Connect with us

Editorials

[Review] ‘Annabelle’ Should Be Sent to the Island Of Misfit Toys

Published

on

Annabelle - The Conjuring, Images 2014

You’ll see a lot of love for creepy toy movies coming from me, it’s one of my guiltiest pleasures. I own all Puppet Master movies, Child’s Play, and you can probably guess my favorite segment from Trilogy of Terror. So, though not technically a “killer toy” movie I was really excited to see Annabelle.

This review does contain minor spoilers, please be cautious when reading.

Annabelle is a prequel/spinoff from James Wan’s spectacular haunted house movie, The Conjuring. The conceit behind this is a film set in the past, it starts off in 1969, and tells us about the origin story of the doll in question. At the start Annabelle is a very normal doll, in spite of her horrific look, who is gifted to Mia from her husband John because she is a collector. One night while the young couple is asleep they hear screams from the neighbors and discover they have been murdered. Mia is attacked in the house by the female killer who was actually their neighbor’s estranged daughter, Annabelle. Apparently Annabelle joined a satanic cult and was coming back to her parents to kill them and hopefully summon some sort of demon. The police arrive and shoot Annabelle’s boyfriend as she locks herself in Mia’s doll room clutching the creepy doll in her arms and kills herself. Her blood drips into devil Polly Pocket’s eye and we see a cryptic symbol drawn in blood above her.

Let’s be clear on one thing here, and it’s important: JAMES WAN DID NOT DIRECT THIS MOVIE!

Not one minute of this film was directed by Wan who has pretty much solidified his horror status with The Conjuring and Saw. Instead it’s directed by John R. Leonetti who directed such delights as The Butterfly Effect 2 and Mortal Kombat: Annihilation. Leonetti also is a cinematographer by trade and has done a lot of work for Wan in the past, including Insidious and Dead Silence. Basically, Wan became good friends with Leonetti and threw him this movie to help him out after the cinematic disaster that was Butterfly Effect 2.

I realize that Annabelle was never meant to be a killer toy in the way Chucky or Blade were, which is sad because I could have gotten a lot more enjoyment from that. Instead we get a skeleton execution of an interesting and creepy idea. How do you make a movie with a doll that creepy and somehow manage to not make it scary in the least. Of course there are jump scares, the scariest of which being spoiled in the trailer, but they don’t even have near the effect caused in The Conjuring.

Annabelle symbol

Annabelle is a very bland and generic take on a story like this. The leads, Annabelle (ironic) Wallis and Ward Horton certainly look the part of a middle class white couple living in the early 70s but other than that they don’t do much else to keep our attention. After a while they begin to just fade into the background, particularly Horton who conveniently is a Med School intern and is very rarely around for any of the demonic action that plagues Mia. Neither of them seem as nearly concerned as they should in life and both are far too easily taken in by the supernatural. If the characters believe it’s something spiritual right off the bat it robs the audience of scarier moments later on in the movie. Mia and John almost immediately agree it’s something evil and head straight to their priest.

The priest is just one of 3 characters in this film that go absolutely nowhere. At the beginning we meet him when he wants to take a picture of Mia and her new born baby. This would be a good, though clichéd, opportunity for a scare like the demon or ghost in the background, but nope. Just a weird thing this guy likes to do. And while we’re on the subject of the priest, he is extremely quick to agree with the couple that an exorcism must be performed on the doll. But if I remember right it took Regan’s mom months of tests and procedures before they decided to call in Father Merrin and this is about the same time period. I know because the early 70s are crammed down my eye sockets every 2 minutes. The movie even starts out with Mia watching news coverage on The Manson Family. I get it movie, we’re in the past and that would be great if the actual idea of a time period mattered but it doesn’t! It isn’t crucial to the plot, it could happen in any time, this one just so happens to fit into sequence with The Conjuring and Ed and Loraine Warren’s lives. Stop it with the references already, I kept expecting Don Draper to walk in.

Annabelle cradel

My final gripe on Annabelle is its overly convenient plot devices. Mia and John just so happen to move next door to a couple whose daughter returns with a cult member and is just so happening to try and summon a demon and just so happens to conjure it into the world’s creepiest doll and on and on and on. There is even a character who falls under what Spike Lee famously termed “Magical Negro” who is sent to help out the white character because of their inside knowledge to what is going on. This archetype is both clichéd and insulting to audiences and filmmakers alike.

While Annabelle could have been a very creepy story with a lot of interesting mythology intertwined it instead gives us a mirage of potential. The best thing about Annabelle is it leaves off right as the story from The Conjuring begins. It sets it up perfectly to go into the next story about the nurses who had it, which means no sequel since we already were told that story!

Jess is a Northeast Ohio native who has loved all things horror and fringe since birth. She has a tendency to run at the mouth about it and decided writing was the only way not to scare everyone away. If you make a hobby into a career it becomes less creepy. Unless that hobby is collecting baby dolls. Nothing makes that less creepy.

Editorials

11 Years Later: The Horrific Cycles of Violence in ‘Only God Forgives’ Starring Ryan Gosling

Published

on

Traditionally, movie theater walkouts are usually associated with the horror genre, with infamous cases ranging from 1973’s The Exorcist (particularly during the crucifix masturbation scene) and even Lars Von Trier’s controversial serial killer memoir, The House That Jack Built.

That being said, there are exceptions to this rule, as some movies manage to terrorize audiences into leaving the theater regardless of genre. One memorable example of this is Nicolas Winding Refn’s 2013 revenge thriller Only God Forgives, a film so brutal and inaccessible that quite a few critics ended up treating it like a snuff film from hell back when it was first released. However, I’ve come to learn that horror fans have a knack for seeing beyond the blood and guts when judging the value of a story, and that’s why I’d like to make a case for Winding’s near-impenetrable experiment as an excellent horror-adjacent experience.

Refn originally came up with the idea for Only God Forgives immediately after completing 2009’s Valhalla Rising and becoming confused by feelings of anger and existential dread during his wife’s second pregnancy. It was during this time that he found himself imagining a literal fistfight with God, with this concept leading him to envision a fairy-tale western set in the far east that would deal with some of the same primal emotions present in his Viking revenge story.

It was actually Ryan Gosling who convinced the director to tackle the more commercially viable Drive first, as he wanted to cement his partnership with the filmmaker in a more traditional movie before tackling a deeply strange project. This would pay off during the production of Only God Forgives, as the filmmaking duo was forced to use their notoriety to scrounge up money at a Thai film festival when local authorities began demanding bribes in order to allow shooting to continue.

In the finished film, Gosling plays Julian, an American ex-pat running a Muay-Thai boxing club alongside his sociopathic brother Billy (Tom Burke). When Billy gets himself killed after sexually assaulting and murdering a teenager, Julian is tasked by his disturbed mother (Kristin Scott Thomas) with tracking down those responsible for the death of her first-born child. What follows is a surreal dive into the seedy underbelly of Bangkok as the cycle of revenge escalates and violence leads to even more violence.


SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

There’s no right or wrong way to engage with art, but there are some films that clearly require more effort from the audience side in order to be effective. And while you can’t blame cinemagoers for just wanting to enjoy some passive entertainment, I think it’s always worth trying to meet a work of art on its own terms before judging it.

Despite being a huge fan of Drive, I avoided Only God Forgives for a long time because of its poor critical reception and excessively esoteric presentation. It was only years later that I gave the flick a chance when a friend of mine described the experience as “David Lynch on cocaine.” It was then that I realized that nearly everything critics had complained about in the film are precisely what made it so interesting.

If you can stomach the deliberate pacing, you’ll likely be fascinated by this stylish nightmare about morally questionable people becoming trapped in a needless cycle of violence and retaliation. Not only is the photography impeccable, turning the rain-slicked streets of Bangkok into a neo-noir playground, but the bizarre characters and performances also help to make this an undeniably memorable movie. And while Gosling deserves praise as the unhinged Julian, I’d argue that Vithaya Pansringarm steals the show here as “The Angel of Vengeance,” even if his untranslated dialogue is likely to be unintelligible for most viewers.

However, I think the lack of subtitles ends up enhancing the mood here (even though some editions of the film ended up including them against the director’s wishes), adding to the feeling that Julian is a stranger in a strange land while also allowing viewers to project their own motivations onto some of the “antagonists.”

And while Only God Forgives is frequently accused of burying its narrative underneath a pile of artsy excess, I think the heart of the film is rather straightforward despite its obtuse presentation. I mean, the moral here is basically “revenge isn’t fun,” which I think is made clear by the horrific use of violence (though we’ll discuss that further in the next section).

To be clear, I’m still not sure whether or not I enjoyed this movie, I just know that I’m glad I watched it.


AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?

There are two different kinds of gore effects. One of them is meant to entertain viewers with exaggerated wounds and excessive blood as you admire the craftsmanship behind the filmmaking. The other kind is simply a tool meant to simulate what actually happens when you injure a human body. Like I mentioned before, Only God Forgives isn’t trying to be “fun,” so you can guess what kind gore is in this one…

From realistic maimings to brutal fist fights that feel more painful than thrilling, the “action” label on this flick seems downright questionable when the majority of the experience has you wincing at genuinely scary acts of grisly violence. I mean, the story begins with an unmotivated rampage through the streets of late-night Bangkok and ends with the implication of even more pointless violence, so it’s pretty clear that you’re not really meant to root for an “action hero” here.

I can’t even say that the deaths resemble those from slasher flicks because the movie never attempts to sensationalize these horrific acts, with Refn preferring to depict them as straightforward consequences of violent people going through the motions – which is somehow even scarier than if this had just been yet another hyper-violent revenge movie.

Not only that, but the characters’ overall lack of moral principles makes this story even more disturbing, with the main antagonist being the closest thing to a decent person among the main cast despite also being a brutal vigilante.

Only God Forgives doesn’t care if you like it or not (and actually takes measures to make sure that the viewing experience is often unpleasant), but if you’re willing to step up to this cinematic challenge and engage with the narrative and visuals on their own terms, I think you’ll find an unforgettable nightmare waiting for you on the other side.


There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.

Continue Reading