Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Insidious

This is topic Insidious in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001767

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 04-17-2011, 11:54 PM:

***

Here is a movie that does really well with the scares and frights and then totally goes to hell in the last 60 seconds of the movie. Its like the producer and director just couldn't of ended it the way it should of ended.

There are a lot of elements of Exorcist in this movie. The scares are for real as I would maybe put this in the top 10 of scary films of all time, they are cheap but they do work and you get what some many horror movies fail to deliver.

It is also nice to see a movie that focuses on the story and plot instead of special effects. I hear Insidious cost $1 million to make and they have already grossed $36m. Goes to show you that you can make a lot of money with a small budget.

By far the best actor in this movie was Lin Shaye. She brought just enough life into her role to keep the movie going to the end.

Word of mouth has been really good for Insidious and I was impressed with the scares. Its too bad the movie ends the wrong way. If it wasn't for the wrong conclusion, Insidious might of got a **** rating.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-15-2011, 01:15 AM:

Tom, you are way too giving with your stars on this one. And I am thinking you are also MUCH too easily scared. Every cliche ever put in a scary movie is distilled into this thing. It's a POLTERGIEST wannabe and total ripoff but done with 1/20th of the effectiveness.

Poor Patrick Wilson -- a very accomplished actor otherwise -- he and his costar, Rose Byrne who I haven't encountered previously, do their best but are no match for the absurd script and stilted dialog, not to mention the "what was he thinking" piss poor direction of James Wan.

Half the film spends it's time tring to be a haunted house story which you've seen a thousand times (and done a thousand times better at that), and then for no good reason Wan decides he'll try to make it a story about a haunted comatose child instead. And continuing to rip off POLTERGIEST, instead of the kindly psychic saying "Go to the light, go to the light," this kindly psychic keeps repeating "Come to my voice, come to my voice."

90% of the "scares" consist of the camera slowly following a character thru badly lit hallways, staircase, closets with quiet music under the scene until a big BANG of loud music. BOO!! Oooh, that's scary!

Tom, I will agree with you on one thing, that yes, the ending was just an abomination (and one we've seen a hundred times before) but I disagree with you in that I say the rest of the entire movie was JUST AS BAD...no, WORSE because at least the ending only lasted for a minute.

I am spending the rest of my weekend devising ways to punish my nephews for dragging me to this dog. If you went out for snacks, you would still hear this thing barking all the way to the concessions.

0/5 -- it really deserves negative stars.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 05-15-2011, 01:26 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
It's a POLTERGIEST wannabe

Well Frank, I never saw Poltergiest. Even though I have the 3 disc laserdisc box set.

Thanks for commenting on the movies, and it is interesting thrat you disagree.

I am not sure if you noticed, but Insidious has grossed $50m. It cost under $2m to make. That makes a pretty good sleep hit.

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 05-15-2011, 02:21 AM:

Poltergeist barely scared me. Insidious caused me to have issues sleeping.

To each their own.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-15-2011, 07:12 AM:

I haven't seen Insidious yet, but Poltergeist made me have problems sleeping.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-16-2011, 11:47 AM:

Poltergeist proved that you can have a genuinely scary, creepy movie without any "gore."

Unfortunately the movie industry forgot that.

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 05-21-2011, 07:58 PM:

Watching Insidious is like witnessing a thesis on the progression of horror cinema through to the present day. It starts as a classic minimalist ghost story, moves through the horror/comedy phase of the 80s and 90s and winds up in the ineffectual show-everything style of the modern horror flick.

It's uncertain if it was the intention of director, James Wan, to illustrate the evolution of cinematic horror but it nevertheless serves to drive home the point that the minimalist horror of old is so much scarier than the insipid tripe which is dished up to the multiplexes today (contemporary European and Asian genre films notwithstanding).

The terrorific beauty of the classic horror show is encapsulated in the films opening credit sequence: a spontaneously swinging lampshade here, a half-formed shadow there, and a vaguely goulish reflection of a spectre there. These fractured, skewed, B&W photographic images speak to the effectiveness of our imaginations to instinctively fill in the visual blanks in the most frightening means we can conjure. Pair this with the obligatory shrieking violins and various sudden, loud thumps and scrapes in the soundtrack and you have the vital ingredients for a fabulous frightfest. James Wan understands this and the first act of Insidous demonstrates that it is at least on par with the best of its ilk. But the films struggles begin with the commencement of the second act where the introduction of comedy threatens to derail the project.

Comedy and horror make strange bedfellows but they go off like a firecracker in the sack when paired correctly - witness the pinnacle of comedy horror, Sam Raimi's Evil Dead II. And there are numerous other examples: Poltergeist, Ghostbusters, The Frighteners, House etc. In Insidious, however, the mood of the comic second act is so far removed from the first that it jars.

The films central premise regarding astral travel jars also in its believability but Wan quite cleverly provides an on-screen proxy for us skeptical audiences in one of his protagonists, Josh (Patrick Wilson). And although Wan's method of seduction is a little clunky, as Josh is surely convinced unto astral theory, so too are we.

The weakness of the films middle could be easily overlooked, however, in the presence of a strong third act but alas the final stretch sounds the death knell.

That Wan clearly demonstrates his understanding of elegant horror in the first act makes the disappointment of the films finale all the more bitter. Indeed it looks like the last third of the movie were directed by an entirely different film maker such is its inferiority to what has come before. For not only do we now see the monster face-to-face in all its all-to-human visage (our minds had already concocted a beast far fouler than this) but the sound editing feels half a beat off; like we're given time to process the "scary" visual and judge it benign before we're struck by the obligatory aural spike in the soundtrack. As a result, the moment falls flat and we're left thinking, "oh, that must have been a scary bit."

To think of what this film could have been adds to the disappointment as there's so many little details to like. The muted faded-photograph cinematography contributes effectively to the depressive mood of the film, as does Rose Byrne's first class performance as the tortured mother stretched to the brink of madness. To follow on in the style of the films opener seems so obvious as to invite question on why this wasn't done. It's as if Wan lost his nerve or even lost interest. Perhaps he was merely trying to achieve too much.

6.5 out of 10.