James Wan's Insidious (2010)

[Mok]

Originally Posted by Ash28M

Who the hell is Darth Maul? Is he from the Star Wars prequels? I didn't think anyone actually watched those.

A lot of people think so. I didn't created this:

[tropical marsh]

Originally Posted by Matt89

So because someone watches horror films more than the average person, no matter what, it should have no effect on them? Isn't the point of a ghost/haunted house movie to have ghosts enter the real world? Poltergeist has dimension warping, The Exorcist has 'body swapping'. I don't see how you found it to be so 'silly' because other well-respected horror films have these same ingredients. Insidious had some genuinely creepy moments and some scenes totally scared the shit out of me (the porch scene??!) I actually had trouble sleeping too after this one. I haven't had a film unsettle me like this since I was a kid. One of the best horror films to come out in recent years, definitely.
~Matt

Well, when you put it like that--yeah. Let's dig in, shall we? Ghosts entering the real world--it's okay, but it doesn't make sense when characters see them like real people. I can't take it seriously when the ghosts look like regular folks running around the house like an episode of Scooby Doo. Poltergeist had something akin to another dimension, but it didn't go too overboard with it--no where close to the supreme gayness of the Further. The Exorcist--the girl was possessed by the devil. Insidious--some old lady pops into the Father. Not even remotely scary.

Yeah, Insidious aped some of the best horror films of all time, but that still doesn't make it scary (or good)--and it's not even close to being original. It's cool if you found it frightening, I found it mostly funny.

[Mok]

Originally Posted by tropical marsh

Well, when you put it like that--yeah. Let's dig in, shall we? Ghosts entering the real world--it's okay, but it doesn't make sense when characters see them like real people. I can't take it seriously when the ghosts look like regular folks running around the house like an episode of Scooby Doo. Poltergeist had something akin to another dimension, but it didn't go too overboard with it--no where close to the supreme gayness of the Further. The Exorcist--the girl was possessed by the devil. Insidious--some old lady pops into the Father. Not even remotely scary.

Yeah, Insidious aped some of the best horror films of all time, but that still doesn't make it scary (or good)--and it's not even close to being original. It's cool if you found it frightening, I found it mostly funny.

I take it you didn't like The Shining then?

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by tropical marsh

Well, when you put it like that--yeah. Let's dig in, shall we? Ghosts entering the real world--it's okay, but it doesn't make sense when characters see them like real people. I can't take it seriously when the ghosts look like regular folks running around the house like an episode of Scooby Doo. Poltergeist had something akin to another dimension, but it didn't go too overboard with it--no where close to the supreme gayness of the Further. The Exorcist--the girl was possessed by the devil. Insidious--some old lady pops into the Father. Not even remotely scary.

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

[dave13]

i thought it was decent, much like dead silence. an entertaining way to pass an hour and a half, but that's about it. nothing i found particularly scary, although if i'd been watching it in a dark theater, instead of in my living room in the middle of the afternoon, it might have been different. i liked the photo thing, but it reminded me a lot of Stephen King's The Sun Dog, which i found a lot more disturbing.

[allmessedup]

I thought of The Sun Dog too.

[Mok]

Originally Posted by Matt89

I also felt calling the other side "the further" was a little ridiculous, like a 10 year-old child made it up)

Ah yes that reminds me, speaking of 10 year old children, I hate it when they try to pass off creepy little kid writing. It looks so obvious that an adult did it. Why not just let the kid write it as he would? I know THAT may be nitpicking but again, like the "the further". Those kinds of faults break the dream for me. Not the movie though. I'd still but the DVD at some point.

[tropical marsh]

Originally Posted by Matt89

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.

[Ash28M]

Originally Posted by tropical marsh

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.

It's OK that you didn't like the film. It's just that your statement "I'm kinda shocked any real horror vet would find Insidious scary" came off as a bit patronizing.

[JIMX1975]

Did anyone notice the picture of Jigsaw on the chalkboard in the classroom scene?

[Zombie Dude]

Originally Posted by JIMX1975

Did anyone notice the picture of Jigsaw on the chalkboard in the classroom scene?

Yep, it made me laugh.

[rxfiend]

That's the thing with James Wan, he always includes Billy the puppet in his movies. I believe an actual puppet was in Dead Silence.

[JGrendel]

Originally Posted by rxfiend

That's the thing with James Wan, he always includes Billy the puppet in his movies. I believe an actual puppet was in Dead Silence.

I think that might as bad as Sam Raimi & his damned Oldsmobile in almost every movie.

[Shannafey]

Watched this last night. LOVED it! Most original horror film in ages and some really genuine scares! Gave me some chills!


And yes, the demon does look like Darth Maul. First thing I thought of!! Regardless, very cool!

[Franco]

Originally Posted by Shannafey

Watched this last night. LOVED it! Most original horror film in ages and some really genuine scares! Gave me some chills!


And yes, the demon does look like Darth Maul. First thing I thought of!! Regardless, very cool!

I totally agree with Shanna that it was ORIGINAL and the DARTH MAUL thing in it. Too similar! Was scary as well but not too much for me. But it's definitely quite entertaining... very different to what we see today, for today standards I mean.