In Mexican folklore, La Llorona (Marisol Ramirez) is the legend of a “weeping woman” who drowned her children in a blind rage. The act was to take revenge on her philandering husband, but once she realized what she had done, the river had already carried them away. After her death, she was prevented from entering the kingdom of heaven until she found them. Thus, she continues to wander the night looking for children whom she mistakes for her own.
The Curse of La Llorona is the sixth installment in producer James Wan’s horror franchise that began with the breakout success of The Conjuring in 2013 and includes Annabelle (2014) and The Nun (2018). The fable dates back to 1673 and it’s nicely reenacted as an eerie intro that sets the stage for the proper story here. The production is a period piece that mainly takes place 300 years later in 1973. This allows for Father Perez (Tony Amendola) who appeared in the 1967 set Annabelle to briefly pop up, so there’s the connective tissue to the rest of the series.
Recently widowed Anna Tate-Garcia (Linda Cardellini) becomes familiar with the myth when investigating a case of possible child abuse. She is a social worker questioning the mother (Patricia Velasquez) of two sons. Soon Anna’s own kids Chris (Roman Christou) and Samantha (Jaynee-Lynne Kinchen) are being terrorized. She appeals to a former priest named Rafael Olvera (Raymond Cruz) for help. This isn’t great art. It’s a lot of scares loosely strung together by a generic tale dressed up in period detail. Even though this is primitive stuff, there is some enjoyment in experiencing one shock after another. Car windows roll down by themselves, transparent umbrellas reveal shadowy figures when lowered then disappear when raised. Later, Rafael spreads seeds from a special tree across the doorway to prevent La Llorona from entering their home. The scene where that barrier of protection is compromised is exceptionally intense.
The Curse of La Llorona is a very efficient horror movie. Evaluating the way it’s constructed is kind of like looking for the nutritional value in cotton candy or analyzing the plot of a roller coaster. This is a pure yet simple entertainment. You’ll laugh at how openly guileless the production is in eliciting frights. In a scant 93 minutes, director Michael Chaves piles on more jump scares per minute than any film I can remember. That is a backhanded compliment. The technique of creating surprises with an abrupt image accompanied by a loud sound is perhaps the laziest way to frighten the viewer. Nevertheless, there’s a certain satisfaction in getting the very basic requirement of what you paid for. Unfortunately, that’s all you get.
04-18-19
7 Responses
It seems so many of these modern horror film land somewhere right in the middle. So often they’re not bad but short of being good.
I wasn’t mad at the experience I got from this film but I also wasn’t ecstatic about telling people to see it. 😆
Because I remember these stories as a child. I really wanted this to be a satisfying telling of the Llarona. I’m mad, now when I think of her, instead of being scared, I’ll just think about this horrible movie. 2 stars
Yeah that folk history gives some weight to an otherwise flimsy story.
the story seems frightening and unique for me based on your review. but that’s probably because I dont really follow horror movies. just the ones with more interesting stories. nice post as always.
It was an eerie story. The account was highlighted by an effective mood.
This was so bad. I remember hearing the horror stories about her when I was little. This did not live up to my expectations. Just a lot of cheap jump scares 1 1/2 stars