Annabelle

Every once in awhile a horror film uses a doll and it comes in all different ways. The classics like Poltergeist or the 2013 The Conjuring used it as as an element and not as a main plot device. The first type of doll movie that used a doll as a main character was Magic, a ventriloquist with a young Anthony Hopkins as the magician. It was in the 80's with the first Child's Play that changed the doll concept somewhat. Yes, he was another killer but the doll named Chucky was so revolutionary because he was a character and was actually given something to do. Due to the fact he was a children's doll, this made him even more creepy. Following after Chucky, there were similar dolls films like the Puppet Master series or Dolly Dearest which were clear inspirations for those to follow. Horror director James Wan is famous for following the trend of dolls in the 2000's with the torture film Saw, Dead Silence and of course The Conjuring. The doll concept is one that is hit or miss in films ultimately .    

Based off the The Conjuring doll Annabelle, Annabelle is a prequel to The Conjuring and showcases the doll before the events of The Conjuring. Set in 1967, the couple of Mia Form (Annabelle Wallis) and John Form (Ward Horton) are expecting their first child together. John gives Mia a doll she has been looking for as a pre-baby present and for the nursery that has been set up for her. You could definitely say that Mia is fan of dolls as the room is essentially a nursery filled with close to a dozen dolls. After a vicious attack at the house by people from a cult, the doll eventually becomes possessed from the cult member Annabel Higgins. The possessed doll is then ready to kill.

Being that The Conjuring was set in the 70's, it makes total sense as to why this film was set in the 60's. From the style including cars, houses, hospital and even showing an interesting clip of Maryland Manson, a infamous killer during this time, all of these are all examples of the 60's timeline being used. At the same time, the 60's aspect makes this film seem so silly. When is the last time you ever heard of woman during pregnancy on bed rest by a doctor? It is also so cheesy watching a couple trying to get reception on an old television. The baby is in an old baby carriage makes which me really question if this is stealing from the classic Rosemary's Baby.    

Annabelle ultimately along the way is a horror film where we should care about the characters. The couple surely is likable and going through the exact opposite of what they should be going through when trying to have a baby. The couple are too simple in substance though and really I didn't feel much sympathy for them unfortunately. The local book store owner Evelyn (Alfre Woodard) plays an original character which by the last act turns into a very predictable character and meets a very cheesy ending.                                                                                                                                             

If we boil it down to just one thing, the biggest problem with the film just might be the doll itself. The doll does have an interesting look and feel with its design and color. That said, we are never given an explanation of what makes this doll so special and why the mother thinks it is so. For the most part, this doll is sitting around in the background of scenes and really if we didn't know, this doll could be looked at as just a random doll in background shots. Not in any shape or form does this doll provide any types of scares. Not even small jump scenes.
 

                                                                                             

In the end, Annabelle is a big disappointment. The Conjuring was a film that was just asking for us to have this prequel because that movie made the doll so intriguing. We weren't asking for this type of prequel though as this movie is very boring, choppy, and lacks ideas. Annabelle is a film that will go down as one of the biggest misses in horror in quite some time.

1.5/5

Thor: The Dark World

Out of everything in the Marvel Universe, when it comes to paper (comics), Thor is about the dumbest character. He will always look like the California surfer guy smoking the second hand smoke. He's a character that is supposed to fit into Norse mythology but I don't see much of that in him whatsoever. Unlike someone like Batman or Spider Man, this character has only one weapon and that is a hammer and this is cheesy.

That said though, Thor still has a lot of potential. The character is different every which way. Also Norse mythology is a very uncommon thing in the comic book world and also in the film world and this shows originality. Thor is also a character with an interesting history that breaks many norms and no doubt the series has an audience.

After an impressive run at the box office with the first feature film, Thor: The Dark World is the sequel. The plot has Thor (Chris Hemworth) fighting Malekith ( Christopher Eccleston) who is a villain that is trying to destroy this world by making it darker using the weapon called Aether.

Like the 2011 film, the cast here is a hit. Chris Hemsworth is the likable Thor who again brings a sarcastic tone. Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) is Thor's love interest and is a character that goes with the flow and who along with Darcy (Kat Dennings) brings more humor than the first movie which was unexpected. After what he did in The Avengers, (Tom Hiddleston) Loki is the character we are most looking forward to seeing. Here Middleston plays Loki, Thor's brother, as the same type of character as before. Loki is silly and an un-credited villain though ironically he ends up being on the good side here. Odin (Anthony Hopkins) is the humble father who is trying to keep the peace between the brothers and also outsiders.

This being a superhero film, the next biggest question that comes up is just what does the villain  bring to the film. Even with the tired concept of trying to take over the world again, Malekith is the villain we want. With different makeup and being a dark character, the weapon of Aether brings a different element to the table. It's also not that hard to follow the story like some other superhero films plots that we have had in the last couple of years.

Unlike the first movie, there is a big ending here presented in a joking matter that feels like something out of a David Lynch movie. There are so many turns in the third act and final scenes that it creates a lot of discussion coming out of the theater. Still though, it sets the Thor series up for what seems like an interesting sequel and it also shows that director Alan Taylor is willing to make some very risky moves. Call it a mixed ending at best.

After the story, the next interesting side of Thor is the main world Asgard which is full of interesting colors, lights and tones. Nothing in the Marvel Universe really comes close to Asgard. As with the 2011 film, the part of the sequel in Asgard is a little thing of the film but it goes a long way and something I would enjoy seeing many more times.

It is probably something we don't need but Thor: Dark World is still none the less a very solid sequel. It is so good of a sequel it shows that something of this depth can work again. This will get even more interesting when we get the next sequel.

4/5

The Rite

I find the exorcist genre in movies to be an interesting one. It is a genre that has many ideas to it and can be really scary and dark if done right but also a genre that can be quite lacking if not done right. With the exorcist movie, The Rite, I really came into this with low expectations. It is interesting no doubt. The cast is good and has been around and they know what they are doing. It is also orginal and if put in the right hands, it could have been a good exorcist film. There are worse exorcist films out there no doubt but this one could have been so much better.

Anthony Hopkins is the exorcist priest in this and his performance is really good even though his character is very unlikable. Colin O'Donoghue is also excellent as an ex-seminary student who is witnessing exorcisms. He handles many of the religious questions in a way I liked voicing many questions and concerns. The film does lack many secondary characters with only Alice Braga and Rutger Hauer mentionable.

This exorcist film is unique in that it uses the Vatican as it's setting. This is a good idea and includes many cool sets. It also uses English well as a second language pretty well at times which is a nice change of pace for a horror film.

So if the setting and cast are above average, what is wrong with this? Well, the plot is a problem. The plot that sets up O'Donoghue well as someone learning the exorcist field but then wanders off in the later acts not knowing what to do with this idea. It also contains a rip-off from 1973 movie The Exorcist with a young teen being possessed with a demon and the plot only really picks up during the last couple of minutes of the film with not much supporting it before.

The Rite is a dry horror movie with not a lot of purpose or direction to it. It is really a cookie-cutter movie type movie for this genre with not much to recommend to it.

2/5

How the Grinch Stole Christmas

I can't lie. I haven't seen the 26 minute 1960's short of the Grinch in close to ten or fourteen years. I know that if I watched it today, it is something that I would like and it is something I liked back in the day. Ron Howard's more recent Grinch movie is one I haven't seen since the early 2000's and has a lot going for it. That said, it seems like it is lacking somewhat and should have been better.

This is the classic story of the chubby green Grinch who tries to destroy the Christmas spirit by stealing the presents and Christmas decorations from the people of a town called Whoville. Throughout this, the Grinch does eventually discover the Christmas spirit and learns to love this holiday.

It was a very interesting idea making the Grinch a live action movie. It works really well with the land of Whoville depicted with beautiful style and imagery. The film beautifully captures snow, a mountain and everything in between with this live action technique.

Considering the earlier version, obviously this is a familiar plot. It has a good setup that does well with it's running time, gives an interesting perspective on Christmas and has some decent music. There is also a cliche-type ending that does include a good message. That said, there is a sleigh concept here that is never really explained. All in all, the plot is kind of a mixed bag.

As the main character in the film, the Grinch sure does provide a lot of everything here. Jim Carrey offers up a very quirky and wild performance and he works well with Taylor Momsen who plays Cindy Lou in the film. The Grinch itself also looks really well put together. On the other hand, the laughs are sometimes a bit lacking and after an hour and a half of Jim Carrey's Grinch, the shtick gets a little old.

What gets lost in the middle is all the soft highlights. Anthony Hopkins does a great job with narration and there is an interesting back story with the Grinch that is original and fun. As with a lot of films, sometimes it is the little things things like this that make or break a film. In this case, they add to the film.

I do think though that there are some missed opportunities in this film. For just one example, there is no explanation of where the police are in this town. The little people in the town are also kind of interesting but not really explained.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas is a film that has it's heart in the right place but it is somewhat inconsistent and there seem to be things missed in the middle so in the end it is kind of a disappointing ride.

3/5