Una coppia inizia a fare l'esperienza di eventi soprannaturali terrificanti che coinvolgono una bambola dopo che la loro casa è stata invasa da cultisti satanici.Una coppia inizia a fare l'esperienza di eventi soprannaturali terrificanti che coinvolgono una bambola dopo che la loro casa è stata invasa da cultisti satanici.Una coppia inizia a fare l'esperienza di eventi soprannaturali terrificanti che coinvolgono una bambola dopo che la loro casa è stata invasa da cultisti satanici.
- Premi
- 3 vittorie e 7 candidature totali
Joseph Bishara
- Demonic Figure
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Morganna Bridgers
- Debbie
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Paige Diaz
- Candy Striper
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Riepilogo
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.
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
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!
Re-watched this one recently and now I remember why it didn't really leave an impression like it's sequels. as the first of the trilogy it had the burden of building the characters and world up, which it failed to do. none of the characters felt fleshed out, leaving the viewer to not really care what happens to any of them. for most of the film you feel as if you're watching a slice of life film instead of a horror one. it finally starts to pickup halfway through the film although the ending doesn't really feel earned and the conflict happens and dies out too quickly as if it remembered it had to happen. the second film did a way better job at being a spin-off film for this important entity of The Conjuring universe.
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.
In the first, rather scary, scene in the Conjuring, featuring the Annabelle doll, I wondered, what kind of woman would ever buy a doll that creepy looking? Apparently no one. Since the real Annabelle was in fact a simple Raggedy Ann doll. This movie purports to tell the whole story behind the doll, almost none of which conforms with reality (meaning the "true" story as it was given to and told by the Warrens). We meet a bland, prosaic young couple about to have a child. The wife has a doll collection decorating the child's room (Before she knows if it's a girl or boy), and the husband buys her the Annabelle doll, which is supposedly an expensive collector's item meant to match two similar dolls. Following an attack by two cult members who lived next door, the Annabelle doll becomes possessed, doing usual ghost things like operating a sewing machine, and record player. Later, she seemingly tries to kill the baby in its womb, contradicting the later explanation that the doll is a demon host looking for an innocent soul. Luckily, a kindly mystical black woman owns a nearby bookstore with a well-stocked occult section. The wife and her friend discover the name of the cult to which the neighbors belonged, but use absolutely none of the information to defeat the doll. In fact, there are many threads that dangle and go nowhere. We meet two children who seemingly draw pictures of the baby being hit by a truck, and then the children are never seen again, and bear no relevance to the plot. The fact that the mystic new age black woman is willing to go to any length to protect this bland white family may strike some as offensive, especially since it appears nowhere in the actual story. Like most films of this nature, it is practically an advertisement for the Catholic Church and Christian religion in general. The Warrens also investigated the Amityville story, whose victims were also Catholic, and the book featured an introduction by a Catholic priest. Essentially, these stories say, for better or worse, that Catholics are the religion feared by the devil, and the only ones capable of eliminating supernatural threats from demons. The Warrens, in fact, keep the doll in a case protected with a cross, and blessed by a priest. As for the movie itself, it features a couple good jump scares. There are a couple scenes strongly reminiscent of Japanese horror (Dark Water and the Grudge especially). I've seen this type of movie done better and much worse. I have no idea why the R rating, except possibly the religious iconography and injury to a priest and pregnant woman. But honestly, this could play on television barely edited, if at all. You can definitely wait for this title on video.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThe 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.
- Blooper(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.
- Citazioni
Father Perez: [to Mia while possessed] May God have mercy on your soul!
- ConnessioniFeatured in Half in the Bag: Gone Girl and Annabelle (2014)
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Siti ufficiali
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- The Annabelle Story
- Luoghi delle riprese
- The Langham Apartments - 715 S Normandie Ave, Los Angeles, California, Stati Uniti(apartment interior, basement elevator)
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 6.500.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 84.284.252 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 37.134.255 USD
- 5 ott 2014
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 257.589.952 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 39min(99 min)
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti