Friday, 29 April 2011

Insidious (Review)

In a Nutshell: A family’s home appears to be haunted while their oldest child is in a coma.

A film by the creators of ‘Saw’; director James Wan and writer Leigh Whannell, a duo that changed the face of modern horror with their indie debut. They took it down the gory for shock value path that spawned several sequels and films like the ‘Hostel’ franchise. The original 'Saw' was actually quite a fresh idea and not a bad movie in its day, a simple premise executed rather well. It’s now been tainted by countless shallow sequels, we’ve had a new Saw every year (7 to date) since the original (I become bored of the series after the third movie). Now with 'Insidious' they’ve come full circle and it seems they’re trying to bring the scares back into horror. FINALLY! Can mainstream Western horror get back on track?

Well, kinda...this is a frustrating film to review, so I’ll break it into two parts, because for me that’s what ‘Insidious’ felt like, two completely different films.

The first half is a creepy horror flick with some genuinely freaky little moments and ‘tingly bits’, a nice atmosphere is crafted and it’s a fun little ride while it lasts. Good-looking couple Patrick Wilson (Watchmen and Hard Candy), and Rose Bryne (Bridesmaids) play their roles aptly, the film builds the tension nicely and the score (one of the films strongest areas) orchestrates the visuals superbly. Then we move into the second half of the film…

The movie seems to take a sudden shift in tone, it quickly becomes like a shoddy version of ‘Poltergeist’; there’s a little comic relief (that’s ok), but then the scares start to get really silly. It no longer maintains that eerie atmosphere created in the first half of the movie, the final act is so poorly executed and tacky it completely loses steam. It’s infuriating! I enjoyed the start, did they just bottle out? By the end of the movie I really can’t see any true horror fans or film goer in general finding it anything but fluffy and cringe worthy. A shame because there was potential.


No comments:

Post a Comment