I went in expecting another run-of-the-mill big-budget horror sequel with little bark and no bite, wallowing in the same way its predecessor did. If you saw Annabelle, you'll remember that it was fun and simple but not quite terrifying. It had its moments of beauty, thanks to its director and stars (especially Alfre Woodard!), but it didn't come close to the nail-biting terror of either Conjuring film, with which it shares a budding universe. Going in for round two, I expected much of the same, if more watered down, kind of like the way Sinister 2 was more an extension of ideas than an evolution. I was wrong.
Creation is beyond any expectation you may have. It might follow some formula, but its design, style, and execution set it apart from the mess of random horror churned out by some studios. Remember Ouija? It was so disappointing, and its sequel, while indisputably better, couldn't quite escape a similar fate of banality. Creation takes its cue from that sequel and, for the first time I can recall, makes a fabulous sequel so dazzling that it actually improved my opinion of the first installment.
As we knew, it's an origin story for the titular doll. If you, like I, thought that was a worthless premise for a movie, you'd be right. Thank heaven these filmmakers didn't have that attitude! What we get is a standalone movie that chills and thrills before finally, in its last scene, leading directly into the opening of Annabelle and making that "inciting incident" so much more interesting and horrifying than it was at first. But perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself.
A nun and six orphaned girls find refuge at an isolated farmhouse after their orphanage is closed. The homeowners -- dollmaker Samuel and his bedridden wife Esther -- exist more than live, having spent the last twelve years mourning the death of their daughter Annabelle. We don't find out until later in the movie, but they believed the spirit of their daughter had been trying to contact them, so they invited it to live in one of their dolls before realizing it wasn't their beloved child. The demon terrorized them and disfigured Esther before the couple locked it away in a closet with the help of a priest. Of course, evil will out, and one of the curious new girls unwittingly frees the spirit from its confines. It terrorizes and attacks each member of the household with increasing menace, especially young Janice whose polio forces her to wear a brace and crutch and use a motorized chair to navigate stairs.
I won't reveal more of the plot, because while it unfolds much as we expect, the twists and scares are well-earned and deserve their shock value. Fair warning: There is a body count here. It's not just the kindly priest or sacrificial foster mother who die in this picture; everyone is vulnerable. This demon isn't just the jump-out-and-spook-you kind, he's the take-corporeal-form-and-attack-you kind. And, importantly, the script is intelligent enough to make us care about all the characters, to keep us engaged with the plot, and to keep the scares coming.
Director David F. Sandberg (Lights Out) and cinematographer Maxime Alexandre (Maniac, The Crazies) make a great team. Their use of lighting and inspired camerawork keep the horror visceral and immediate, forcing our eyes to the shadows and background. As we saw in The Conjuring 2 and The Woman in Black, some of the scariest sights are those blurry shapes in the background that move when they shouldn't.
They also do some homage to other films in this franchise, and suggest more possibilities for spin-offs. Images of the demon leering from behind the doll or other characters remind us of the scariest scenes in the first Annabelle. A scene where the demon (The Ram, I suppose we should call him?) possesses someone features a black goo being ingested, as we saw happened to the mother in the first Conjuring). We know a movie about Valak the demon nun is coming soon (also to be filmed by cinematographer Alexandre), and we see that spirit in a haunting photograph. The post-credits scene, too, opens the door for that picture, solidifying the date (five years before Creation) and location in Romania (where the nun leading the orphanage in Creation was previously stationed). We also know that a spin-off flick of the Crooked Man is coming, and this film kind of honors that through its use of a scarecrow during the climax. While I don't think the scarecrow is meant to be anything more than a conduit for the primary demonic antagonist, its physical movement and placement in the plot reminded me of the Crooked Man. Could we see yet another spin-off? Maybe! If the studio keeps up the fine quality, I'm game for just about anything.
They also do some homage to other films in this franchise, and suggest more possibilities for spin-offs. Images of the demon leering from behind the doll or other characters remind us of the scariest scenes in the first Annabelle. A scene where the demon (The Ram, I suppose we should call him?) possesses someone features a black goo being ingested, as we saw happened to the mother in the first Conjuring). We know a movie about Valak the demon nun is coming soon (also to be filmed by cinematographer Alexandre), and we see that spirit in a haunting photograph. The post-credits scene, too, opens the door for that picture, solidifying the date (five years before Creation) and location in Romania (where the nun leading the orphanage in Creation was previously stationed). We also know that a spin-off flick of the Crooked Man is coming, and this film kind of honors that through its use of a scarecrow during the climax. While I don't think the scarecrow is meant to be anything more than a conduit for the primary demonic antagonist, its physical movement and placement in the plot reminded me of the Crooked Man. Could we see yet another spin-off? Maybe! If the studio keeps up the fine quality, I'm game for just about anything.
I could always use more Alfre Woodard, though.
No comments:
Post a Comment