Fans of the Conjuring franchise are understandably pressed to learn about The Curse of La Llorona’s post-credits scene. Though the movie functions less of a direct follow-up to previous Conjuring movies, it has been reported to be tied to them. As such, fans are expecting a post-credits scene will connect Michael Havez’ new supernatural thriller with the Conjuring universe.
Here’s what’s up, though: The Curse of La Llorona has no post-credits scene. If you’re reading this inside the cinema looking for information, there it is. You can safely scramble out without fear of missing out on more connection between the new movie and Blumhouse’s flagship franchise.
But you’re already here, so let’s talk about real connections the movie makes.
And that starts with a faintly familiar face.
Father Perez returns…
John R. Leonetti’s Annabelle was the dark horse among the Blumhouse stable. It was favored less enthusiastically as the entries that it preceded and succeeded. It follows a young mother who unknowingly lets an evil spirit inside her home when she receives a haunted vintage doll.
Michael Chavez’s The Curse of La Llorona, though nowhere as big a dud as the aforementioned, feels more like a bastard son. Indeed, the movie is Conjuring canon, but the impression is that Jason Blum and Co. like to keep their distance to test the waters first. It’s worth noting that this marks the first time Blumhouse shifts from truth-based depictions to more folklore-inspired ones.
The first sign is the lack of connective post-credit scenes. The S.O.P. is to have these movies intertwine via short snippets usually screened at the end.
Here, we don’t get that. What we get, instead, is a cameo. That cameo comes from Tony Amendola, who in the 2014 Annabelle movie played Father Perez and here reprises his role.
In La Llorona, Fr. Perez advises a distraught single mother Anna (Linda Cardellini) terrorized by La Llorona, a spiteful spirit who takes young children to drown and claim as her own. Fr. Perez mentions a similar case that recently happened—the film is set in the 70’s—which has the movie flashback to his time aiding a young family torn apart by an evil doll. He refers to a “curandero” (Raymond Cruz) because exorcism, he admits, is a cumbersome and a tedious process. Also, it will feel like cultural appropriation if the movie didn’t throw in a Mexican spirit doctor to the mix, but that’s just what I think.
Then, he kind of…exits the movie. And that was it.
What this means for the Conjuring universe
Though fleeting, the moment the movie devotes to tying itself to the Conjuring universe is a positive sign that Blumhouse isn’t afraid of diversifying. You see, there are only so many interesting truth-based paranormal stories to make movies out of.
By tapping into folklore and legends like La Llorona, the Conjuring universe is opening itself for new things, some exciting ones even. I would love to see Blumhouse’s take on Irish stories about the Changeling, the Indonesian Pontianak, or heck, let’s pitch our native Aswang stories.
Blumhouse is in a uniquely prime position to unearth more horror stories with cultural footing out of obscurity.
Over to you
I obviously have reservations about Michael Chavez’s movie, but I think it’s an admirable step from Blumhouse, both as a movie studio and as a corporate entity.
Should they carry onto this path, though, I hope they give it more attention and care. In La Llorona, for example, details of what the Mexican life meant in 70’s Los Angeles are sorely left out. I think they quite missed the mark on that one by a mile.
What do you think? Share us your thoughts on The Curse of La Llorona in the comments below, and let’s discuss.