John R Leonetti, 2014, USA
Well it’s true that I expected to watch ‘Annabelle’ in a constant state of
effrontery, unconvinced and snorting at every jump-scare and laughing at the
stupid dialogue. With these cattle-prod
horrors each jump-scare squanders any potential merit the films may have
accumulated because since those jump-blare-scares are the ultimate goal, scant
attention seems to be paid to the characterisation and dialogue to get there.
Those elements grow increasingly thin as the films trade in the most base kind
of horror. The idea that these films are “based on true stories” is ridiculous
and insulting: the fodder for this franchise is the stories of paranormal
investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren, but they are
little more than scam artists. These films cash in on the scam even more with
the introductory and closing text reeking of condescension and manipulation.
‘Hey, they’ll believe anything,’ you can also hear the makers and marketers
say. As Mark Kermode has said, these seem to be horrors films for non-horror
fans, the kind that think “was it scary?” is the ultimate test of the genre.
And what is
offered to the genre fans that are wise but play along?
Well in truth,
‘Annabelle’ is not as bad as ‘Insidious
2’. That is, it’s the usual fare after the opening that repeats the
possessed doll’s introduction in ‘The
Conjuring’ ends with a close-up of Annabelle’s grimy and scratched (??)
face had me laughing – hey it’s meant to be foreboding and scary but I was just
thinking that a doll couldn’t pronounce its Inherent Evil more if it tried. Of
course, the “true” Annabelle is nothing like in the film: the original’s recognisable
nature (see picture) is more sinister for its banality while the film version is surely
trying too hard. But yes, Annabelle’s features are somewhat put into context as
a trend when placed alongside similar dolls.
But if I expected to be in a constant state of
disgruntlement, this wasn’t so for the first two acts: hey, my expectations for this were low so I'll respond to any any competence. the characters were as
thin as expected but the actors had natural charm that, over time, is wasted
more and more until it’s forgotten that they projected any. It’s just, you
know, ho-hum horror. It was the basement scare where I first started to archly go
Oh yeah? even if it is probably the best staged moment of the film.
Narrative and characterisation is typically weak,
only there as a coat-hanger to hide vaguely corresponding scares. For example:
the kids drawing on the stairs subplot goes nowhere but to deliver a laughable
punchline that makes no sense. Are they part of the possession? Are they
possessed too? What? How? Why? There’s the pounding on the floorboards upstairs
that, equally, goes nowhere as a subplot. And the cellar scene: this has
nothing to do with the proximity of the doll as the doll apparently doesn’t
have a range, it’s just an excuse for scary scenes. It’s faintly amusing but
condescending hackwork, offering meagre genre scraps and, again, the idea that
this is based on any truth is daft.
No comments:
Post a Comment