View Single Post
Old 07-25-2011, 10:14 PM   #68
tropical marsh
Stalker
 
tropical marsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mentor, OH
Posts: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt89 View Post
So basically you're saying that the fictional alternate dimension was not "realistic"? I'm still not sure what you're getting at. The movie made perfect sense. So did you expect nothing to be there ever? Someone is seeing these demons as they are clearly appearing to someone. Even in Poltergeist the "Beast" appears to Steven. He comes back as the Reverend Kane in the sequels and everyone else can see him. What about The Shining? The ghosts appear to Wendy, Danny and Jack.

You seem to have a very strict guideline of what is right and wrong in supernatural films. You're nitpicking its lack of "realism" in a fictive world where there exists a distorted reality to begin with. Imagination comes into play in this situation. After all, this is filmmaking, and a director can play around with genre conventions. That's part of the fun. Why must ghosts be invisible and only noticeable when the chairs in the kitchen stack themselves atop the dinner table? Why can't someone see and hear malevolent spirits?

Sure you didn't find it scary, but that's not because the film is flawed (I will admit though, it is not perfect - personally not much of a fan of the ending - I also felt calling the other side "the further" was a little ridiculous, like a 10 year-old child made it up) but it's a solid piece of genre filmmaking. The score worked very well, the cinematography was impressive and it succeeded at what it set out to do, that is be a modern horror film made in the style of the suspense-horror movies of the '70s/'80s. I personally thought it worked quite well, and sure it's fine if you don't like it, I just don't think you're making a very good point at getting across what is particularly "wrong" with it. I'd say it's definitely way more of a hit than a miss.

~Matt
First of all, The Shining--this is a whole 'nother animal right here. And yeah, I did like it because of the photography, atmosphere, and Jack's definitive psychotic performance. Let's face it, Wan is no Kubrick.

Anyway, about the ghosts appearing in the real world as real-looking people--I've never been a fan of it, but Insidious wasn't even consistent with it. Sometimes the ghosts could be seen, and sometimes not. For example, Rose Byrne saw ghosts several times throughout the movie, but the old lady couldn't been seen by anybody unless you caught her in a photograph. This inconsistency includes the lipstick-face demon as well, like sometimes he would pop up and people could see him--but in other scenes he was invisible (yet Lin Shaye was able to see him somehow, but the viewer couldn't).

All the ghost shit isn't really that big of a deal, and if those were the only things wrong with Insidious it wouldn't be that awful. I just can't dig stuff like astral projectin' into other dimensions, goofy alternate realities (the Further looked strangely just like our own reality...ooh spooky!), even goofier looking ghosts/demons, etc. And personally, I didn't like the way the music/sound was mixed--it was way too fucking loud. I had to turn it up to understand the dialogue, and the musical cues were deafening (not to be confused with scary--just obnoxious). Let me just add--the biggest reason I thought Insidious was a joke was because we were exposed to too much/could see stuff too clearly. Supernatural type movies work best (to me) if they apply the "less is more" approach. Films like The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity worked because they didn't get carried away with all the silly shit. Even Poltergeist didn't get quite as kooky as Insidious, and it ends up being better because of it.

Like I said, it's nice that peeps were able to enjoy Insidious. For me, it didn't do much of anything but annoy.
__________________
http://tomcody1000.dvdaf.com/

Last edited by tropical marsh; 07-25-2011 at 10:26 PM.
tropical marsh is offline   Reply With Quote