Annabelle: Creation

Annabelle: Creation videos

Annabelle: Creation: B-Roll

Annabelle: Creation: B-Roll

BEHIND THE SCENES 9:30 Annabelle: Creation: TV Spot - Conjuring Universe

Annabelle: Creation: TV Spot - Conjuring Universe

TV SPOT 1:00 Annabelle: Creation: Trailer 2

Annabelle: Creation: Trailer 2

TRAILER 2:24 Annabelle: Creation: Trailer 1

Annabelle: Creation: Trailer 1

TRAILER 2:22

Cast & Crew

Stephanie Sigman

Sister Charlotte

Talitha Eliana Bateman

Janice

Lulu Wilson

Linda

Philippa Coulthard

Nancy

Grace Caroline Currey

Carol

Samara Lee

Bee

Tayler Buck

Kate

Anthony LaPaglia

Samuel Mullins

Miranda Otto

Esther Mullins

Lou Lou Safran

Tierney

Alicia Vela-Bailey

Evil Mullins, Demon Hands

David F. Sandberg

Director

Gary Dauberman

Screenwriter

Peter Safran

Producer

James Wan

Producer

Richard Brener

Executive Producer

Walter Hamada

Executive Producer

Dave Neustadter

Executive Producer

Hans Ritter

Executive Producer

Steven Mnuchin

Executive Producer

Maxime Alexandre

Cinematographer

Michel Aller

Film Editing

Benjamin Wallfisch

Original Music

Jennifer Spence

Production Design

Jason Garner

Art Director

Lisa Son

Set Decoration

Leah Butler

Costume Design

Rich Delia

Casting

Stephanie Sigman

Casting

Show all Cast & Crew

News & Interviews for Annabelle: Creation

New on Netflix in July 2022

The 21 Masters Of Horror Shaping the Genre Right Now

Watch Online: Stranger Things Season 2, Free Fire, and More on Netflix and Amazon Prime

View All

Critic Reviews for Annabelle: Creation

Audience Reviews for Annabelle: Creation

• Jun 23, 2019

  Forget the good reviews, it's just more Wan-style cliches and jumscares: the same spidery-fingered demon bellowing 'YOUR SOUL' the same broken-necked walk, tricks with dumb-waiters and dolls houses, rotating crucifixes, and no idea about the Catholic Church (nuns can't hear confession, people: it's a sacrament) and worst of all, the focus is a bunch of dull child-actors, so there isn't even anybody interesting to watch. Miranda Otto wastes her time in ridiculous one-eyed make-up.
  

  Super Reviewer
• Jun 29, 2018

  So I was talking, a couple of days ago, about Universal doing their own cinematic universe using their famous horror monsters from the 20s-50s starting with The Mummy, which was a major misfire. Having seen this movie, however, I could say that there's already a shared universe with films like Annabelle (duh), The Conjuring (major duh) and Insidious (triplicate duh). I suppose you could include the Ouija movies in there as well, though, in the case of Ouija, there's not a clear definable villain as, say, there may be in the aforementioned movies. And, even then, those movies still don't have as identifiable villains as the Universal monsters. The reason that these movies share a universe is, because, realistically speaking, they share a lot of similarities in style, form of presenting their horror and tone. I don't want to say that all of these movies are interchangeable, but I can see how someone might confuse this with another of the movies I just mentioned. There's been no confirmation that all of these films exist in the same universe since, for some reason, this movie (and its prequel) were Distributed by Universal instead of Warner Bros, who distributed the film that this is a spin-off from (The Conjuring). So, unless Universal and Warner Bros decided to work together, this won't be a shared universe. Regardless, let's get going on the movie, shall we? This sequel presents an interesting conundrum. I say that because, I thought the first Annabelle was a very bad movie. Perhaps not as awful as the original Ouija was, but still really bad. Only thing I remember is that Annabelle Wallis, yes, gave a really bad performance in her role. The reason I bring this up is because, much like Ouija's sequel (Origin of Evil) this is a vastly superior movie to the original. In terms of the varying quality from movie to movie, you could say that this is one of the best horror sequels of all time. That's a misleading statement, of course, because it takes more into consideration how bad the first movie was as opposed to the sequel actually being great. Let's get this out of the way first, this is not in the same territory as Evil Dead 2. Not even fucking close, so it's not that. But, much like Ouija: Origin of Evil, I felt that despite being a massive improvement over the first one, it's not what I would call a good movie anyway. I don't know and, here's the thing. For one reason or another, I came to the conclusion while watching this, but this is very much a casual horror movie. Even though horror is still very much a niche driven genre, there's also movies that you can tell will be good for a scare to a wider audience. This type of movie exists so they can put together an audience reaction trailer that shows them reacting to the jump scares. And there's nothing wrong with that. I enjoyed the first two Paranormal Activities, which employed this marketing tactic. Not saying that this movie employed this tactic, because I really don't know, but, again, it's the type of movie that's an easy sell for audiences. Particularly teens and young adults, who go with their friends to have a good time. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but I don't really connect to that. I'm still a horror fan and if I see a good horror movie, regardless of its intentions, I'm gonna point it out. But, again, I don't think I can come to the conclusion that this was a good movie. I mean, I just didn't feel like it was. I will say that the ending itself, and how it fed into what happened in the first movie, was actually really well-done. Story is simple and basic. This couple had this daughter. This daughter died in a tragic accident. The couple is, understandably, distraught and they attempted whatever they could to try and contact their daughter again. Somehow, they succeeded and, despite it being fleeting glimpses, they were able to see their daughter alive again. Samuel Mullins, the father, is a dollmaker and he created Annabelle in honor of his daughter, I'm assuming. That's the thing, they show you the construction of the doll itself at the very start, before the daughter dies, so you don't actually know if he assembled the doll before or after his daughter's death. Let's just say that it's after, since it makes more sense that way. Anyway, their 'daughter' claims that she wants to inhabit the doll so she can be with them again. Of course, this goes horribly wrong as the figure they thought was their daughter was actually a demon trying to use the doll as a conduit for a real human soul to inhabit. The Mullins then lock the door in a closet in their deceased daughter's room, the walls of this closet are filled with glued pages of the bible to keep the demon at bay. So, of course, because why wouldn't you, the Mullins (twelve years after their daughter's death) open their house to Sister Charlotte and six orphaned girls whose orphanage closed down. Because, of course, this makes perfect sense. You keep a doll that you know is the conduit for some sort of demon, who wants a living soul to inhabit to cause all kinds of chaos and mayhem, and you invite SEVEN strangers to live in your house. Strangers who have no idea of what they're getting into. Six of these strangers are young girls and, naturally, kids are, by their very nature, very inquisitive and they want to explore areas of the house that they may be forbidden from entering. Like, as an example, the Mullins' daughter's room. One of these girls, Janice, being crippled by polio has a tough time adjusting, considering she can't play outside like the other girls. So, of course, she eventually finds herself in the daughter's room when she opens the closet and comes face to face with the doll, which is when the shit starts happening. That's really a problem for me, honestly. Because, what logic is this that the Mullins', knowing what they have stored in their own house, invite strangers to LIVE in their home for who knows how long. That doesn't make sense. If I have a doll that acts as a conduit for some sort of demon, I'm sorry, no one is staying with me for a long period of time. Because, sooner or later, something is gonna go wrong. So, right from the start, the film asks me to accept an idea that's idiotic. Things improve from there, of course, but I think this is a major part of why I'm giving the movie an average rating, as opposed to a higher one. The way everything is set-up, in my opinion, from a logical standpoint, does not make sense. Another thing, umm, has anyone thought to ever cut the doll into little pieces with an ax or something? Linda, Janice's best friend, knowing Janice has been possessed by the demon, throws it down a well, but the doll itself was intact. Of course, later, they find the doll in the house again. Apparently, no one in this has ever heard of the word destruction and what it actually means. You could make the argument that the doll keeps the demon at bay and if you destroy the doll it'll find another conduit. Which, I guess, is fine, but, come on now, at least make the attempt to do what most people would actually do if they were faced with a similar scenario. Chop the doll up into little pieces. Neither here nor there, but that's a bit of stupidity on the movie's part. I'll be honest, though, I don't know if someone in the first movie tried to destroy the doll. If that is the case, technically speaking, this is still a prequel, which means that it happened before. There's no justification for no one in the house coming to the logical conclusion to the destroy the fucking thing. Other than that, though, I felt that everything about the movie was perfectly fine. The horror is definitely decent enough, if not all that different from The Conjuring. The acting is good and the atmosphere they build is also fairly solid. Having said that, and I already compared the horror to The Conjuring, but there's nothing in this movie that feels truly its own. It feels like it's using the template set by other horror movies instead of coming up with its own way of doing things. That leads to a certain sense of predictability, in that you can tell what's coming and when it's coming. I think my favorite part of the movie really is how it leads into the events of the original. I was certain that that's where they were gonna go anyway, but I liked how they handled it. It bleeds (sorry for the pun) into the events of the original that set everything off. So that was cool, at least in my opinion. I don't really have much else to say about this movie. There's definitely a lot of flaws, lack of discernible personality as far as its horror is concerned and a lot of issues with the logic of how certain characters act that keep this from being a good horror movie. It's a perfectly decent one, to be sure, but it's definitely not a good one.
  

  jesse o Super Reviewer
• Jan 04, 2018

  Kind of disappointing. I didn't hate it, but I felt like it dragged a bit and I'm not sure it really made sense either. Would a nun really move into some random's house with 6 underage orphan girls? I will admit Annabelle is some creepy ass looking doll and I jumped a few times, but Annabelle herself doesn't really do anything. I feel like this would be a better movie if she was like a female Chucky doll. I liked the two main orphan girls. I'm not sure about the ending. I got it, but didn't get why. Not awful but could have been better.
  

  Super Reviewer
• Dec 16, 2017

  15/12/2017 - A long way off from The Conjuring, Creation is too unrealistic. People are getting killed in the house they're staying in, and that's still not enough of a reason to leave? GIVE ME A FUCKEN BREAK FOR FUCKS SAKE!!
  

  Super Reviewer