Directed By Michael Chaves

Starring – Linda Cardellini, Raymond Cruz, Patricia Velasquez

The Plot – Ignoring the eerie warning of a troubled mother suspected of child endangerment, a social worker (Cardellini) and her own small kids (Cruz, Velasquez) are soon drawn into a frightening supernatural realm. Their only hope to survive La Llorona’s deadly wrath may be a disillusioned priest and the mysticism he practices to keep evil at bay, on the fringes where fear and faith collide.

Rated R for violence and terror

POSITIVES

– Visual aesthetic. Chaves does a solid job of unnerving audiences with an atmosphere as thick as fog, as well as a particular time period that appeals to the western landscape setting. To my surprise the film is set during 1973, a time when possession and exorcism’s were all the rage with our world, and that level of uncertainty that much of the La Llorona folklore is based on more than translates to the ominous feeling that is constantly present in this house. Chaves uses a fine combination of lighting manipulation to make outlines play tricks on the audience’s eyes, as well as unorthodox character framing that elaborates what the audience should be focused on in staying one step ahead of the character’s.

– Use of jump scares. I almost hate crediting something that usually bothers me so dearly, but the technique associated with inserting jump scares here works for what it does to enhance the scares. Instead of paying off in the predictable moments, the most overdone use of jump scares today, Chaves misleads with sound mixing and timing to throw us off, prolonging the anxiety-riddled tension in ways that really keeps you on the edge of your seat at all times. Sure, there are still predictable jump scares that exist frequently in the movie, but the law of averages established by Chaves early on, helps to throw off the certainty of when the explosion of expression will rightfully land, and above all else it proves that he’s trying to send audiences home with a jumping good time.

– Performances. It’s great to see Cardellini getting more starring roles, and her work here as an adaptive one-parent leader of the household is something that comes across fruitfully in the compassion and protection that she instills in their constant well-being. Her character is a social worker, so it’s easy to draw the line of contrast in this woman taking her work home with her and vice versa, and it brings forth an admirable lead protagonist who we can invest in to maintain our interest. As for the children, they are solid for what the role demanded, but it’s really the facial reactions of the 4’4″ phenom Jaynee-Lynne Kinchen whose facial reactions help better distinguish the lunacy of what’s transpiring in this newly-formed possessed household. The show stealer for me however, is that of Raymond Cruz, whose third act introduction brings forth some much needed levity and humor and for the film that was otherwise ignored to that point. Cruz has always been a talented actor whose career I have followed closely, and it’s nice to see him play a protagonist for once, especially one whose character relies so heavily in the progression of the conflict. He brings a sense of caution to the dynamic of the film, and I simply couldn’t get enough of his character in the final battle.

– Major Easter egg. Without spoiling anything, I will say that a bombshell announcement at the end of the second act changed the world within this film, and brought ties to a familiar modern day horror franchise that I totally did not see coming. What’s important is the film doesn’t force too much in making this believable, nor does its inclusion take away anything from this film itself. It’s just a revelation that will offer a poignancy about the timeline of this franchise, all the while preparing us for future installments that should prove anything is indeed possible at this point.

NEGATIVES

– Stupid kids. The kids themselves serve as a convenient plot device in this film, in that the irresponsibility of their pee-brain decisions is the only reason why this film ever reaches 85 minutes. These kids get physically harmed by this mysterious ghost, and don’t tell their parent or anyone anything about it. This of course leads later on to a scene where guests feel that the Mother is responsible, and if these shitheads just spoke up, we could conclude this scene and get back to what truly matters. Beyond this, the choices that they make during the big confrontation with La Llorona made me practically yell at the screen for how desperate these screenwriters were to keep it going. Even for children, these are actions that bring forth a brain-dead quality to their demeanor’s, and if I were their mother, I would consider them as good as gone for the things they do that don’t help anyone in fighting off this presence.

– Pointless rating. This is perhaps the single biggest misstep by the M.P.A.A in quite sometime, as there’s no genuine reason why this film needs or attains the coveted R-rating, that is often used to enhance the mature subject matter. Here, there’s no blood, absolutely no adult language, and nothing that even comes close to the PG-13 renderings of “Insidious” or “The Conjuring” franchises in terms of risky material. It’s also inevitably going to hinder the profits made by the film, as only audiences of a certain age will be able to see it, and all for what exactly? Scenes of children being whisked back and forth throughout the house? This is pointless even for a group as conflicted as the M.P.A.A, and if “The Curse of La Llorona” is rated R, then Stephen King’s “It” should be a rated X.

– Antagonist outline. As a horror icon, La Llorona leaves a bit more to be desired when compared to her predecessor’s. It’s great to see another female horror villain, especially one with Mexican heritage, but as a threat she’s about as harmful as Babs Bunny. The only thing that this movie proves is that she’s good at moving character’s around the place. Her body count is weak, her character design lacks any kind of originality, especially now that this movie exists in a popular franchise, and her backstory doesn’t make you feel any kind of empathy or misunderstanding about the character for us to justify her existence. In fact, there’s such an overall lack of exposition donated to the character, that it often feels like she’s a supporting character in a movie with her own name in the title, and it feels like a missed opportunity for creating nightmare fuel for an entirely new generation.

– Uneven pacing. Between the film’s two halves, it feels like two people are at the helm of the film, especially considering how polar opposite they are when stitched together to make the same cohesive property. The first half moves by at a cyclone’s pace, blowing by scenes of personal backstory, as well as experiences with La Llorona that are often slowly elevated with each passing night in movies like these. As for the second half, it feels like the screenwriter realized that so little is known about the rules or weaknesses of La Llorona, so we better slow everything down and establish a scene and character where we can kill two birds with one convenient stone, making the inevitability of our final confrontation feel every bit as strained as it does momentum-omitting.

– Lack of experimenting. For a movie that opened up with arguably one of the best horror sequences of the past decade, in a tracking sequence that follows this family around the house through one of their daily routines, the rest of the camera work lacks the kind of inspiration that could’ve allowed the cinematography for charms to gimmick with the character. I mentioned earlier that I did enjoy the character framing, but the scenes of physical conflict are often shot with too many visual effects like rampant lightning to make them distinguishable. Likewise, the handheld style is an endurance test for the eyes, that gives off a feeling of constant shaking and imbalance, which added yet even more difficulty to the dissection of each scene.

– Inconsistencies. La Llorona can apparently turn off flashlights and move heavy sets of furniture, but when it comes to breaking through a cheap $5 lock from a hardware store, she’s rendered weak. In addition to this, she is able to move character’s who are never touched or commanded by her, the power associated with transfixing kids to do things against their will, come and go like the wind, and her biggest power is used only when it’s convenient. In this regard, the film’s final moments involving the kids running away from her made zero sense when you consider she could flick her fingers like Thanos, and bring them to her in a split second. It only further adds to the inescapability of her as an antagonist that I mentioned earlier, and brings a level of logic that could fertilize the lawn if drawn out properly.

My Grade: 4/10 or D