office blockbuster – talk about a film at a cost of just over six million dollars, although has not received the same praise the film of Wan – who is already preparing a sequel – but quite the contrary. Without being a wonder, do not believe that to be a useless or disposable product.

The film turns on the origin – another of those moviegoers exercises that abound too, the mania for explaining the origin of all, cheap excuse if ever there to disguise the desire to get more money from a success- formula of that doll, vehicle of demonic possession that make the days and nights a little more difficult characters. Marriage made in fiction by Annabelle Wallis and Ward Horton, bland to say enough, they are about to become parents. Bad moment. They are perfect for any victims or be evil demon come from hell or another dimension. Whatever.

Disastrous script saved by staging
‘Annabelle’ part of a quite dogeared idea and perhaps wrong, if we think about it. If it was the first film about dolls that bring the demon inside would pass, but in the 2014, yet the genre behind, what writer would think that the characters want to stay with an ugly doll of balls, with all the tickets purchased to be visited by the Lucifer himself if necessary? Since to such Gary Dauberman, forgettable curriculum. Solved this questionable step, Leonetti work behind the camera is much better than expected.

It is true that the manager spends all the time using the same formula that James Wan in the previous film. The camera is the main protagonist in the first two thirds of the film, that nothing short of ridiculous, removing plot decisions remains certain atmosphere and tension, with two or three times “terrifying” very accomplished, exploiting what Wan did in another film: play with the viewer and memory, bring it to the game, and submit a few scares with prior notice – the moment of the door is glorious. The use of wide-angle is another issue. Its excess ends up giving some shabby appearance to the film, and nothing worth arrangements references to the best-known horror film of Roman Polanski.

As in the film, the Wan film is maternal love as one of the largest of which humans are capable. The problem is that what the Wan film came to thrill, here seems hasty and become relevant the character of Alfre Woodard, the subject comes to little serious levels through a badly drawn and gotten to shoehorn character. The apology about motherhood remains a bad joke by a predictable and unsatisfying conclusion.

Show Buttons
Hide Buttons