Insidious





Grade: C

What a horrible fucking third act. It's not perfect, but acts one and two are fun and have some great scares. Act three is the worst I've seen in a long, long, long time. The film goes off the rails and wraps up with an ending as stupid as it is predictable.

I'm tempted to rate it a D, but that'd be unfair to the genuine sense of atmosphere and fun scares in the first half.

Insidious doesn't aim to reinvent or subvert the haunted-house movie. The film, directed by Saw's James Wan and co-produced by Paranormal Activity's Oren Peli, just wants to scare you. And it succeeds. In a big way. Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne, both very talented, star as Josh and Renai Lambert. As the film begins, they and their children, including eldest son Dalton (Ty Simpkins), have just moved into a new house. It's not long before the bumps in the night begin. The terror begins small--minor destruction of property, curious noises--and then escalates. Desperate and facing the destruction of their family, Josh and Renai turn to a team of spiritualists (played by Lin Shaye, Angus Sampson, and writer Leigh Whannell) for help.

This is how a horror film should be made, and it's one of the scariest and most entertaining examples of the genre I've seen in the last few years. It may not match the absolute cream of the scream crop--The Exorcist, The Shining, obvious inspiration Poltergeist, 28 Days Later--but it comes close enough to applaud. It's clear James Wan is having a blast behind the camera, and this is without a doubt his most accomplished and well-crafted film to date. Every scare, whether it's a subtle visual detail or an enormous jump scene, is staged with an appealing playfulness. (The use of Tiny Tim's "Tipetoe Through the Tulips" is clever and creepy.) And the film is grounded by the capable duo of Wilson and Byrne, who deliver mature, above average (for the genre) performances.

Whannell's screenplay may lose a few people when it becomes more ambitious halfway through, transitioning from a simple ghost story to a more complicated tale of astral projection and alternate dimensions, but it didn't lose me. Thanks to Wan's effective, stylish scares and Byrne and Wilson's quality performances, I enjoyed this ride from beginning to end.

B+

LOL. Yes, turning into a silly version of the Fade from Dragon Age was just too high-minded for me. Damn you, Leigh Whannell, for making a Poltergeist rip-off that was just too darn complex for us heathens.

james wan continues to prove himself as one of the very few modern genre filmmakers that fucking gets it. insidious is not perfect nor a masterpiece, but it is a total blast and exceptionally well directed. wan is a compatriot of the italian genre masters from the 70s - sometimes it's laughable and goofy, but it is always beautiful and deadly serious (including the much-maligned final act, which is definitely a stretch, but is at least interesting). the tracking shot that leads to a truly disturbing usage of "tiptoe through the tulips" is absolutely genius.

coupled with his two criminally underrated films from 2007 (dead silence and death sentence), wan has shown without a doubt that his work on saw was a big nothing compared to what he is capable of.

Uh, I didn't say it was "high-minded" or demean anyone, so I have no idea where the asshole-ish tone of your post is coming from...I just said it might lose people when it branches out from its original intent. Which seems to be very true?

Welcome to faux-snobbery club Gun, we're happy to have you.

Won't argue with this. Some establishing shots aside (quit... moving... the damn... camera...), the film really is well directed. Wan can set up a scare.

Glad to see I wasn't the only one to enjoy these two, especially Death Sentence. Bought it on a whim, didn't expect a thing from it.

They're nothing faux-snobbish there. Ugh.

"More ambitious" doesn't even have to be a positive comment! The Chronicles of Riddick is more ambitious and complicated than Pitch Black, but a far inferior film.

All I said was the film didn't lose my interest or admiration when it went into slightly messier "mythology" territory, something other people (surely very smart and wonderful people) have complained about.

Gunslinger is anything but a snob. I don't always agree with his reviews, but the way he presents his arguments shows he has appreciation for movies and he tries to explain the whys of his opinion.

Posers on the other hand...

Insidious is one of the scarier horror films I've seen... It's not perfect, but it keeps you on edge and startles you with some truly frightening imagery. It's very well-made. I do agree the first half is stronger, but I didn't mind the second. On the whole this is a very strong horror film. I wish more could be this scary.

8/10 (A-)

I never argue that I'm a wannabe loser poser faux snob douchebag. That's how I'm perceived, and frankly I'd much rather be so than be someone like rev, regardless of the attitude that causes from most of the posters here. However if you're hinting that I do not appreciate movies I have to vehemently disagree.

What's wrong with Rev?

He knows nothing of film and likes common easily accessible trash. He disdains anything thoughtful, complex, or essentially, worthwhile. If that's how some people want to be "film fans" fine, that's their choice and they're welcome to it. But I'd much prefer my current status.

I may not agree with all the people who love Transformers 2 but I accept that they like the film for its entertainment value. Or someone who enjoys a cheap horror film because it gave them solid scares. Sorry we aren't all watching the latest 1960's drama at our convenience.

Film has changed drastically so more people are going to enjoy what you consider "trash". You can't easily go out and rent an older film anymore and for those like me that wish to not pirate, then we don't have much access to those films.

You really are a terrible snob. A couple years ago you were a film person just like Rev. However now you think you're hot shit because you watched stuff that was made in black and white. Grow up.

Netflix? TCM?

It seems to me films are more available than ever in this era of DVD and Blu-ray, streaming, cable channels, etc.

The worst thing about Benjamin Milk is that he has no clue what he's talking about. There are other film snobs here (or were here), but at least they knew what they were talking about. He thinks that because he has seen movies made before 1970, he's qualified as a movie snob. In reality he's just a huge dumbass.

I am pretty sure there are libraries in whatever town or city you live. There is also netflix. These films are readily available to almost anyone who wishes to find them, so that excuse is utter bullshit.

I do not think I am hot shit. I am still very much a film noob and have a far weaker knowledge base of film than Price or Loyal or many other posters here. I still have much to learn. However I am trying to learn and grow as a film fan and critic, whereas people like rev and yourself and thompsoncory are an insult to such terms. I know I was just as bad a few years ago as the people I mock now, but my attempts to grow from that are the reason I insult what I use to be. And I am not surprised that the people who try desperately to stay that way resent me for it. Nor do I particularly care.

You seem to derive more pleasure from your burgeoning sense of superiority than any of the actual films you watch.

As much as I love the Benjamin Milk/jmovies/Gunslinger three-way, let's try to keep this thread on topic, mmkay?

You can be whatever type of film viewer you want to be, but there's nothing I appreciate about someone who judges someone else on what they like and how they like it. Sorry folks, but there are no Roger Eberts here making money for their movie views. If they were, they wouldn't be wasting their time here.

Watch what you like, like what you like and nevermind what anyone else thinks of you. I said it before and I'll say it again: I liked "The Man". Yes, that "The Man", with Eugene Levy and Samuel L. Jackson. The last thing I want is someone saying I'm a moron for liking one movie and hating another.

And quiet, trixster. I don't want you telling me what I can and can't do, when I can and can't do it, and who I can and can't do it to! Back in my day, we were allowed to hijack threads and have promiscuous sex. We rarely (ever) did either, but it was an option, dammit!

How are the three of us bad as film fans? I've watched 250+ films released since 2009 and have gained an understanding of what I enjoy and don't enjoy. I don't have to watch numerous amounts of old film to be a "fan". I don't have Netflix so I have trouble watching some of that stuff. I don't love every film I watch, I known what to criticize. I'm going into film as a major next year and I'll grow even more.

I feel like watching Casablanca.

Anyway, guys. Insidious.

Well back on topic I at first didn't want to see this but might check it out now given better than usual reviews for a horror film.

Is Rose Byrne good?

Must be cloudy on the high horse today, can't stop contradicting yourself. No need for a double standard, sir, one standard will do just fine.

I just hate to see someone judging other people because they don't "get" film like you do. You'd probably be surprised how many filmmakers want people just to enjoy their movies and not analyze every little thing in every little scene. Past and present.

jmovies, stop trying to take this back on topic. But since you mentioned it, is Rose Byrne okay? I mean, I kind of care about her. She looks like she could use a sandwich or two, but she's awesome on Damages so I overlook it.