Insidious

The film Insidious has done something many horror movies have failed to do recently, and that is to be scary.

Insidious has a lot of really intense moments that scare, and then grab hold of you. Its not entirely made up of "make you jump" scenes, which it does have, but scenes with genuine horror.

Insidious has taken a risk with doing something original, and It works here for them. Without giving anything away the movie does not just talk about whats scary, or show the the aftermath of something going on in a room that you can only hear until its over and the door magically unlocks. Insidious shows you whats scary, and quite often reminds you whats there, and waiting in the dark.

When I first saw a preview for this movie, I knew it looked like it had potential. It had been a while since I saw a decent scary movie so I was looking forward to it. I went into it expecting some scares but nothing too bad. Wrong. This movie scared me out of my wits. I don't think I have ever jumped more during any other scary movie. The audience was spooked too. I saw many other people jumping out of their seats and even heard a few actual screams.

What I loved about this movie was that it actually tries to scare you, not gross you out. The images are frightening for sure. Insidious doesn't waste any time trying to creep you out. The scares already start with the opening credits. I sure was not expecting this to be one of the scariest movies i've seen but it lives up to that. That being said, I don't think I'd have the guts to see it again!

Insidious is the third film in my (reverse order) mini-marathon of James Wan horrors after Malignant (which I loved) and The Conjuring (which I hated). It starts off as basically the same film as the latter: Renai (Rose Byrne) and Josh (Patrick Wilson) are a young couple with small children that has recently moved into a new home, when one morning, their oldest son Dalton doesn't seem to wake up. Turns out he's in a "sort-of coma" (it's unlike anything the doctors have ever seen!). When other weird stuff starts to happen around the house (old-timey children running around, things moving around on their own, banging on doors at night etc.), Renai starts to become convinced that their new home is being haunted by malevolent presences. And unlike your average horror movie protagonists, the family doesn't ignore the obvious signs and actually moves houses. But when the problems don't stop after they have moved, they call in the help of two young ghostbusters and, later on, a psychic called Elise. Stop me if you've heard this before.

But this is where Insidious starts to diverge from The Conjuring (I know it was released before that film, but I watched them in reverse order). My biggest problem with The Conjuring was that it uses the "based on a true story" angle to legitimize its horrors. It tries very hard to claim its paranormal phenomena as being of this world, by using a "real life case" of "real life paranormal investigators" Ed and Lorraine Warren. And the more deadly serious it got in its treatment of the paranormal, the more ridiculous (and less scary) I found the whole thing to be. Insidious, on the other hand, makes no attempt to claim its supernatural presences as part of our world. An explanation for the strange occurrences that have been happening to the Lambert family is offered by Elise, in which esoteric phenomena like astral projection and out-of-body experiences are mentioned as well as another dimension occupied by spirits and demons ("The Further"). It's a very exposition-heavy few minutes and of course it's all silly nonsense, but at least it's original and fun and it firmly sets the film in its own fictional universe where we gladly suspend our disbelief and accept that anything can happen.

A detail that I liked is that we don't have to go through the tedious business of the protagonists doubting each other or the imminent danger itself. When Renai tells her husband that she can feel the evil presences in their new home, Josh is initially skeptic, but just a few minutes later (after a particularly eventful night) the family are seen moving houses. Again when Elise explains her theory about Dalton being trapped in the Further: Josh's (very normal) first reaction is to call her out for being dangerous and exploitative (as one would), but after being confronted with a piece of evidence (one of his son's drawings that is a bit too specific to ignore) he is quickly persuaded.

Ultimately, Insidious' main goal is to scare the bejesus out of you and it absolutely achieves that. From the opening credits scene (which I really liked) the filmmakers do a good job of establishing a creeping sense of dread that slowly gets under your skin, balanced with some more classical jump scares. While I rolled my eyes at the abundance of clichés in The Conjuring, even these more "traditional" scares in Insidious just worked for me. Then there's the intense finale, which may run just a bit too long, but is extremely unnerving anyway. The whole set piece inside the Further is a beautifully realized nightmare, with some seriously creepy imagery that gives this dark realm an appropriately surreal feel.

In summary, Insidious is an entertaining horror film by James Wan that doesn't reinvent the genre, but offers an original twist on the classic haunted house story. It does a good job of building its own world, while maintaining a tense atmosphere throughout and sporadically making you jump out of your seat. The film thankfully avoids annoying horror movie clichés to extend its plot, like the protagonists who are oblivious to the dangers around them. Finally, there's a satisfying (if slightly overlong) climax, in which some indelible images are exhibited that'll be burned into my retinas for some time to come. Overall, I'd still rate Malignant higher: that film just went completely balls to the wall, which made it ridiculously enjoyable to me. And although this film certainly doesn't look bad, the cinematography of the former was even better in my opinion. But I definitely liked Insidious a whole lot better than The Conjuring, which was completely unoriginal, took itself way too seriously and didn't manage to entertain or scare me at all.

*** out of (****)

Judging by the anticlimactic advertisements you'd think, just why? There's an evil child film almost every year, and what separates one from the rest? You have every right to think so, but not with "Insidious". Trust me when I say it. "Insidious" is an entirely different beast. One that actually resonates with scares and intrigue. One that relies on character development, and a script to hold it together. This isn't a one trick pony, it's a well made film with some solid production values thrown in as a bonus. If you don't have a film to see this weekend, make sure you make it this one.

"Insidious" revolves around the perfect couple. Beautiful kids. A new home. It's all smooth sailing until Dalton is in a supposed "coma", but the actual reality is that he's haunted. What will Dalton's family do to stop this entity?

First of all, many complain that the second act bogs down the film and is inferior to its first half. I wholeheartedly disagree. I think as a whole the film is just fine. Yes, there's a drastic tonal shift mid-way, but that doesn't detract from the experience. The first half plays a typical haunted house flick, except it's actually scary, and the suspense is well built. Then the second half is like a cross between "Poltergeist", "House of Wax", and a little of "Beetlejuice" sprinkled in for good measure.

Furthermore, the performances while nothing to write home about, are pretty decent to say the least. The two leading protagonists do their job and Dalton is pretty solid given what he had to work with. Moreover, the script is very inventive, and has multiple twists and turns. Yes, this isn't the most unique screenplay, but it still stands on its own, and is actually quite effective.

To top it off, the production is just very beautiful. This movie is very easy on the eyes when it comes to cinematography and location. Now the question everyone is dying to hear. Is it scary? I'd say yes, but don't get too carried away. If you walk in thinking your going to have nightmares, or if you're going to see Rosie O' Donnell, chances are you'll be a little disappointed. However, if you're going in expecting a creepy thriller that just happens to have a few intense moments, you'll be in for a fun night out. Also, I love the nostalgic factor this movie has. It feels as though it was made in the 80's. Old school horror strikes back!

With a restraint heavy PG-13 rating, and a middle-of-the-road concept, "Insidious" isn't looking too pretty. However, looks can be deceiving. This is one movie that doesn't mess around, and doesn't play it safe either. I can easily say I will be revisiting this film from time to time just because it's so fun. You'll laugh, you'll jump, you'll be entertained. This is what a fun night out should be like. Get your large popcorn and soda, and sit along with the crowd. Be prepared for a good time.

INSIDIOUS is yet another one of those Hollywood ghost stories involving a possessed child. It follows a predictable format, with minor, isolated incidents gradually giving way to larger-scale, more pronounced apparitions and events before culminating in a full-scale onslaught of evil. And it's all rather silly.

I enjoyed the first half of the movie. It's here where things are kept subtle and straightforward, with effectively creepy scare scenes and half-glimpsed figures spotted lurking in darkened rooms. So far, so good. But around the halfway mark, the film introduces a trio of paranormal investigators and things quickly descent into POLTERGEIST-style farce.

The problem with depictions of a hellish limbo or netherworld is that, in order to make something scary, you have to pretty much identify with the different fears of each viewer. Sorry, but I don't find tussles with greasy-looking hobos and Darth Maul from THE PHANTOM MENACE to be particularly frightening; in fact, there's something pantomime about the whole thing.

The actors, including the dependable Rose Byrne and Patrick Wilson, do their best but at times in the latter stages they seem to struggle to keep a straight face while the ludicrous events increase in scale and speed. It's a shame that the whole thing goes to pot, because if it had been handled more sensitively (and with less sensationalism) by the team behind the SAW franchise then it could well have worked much better.