User Reviews (389)

Add a Review

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • There were only two, count em', two well constructed and (more importantly) scary sequences throughout this entire HORROR MOVIE (the home invasion part and the elevator bit). If that fact alone is enough to get one person not to watch "Annabelle", then I've done my job as a critic.

    If you went into "Annabelle" wanting to see something along the lines of "Child's Play" or at the very least, a doll-centric horror movie where dolls are either animated in some fashion or at the very least, trip someone as they walk down the stairs, then you will be savagely disappointed. On the other hand, if you were a fan of the small snippet of Annabelle's story shown in "The Conjuring" and wanted a terrifying and in-depth origins story, then you…will be disappointed as well.

    Synopsis: With an engaging set up, set against the rampant cult-phobia of the 60's, "Annabelle" is the story of a couple living in California who begin to experience paranormal occurrences after the husband gifts his pregnant, doll-crazed wife a doll, that soaks up blood faster than a Bounty paper towel. After that, the plot falls pretty flat by turning its focus away from the scary doll element, as the story becomes 10% "Rosemary's Baby", 20% every single haunted house movie ever and 70% watered down scares.

    Aside from the fact that not for one second did I care about any of the characters here, for the most part director John R. Leonetti (the director of photography of "The Conjuring") does a lazy job of "conjuring" up scares. For about 80 minutes of this 98 minute film, every single scare follows the ultra uncreative quiet, quiet, quiet, LOUD, formula. About 20 minutes in, it becomes obvious that Leonetti is either just going through the motions or doing a rather poor job of plagiarizing much scarier films.

    Final Thought: Much like the countless throw away, straight to DVD Disney animated sequels to come out of late the 90's and early 2000's (Pocahontas 2: Journey to a New World, The Little Mermaid 2: Return to the Sea, Cinderella 2: Dreams Come True") "Annabelle" (a prequel) is nothing more than a soulless money-grab from this particular production company, attempting to feed off the success of "The Conjuring". No mention of Ed and Lorraine Warren (real life paranormal investigators from "The Conjuring") no James Wan (the director of "The Conjuring") and not one doll-induced scare, all seemed to have a hand in making "Annabelle" a strikingly forgettable film. I mean, in "The Conjuring", the Annabelle doll is only used in all of three scenes, but due to some smart direction, those are some of the scariest potions of the movie. In "Annabelle", the titular doll is used throughout and it's not even a little bit creepy. What gives?
  • About a minute into this film I squealed out of fear when they put the Annabelle doll into frame. I have a genuine fear of dolls like this. They freak me out. Therefore I was excited about this movie - I sincerely thought that there would finally be another movie out there that would manage to scare me (I have 3 in total so far). Sadly this is not the case. The movie was boring and predictable. The worst thing was that they have this terrifying creature-object-thing to make good use of and they failed miserably at using it. I'm genuinely disappointed at the reuse of the same old washed up horror storyline. How'd this script even get approved??! booo! I wish I wrote it so they could actually see what fear of a doll is haha.
  • dunnypop2 October 2014
    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.
  • 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.
  • I have watched many many scary movies, some good some bad, none truly scary. Anyone who reviewed this film as scary or awesome obviously has not seen the film. This is a complete snore-fest, from start to finish. I saw perhaps 3 "jump out of seat" scenes where it was totally predictable on it and was yawning each time. The conjuring was a terrific film, and this one is just trying to score big bucks off that name with 1/4 the budget. I was left feeling angry and cheated. There was no depth, no character relation, no story-line, nothing to get you even remotely into the film, except "saw the previews, this is gonna be so good !" feeling you saw when you watched the previews and couldn't wait for this to come out. A complete letdown in all aspects except the fact it actually ended and I could go do something else.
  • steven-7351 October 2014
    Okay folks. This not an Oscar film for sure. It is also not ground breaking by any means. Hell the only thing even remotely true about the film is the first maybe three minutes. This is every horror movie you have ever seen rolled into one. One minute you feel like your watching Rosemary's Baby. Then Rosemary is in the Amityville house. The next moment here comes Chucky with even a little Helter Skelter thrown into the mix. But everything I could say that is wrong with this film is exactly why it works. it embraces its cheese factor. Even revels in it at times. The film has some great scares and in a few cases some real interesting ones. It is just simply a lot of fun to watch with a lot of people. So much so, when Annabelle reveals herself fully you find yourself really into it. I thought the ending was weak but by the time you get to the end it would be very hard to raise the level suspense any higher. There is a scene with a sewing machine and Jiffy Pop which I think should go down in horror movie history for the right way to build suspense. It was funny listening to the audiences nervous giggles as something was about to happen. Go to this as entertainment and nothing more. Nothing deep here. Very little real here. It is based on a true story. However, based is a very loose word here. Three minutes is based upon a true story. Just good October fun.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    There was such huge potential for this movie to be scary. Extremely creepy looking doll, backstory from The Conjuring , an old house and a baby. But instead of a genuinely haunting movie, we were subjected to an insulting plot with ZERO scares. I am not exaggerating. There were zero scary parts in this. Lots of zooming in on the creepy doll's face. You expect something to happen at this point. The head to move, the mouth to open, the eyes to blink. But no, there was nothing. Just a slow zooming in shot of a stationary inanimate doll.

    Look at the movie's budget vs. profit and you'll see why the producers wanted to make this movie. It was simply a cash making exercise with no thought given to the plot.

    This should not be classed as a horror movie. I've seen Scooby Doo cartoons which were scarier than this.
  • We have met the creepy vintage doll Annabelle before in last year's excellent and very memorable horror film "The Conjuring." She was just the front act there, showing up only at the pre-opening credits sequence. This year, we get to know Annabelle more and how she came to be demonically possessed.

    The setting of this film is in the 1960s in a California suburb. Young couple John and Mia are expecting their first child. One day, John surprises Mia, who was a vintage doll collector, with a huge antique doll with painted ivory face wearing white satin dress adorned by a red bow. It just so happened that same night, crazy satanic cultists attack their home and there was resulting bloodshed. However, since that night, there was no more peace in John and Mia's household, especially after she gives birth to their daughter, Leah.

    I liked the throwback look of this film, with its faded color palette and meticulous production design. The architecture, interior design, fashion, hairstyles, television shows, pop music all captured the era so well. Even the look of cutie baby Leah was vintage, like the Gerber baby. These things also contributed to the scariness factor because of the limitation of technology that the characters have on hand.

    A big part of the success of "Annabelle" as a horror film is the effective lead performance of coincidentally-named Annabelle Wallis as Mia. The character's name Mia, I am guessing, is a tribute to Mia Farrow, who was the star of a horror classic of the 1960s, "Rosemary's Baby." The stroller Mia uses for Leah sure looked like Rosemary's stroller which is seen in posters of that old film. Ms. Wallis has an elegant beauty and her acting was sympathetic without becoming cheesy.

    Ward Horton plays Mia's husband John, who is a medical student, which makes a convenient excuse for him to be a skeptic and always on call during the night, leaving Mia in the house watching television or working on her sewing machine. Veteran actress Alfre Woodard is the only familiar face in the cast, and she plays their helpful neighbor Evelyn. Her character though had a story arc which probably the only negative thing I could say about this film.

    John R. Leonetti, the cinematographer of "Insidious 1 & 2" and "The Conjuring" makes an auspicious directorial debut with "Annabelle." He learned very well from his his previous director James Wan, who sits as producer of this film. You can see he has the eye for the perfect views for the most effective suspense and surprise.

    I liked the cinematography that employs camera angles that give you the point of view of the tormented victim so that you too do not know what will happen next. The suspense could be so intense so many times, with the excellent editing and splicing of scenes together accompanied by a swelling crescendo of music. The timing for the big jump scare was effectively surprising most of the time, even you were sort of predicting it to happen already.

    This is a film which may divide audiences as to whether it could match the successes of "Insidious" or "The Conjuring." As it is, I liked "Annabelle" more than I thought I would. I was expecting the worst, since I hated how the Annabelle doll looked and I can't imagine anyone wanting one like it in their house. However, the film managed to transcend that limitation and actually create genuine scares that worked.
  • I loved The Conjuring when it came out was up there with my favourite movies from last year. Annabelle when first seen the trailers wasn't sure if was going to a good movie on its own. But I was wrong.

    Don't know how many times I jumped in my seat watching this movie and some of the reactions it was getting from other people in the crowd. It really keeps up the scares and frights and tries to keep them at a good pace throughout the movie.

    Now this is by no means better than The Conjuring but it is pretty close. The doll is terrifying and I imagine a lot of people won't be looking at their dolls the same again after watching this.
  • slater-jon-home9 January 2015
    This film is hilariously bad. I brought it back for me and my girlfriend, and we watched it. This film really tried to pull off the 'omg-look-behind-you' and 'im-really-stupid-so-im-not-going-to-pick-up-that-gun'-type mentatily. I understand this is part of the Horror genre that i so love, but.. this is ridiculous to the point to making fun of you. Because of this, you will probably want to shut it off about 2/3 through, by that stage the shitness couldn't bring me to care about the already weak characters any more anyway, unfortunately. Started so well. What a shame.
  • I'm not the type to write long reviews & give too much unnecessary details.

    But overall I'm giving this movie a 9 out of 10. I really enjoyed it and would probably watch it again as we get closer to Halloween. The movie had a good story line, and nothing stood out as being too fake or unrealistic.

    This movie was very well made. I would definitely recommend to watch it this October during the Halloween season.

    There were definitely plenty of "jumping in your chair" moments and plenty of people screaming in the theater. I think "most" people would enjoy watching it.
  • "C'mon! A haunted doll? ...Really??"

    Obviously, I really wasn't expecting much. But similar to my experience with The Conjuring, I left the theater actually feeling quite satisfied. The doll wasn't as central to the story as one would expect, rather it was more of a symbol of evil in the film. There was some nice character development, an interesting plot, and plenty of moments where I had my mouth wide open because I was terrified! This movie is a lot of fun, and (to my surprise) I would definitely recommend it if you're looking for a movie with fun scares and ACTUAL substance to the storyline (radical concept for a horror film). Bravo! Can't wait to see The Conjuring 2: The Enfield Poltergeist in 2015.
  • This is certainly one of the spookiest movies I've seen in some time. It had the same jump factor as paranormal activity, and I was on the edge of my seat for the most part of the film! Unlike a lot of horror movies it stayed reasonably believable throughout the entire film and didn't not end with some insane half wit ending.

    This is not the conjuring, I'm not sure why people are comparing the two? But I think the comparisons are reflecting the poor reviews which would explain the lower scores! They are two different movies that tie in together but I don't feel they should compete but should be in harmony with each other. If you are a fan of horror movies, especially demons or just want to get your heart racing I 100% recommend this movie!
  • I've been expecting a follow-up to the conjuring since the movie came out last year. To be fair I was kinda feeling funny when they announced the release of a prequel only a year after the first was issued, but still.

    We all know the downhill of saw movies that keeps repeatedly piling out of the Volkswagen in a call of duty or fifa fashion every year and I thought this prequel would have been sort of a bad movie. Since the conjuring have raised the bar quite high.

    But holy-cow does it live up, in fact you can say it's a stand alone movie that can easily redeem it's title. The amount of either jump scare and suggested are well balanced making it enjoyable to watch, in a nutshell the ambiance that is settled is disturbing and is supposed to be.

    Only blind spot the actor play that can be qualified as not as good as the overall execution, briefly said if you're looking for a good scare and potentially the better horror movie of 2014 this is a serious contender.

    Make your impression as well and go see it, definitely worth it
  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    OK, first of all I decided to make an IMDb account just to write a review about how crap this movie was. I cannot believe how poor this movie was it made me so angry and irritated me, the acting was horrible.

    the characters were just not very convincing I was not scared through this movie, I kept watching it hoping that it's going to get better but it didn't. The conjuring was so much better the acting the plot was so much better.

    Do not even waste your time watching this movie Annabelle because you will only be disappointed overall I'm giving this movie a 0 out of 10.
  • Brilliant Horror film ! while I was watching the film at a packed movie theater, I was thinking Chucky has finally met his match in Annabelle. not that Annabelle the movie is anything like the Child's play films, it is very different and perhaps the only common factor they share is the presence of a doll.

    the movie was executed professionally, everything was top notch, from direction to Cinematography, and from acting to plot and dialog, everything was in place. I also loved the 70s vibe, and the lead actress Annabelle Wallis playing Mia was also excellent.

    the movie had its shares of scares, jump out of your seat surprises but nothing over the top, it might not be as scary as people might be expecting and hence some of the negative reviews here from other users. However, I thought the movie was well balanced and relied mainly on story and character rather than being overtly scary, which was perfect in my opinion and it what made it so good and successful in my eyes.

    I highly recommend this, a good Horror film to start October with and prepare for Halloween. go watch it
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Maybe not the most disturbing horror/demonic movie, but it's up there. I thought the story was substantial enough. The dots are connected as to how Annabelle became a conduit for a demon and how the person(s) who conjured up the demon were destroyed as a consequence of the actions that malevolent spirit drove them to. The corollary of the Manson/Tate/LaBianca murders were a nice touch and fit nicely into the chronology of the franchise. Effective use of imagery, movement, sound, and scoring to put viewers on the edge of their seat. I glanced over to my 19 year-old daughter who loves scary movies and found her sitting in a fetal position with hands poised to cover her eyes. My Christian peers would think I'm a horrible father for condoning such a movie by taking my daughter to see it...but theologically I found the content to be biblically accurate and that there certainly IS evil in the world. And I believe that evil was set loose in our world when humankind chose to mistrust God, and summon the power or purview of God's enemies.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I had high hopes for this movie having liked The Conjuring but I was sadly disappointed. There were only 4 shock scares throughout the whole movie.It seemed to me the doll was not even possessed, just a demon who enjoyed playing with it. I actually noticed more bloopers then scares. I found the characters where just thrown together with no development and outside characters made no sense as to why they were even in the movie since they added nothing. I believe that this movie would have been best served going strait to DVD instead of being offered in movie theaters. For the lack of any attempt to develop the characters or even attempt to make the doll demon possessed(IE moving around on its own, glowing eyes) The one time they actually showed the doll moving by it's self was portrayed as a demon holding it. Overall it was a major disappointment. Definitely not a must see move of 2014.
  • I just wasted like a hour and half of my life watching this movie. Through the whole movie Annabel doesn't even seem to move at least in the chuckie movies you saw chuckie walking, talking etc. and then what tripped me out is why the hell would the lady mia go down to put something in storage and leave her baby in the apartment upstairs alone knowing that theirs an evil presence all around the house that is after her and the baby. ALSO! the scene were she drops her keys and the stroller goes rolling in the street and once the stroller gets hit she all of a sudden has her baby in her hand.... so many scenes were this movie just did not have any common sense. They could of had a better director do this movie because this movie was a waste of time I'm glad I watched it online through a website that was free rather then going to go spend my money this weekend to watch the film in theaters. this movie was awful and that's just my honest opinion.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I have disliked a majority of movies I watch, but not badly enough that I'm urged to write a review on it. This movie, however, irked me so badly that I feel the need. Let's start off by saying that the title of this movie is 'Annabelle', correct? Yep. So where is this doll the entire movie? Nowhere. That's right, this is where the plot falls apart and everything goes downhill from there. The doll is hardly in the movie at all. She moves a total of maybe two times (excluding the 'climax' of this movie in which she is overused). I had a very hard time finishing this over-hyped example of trying too hard to be original. The beginning is too slow and it doesn't get to the point until the movie is just about over as well. By the end of the movie, I just wanted it to end and was happy that they at least hadn't killed off the bookstore owner... and then there is yet another attempt at being original and failing miserably. This lady (who, by the way, had nothing to do with any of this) plummets to her death out the apartment window and gives her soul to a demon. It was this part that enraged me the most for the mere idea of killing a good character off when there was no reason to and another ending could have been made (because the director clearly wasn't actually making Annabelle off of the true story) is barbaric and uncalled for. I am disturbed with the outcome of this movie and, quite frankly, I didn't even want to award it one star, but there was no option lower, so I will state it here.

    0/10 stars
  • When James Wan came out with "The Conjuring" and then "Insidious" i thought a new sub-genre of horror has been created. That of substance over "cut-screen" scare shots or the Splatterfest, "Gore- or" movies that were so popular in the last few years. WHen i read, James Wan was NOT directing i got admittedly nervous, but John Leonetti not only maintains Wan's level of excellence, imo he surpasses it in many respects. Approaching the tension with a slow build rather than a "haunted house" jump scene, was so effective, that during one of the many "Collective Scream scenes" where the entire theater jump- started, yelled or both, one girl sitting 3 rows in front of me, just got up out of her chair and sprinted out the exit door (not sure what she was running to, but i'm almost positive what she was running from).

    Anyway, i fully expect there to be reviews from the "too cool", arm chair adrenaline junkies who claim to be "unshakable" in their choice of horror viewing and would probable claim no movie will EVER scare them, but for my $13.00 (not counting popcorn and Twizzlers), this movie delivered on average more scary images per minute than any film i have EVER seen in my entire life!!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This movie was just, ugh, AWFUL!!!!!!!!! I expected this movie to have the same formula as The Conjuring had. Scare people with suspense not with some cheesy CGI cast off from Insidious. If you took the demon from Insidious, cut off its tail, then you would have the demon in Annabelle. The story is supposed to be about ANNABELLE!!!!!!! not some stupid stereotype American family. The story SHOULD of been about the little girl Annabelle that was in the first 5 MINUTES OF THE MOVIE!!!!! If you watch the first 5 minutes then leave, you have the story of ANNABELLE!!!! If you want to watch the rest of it, be prepared, you barely seen Annabelle do anything. All she does is sit there and do nothing.

    Everyone scene is predictable, and when you think you will see something, you do, so it takes away all suspense of the film. The Conjuring knew that to scare people you have to make them think they will see something and then DON'T SHOW THEM SOMETHING!!!!!! That is the key, if we anticipate seeing something we will scare ourselves more. Blair Witch Project, Halloween, Jason, Nightmare on Elm Street, The Conjuring all knew this. Scaring people isn't hard to do with a horror movie, but when you feed it to us like were 2 years old, it isn't scary, it is repetitive and boring.

    A sad example of a sequel. Directors and Producers, you disappoint me. Only cool thing I found in the movie was the fact Mia's real name is Annabelle, which I think was a fun twist to the story haha! Other then that, it was a waste of $10 dollars.
An error has occured. Please try again.