Rated PG-13 for violence, thematic material, terror, brief strong language and frightening images
Cast: Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, Lin Shaye, Ty Simpkins, Angus Sampson, Barbara Hershey
Director: James Wan
The key to successful horror isn't so much the fear, but the despair. At one point in "Insidious," a young mother, scared and heartbroken over her eight-year-old son's slippage into a medically inexplicable coma, sits quietly at her piano. Her infant daughter sleeps upstairs. A baby monitor rests atop the piano. Some crackling is heard from the device. She picks it up. Listens. Through the static, very faintly, a creepy, guttural voice says... "There's nothing you can do."
That kind of despair is elemental to successful horror. It engages our empathy for the protagonists' situation. The difference between the ambitious and the indolent in cinematic horror isn't hard to spot. The first "Paranormal Activity" had an ingenious narrative technique, gave us a sympathetic couple fearful yet somewhat resourceful, and was devilishly patient. "Paranormal Activity 2" focused solely of the narrative technique, gave us a shrill, whiny protagonist, and couldn't let the Boogie Man out of the closet fast enough.
"Good artists copy. Great artists steal." So said Pablo Picasso. (Or T.S. Eliot, if you prefer the literary take on the same sentiment.) The line of demarcation there seems to be the definition of whether an artist is confident enough in their own ability to get away with the theft. Director James Wan ("Saw") is nothing if not confident. "Insidious" is far from stellar, steals quite a bit, but is pieced together and packaged well enough to keep its head above water.
As with any haunted house tale, the movie introduces us to a nice, normal suburban couple named Josh (Patrick Wilson) and Renai (Rose Byrne). Or at least, they're normal to this type of story. They've just moved, and she isn't taking to the change nearly as well as he seems to be. It helps that Rose Byrne has one of those perpetually pained facial expressions. Her somber eyes make you constantly want to ask if everything is okay.
After her son (Ty Simpkins) falls into a coma, Renai begins to notice all manner of creepiness in their new home... strange noises and ghostly figures outside the windows. Josh tries being sympathetic, yet has a hard time accepting the possibility of the paranormal. They finally move, but "whatever it is" has followed them. A team of ghost hunters are summoned, led by Elise (Lin Shaye). Elise straddles the line between the typical and the weird. She's a cross between the nice woman next door and a teacher at Hogwarts. Some revelations from the past are uncovered, and a plan to bring their son back is hatched.
The movie doesn't transcend its genre, but it's skilled enough to honor it. Director Wan is somewhat patient, and is able to convey elements of the paranormal without resorting to it's-only-the-cat type trickery. The film has a lot of fun with dimensional lines of sight. I liked the scene where Renai thinks she sees a ghost walking outside past a window in the other room. Before she has a chance to investigate, the figure crosses again... this time before the window, inside the house. Wan also gets a lot of nerve-jolting mileage from things like one of those burglar alarms so piercingly loud you're compelled to strike the alarm before the intruder.
Even some bizarre bits of humor are tossed in, most notably in the team of paranormal investigators. Some of their equipment seems like it could have been plucked from the back of Murray, Akroyd, and Ramis' Ecto-mobile. The movie also boasts a seance of sorts unlike any I've seen before.
The first half is better than the second half, where the film's production design elbows into the narrative. The weakest part of the movie is the climax, where it feels like an homage to Wan's "Saw." I don't know if that was intentional, but I hope it wasn't. Tipping your hat to yourself is a dangerous play, even for the genre elites. With the shots his career has taken lately, I'm not even sure Wes Craven can get away with that anymore.
I give the film a marginal recommendation for the same reason I gave "Sucker Punch" and "Drive Angry" tepid recommendations... because the movie knows what its target demographic is, and successfully caters to those specific viewers. Holding movies to different standards at first seems unfair, until you acknowledge that subjectivity is inherent in any human reaction. Of course, it can't apply to any movie... the film must be skilled enough to at least hold my interest. James Wan is both skilled enough in his filmmaking and cognizant enough of those who would most appreciate that skill. There's nothing wrong with that.
* * * out of * * * * stars
That kind of despair is elemental to successful horror. It engages our empathy for the protagonists' situation. The difference between the ambitious and the indolent in cinematic horror isn't hard to spot. The first "Paranormal Activity" had an ingenious narrative technique, gave us a sympathetic couple fearful yet somewhat resourceful, and was devilishly patient. "Paranormal Activity 2" focused solely of the narrative technique, gave us a shrill, whiny protagonist, and couldn't let the Boogie Man out of the closet fast enough.
"Good artists copy. Great artists steal." So said Pablo Picasso. (Or T.S. Eliot, if you prefer the literary take on the same sentiment.) The line of demarcation there seems to be the definition of whether an artist is confident enough in their own ability to get away with the theft. Director James Wan ("Saw") is nothing if not confident. "Insidious" is far from stellar, steals quite a bit, but is pieced together and packaged well enough to keep its head above water.
As with any haunted house tale, the movie introduces us to a nice, normal suburban couple named Josh (Patrick Wilson) and Renai (Rose Byrne). Or at least, they're normal to this type of story. They've just moved, and she isn't taking to the change nearly as well as he seems to be. It helps that Rose Byrne has one of those perpetually pained facial expressions. Her somber eyes make you constantly want to ask if everything is okay.
After her son (Ty Simpkins) falls into a coma, Renai begins to notice all manner of creepiness in their new home... strange noises and ghostly figures outside the windows. Josh tries being sympathetic, yet has a hard time accepting the possibility of the paranormal. They finally move, but "whatever it is" has followed them. A team of ghost hunters are summoned, led by Elise (Lin Shaye). Elise straddles the line between the typical and the weird. She's a cross between the nice woman next door and a teacher at Hogwarts. Some revelations from the past are uncovered, and a plan to bring their son back is hatched.
The movie doesn't transcend its genre, but it's skilled enough to honor it. Director Wan is somewhat patient, and is able to convey elements of the paranormal without resorting to it's-only-the-cat type trickery. The film has a lot of fun with dimensional lines of sight. I liked the scene where Renai thinks she sees a ghost walking outside past a window in the other room. Before she has a chance to investigate, the figure crosses again... this time before the window, inside the house. Wan also gets a lot of nerve-jolting mileage from things like one of those burglar alarms so piercingly loud you're compelled to strike the alarm before the intruder.
Even some bizarre bits of humor are tossed in, most notably in the team of paranormal investigators. Some of their equipment seems like it could have been plucked from the back of Murray, Akroyd, and Ramis' Ecto-mobile. The movie also boasts a seance of sorts unlike any I've seen before.
The first half is better than the second half, where the film's production design elbows into the narrative. The weakest part of the movie is the climax, where it feels like an homage to Wan's "Saw." I don't know if that was intentional, but I hope it wasn't. Tipping your hat to yourself is a dangerous play, even for the genre elites. With the shots his career has taken lately, I'm not even sure Wes Craven can get away with that anymore.
I give the film a marginal recommendation for the same reason I gave "Sucker Punch" and "Drive Angry" tepid recommendations... because the movie knows what its target demographic is, and successfully caters to those specific viewers. Holding movies to different standards at first seems unfair, until you acknowledge that subjectivity is inherent in any human reaction. Of course, it can't apply to any movie... the film must be skilled enough to at least hold my interest. James Wan is both skilled enough in his filmmaking and cognizant enough of those who would most appreciate that skill. There's nothing wrong with that.
* * * out of * * * * stars
