Ein Paar beginnt, erschreckende übernatürliche Ereignisse mit einer alten Puppe zu erleben, kurz nachdem ihr Haus von satanischen Kultisten überfallen wurde.Ein Paar beginnt, erschreckende übernatürliche Ereignisse mit einer alten Puppe zu erleben, kurz nachdem ihr Haus von satanischen Kultisten überfallen wurde.Ein Paar beginnt, erschreckende übernatürliche Ereignisse mit einer alten Puppe zu erleben, kurz nachdem ihr Haus von satanischen Kultisten überfallen wurde.
- Auszeichnungen
- 3 Gewinne & 7 Nominierungen insgesamt
Joseph Bishara
- Demonic Figure
- (Nicht genannt)
Morganna Bridgers
- Debbie
- (Nicht genannt)
Paige Diaz
- Candy Striper
- (Nicht genannt)
Zusammenfassung
Reviewers say 'Annabelle' is a horror film exploring motherhood, loss, and the supernatural. Set in the 1970s, it follows a couple experiencing terrifying events after receiving a haunted doll. Reviews highlight the eerie atmosphere, jump scares, and unsettling doll presence. Praised for creepy moments and strong performances, especially Annabelle Wallis, it is criticized for relying on horror tropes and lacking originality. Cinematography and sound design enhance tension, making it a solid addition to the Conjuring Universe.
Empfohlene Bewertungen
Let me start off by stating that as a devout Horror fan with a special liking to ghost stories, haunts and exorcisms, I have really enjoyed The Conjuring. Therefore, my anticipation towards this pseudo- prequel is to be understood, as well as my disappointment...
Perhaps it was the fact that James Wan was only an executive producer of this film that has made it wreak of mediocrity, especially compared to the first. Most of this film's components are exactly that: mediocre. The acting lacked the charisma and screen presence of Patrick Wilson (Ed Warren in The Conjuring), though I must say that Alfre Woodard (Evelyn) and Tony Amendola (Father Perez) were certain light spots. The story feels like it came out of an automated template machine given the basic "create me a mediocre haunting story" order, and again, compared to The Conjuring simply doesn't make the cut.
So why the slightly generous rating? For a few reasons:
1) Say what you will, that doll is one of the scariest, creepiest and most horrifying things I have ever seen both on screen and in life. Whoever created that doll's exterior should be either given a reward for being a genius or committed to a mental ward for being sick in the head (and I say that with the utmost respect, that doll is a work of art). Unlike The Conjuring, Annabelle gives the doll a lot more well deserved screen time.
2) The cinematography is at its best with the quick shots, giving the audience sometimes less than a second to realize what they're seeing. Showing demons, ghosts and such evil presences in that manner really adds to the fear factor in my opinion, for Hollywood is yet to realize how to portrait a demon that is scary for those of us who aren't religious Christians (and I say that with no disrespect whatsoever to Christians or Christianity). I like to use Insidious (another Wanderful masterpiece, if you haven't seen it stop reading RIGHT NOW and go see it) as an example - the one thing really lowering that excellent film's level is the demon shown there. In Annabelle, demons are shown, but for a snap shot, leaving much to imagination which serves to add to the scare gauage.
3) Plot actually gets pretty intense towards the end, but only towards the end.
So all in all, perhaps had I watched this film before The Conjuring I would have been able to be more objective, but seeing as how I am unable to ignore it's shortcomings - I give it 6.5, meaning you should definitely watch it (especially if you liked The Conjuring) but you shouldn't expect it to meet The Conjuring's level.
Perhaps it was the fact that James Wan was only an executive producer of this film that has made it wreak of mediocrity, especially compared to the first. Most of this film's components are exactly that: mediocre. The acting lacked the charisma and screen presence of Patrick Wilson (Ed Warren in The Conjuring), though I must say that Alfre Woodard (Evelyn) and Tony Amendola (Father Perez) were certain light spots. The story feels like it came out of an automated template machine given the basic "create me a mediocre haunting story" order, and again, compared to The Conjuring simply doesn't make the cut.
So why the slightly generous rating? For a few reasons:
1) Say what you will, that doll is one of the scariest, creepiest and most horrifying things I have ever seen both on screen and in life. Whoever created that doll's exterior should be either given a reward for being a genius or committed to a mental ward for being sick in the head (and I say that with the utmost respect, that doll is a work of art). Unlike The Conjuring, Annabelle gives the doll a lot more well deserved screen time.
2) The cinematography is at its best with the quick shots, giving the audience sometimes less than a second to realize what they're seeing. Showing demons, ghosts and such evil presences in that manner really adds to the fear factor in my opinion, for Hollywood is yet to realize how to portrait a demon that is scary for those of us who aren't religious Christians (and I say that with no disrespect whatsoever to Christians or Christianity). I like to use Insidious (another Wanderful masterpiece, if you haven't seen it stop reading RIGHT NOW and go see it) as an example - the one thing really lowering that excellent film's level is the demon shown there. In Annabelle, demons are shown, but for a snap shot, leaving much to imagination which serves to add to the scare gauage.
3) Plot actually gets pretty intense towards the end, but only towards the end.
So all in all, perhaps had I watched this film before The Conjuring I would have been able to be more objective, but seeing as how I am unable to ignore it's shortcomings - I give it 6.5, meaning you should definitely watch it (especially if you liked The Conjuring) but you shouldn't expect it to meet The Conjuring's level.
Horror is one of my favorite movie genres. I really wasn't expecting to hate this as much as I did but it is astonishingly terrible. Really. I loved The Conjuring - this is nothing like The Conjuring. At all. It's a blatant cash-grab and a terrible one at that.
There is zero tension throughout this movie. Zero suspense. Everything is reliant on close ups of the dolls face to "creep" us out and really long periods of time where NOTHING HAPPENS. Literally, it's about this couple that we do not care about and their stupid problems which we care even less about. I don't know if they were trying to build suspense in these scenes but in order to build suspense you actually have to care about the characters. Or at least have, you know, suspense; a lingering sense of danger. This had nothing. And holy hell that ending.
The positives of this movie: The lead girl is beautiful. She's easy to look at. The soundtrack is pretty cool too. That's it. The characters are horrendous and the acting is even worse. Seriously if you're going to make a movie this awful at least have the decency to take an acting lesson or two. It's a dreadful watch. Please, don't waste your time with this cash grab sh*t stain. Don't give them the satisfaction. Watch something good like Sinister or 1408 - haunting movies done right.
There is zero tension throughout this movie. Zero suspense. Everything is reliant on close ups of the dolls face to "creep" us out and really long periods of time where NOTHING HAPPENS. Literally, it's about this couple that we do not care about and their stupid problems which we care even less about. I don't know if they were trying to build suspense in these scenes but in order to build suspense you actually have to care about the characters. Or at least have, you know, suspense; a lingering sense of danger. This had nothing. And holy hell that ending.
The positives of this movie: The lead girl is beautiful. She's easy to look at. The soundtrack is pretty cool too. That's it. The characters are horrendous and the acting is even worse. Seriously if you're going to make a movie this awful at least have the decency to take an acting lesson or two. It's a dreadful watch. Please, don't waste your time with this cash grab sh*t stain. Don't give them the satisfaction. Watch something good like Sinister or 1408 - haunting movies done right.
As a prequel and spin-off of The Conjuring – 2013's highly effective horror film – Annabelle does what it promises, even if it does so one jump and one jolt at a time. But that's all you get, jumpy scenes done to perfection, with little or no atmosphere and a story that disintegrates before it reaches a satisfying conclusion.
One of the most important aspects of The Conjuring and older sibling Insidious (both films directed by James Wan), is the cinematography and how it wreaks havoc with the viewer's peripheral vision. By this I am referring to events occurring off-center, or in some corner of the screen that is oblivious to on-screen characters but very obvious to the viewer. Consider a scene where a mother watches over her new born baby. The scene is shot in the living room where the right half of the frame is composed of the mother and her baby and the left half is a hallway that leads to other rooms in the house. Without shifting focus from the mother and child, we see something or someone lurking in the hallway behind; something that shouldn't be there in the first place. While this tactic is nothing new to horror-thrillers, it works for the whole purpose of inducing dread, thick and slow, before the actual jolt hits a few seconds later. The scariest scenes in Annabelle are made up of these moments, and at times we are left guessing what lurks in the corners. And is probably why cinematographer John R Leonetti of those preceding films is tasked with directorial duties in this film, while Wan himself is bumped up to producer. Leonetti plays it safe by treading down Wan's beaten path but without any surprises of his own.
Playing the aforementioned mother is Annabelle Wallis (freaky coincidence?) as Mia Gordon. Mia has a doll collection, one of which is the titular vintage doll gifted by her medical student husband John (Ward Horton). After surviving a horrific attack from a satanic cult, the Gordons have new guests that won't leave. At first Mia starts seeing things and becomes increasingly paralysed by fear while John begins to doubt her sanity. It's a stock approach to crying wolf in horror movies. It takes a while to dawn on them that something has latched on to Annabelle, making the doll a conduit with increasing intent on harming them and their new born baby. Consultations with a librarian and a priest reveal far greater implications, thus leaving these young parents to ward off hell by going right through it.
On one hand, the look and feel in this film is a copy-paste version of Insidious, but concentrated with sporadic moments of numbing fright. We've seen it before in classic horror films – young parents who must literally go through hell to save their child's soul. It's the same concept here but effective enough for a low budget horror film. Like a stern disciple, Leonetti is on par with Wan's technical approach. Cinematography, hair raising sound design (including deliberate moments without sound), and some decent tension will garner a few screams from the audience, but that's about it. On the downside, there isn't much of a story for a script based on real events and don't even expect anything along the lines of an animated 'Çhucky' doll. It's not about what the doll can do but about what's in the doll -If only they had built on that frame of thought. After some well-timed jump scares in the first half, all we are left with is a murky conclusion owing to underwritten supporting cast members whose inclusion leaves the ending stale and cheap.
One of the most important aspects of The Conjuring and older sibling Insidious (both films directed by James Wan), is the cinematography and how it wreaks havoc with the viewer's peripheral vision. By this I am referring to events occurring off-center, or in some corner of the screen that is oblivious to on-screen characters but very obvious to the viewer. Consider a scene where a mother watches over her new born baby. The scene is shot in the living room where the right half of the frame is composed of the mother and her baby and the left half is a hallway that leads to other rooms in the house. Without shifting focus from the mother and child, we see something or someone lurking in the hallway behind; something that shouldn't be there in the first place. While this tactic is nothing new to horror-thrillers, it works for the whole purpose of inducing dread, thick and slow, before the actual jolt hits a few seconds later. The scariest scenes in Annabelle are made up of these moments, and at times we are left guessing what lurks in the corners. And is probably why cinematographer John R Leonetti of those preceding films is tasked with directorial duties in this film, while Wan himself is bumped up to producer. Leonetti plays it safe by treading down Wan's beaten path but without any surprises of his own.
Playing the aforementioned mother is Annabelle Wallis (freaky coincidence?) as Mia Gordon. Mia has a doll collection, one of which is the titular vintage doll gifted by her medical student husband John (Ward Horton). After surviving a horrific attack from a satanic cult, the Gordons have new guests that won't leave. At first Mia starts seeing things and becomes increasingly paralysed by fear while John begins to doubt her sanity. It's a stock approach to crying wolf in horror movies. It takes a while to dawn on them that something has latched on to Annabelle, making the doll a conduit with increasing intent on harming them and their new born baby. Consultations with a librarian and a priest reveal far greater implications, thus leaving these young parents to ward off hell by going right through it.
On one hand, the look and feel in this film is a copy-paste version of Insidious, but concentrated with sporadic moments of numbing fright. We've seen it before in classic horror films – young parents who must literally go through hell to save their child's soul. It's the same concept here but effective enough for a low budget horror film. Like a stern disciple, Leonetti is on par with Wan's technical approach. Cinematography, hair raising sound design (including deliberate moments without sound), and some decent tension will garner a few screams from the audience, but that's about it. On the downside, there isn't much of a story for a script based on real events and don't even expect anything along the lines of an animated 'Çhucky' doll. It's not about what the doll can do but about what's in the doll -If only they had built on that frame of thought. After some well-timed jump scares in the first half, all we are left with is a murky conclusion owing to underwritten supporting cast members whose inclusion leaves the ending stale and cheap.
I'm a horror movie fan - I'm a fan of the original evil dead trilogy to Romero to Poltergeist, korean horror, french horror etc... I'm also a fan of the new wave of horror. I'm a fan of the Conjuring as it was a film that made me think the art of a horror movie is back.
First off... this isn't made by James Wan... it's made by it's filmographer so off of the bat you're probably going to get some cool scenes but perhaps lack of character development. The budget of Annabelle is $5 million (that's 1/4 of what the Conjuring cost). Let me tell you the script is the weakest part of this film.
The movie starts off slow... this is where the film should really get you into the characters but there isn't much here, it's generic. It's the weakest part of the film. You have your standard couple... man goes to work, woman stays home and experiences weird stuff. The problem with this is that it's hard for you to bother to relate to the characters. This kind of kills the film for me. There were actually a lot that could have been explored but they didn't touch like the kids in the apartment.
Now the good. There is very little CGI - perhaps none. It's all old school. This is something that anyone could actually film.... chair moving, oven is on, someone standing there. It's good. It works. There's a great scene here with a baby. Are there enough scares? Not really. The pay off for the film felt like they might have fixed the movie for censors but even though the film is Rated R.
There's a lot missing in this film. It's not horrible. It's worth a rental. It's your average horror movie.
First off... this isn't made by James Wan... it's made by it's filmographer so off of the bat you're probably going to get some cool scenes but perhaps lack of character development. The budget of Annabelle is $5 million (that's 1/4 of what the Conjuring cost). Let me tell you the script is the weakest part of this film.
The movie starts off slow... this is where the film should really get you into the characters but there isn't much here, it's generic. It's the weakest part of the film. You have your standard couple... man goes to work, woman stays home and experiences weird stuff. The problem with this is that it's hard for you to bother to relate to the characters. This kind of kills the film for me. There were actually a lot that could have been explored but they didn't touch like the kids in the apartment.
Now the good. There is very little CGI - perhaps none. It's all old school. This is something that anyone could actually film.... chair moving, oven is on, someone standing there. It's good. It works. There's a great scene here with a baby. Are there enough scares? Not really. The pay off for the film felt like they might have fixed the movie for censors but even though the film is Rated R.
There's a lot missing in this film. It's not horrible. It's worth a rental. It's your average horror movie.
I saw this in theater originally even had an odd experience with the theater halfway kinda brilliant for supernatural horror, I was even with someone but they were quite obnoxious. Anyway the movie is solid I understand the hate crazy enough the sequels are an improvement. The terror is the best thing about it and there's not much of it. I like how the main actress's name is Annabelle Wallis she's brilliant in a later role called Malignant!
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesThe movie portrays the Annabelle doll as a porcelain doll, but the real Annabelle doll is a large "Raggedy Ann" doll. The Warrens had a special case built for Annabelle inside their Occult Museum, where she resides to this day.
- Patzer(at around 15 mins) 911, while invented in 1968, did not become a nationally recognized emergency number in the US until the '70s and '80s. CA, where the movie was filmed, had universal 911 for all counties in 1985.
- Zitate
Father Perez: [to Mia while possessed] May God have mercy on your soul!
- VerbindungenFeatured in Half in the Bag: Gone Girl and Annabelle (2014)
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Offizielle Standorte
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- The Annabelle Story
- Drehorte
- The Langham Apartments - 715 S Normandie Ave, Los Angeles, Kalifornien, USA(apartment interior, basement elevator)
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Budget
- 6.500.000 $ (geschätzt)
- Bruttoertrag in den USA und Kanada
- 84.284.252 $
- Eröffnungswochenende in den USA und in Kanada
- 37.134.255 $
- 5. Okt. 2014
- Weltweiter Bruttoertrag
- 257.589.952 $
- Laufzeit
- 1 Std. 39 Min.(99 min)
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 2.39 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen