The Curse of La Llorona is a supernatural horror film released in 2019, which is loosely connected to the Conjuring universe. The movie is directed by Michael Chaves and produced by James Wan, the creator of the Conjuring franchise. Although the film is not a direct part of the Conjuring series, it is set in the same universe and shares some connections with the previous films. The Curse of La Llorona tells the story of a social worker named Anna Tate-Garcia, who investigates a case involving a mother who claims that her children are being haunted by an ancient ghost called La Llorona. According to Mexican folklore, La Llorona is the ghost of a woman who drowned her own children and now wanders the earth, searching for other children to replace them. The film follows Anna's struggle to protect her own children from the vengeful spirit.

Confirmed: ‘The Curse of La Llorona’ Is DEFINITELY Not Part of the Official ‘Conjuring Universe’

Depending on who you ask, this year’s The Nun II is either the eighth or ninth film in Warner Bros. and New Line’s The Conjuring Universe, and that’s because 2019’s The Curse of La Llorona was never actually marketed as being part of the universe, despite having a clear connection to it. So what’s the story there? Is it a Conjuring movie or is it not?

Speaking with Entertainment Weekly in celebration of The Conjuring‘s 10th anniversary, La Llorona director Michael Chaves confirms that it’s NOT an official Conjuring movie. This despite the fact that Tony Amendola reprises his role as Father Perez from the first Annabelle movie, while The Curse of La Llorona also features a cameo from Annabelle herself.

“There’s so much debate about it and I think I’ve played coy in the past,” Chaves tells EW. “The idea was that [the Annabelle cameo] was going to be this little hidden thing that you were going to discover as you watch the movie. One of the reasons that it couldn’t formally be a part of the Conjuring Universe is it didn’t include one of the key producers, Peter Safran. The Conjuring is his baby, him and James, and they are still the two core producers on it.”

Chaves continues, “Peter still gave his permission to let [Annabelle] be in there. The funny thing is that it was supposed to be a secret, it was supposed to be this Easter Egg, and [when the film premiered at] SXSW, there was a slip-up. The presenter introduced the movie as the next entry in the Conjuring universe. So that was a big kind of faux pas.

“It was a big mess-up, and that’s the truth of how that all came together.”

The Conjuring Universe producer Peter Safran also tells Entertainment Weekly that The Curse of La Llorona is most definitely “not part of The Conjuring universe.”

“You can’t count it!” Safran tells EW. “It periodically gets lumped in because of Chaves and because of Atomic Monster, but it is not officially part of the universe. By the way, I think Chaves did a great job on the movie, which is why we stole him for the Conjuring universe.”

Safran is referring to the fact that Michael Chaves went on to direct mainline sequel The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It, and Chaves is also the director of this year’s The Nun II.

One thing we have to mention about The Curse of La Llorona is that it didn’t quite scare up as much money as Conjuring Universe movies typically do, considered by those who count it among the universe to be the franchise’s lowest grossing movie to date. The film made $123 million worldwide, while the rest of the installments are in the $200 – $300 million range.

Perhaps The Curse of La Llorona would be officially considered part of the universe had it reached those same heights at the box office? We can’t help but wonder. But we’ll accept the official confirmation that it’s NOT part of the universe, and we’ll carry on with our lives.

Does this sit well with you? Feel free to comment below with your two cents…

Writer in the horror community since 2008. Editor in Chief of Bloody Disgusting. Owns Eli Roth's prop corpse from Piranha 3D. Has four awesome cats. Still plays with toys.

You may like

Editorials

‘Cube’ – Surviving the Canadian Original and Its Japanese Remake [Revenge of the Remakes]

January 16, 2024

I’m thirty-plus entries into Revenge of the Remakes and have finally reached an original/remake pair where neither is American. Vincenzo Natali’s Cube (1997) is a maple-scented product of Canada’s independent filmmaking scene, while Yasuhiko Shimizu’s 2021 remake hails from Japan. You’re free of rants about stale Americanizations and Hollywood’s sometimes shortsighted approach to horror remakes. Welcome to a wholly international edition of my column that’s, in comparison, outside the box. I’m honestly surprised Japan beat us to a Cube remake in a post-Platinum Dunes world — although Bloody Disgusting’s Brad Miska reported Lionsgate was taking new Cube pitches as of May 2022. Don’t be surprised if a domestic project surfaces soon.

It’s a tale of two geometrical prisons influenced by cultural horror norms. Natali aligns with genre-bending Canadian minds like David Cronenberg, whereas Shimizu leans toward more operatic and soapy Japanese storytelling. One incorporates flashbacks that break free from the titular Cube’s containment, and the other seals characters in a meticulously measured tomb. They’re two distinct approaches, but unfortunately, in my humble opinion, one outpaces the other. Natali’s original has a serrated edge that Shimizu’s remake lacks, which is disappointingly apparent when watched in quick order.

The Approach

Shimizu and writer Koji Tokuo fixate on the Cube’s functionality and grand purpose more than Natali’s open-ended character study. Natali’s many script iterations alongside co-writers André Bijelic and Graeme Manson — one reportedly involving a cannibal, another a roaming cube monster — eventually boil down to a volatile combination of personalities that fracture under duress. Tokuo dials back the elevated psychosis and magnifies moral elements about sinners having to atone for their actions. The Japanese remake invests in meandering relationship drama and human sympathies; Natali provokes individuals until they’re at one another’s throats with far more nihilism.

The first half of 2021’s Cube doesn’t veer too far off course. A cast of captives congregate in a steely sci-fi-freaky room with no reason for their predicament and must traverse a maze of chambers that are eventually understood to be in motion. Characters resemble those of Natali’s crew, from Masaki Suda’s 29-year-old engineer Yuichi Goto (based on David Worth) to Hikaru Tashiro’s 13-year-old middle school student with autism, Chiharu Uno (based on Kazan). Removed shoes are used to trigger hidden traps, and mathematics prolong survival, but then Shimizu and Tokuo’s differences start to appear when characters begin remembering (through flashbacks) what could have earned them a place in synthetic purgatory.

There’s a stark contrast between the philosophical hopelessness of Natali’s original and Shimizu’s brand of divine reclamation. Natali provokes claustrophobic mania through close-up shots and a panting score, whereas Shimizu sanitizes the experience with brighter appeal. Both are undoubtedly horror movies, as indicated by each stage-setting death, but the Japanese remake comes in a distant second when measuring follow-throughs. Shimizu and Tokuo devolve the situational anxiety that Natali so violently unleashes as the original’s power struggle ensues, limply pushing these new, not-as-interesting explorers through a coldly designed maze that feels repetitive after a while.

Does It Work?

I’m torn on Shimizu’s take because the updated structure is what remakes should strive to deliver. At the same time, it’s one of the unfortunate remake examples where unique differentiations weaken the overall impact. Shimizu breaks through the structure’s outer shell but lets precious tension escape, drawing attention away from the immediacy propelling survivor arcs. In trying to beef up the emotional resonance, Shimizu and Tokuo drift too far away from the frantic unpredictability that has audiences holding their breath throughout Natali’s low-budget conspiracy thriller. There’s something vastly more unsettling about 1997’s indie darling, between purgatorial assessments and blinding lights with no answers.

You know we talk about SPOILERS here, right? If not, here’s your chance to turn back because I’m about to reveal the “big twist” of Cube (2021).

Tokuo’s story drags Natali’s concept kicking and screaming into the future, basing the overlord concept on artificial intelligence. Cutaways to amoeba-like digital particles at random moments assure viewers there’s something bigger at play, but the rationale adds nothing of substance. Anne Watanabe, as Asako Kai, is revealed to be an agent of the system, perceived from her introduction as robotic, but again, the rationale adds nothing of substance. Natali does a fantastic job of questioning the frivolity of his characters’ escape attempts as human nature turns despicably irredeemable, which doesn’t translate in the Japanese iteration. Supercomputer upgrades are surface value tweaks that dampen horror vibes in addition to the film’s listlessly introspective social dilemmas.

Shimizu’s remake is more culturally resonant between old and young Japanese characters’ generational commentaries while touching on a grief-stricken, unaliving subplot. There’s an insinuation that Kōtarō Yoshida as 62-year-old Kazumasa Ando is intertwined in the lives of his youthful counterparts, who they see as a symbol of the abusive, dismissive, calloused breed of elder-aged Japanese patriarchs. Shimizu oversees his Cube as a sobering family drama that bleeds into otherwise suffocating genre entrapment, which is a choice that will divide audiences. Natali makes mention of character backstories through dialogue only, where Shimizu and Tokuo over-explain (verbally and visually) in a way that disservices the killer labyrinth machination of it all.

The Result

From square one, something seems amiss. Natali chops Julian Richings into itty-bitty flesh steaks with a wire grate like a vegetable pressed into one of those tabletop container cutters (which looks awesome). Shimizu lasers a square out of his opening victim’s stomach that plops down all jiggly like the animated stomach plug in Kung Pow! Enter the Fist (regrettably not awesome). Natali’s atmosphere favors this horror-forward, I’d say Clive Barker-influenced, shrouded-in-darkness vibe that’s bleakness incarnate, while Shimizu has trouble separating one metallic monochrome room from the next. Reds, greens, and auburn-y oranges all pop in Natali’s original, where Shimizu’s production feels like the drab laboratory equivalent of an alien race’s research experiment. Shimizu robs audiences of the pleasure of theorizing alongside “military-industrial complex” blamers and tells us precisely what his Cube is used for, and that’s a bummer when considering the film’s overall lackluster presentation.

Everything hits softer, no matter what example you pull. Kazumasa Ando as a sorta stand-in for Maurice Dean Wint’s original bastard Quentin McNeil is no contest, one infinitely more imposing than the other (noting altered traits). Production design feels less confining and infinitely less detailed — the Japanese set feels like a neatly sealed lunchbox. In contrast, the Canadian set is designed like characters are trapped inside the Lament Configuration. Shimizu stays true to significant plot points like the importance of Cartesian coordinates and prime numbers but loses the deepest-rooted sensations of mania that drive Natali’s cast insane. Even the traps are less fulfilling in their mostly computer-animated states, none more representative than the sound-activated slicer Natali expertly uses to render us anxiously silent. It’s just another scene in Shimizu’s rinse and repeat cycle — a frustration that never plagues Natali’s vision.

Japan’s Cube speaks in wordy platitudes, whereas Canada’s Cube descends into anarchistic madness. Shimizu’s God Cube makes choices for the scurrying Japanese prisoners, versus how Quentin influences his squad’s demise in the original, which is a far more frightening outcome. Natali’s script is far wittier and quirkier (that “Worth, worth worth” line [laughs]), which threads a darkly comedic underline through an absurdly evil scenario, where Tokuo’s adventurous spin with a hero’s journey plays with formulaic blandness. There’s more control and level-headedness in the remake, which becomes a tonal mismatch within the architectural deathtrap.

The Lesson

American remakes get a bad rap because they’re the most prevalent. The success of any remake is wholly dependent on the production itself. There’s no generalized failure across an entire market. Shimizu approaches his Cube with the correct mindset of reinterpreting Natali’s core concept for a different country, in a different period, under different societal circumstances — as a remake, the Japanese Cube achieves the goal of creative originality. Quality, unfortunately, will always be another question (and in the eye of each beholder).

So What Did We Learn?

● Remake culture expands beyond our domestic borders — not just our obsession.

● One’s trash is another’s treasure, as I know others who love the different directions of Shimizu’s Cube.

● Atmosphere is so important when establishing horror, as exemplified by both Cube films.

● You’re probably in trouble if your 2020s movie utilizes weaker effects than any 1990s predecessor.

I’ll confess, Cube is probably my oddest instance of seeing the remake before the original. I saw the Japanese remake not even on SCREAMBOX, but because of my subscription to Terror Vision’s Blu-ray club (who released Shimizu’s on physical media) before I ever watched Natali’s highly-acclaimed original. This is who I am; embrace the chaos. Heaven knows I did a long, LONG time ago. Don’t be ashamed of the order you watch movies or your blind spots; more importantly, don’t let others shame you for the same reason. There are too many movies!

Your journey is yours alone to curate and celebrate.

Exclusive: The Simple Reason Why THE CURSE OF LA LLORONA is NOT Part of THE CONJURING Universe

Have you ever noticed how The Curse of La Llorona is treated like the red-headed stepchild of The Conjuring Universe? There’s a very simple reason why. During my exclusive interview with the film’s director, Michael Chaves, in advance of The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It (which he also directed), I asked just that–and I got a surprisingly definitive response.

Also Read: No Past Villains in THE CONJURING 3–And No Happy Ending

Despite what you might have heard, The Curse of La Llorona is not part of The Conjuring Universe like Annabelle and The Nun. That’s right, even though the character Father Perez (played by Tony Amendola) appeared in both 2014’s Annabelle and 2019’s La Llorona, and even though we see a flash of the Annabelle doll in the film, The Curse still isn’t part of the franchise . The reason why is simple.

Synopsis:
In 1970s Los Angeles, the legendary ghost La Llorona is stalking the night — and the children. Ignoring the eerie warning of a troubled mother, a social worker and her own kids are drawn into a frightening supernatural realm. Their only hope of surviving La Llorona’s deadly wrath is a disillusioned priest who practices mysticism to keep evil at bay.

“The very simple reason [why La Llorona] isn’t [part of The Conjuring Universe is because] it was made without one of the [Conjuring franchise] producers, so technically it can not be fully embraced,” Chaves explained. “That’s the very simple reason. Originally, there was only supposed to be a playful nod [to The Conjuring franchise in La Llorona], by putting The Father in and having the Annabelle flash. But it wasn’t supposed to be marketed that way. The plan was, you would get into it, and then it’s like, ‘Oh my God, they’re connected!’ We weren’t, from the beginning, supposed to be doing that. And that’s why it has this outsider status. But as [the character] La Llorona is an outsider herself, I think it fits.

“It’s a tricky situation, I don’t want to give away any trade secrets,” Chaves continued. “The idea was just to have a playful connection [to The Conjuring] because the myth of La Llorona can stand on its own. But James [Wan] was on as a producer, the conversation got started about an Easter Egg. It just kind of got away from itself. People loved that connection. But The Conjuring franchise is created by a team that’s been there since the beginning. It’s not really right to do an onoffical spinoff without the full team.”

So why all the confision?

Related Article: Where THE CONJURING 3 Opening Weekend Lands in Conjuring Universe

“When we premiered it in Austin, it was mistakenly announced as ‘The next chapter in The Conjuring universe’,” Chaves told me, “which sent waves of panic all the way through New Line. We didn’t want anyone to be offended. It was supposed to be just a wink and a nod. Not like we’re trying to steal your mojo or your brand.”

So there you have it, folks. There are only seven, not eight, films in The Conjuring universe. They are: The Conjuring, The Conjuring 2, Annabelle, Annabelle: Creation, The Nun, Annabelle Comes Home, and The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It. The latter is still playing in theaters nationwide and available to stream on HBO Max.

You can check out the trailer and synopsis for The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It below.

Synopsis:
A chilling story of terror, murder and unknown evil that shocked even experienced real-life paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren. One of the most sensational cases from their files, it starts with a fight for the soul of a young boy, then takes them beyond anything they’d ever seen before, to mark the first time in U.S. history that a murder suspect would claim demonic possession as a defense.

Chaves directs The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It from a screenplay penned by David Leslie Johnson-McGoldrick; the film stars Vera Farmiga, Patrick Wilson, and Julian Hilliard.

Are you a fan of The Cuse of La Llorona (even though it’s not really part of The Conjuring Universe)? Have you seen The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It? Let us know in the comments below or on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram! You can also carry on the convo with me personally on Twitter @josh_millican. Dread Central on Google News!

How The Curse of La Llorona Is Connected To The Conjuring Universe

Very mild spoilers ahead from The Curse of La Llorona.

The Curse of La Llorona hasn't been heavily promoted as a Conjuring movie, but it is quietly haunting The Conjuring Universe as the sixth entry in the series. The horror film marks the directorial debut of Michael Chaves, whose follow-up film is The Conjuring 3, which comes out in 2020.

The Curse of La Llorona recently screened at South by Southwest, confirming how the movie connects to the Conjuring universe. The movie is set in Los Angeles in 1973, and has the connective tissue of Father Perez (Tony Amendola), who returns to the story from Annabelle. In this film, Father Perez talks to Anna Garcia (Linda Cardellini) about his evil doll case, and the doll is flashed on screen to further drive home the connection (per Bloody Disgusting).

The 2014 Annabelle movie was also set in Southern California, with the story in 1967. The Conjuring, which came out in 2013, was set in 1971. The Conjuring 2 was set in 1976 and 1977. So The Curse of La Llorona appears to fit into the timeline between between the first two Conjuring movies, just a few years after Father Perez's experience in Annabelle.

Since The Curse of La Llorona just screened, critics and fans have been sharing their early thoughts online. CinemaBlend's own Sean O'Connell felt the film compared poorly to previous Conjuring movies, although he had fond words for Linda Cardellini:

Perri Nemiroff of Collider also had some measured praise, calling it a solid start for future Conjuring 3 director Michael Chaves:

Erik Davis of Fandango had a much simpler warning about the movie -- it may leave you afraid to visit your own attic:

The Curse of La Llorona was produced by James Wan, who directed the first two Conjuring films before passing the reins to Michael Chaves for the upcoming third movie. This is the sixth film in The Conjuring Universe after The Conjuring, Annabelle, The Conjuring 2, Annabelle: Creation, and The Nun. It precedes Annabelle 3, aka Annabelle Comes Home, which just announced its title and June 28, 2019 release date. The Conjuring 3 is reportedly scheduled for September 11, 2020. The Crooked Man should be following them at some point, but there's no set date right now.

The Curse of La Llorona opens in theaters on April 19, yep one week before Avengers: Endgame. Pray for it. The horror movie is just one of the many films releasing in theaters in 2019.

The film follows Anna's struggle to protect her own children from the vengeful spirit. The connection between The Curse of La Llorona and the Conjuring universe lies in the appearance of Father Perez, a character from the first Conjuring movie. Father Perez is played by Tony Amendola, who reprises his role in this film.

CINEMABLEND NEWSLETTER

Your Daily Blend of Entertainment News

By submitting your information you agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy and are aged 16 or over.

While the connection is not central to the plot, it helps to establish that The Curse of La Llorona takes place in the same world as the other films in the series. Although The Curse of La Llorona received mixed reviews from critics, it was a commercial success, grossing over $123 million worldwide. The film's connection to the Conjuring universe also sparked interest among fans of the franchise, as they eagerly searched for the links between the films. In conclusion, The Curse of La Llorona is a horror film connected to the Conjuring universe. While it may not have a direct impact on the overall storyline of the franchise, its inclusion of a character from the first Conjuring film establishes its connection to the series. The film's success and the interest it generated among fans show the power and popularity of the shared universe concept in modern filmmaking..

Reviews for "The Curse of La Llorona: A Terrifying Tale in The Conjuring Franchise"

1. Charlie - 2 stars

While I am a fan of the Conjuring franchise, "The Curse of La Llorona" was a big disappointment for me. It lacked the depth and fear factor that the other movies in the series possessed. The storyline felt weak and predictable, leaving me unengaged throughout the film. The jump scares were lazy and overused, making them lose their effectiveness after the first few times. Overall, I expected more from a movie that was supposed to be connected to the Conjuring universe, but it fell flat in terms of storytelling and scares.

2. Emily - 2.5 stars

As a huge fan of the Conjuring films, I was excited to watch "The Curse of La Llorona," but it didn't live up to my expectations. The story felt disjointed and lacked the depth that the previous movies had. The characters were underdeveloped, making it hard for me to connect with them or care about their fate. Additionally, the scares were predictable and relied too heavily on jump scares rather than building a sense of tension and dread. Overall, "The Curse of La Llorona" failed to capture the essence of the Conjuring franchise and left me feeling underwhelmed.

3. Mark - 1 star

Having enjoyed the previous Conjuring movies, I had high hopes for "The Curse of La Llorona," but it turned out to be a huge disappointment. The plot was weak, and the scares felt forced and cliché. I found myself rolling my eyes at the predictable jump scares and lackluster storyline. Furthermore, the connection to the Conjuring universe felt forced and unnecessary, with no substantial ties to the other films. Overall, "The Curse of La Llorona" was a forgettable addition to the franchise, failing to deliver the frights and suspense that fans have come to expect.

Connecting the Ghostly Dots: La Llorona's Link to The Conjuring Films