2019, R, Directed by Michael Chaves, New Line Cinema/Warner Brothers, 93 minutes
in , ,

The Curse of La Llorona – Film Review (Spoiler Free)

Finally a Conjuring spinoff done right!

Based upon a rather disturbing folktale from Mexico, The Curse of La Llorona tells a compelling and legitimately creepy tale about a mother trying to protect her children from supernatural forces.  What’s most surprising about the film is that it’s part of the Conjuring Universe, despite its advertising not really mentioning this at all.  After shoving the connection down our throats for such films as Annabelle and The Nun, it seems that Warner Brothers has learned their lesson about subtlety, and finally given us a worthy spinoff!

Beware the Vengeful Spirit
The film opens in 17th Century Mexico with a rather bleak and unsettling scene showcasing the origin of La Llorona (“Weeping Woman” in Spanish).  The legend involves a beautiful woman who killed her children in a jealous rage after her husband left her for a younger woman (not unlike Medea from Greek Mythology).  Her spirit now wanders about, filled with grief, as she tries to take other children in the hopes of replacing her own.  To this day, it’s often used as a sort of fable or cautionary tale for children.  Some parents even tell them if they misbehave, La Llorona will come for them, which may end up leaving them scarred for life, but at least it keeps them well behaved…

Part of what’s made the legend so lasting and compelling is its inherent tragedy as well as the horror.

We then go to Los Angeles in 1973 as a social worker Anna (Linda Cardellini) struggles with being a single mother to her two children, following the death of her husband.  She’s then sent on a home visit to a woman named Patricia (Patricia Velasquez), who’s absolutely terrified that something is coming for her children.  Before long, Anna is deeply entrenched in a world of old superstitions, as she fears this vengeful spirit is after her own children.  She ultimately seeks help from Father Perez (Tony Amendola) and an unorthodox faith healer Rafael (Raymond Cruz).  It blends old school suspense, along with a brilliant atmosphere of dread and terror.

Fans will recognize Father Perez from his supporting role in Annabelle. He remains the only link between the two films.

Fitting Into the Conjuring Universe
As previously mentioned, part of the issues with Annabelle and The Nun was that their connection to the original Conjuring films seemed so heavy-handed in their approach.  It was as if they were shouting it out, just to make sure we knew they were part of this greater narrative.  La Llorona, on the other hand, takes a much more subtle approach.  We know the connection based on Father Perez being present, as well as him mentioning Annabelle and the Warrens just once.  And that’s exactly what a cinematic universe should do!  It should tell its own self-contained story that maybe references the other films, but doesn’t alienate viewers who haven’t seen them.

This film does a great job of making itself stand apart, while still existing in the same world as the others.  One of the drawbacks in something like the Marvel Cinematic Universe is that it’s difficult to believe that all the heroes wouldn’t always team up again after the first Avengers, especially when the world is in danger.  But it’s perfectly believable that Anna would seek the help of Rafael rather than the Warrens because he’s local and she needed immediate help.  And in a series of films that always seems to end with an exorcism, it was refreshing and fascinating to watch Rafael battle La Llorona using other “unorthodox” methods, as described by Father Perez.

La Llorona should have reason to fear Raymond Cruz, especially after seeing him play Tuco Salamanca in Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul!

Full and Fair Representation?
As is well known, La Llorona is based on a Mexican folktale, so it of course makes sense the film would feature an array of Latino/a actors, which to its credit it does.  We get really compelling performances from Raymond Cruz, Tony Amendola, and Patricia Velasquez.  While these three are really given a chance to shine, it doesn’t go unnoticed that the protagonist Anna is portrayed by a Caucasian actress Linda Cardellini.

Very often, casting decisions for leads is based solely upon box office draw, which is probably what happened here since Cardellini is very well known. And to the film’s credit, her character is Caucasian (whose late husband was Latino). We would rather see them do this than have her play a Latina character as Hollywood so often whitewashed in the past (and present).

She’s a brilliantly talented performer, but in some ways it feels like it would have made more sense to have the Patricia character be the main focus in a story like this.  She’s still given a really interesting character arc (which can’t really be discussed without spoiling anything), but maybe the film would have felt just a bit more authentic with her in the lead.  This by no means makes this a bad film, rather it’s just something for Warner Brothers to keep in mind for future projects.

Let’s take a moment and think about how criminally underused Patricia Velasquez is in Hollywood. She’s an immensely talented actress, but aside from The Mummy franchise (and a recurring role on Arrested Development), she hasn’t appeared in too much.

Overall, The Curse of La Llorona stands out among its franchise, not because of its grand and epic scale, but rather its simplistic approach.  In terms of horror cinema, it’s simple and to the point, but incredibly effective.  The climax drags a bit longer than it should, and it does utilize a few tired old horror clichés, but it’s still an extremely well shot, and legitimately creepy story.  Given its subject matter, it’s even more frightening to anyone in the audience who’s a parent with small children.  Hopefully it does well enough at the box office to send a message to Warner Brothers that we want more of this instead the nonsense that was Annabelle and The Nun!

What do you think?

Why Aren’t There More Easter Bunny Movies?

The Orville: “Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow” Review