Annabelle: Creation


Horror / Mystery / Thriller

Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 68%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 70%
IMDb Rating 6.6 10 57852


Uploaded By: FREEMAN
Downloaded 1,013,333 times
October 12, 2017 at 04:01 AM


Miranda Otto as Esther Mullins
Anthony LaPaglia as Samuel Mullins
Alicia Vela-Bailey as Evil Mullins / Demon Hands
Fred Tatasciore as Demon Voice
720p 1080p
801.85 MB
23.976 fps
1hr 49 min
P/S 172 / 1,295
1.66 GB
23.976 fps
1hr 49 min
P/S 285 / 1,708

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by buenoschiches 3 / 10

How is this movie getting such good reviews? Have our standards really plummeted this much?

Originally, I had gone into this with very low expectations as the last Annabelle movie was a complete flop for me. Ultimately, my tune changed a bit when I saw that this one was actually getting decent reviews, which is rare for a horror movie altogether. I feel as thought there has been a MAJOR drought in quality, domestic horror movies over the past 15-20 years, but I am always keen to check out movies that are loosely based on real-life stories. Enter here- the origin story of Annabelle, although I think that this was likely not at all coherent to the real Annabelle's origin story... but who knows.

With Gary Dauberman on board, I don't know why I expected this film to be superior than Annabelle, but the trailer looked decent enough for me to check this one out (with a Groupon- THANK GOODNESS).

Firstly, how in the world is Bea a derivative of Annabelle? GAH. Okay, next.

I don't want to get into an entire synopsis, because so many others will be able to do that for me. I'm happy to just be a total Grinch about it all, as I really just wanted the movie to end almost 30 minutes into it.

As you know, these movies are tied into the other Annabelle and The Conjuring movies as Lorraine Warren, one of the protagonists in The Conjuring (Vera Farmiga's role) is the current owner of the real Annabelle doll and investigated that case (as well as Amityville, etc.) But the way that these are tied in together was done with almost zero consideration and thought and makes it all seem so incredibly cheesy- not at all an eye-opening moment of WOW... more so, a ".... really?" type of connection. Alas, what grinds my gears in no particular order: 1. Timing. I assume this was supposed to be in the 60s? In a house with electricity and modern flashlights, why were lanterns with matches used as sources of light? 2. The mother's face got attacked (and the doll mask was SUCH a wasted touch) -- why couldn't she walk? 3. If a possessed doll can break out of a covered well, why couldn't she break out of a locked closet? Obviously she could because she kept unlocking it from the inside, right? Why did she just chill in there for so long and only go after her mother- was her dad's soul not cool enough? 4. If Annabelle had been quiet for so long, why did they even bother opening their house to orphans (even though it was sought as penance)? Mrs. Mullins can't even take care of herself and her husband took literally zero interest in any of them.

5. What was the point of having 4 additional orphan girls? They literally served zero purpose.

6. If Annabelle was in the doll and then Janice-- who the heck was in the scarecrow? 7. When Sister Charlotte (who was a horrible actress BTW) stabbed the doll, why did that even matter since Annabelle had possessed Janice? Shouldn't she have stabbed Janice instead for it to have any effect? 8. Had Sister Charlotte never noticed that nun in the photo before? What was even the point of bringing that up for it to not be visited again at any point- really just another lead-in to The Nun movie or The Conjuring 2? WEAK.

9. Is it assumed that Samuel stopped making dolls altogether after his daughter died? What did he even do then for a living? He had already boxed Annabelle up-- what was the point of unboxing her and keeping her? Sounded like he was an up and coming toy maker and had a big order to fill, but instead his daughter dies so he holds onto the one doll that he made (which has no correlation to his daughter in any way) and that's the vessel she chooses to inhabit. Right.

10. WHY DID THIS MOVIE SUCK SO BAD AND WHY ARE THE RATINGS SO GOOD? The acting was atrocious (other than Talitha Bateman), the story was garbage and the tie-ins were forced and pathetic. It's disheartening that people are calling this a good movie. Have better standards, people! It is "jump" scary-- I'll give it that. But that's literally it. Nothing more. Huge disappointment.

Reviewed by Ana Silva (Anaslair) 3 / 10

What a waste of time and money.

Goodness this movie was bad. I cannot believe the high ratings it has been getting. I am wondering if we watched the same film. I don't even know where to begin.

First of all, little things like gorgeous, obviously made up nuns annoy me.

Secondly, what a disjointed, cliché-riddled movie. It didn't take me long to just wish it would end.

The plot is a joke. There really isn't one, surely not a proper one. It's the arrival of the girls, exploration of the house, scary scenes, more scary scenes, then the owners of the house reveal everything, and then more scary scenes. Throughout the film, incredibly bad, unbelieving acting. Anthony LaPaglia was the only upside for me. He managed to portray a character that was obviously grief-stricken but who would seem quite scary to young kids.

There is so much that didn't make sense. One minute there is electricity and the next it's back to match-lit lamps and darkness. There is no reason presented to why the wife can't walk. And what the heck kind of a reaction was that to Samuel pointing out to Sister Charlotte a fourth nun in the picture, that she had never noticed before?

And finally the pace was SO slow that I was soon yawning and even the scary scenes had absolutely no effect on me. By that point I was simply numb.

I cannot recommend this movie. Watch it if there is no alternative and if you don't have to pay money for it.

Reviewed by meggens 1 / 10

Why why why!?

How can this movie have such a high rating? I went to see this one in theaters tonight because I thought it would be good. Instead all I got were some cheap loud sound scares. There was nothing really scary about this whole movie. Every time I thought something scary would happen I got disappointed by a loud sound effect and a flash image.

I kept wondering the entire movie why certain characters would do certain things like:

Why go back in the room when they know it's dangerous. Why won't they talk with each other whats going on in the house. Why go back in the house after the things that happened. Why create an orphanage in a house the owners know is haunted. And why stay there after the horrible event that happened 12 years ago. Why sit in front of an open door staring in the abyss shooting a toy gun. Why not unbuckle the belt to free yourself from the chair? Why not freak out and flee while you can after seeing the man of the house sucked dry and dead on the floor? Why is there no lights in the house?

The story writers probably think the people who go and watch this movie are stupid or something. As viewer you already know whats going on, the movie characters also know whats going on, but they all just stay there and let it happen, making dumb decisions as the movie progresses.

They are just lucky the demon is even more stupid then they are..

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment