Demonstrating how difficult it is to make a 25-year-old look as if they are still aged nine, this can’t compete with its 2009 forebear
Photograph: Photo Credit: Steve Ackerman/Steve AckermanPhotograph: Photo Credit: Steve Ackerman/Steve Ackermanrelied on a truly daft dramatic conceit, one that depended entirely on the appearance and eerie maturity of then 12-year-old Isabelle Fuhrman as the parentless child of the title, named Esther for much of the film.
This prequel, once again starring Fuhrman as Esther, isn’t nearly as classy or clever, although it has its own wackadoodle twist, two-thirds in. Even more problematic, if you saw the first film, is that Fuhrman is now over a decade older, which makes trying to pass her off as a nine-year-old even harder, although a certain amount of VFX jiggery-pokery and the use of stunt doubles for some shots has been done to adjust proportions.
The most disappointing thing about the film is that it has none of the spark or originality of the first one and just parasitically drains its source material, incorporating details like the creepy black-light drawings and the borderline paedophilic subtext without adding anything substantial. Even the bland attempt to reprise the voyeuristic sex scene from the original film – a truly erotic moment with Farmiga and Sarsgaard humping against a kitchen island – is a poor substitute.