‘Annabelle: Creation’ is satisfyingly spooky
What is it about dolls that is so scary? Just the sight of a loose doll eyeball or a leg, separated from its corporeal context, can send a shiver down the spine. Dolls are so easily, effectively creepy that the tossed off prologue of “The Conjuring” generated a breakout star. Now, the evil porcelain doll Annabelle has a franchise of her own, with “Annabelle,” and the latest, “Annabelle: Creation,” a prequel of a prequel that director David F. Sandberg ably spins into a satisfyingly spooky origin story.
Sandberg made a bit of a sensation last year with his clever horror debut, “Lights Out,” and his command of cinematography, lighting, production design and sound makes “Annabelle: Creation” a fine heir to the legacy of “The Conjuring” and “The Conjuring 2” auteur James Wan. Like Wan, Sandberg uses computer generated ghouls and demons sparingly, relying instead on practical in-camera effects like complex camera movements, sound, lighting and focus to hold, direct and re-direct our attention, building suspense and anticipation.
So where did this creepy doll come from? “Annabelle” writer Gary Dauberman offers up a tale that fits like a jigsaw into the extended “Conjuring” cinematic universe. She was hand-crafted by a dollmaker, Samuel Mullins (Anthony LaPaglia), in the 1940s. Twelve years later, they open their home to group of young orphan girls and their guardian, Sister Charlotte (Stephanie Sigman), hoping to bring some life back after mourning the loss of their young daughter, Annabelle, tragically killed in an accident over a decade earlier. The young women are grateful for their
See ANNABELLE Page C2
Talitha Bateman stars in “Annabelle: Creation.”