You Can't Sink Your Teeth Into Any of the Ideas in 'Annabelle'

Annabelle pales in the shadow of its predecessor, the far superior The Conjuring.


Director: John R. Leonetti
Cast: Annabelle Wallis, Ward Horton, Alfre Woodard, Tony Amendola
Length: 98 minutes
Studio: New Line Cinema
Year: 2014
Distributor: Warner Home Video
MPAA Rating: R
UK Release Date: 2015-02-23
US Release Date: 2015-01-20

When The Conjuring, James Wan's based-on-a-true-story movie about demonologists Ed and Lorraine Warren and their attempts to clear a Rhode Island farmhouse of haunts, became a hit, it seemed almost inevitable that a sequel or spin-off was on its way. It would be natural to pin the next film on the Warrens. After all, they're established, well-liked characters based on real people who no doubt have a treasure trove of haunted house stories that could be mined for cinematic scares.

Instead, we get Annabelle, a spin-off that's pegged to a haunted object -- a creepy doll -- that makes an appearance in The Conjuring. The movie, with director John R. Leonetti stepping in for James Wan, heads back in time to tell the story of how the Annabelle doll acquires its bad juju.

Where The Conjuring had Ed and Lorraine Warren, Annabelle has its own central couple: John (Ward Horton) and Mia (played by an actress also named Annabelle, Annabelle Wallis), a med student and his pregnant wife living an upwardly mobile life in Santa Monica in 1969. While it seems that they have a blissfully domestic life, bad things start to happen when their house is invaded by a couple who belong to some kind of Satanic cult -- right around the time that John gifts Mia with the Annabelle doll.

With a period setting and a story centered on family, it seems like Annabelle is attempting to replicate some of the The Conjuring's strengths; it also duplicates the first film's eerie moods and tense setpieces. In some places, it succeeds; Leonetti makes great use of deep focus, with threatening figures crossing the way, way back of the frame. These moments are startling without resorting to the typical, easy jump scares

However, Leonetti doesn't have Wan's way with imagery, and these moments fail to build on one another. It seems at times like Annabelle is trying to imply that domesticity itself is under attack: sewing machines start by themselves, a bedroom television can't get reception, and baby dolls are tampered with. But then it finds itself dabbling in pretty much any kind of horror-movie elements it can get its hands on, throwing in all different kinds of religious symbolism, other creepy children who have barely anything to do with the story, and an all-knowing bookstore owner (a thankless role for Alfre Woodard), so that its message, such as it is, becomes diluted.

Even the Annabelle doll itself illustrates this movie's lack of forward momentum. The doll is treated as if it were a normal, if vintage, doll that looks more and more demonic as the movie goes on. In fact, it looks frightening right out of the box, enough to make one wonder why anyone would let it into their homes in the first place. (The complaints that people have about Jack Nicholson in The Shining certainly apply here.) Even what the Annabelle doll represents becomes hindered by layers of remove. If the doll is evil, it's only because it fell into the hands of the cult members, so it's more of a tool than a real boogeyman.

In this way, Annabelle brings up a lot of ideas, but sinks its teeth into none of them to the point where you're not really sure what you're supposed to be scared of anymore. (Dolls? Satanists? Demons?) Or it happens that you're not really sure what you're supposed to get behind to combat whatever the evil forces are. (A strong family unit? Organized religion?)

Whatever the case may be, the film doesn't bring back the Warrens, which is a shame because Annabelle is inspired by an object in their Occult Museum. In real life, though, the doll wasn't a terrifying-looking porcelain doll, but a common Raggedy Ann. That makes it scarier to me, but there are probably trademark reasons, in addition to aesthetic ones, for why a Raggedy Ann wasn't used in the movie. Still, one would think such a fact would be mentioned in the behind-the-scenes Blu-ray feature that supposedly gives the backstory to the real doll -- nope. Instead, it just interviews the cast and crewmembers (not anyone really familiar with the story) while showing footage from Annabelle and The Conjuring (not the real doll).

There are many behind-the-scenes features, but most of them continue in the same way, interviewing the same cast and crew about various aspect of the production. One about the creepy things that happened during filming is the most entertaining; the rest are take-it-or-leave-it. Wan does appear in a few of them, which is nice for putting certain aspects of the filmmaking in the context of the previous movie.

Still, nothing in Annabelle is as simply scary, or builds as gracefully, as Wan's game of "hide and clap" from The Conjuring.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.