Review by Ivan Drago (16.04.2020)
It has long been believed that a wide variety of objects, ranging from amulets to expensive stones, ways to absorb negative energy and even become a haven if not for restless souls, but for demons and other sinister creatures from other worlds. In particular, all kinds of otherworldly guests adore children’s toys, so that with their help they will interest the kids and, perhaps, try to take hold of their body and mind. That is why various soldiers and dolls for many centuries have become objects of increased attention from the occultists and demonologists of all stripes, who have written more than one book based on their research. In addition to folklore and frightening stories later told around the campfire, the cursed dolls also firmly occupied themselves with cinema, where they could boldly single out their own sub-genre of horror. At one time, the notorious Chucky, the title antagonist of the Children’s Games, brought a serious rustle to the audience.
Then in his footsteps went the cursed Annabelle, fluttering out of the bosom of the “Spell” and having her own trilogy of box office spin-offs. And even a frankly mediocre, partly even miserable franchise about a doll Robert got her own army of fans, which, although quite small, however, still can not get away from it. When the abundance of deadly mystical toys reached truly sinister limits, the director William Brent Bell decided to join in with his tape under the title “Boy” (in the domestic box office – “Doll”). The tape turned out to be very predictable on the part of frightening elements, but on the other hand it contained an element of scenario surprise, partly deconstructing a sub-genre of damned demonic dolls. And now, five years after the premiere, Bell returned to the big movie again, along with a completely optional sequel, which, unlike the first part, does him absolutely no honor.
If you briefly evaluate the history of the original “Doll”, then for all its frightening moments, it was fascinating and at the same time brought to the maximum close to reality. William Brent Bell famously played with our expectations regarding the next damned toy, after which he showed in all ominous colors what exactly stood behind the china baby and why real demons should be sought on the earth, and not in parallel worlds. Maybe this revelation in the context of the genre did not become any kind of overwhelming revelation, but thanks to interesting storyline moves, competent directing and a pleasant protagonist performed by Lauren Cohen, the Doll was remembered, loved and no longer required that it be came back again.
Yes, in history there were nuances that could lead to a logical continuation, but no one really expected this. He did not want to continue the story of the boy Brahms in the context that we remember him, and the director himself. But he simply could not deny himself the possibility of borrowing the doll’s visual appearance and her name in the most rude, screaming and insolent way in order to make a frankly unnecessary film that could not be associated with the original, but the advertising moments hinted that it’s all that the same “Doll” and it is worth a look. It is a pity that this is nothing more than a tricky trick, designed to bring money, while no logic, deliberation and respect for the audience is simply not noticed.
Perhaps a critical change in the history of Brahms could have been taken more calmly, if the creators had done a more thorough, thorough work with the script, but we were simply put in the position of silent observers who can only be indignant and nothing more. Forget what emotions the original Brahms evoked in you. Now all this does not matter at all, while the ball began to be ruled by a mystic and even nowhere appeared materials, completely rewriting the mundane, but at the same time fascinating horror. If for a short while you forget about Brahms himself and what was done to him, then the film leaves a frankly sad impression in itself, since it is simply impossible to find a more predictable and completely ordinary family conflict for the horror genre.
After the attack, the moral distance between Sean and Lisa increases, the woman constantly suffers from the past and is unable to cope with this. Her husband seems to want to delve into the situation, but everything shows that he is doing this through force, since the actor himself understands that he has nothing to play here. Finally, young Jude just needs the plot to do that. in order to show Brahms’s malicious essence, and nothing more worthwhile, he did not distinguish himself in principle.
Of course, some minor characters appear in the film, who are instructed to shed light on what is happening for us and literally wipe our feet on the storyline of the original, but there is simply no point in talking about them in a detailed manner, because they are stereotyped to the limit and just as quickly erode from memory, how they get into it.
In the end, I want to say that “Doll 2: Brahms” is a typical sequel, which was created exclusively for the sake of earning. The authors are not even able to justify their film with a desire to expand the boundaries of the first part and tell us something special, since they destroyed everything that could be done.
3 of 10