Until Dawn (2025)

While I am currently trying to pester my partner into allowing me ownership of a sexy and slim PS5, I am very much aware of the fact that I barely have time to play the many videogames I have owned for years already. That includes Ghosts Of Tsushima. It includes some of the more recent Resident Evil games. And it includes Until Dawn, which I once spent about half an hour on. It's not that I disliked it. It's great. As are the other games mentioned. I just don't often have the time required for games that benefit from complete immersion and focus, which is why I end up playing some pinball or Tony Hawks levels instead.

What I am trying to make clear right now is that I don't have much experience, or knowledge, of the Until Dawn videogame. I know how it starts though, and I know that a bunch of young adults end up in an isolated location that starts to present them with a variety of horrors.

The main characters here are Clover (Ella Rubin), Max (Michael Cimino), Nina (Odessa A'zion), Megan (Ji-young Yoo), and Abe (Belmont Cameli). They end up in the middle of nowhere while Clover tries to retrace the steps of her missing sister, Melanie (Maia Mitchell). It isn't long until something scary starts happening, but any fear they experience is exacerbated by the realisation that they're also stuck in a timeloop that starts over whenever they die. Is there a way to stop the cycle, and does it have anything to do with Dr. Hill (Peter Stormare)?

While I have seen some complaints from videogame fans who didn't like the direction taken by this, I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised. Not only did it feel as if it at least tried to stay aligned to the essence of the game, certainly in the opening act, but it turned into something bloodier and more twisted than I thought it would be. Writers Gary Dauberman and Blair Butler work well together, sketching out the characters and premise succinctly enough to pack a healthy amount of scare sequences into the 103-minute runtime, and director David F. Sandberg continues his run of movies that show him to be a very capable pair of hands, if perhaps rarely great (his previous best feature also being written by Dauberman, Annabelle: Creation).

As for the cast, they all know that they're in the film to be put through the wringer. I have seen Rubin in a number of films now. She can do well in the right role, although she doesn't quite feel like a strong enough lead for this. She's not bad, but it's only in the third act that it becomes easier to root for her while the odds against survival grow exponentially. Cimino and Cameli are perfectly fine, I guess, but they're outshone by both A'zion and Yoo, who just have a bit more screen presence, perhaps due to them simply not being as generic as the "himbo #1 and himbo #2" casting calls for their male counterparts. Stormare has fun with his role, and his presence is one of the elements creating, and maintaining, an essential link between the film and the videogame.

From the little I know of the videogame, and I've made clear how little that is, I liked the way it was adapted into a feature. There's still some familiar visuals, the timeloop serves as a way to make everything feel similar to a more standard videogame premise (although it should be noted that Until Dawn is celebrated for NOT being a standard videogame), and things are put together with a healthy balance of fun and frights. Despite the criticisms of some who wanted something more faithful, this is quite a fun crowd-pleaser. AND it makes me want to carve out some more time in my schedule to finally fully play through the game. 

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

It: Chapter Two (2019)

It's still Andy Muschietti in the director's chair here, but the writing duties have now fallen to Gary Dauberman alone for this continuation of the tale that pits the Losers Club against a supernatural entity that often takes the form of a clown named Pennywise. Is that a good thing? Many people probably think not. I'm in the minority, and I think Dauberman does a fantastic job of filling this hefty 169-minute runtime with excellent scares and moments of dark surrealism.

In some of the most perfect casting to be committed to film, the youngsters from the first film are now shown in their adult forms, but also reappear in a number of flashbacks that tie events of the past and present together. Here is where I will credit both actors portraying them. You have Bill (Jaeden Martell/James McAvoy), Beverly (Sophia Lillis/Jessica Chastain), Richie (Finn Wolfhard/Bill Hader), Mike (Chosen Jacobs/Isaiah Mustafa), Ben (Jeremy Ray Taylor/Jay Ryan), Stanley (Wyatt Oleff/Andy Bean), and Eddie (Jack Dylan Grazer/James Ransome). And against this steadfast group is the constant source of terror that is It AKA Pennywise (Bill Skarsgård being as brilliant here as he was in the first part of the story). There are other characters who come in and out of the narrative, some just as important as any of our leads, but the heart of the film remains a group of close friends helping one another to battle their greatest fears.

Perhaps it was inevitable that this would pale in comparison to the successful first instalment, especially when many people would agree that the story of the adults just isn't as engaging or entertaining as the story of their childhood experience, but Muschietti and Dauberman work together to try their hardest at making this work as well as it can. Making liberal use of the child actors is one way that they help themselves. Continuing to let Skarsgård steal pretty much every scene he is in is another.

As far as I can tell, nobody likes this film as much as I do. People like it, and there are individual moments that they can point to as highlights, but the runtime and tone seems to have put many off. You can certainly feel the runtime, but I would still argue that it's not necessarily bloated, considering the many extra treats littered throughout. As for the tone, it's a bit lighter at times than the tone of the first film, but I don't think it ever strays too far away from some proper horror for too long. This is never going to be incorrectly labelled as a horror comedy, despite some of the levity and one-liners. It just shows adults using laughter as an essential release valve from an enormous build-up of stress and fear. I guess that some viewers were disappointed by moments that they thought were too silly to be scary, but I also enjoyed that aspect of the whole thing. This is a film that never forgets that the thing taking on the guise of Pennywise is much more than that, and every form it takes is designed to put victims into a "more succulent" state of fear. Yes, some moments are quite bizarre, and illustrated by suitably wild special effects, but they're all part and parcel of the shape-shifting horror that wouldn't be out of place in any Lovecraft tale.

While not as uniform as the first instalment, the acting here is generally top notch. One or two minor quibbles aside, mainly stemming from the writing more than the performances, everyone does great work, and there is a particular joy in watching the adults feel like such a natural development from the children that already made such a strong impression in the previous film.

Arguably even more visually impressive, and arguably even more ambitious, this is a horror movie that benefits from those involved believing that they can now fully embrace the disorderly and manic nature of the beast depicted. I love that about it. I love that it shows how to make your fears small and manageable. I love that there is as much time given to the ideals of friendship and hope as is given to the darkness and danger. I might be overcompensating slightly, considering how many others consider it the lesser work, but I consider this equal to the first film. There are different strengths and weaknesses, but the whole thing works perfectly to deliver a satisfactory ending without spending too much time repeating the exact same scares that we got the first time around.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

It (2017)

Adapting what is, for many, a formative reading experience into a movie is always a challenge. Attempting to do that after there's already been a fantastic, and beloved, TV movie adaptation that many still view as definitive and iconic would seem to be a fool's errand. It's happened before with Stephen King works though, and I have no doubt that it will happen again. I'm not sure I would mind if they all turned out as well as this.

It, and it's worth mentioning for those who may be unaware that this is the first, albeit nicely self-contained, part of an enjoyably sprawling horror story that is spread out over two movies, is all about a group of youngster who help one another survive an extremely deadly summer in Derry, Maine. They all end up being affected by a creature that can take on the shape of their fears, although it mostly catches victims while in the shape of Pennywise the clown (Bill Skarsgård, doing such a great job that he somehow manages to equal the nightmare-inducing performance given by Tim Curry in the 1990 TV movie). That's all you need to know. Seven children, a lifelong bonding experience, and a killer clown.

Having very recently rewatched this, I am sure that I was a bit harsh on It during my first viewing experience. I did praise certain elements, particularly the mix of scares and bloodshed without a reliance on either, but I also mentioned some unnecessary CGI used, a slightly weak script, and the fact that the main characters weren't really. Well . . . present me disagrees with the past me (although I still think there are one or two bits of CGI work that didn't have to be done that way, or maybe even done at all).

With Chase Palmer, Cary Fukunaga, and Gary Dauberman figuring out the best ways to turn King's major tome into a satisfying screenplay, Andy Muschietti can stay focused on direction. The screenplay is a great blend of coming-of-age episodes and well-executed scares, even if a number of them are jump scares, and Muschietti serves the material well. The film is, in many ways, a mood piece, a painting by someone who wants to depict growing pains and common anxieties in the same picture. And, in that regard, it works. In fact, it works brilliantly, constantly evoking a growing sense of nostalgia, the blossoming of dark petals of sadness, and an impressive sprinkling of dread over every main sequence.

There are no weak performances to critique, which makes it easy for me to simply namecheck all seven members of "The Loser's Club" here; Jaeden Martell (Bill, credited here as Jaeden Lieberher), Sophia Lillis (Beverly), Jeremy Ray Taylor (Ben), Finn Wolfhard (Richie), Chosen Jacobs (Mike), Jack Dylan Grazer (Eddie), and Wyatt Oleff (Stanley). All of these characters get enough time and space to feel like more than just a scared victim, and the cast members are all perfectly cast. Nicholas Hamilton and Owen Teague are also very good, although they are given the unenviable task of playing typical King bullies who are, and Jackson Robert Scott does well enough in the role of young Georgie to cast a suitable little shadow over the entire film. As for Skarsgård, he's a creepy and brilliant delight in ways that I cannot even begin to list here. Whether pretending to be innocent and fun or showing a hint of his true evil nature, he's always an interesting depiction of a monster never quite comfortable enough in any one form to fully convince people that there's no threat nearby.

The 135-minute runtime ticks over without any pacing issues, those responsible for the adaptation from page to screen have great instincts for what to show, what to imply, and what to completely excise, and the whole thing is just about as good as you can get, certainly in the realm of modern mainstream horror. It's still hard to watch without thinking of the novel, or thinking of that beloved TV movie, but it's easily up there with the very best King movies (and the top of that particular tree has some real classics nesting there).

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Salem's Lot (2024)

It's been 20 years since the last adaptation of Salem's Lot so I guess there's a chance that many people exploring the horror genre nowadays will be less familiar with the tale, first presented in a Stephen King novel that remains one of his best, before being turned into a traumatic TV movie directed by Tobe Hooper. There have also been other sojourns into, or near, the town, with A Return To Salem's Lot in the mid-1980s, and King himself expanding on the tale in separate short stories and as part of the threads winding through The Dark Tower book series. So I don't think it should ever be classed as something that cannot be revisited/reworked.

Lewis Pullman is our Ben Mears this time around, a writer who returns to the small town that he lived in for a time as a child. The town, and particularly one large house, has a certain pull to it. Ben forms a connection with Susan Norton (Makenzie Leigh) while he is back in town, and befriends a schoolteacher named Matt Burke (Bill Camp). It doesn't take long for these three to notice that something strange is happening around them, with town residents disappearing or acting very odd, as a powerful vampire decides to make Jerusalem's Lot the base for his attempt to turn the USA into his own little Fangtasia.

The second film directed by Gary Dauberman, who helped to make the Annabelle series such a success, and also worked on the screenplay for both chapters of It, the biggest problem with Salem's Lot is something I wouldn't normally tend to complain about. It's far too short. Considering both of the main previous attempts to film this story have clocked in at about the 3-hour mark, this solo movie needs far more than the 114-minute runtime it gets. That becomes very obvious when scenes seem to clash against one another, allowing no time for the proper development of the bigger picture of a town being infected and turned into a ghost town (but, obviously, the ghosts are all vampires).

There are good moments here, all of the actual vampire stuff is well-handled (it's often spooky and inventive, if never actually scary), and the way in which certain scenes are reworked is often surprisingly successful, especially in the change of setting for the big final battle. It's just a shame that the pacing never feels right for most of the runtime, with the exception of a few set-pieces in the second half that you just know the rest of the movie was planned around.

Pullman is decent in the lead role, although he doesn't shine as brightly as some other potential choices (Ben Mears has never been the most memorable King character though, despite the greatness of the story). Leigh is better, with the advantage of being able to comment on a town that she's lived in all her life. Both Bill Camp and Alfre Woodard (playing Dr. Cody) are excellent, feeling quite appropriately like more experienced peers helping the younger leads to deal with a very odd situation, and there are also enjoyable performances from John Benjamin Hickey (as Father Callahan), William Sadler (Sheriff Parker Gillespie), Pilou Asbæk (as Mr. Straker), and Spencer Treat Clark (superbly unnerving as the grave-digger, Mike Ryerson). The other person to mention is Jordan Preston Carter, playing young Mark Petrie with an expected mix of wisdom, anger, and terror. Carter is very good in the role, although a couple of the best moments involving his character are slightly mis-handled, again all to do with the pacing.

Maybe we'll see the full version of this one day, and I don't doubt that there was a lot of extra work done in the editing room here. It's almost like watching a series on a streaming service and accidentally hitting the "play next episode" option twice, leaving you with a gap that you piece together as the ongoing narrative continues. There's still enough to enjoy here, and it's certainly not as bad as many other remakes I could mention. The visuals and atmosphere both have moments of brilliance, but it's clear from the opening credits and very first scenes that this is a film with much more just beyond the edges of the screen that horror fans would love to see.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Annabelle Comes Home (2019)

There are many people who believe that they need to watch a movie at least twice to firmly form their opinion on it. I am not one of those people. I do have times when I am forgetful though, which leads to a gap of a year or two in between viewings, which makes me very late in actually offering up a full review. Bizarrely, my opinion usually remains about the same as it was during my first viewing. Sometimes, although it is very rare, my opinion changes. Having first seen Annabelle Comes Home a few years ago, I forgot to review it and thought no more about it, other than to dismiss it as a slick and silly mainstream horror. Having just rewatched it as part of my spooky season viewing choices, I actually now think it’s a pretty good film. Many hardened horror fans may roll their eyes and protest my opinion, but I stand by it.

The plot is quite simple. It all starts with the Warrens (Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga turning up to remind you that this is part of a connected horror movie universe) taking possession, no pun intended, of Annabelle the doll. Locking her up in a glass case in their room of forbidden and dangerous thingummybobs, all seems well. But, gosh darn it, they head out one evening and leave their young daughter (Mckenna Grace) in the care of a couple a teen babysitter (Mary Ellen, played by Madison Iseman, who is then joined by Daniela, played by Katie Sarife). You would expect nothing to go wrong, especially after the Warrens specifically say “do not go into the room of forbidden and dangerous thingummybobs, it will not end well.”

Oops.

The only film to date directed by writer Gary Dauberman (and you have to think this is a reward for his work in helping to grow such a popular horror “franchise”), Annabelle Comes Home throws a lot of spooky stuff again at the wall here, and Dauberman can take comfort in the fact that at least some of it sticks. Although Annabelle herself remains the central baddie, there’s a variety of spirits out to terrorize and trick our young leads (even if some do a lot worse than others, with a certain canine presence being a rather dire addition to the roster).

Dauberman may not have the knack for clarifying the set-ups and geography of the location, those two things have helped James Wan maintain his position as a fan favourite to many modern horror fans, but he puts everything in place, provides a handful of decent characters, and crafts one or two moments that feel impressively creepy.

Grace, Iseman, and Sarife are all likeable in their main roles, even when breaking rules that have been given to them for a very good reason, and Michael Cimino ends up being equally enjoyable in the role of Bob (a young man who has a crush on Mary Ellen, and inevitably turns up at the house when he would really be better off staying as far away from it as possible). Although not onscreen for long, Wilson and Farmiga have a couple of good scenes, and I didn’t mind the way they were used to effectively bookend the main story.

If you want something unique or terrifying then you already know to look elsewhere. This isn’t going to shake you to your core. It’s an enjoyable “ghost train” though, and makes great use of Annabelle by allowing her to be joined by a fresh selection of malevolent entities. Safe and somewhat predictable, admittedly, but also enjoyably atmospheric and spooky enough to make it a decent choice when you’re after some polished mainstream horror fun.

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Annabelle: Creation (2017)

If you don’t know anything about Annabelle by now then I can only assume you have no interest in the horror genre at all. And if you have no interest in the horror genre at all then you won’t care about seeing Annabelle: Creation, a prequel to Annabelle (funnily enough) that actually turns out to be a better film than the first. In fact, one post-credits annoyance aside, in which viewers are reminded of the cinematic universe this is part of, it’s in contention to be one of the best films from that particular selection, helped in a small way by not having the Warrens popping up as righteous heroes.

Things begin with a pair of parents (Anthony LaPaglia and Miranda Otto) experiencing a tragic loss. Some time later, the couple open up their home to a nun and a number of orphan girls. There’s one room marked as off limits, of course, which means it isn’t too long until at least one young girl is drawn to that room. And that creepy-looking doll  keeps popping up to scare everyone.

Written by Gary Dauberman, who also wrote the first movie, this is an enjoyable mix of chills and sudden frights, enhanced by a cast all doing good work under the watchful eye of director David F. Sandberg. Sandberg and Dauberman know what audiences will expect, but they are able to make the most of every set-piece, using darkness and the unknown to deliver more than just cheap jump scares. There’s impressively unsettling imagery here that feels far removed from what you would expect in such a glossy and mainstream work.

As for the cast, Talitha Bateman and Lulu Wilson play the two main girls who end up in peril, and both do very good work in their roles (the former also having to portray herself as crippled, and therefore more vulnerable to any attacks from evil forces). Stephanie Sigman does well as the nun in charge of the children, although she has to spend a lot of the runtime conveniently avoiding seeing anything untoward (aka “doing a Scully”) until the finale, and both LaPaglia and Otto are good choices for their roles, lending their talents to characters who could have easily been nothing more than a mass of clichés and overcooked melodrama.

As much as people want to dismiss these movies, and there will always be some horror fans who turn their nose up at anything given a major cinema release, it’s good to see one that works even better than expected. There are so many different ways this could have gone, most of them not very good (e.g. almost every other film in this cinematic horror universe), but Sandberg, Dauberman, and co. (and I just also want to mention Benjamin Wallfisch here for his great score) have all pulled together to make something as seriously creepy and unsettling as it is entertaining and marketable. 

Although it does tie in to the first movie, this could easily be viewed as a standalone piece, as long as you are aware of the infamy of the doll, and I recommend it as a solid option for those seeking a good scary movie.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

The Nun (2018)

It’s very difficult for me to sit here and write a thorough review of The Nun. Not because I can’t find the right words for it. Not because my memory has failed me. Just because it’s pretty crap. Yes, The Nun is depressingly bad, not just because it’s a poor movie, but also because it’s probably still going to prove popular enough with mainstream audiences to lead to more movies just like it (this film itself coming along as a tangent from The Conjuring 2, of course).

Taissa Farmiga is Sister Irene, a young nun (trainee, so . . . trying to develop a habit?) who ends up taken along to a Romanian monastery by Father Burke (Demián Bichir). The monastery has become home to a supernatural force, one that has led to confusion, fear, and death, and it is up to Father Burke and Sister Irene to get to the bottom of things. There’s also a potentially helpful local lad, “Frenchie” (Jonas Bloquet), as well as a fleeting appearance by the Warrens (played, as ever, by Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson) to remind viewers of where this story came from.

If I could do a word-filled review that could essentially represent that meme of Robert Downey Jr making that exasperated face (you know the one, you know) then, trust me, I would. It's all it deserves, which is a real shame when you consider everyone involved.

First of all, Farmiga and Bichir aren't terrible in their lead roles, they just happen to be stuck in the middle of a terrible film. Bloquet may not be quite as good, but he does well enough, and Bonnie Aarons makes quite an impression once again, for it is she who portrays the evil nun.

Writer Gary Dauberman (who seems to be the go-to guy that James Wan likes to work with while establishing The Conjuring spin-offs) has a decent filmography. He gave us Annabelle and Annabelle: Creation, as well as having a hand in bringing It to the big screen. Perhaps he needs a group of people to be working with, for best results, or perhaps on this occasion he was too hampered by the path that Wan wanted this origin tale to travel along.

Corin Hardy directs, and does so without any sign of the imagination and heart he showed in his superb feature debut, The Hallow. There are some weak jump scares, a selection of dull CGI moments, and nothing to distract from the fact that most viewers, if familiar with The Conjuring 2 will at least have some idea of how things are going to end.

There's not any real reason why I should hate this as much as I do, but it's not often that I have such low expectations for any film and have none of them met. This doesn't even do the bare minimum I look for in a mainstream horror movie. Which shows how far removed I can sometimes be from the average cinema patron, with this currently being the biggest box office success of the CMU* so far.

3/10

*Conjuring Movie Universe

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Bonus Review: Annabelle (2014)

A horror spin-off from The Conjuring, this is a film that shows just how easy it can be to put together a polished final product without it feeling too obviously designed for the masses, even though it IS. I didn't love The Conjuring, but I did enjoy aspects of it. Annabelle is absolutely on a par with that film, although I was perhaps a little more receptive to it because of going in with lower expectations. There are less scares here, but those that are here are executed as perfectly as you could wish them to be.

For those who didn't see The Conjuring, Annabelle was a periphary character/prop used to show just what the main characters - the Warrens - had to do in their battles against evil forces. The start of this movie reprises those moments from The Conjuring, before moving backwards in time to show viewers the origin of the malevolent power that came to be contained within the doll. Well, that's the rough idea. What happens, instead, is that the audience is given another modern horror movie that replaces ghosts with demons before hitting many similar beats to the grand horrors of the late 1970s. Annabelle Wallis and Ward Horton play the young couple, Mian and John, who end up with a doll in their home who appears to be far from lifeless, and it's not long until they start freaking out (understandably). A priest (Tony Amendola) may be able to help them out, but it all depends on just how powerful the evil is.

While not directly comparable to films such as The Omen, The Amityville Horror and The Sentinel, this is very much the territory that Annabelle traverses. The main characters are fairly mature adults, the potential ridiculousness of the whole thing is overlooked in favour of brow-furrowing and serious talk about real good and evil, and the glossiness of the whole thing still allows for moments of real darkness (literally, in the case of one nail-biting sequence).

Director John R. Leonetti certainly takes a more serious approach to the material than he did when directing The Butterfly Effect 2. It looks like his years of working as Director Of Photography for James Wan have paid off, and this is never more apparent than in those precisely-engineered jump scares. The script by Gary Dauberman may be weak, with fairly uninteresting characters and a surprising lack of focus, but it does enough to keep you interested in between the more memorable set-pieces.

Wallis, Horton and Amendola all do okay, but after the end credits roll it's only Annabelle who will linger in your mind. That's as it should be, obviously. It is, after all, "her" film. It's just a shame that none of the actual human characters stood out at all, although Alfre Woodard tries the hardest (playing Evelyn, a woman who becomes concerned for the couple as she sees what they're going through).

If I call the film competent then you may think I'm damning it with faint praise, but I don't mean to. It IS competent, which means that I tentatively recommend it to fans of mainstream horror movies like all of those mentioned above. As for the hardcore horror fans who sneer at anything made in America, with any kind of decent budget and studio backing, they can either give it a chance or not. They might just end up agreeing with me that it's . . . . . . competent.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews