As the title of this review deftly points out -- there may in fact be spoilers ahead. I'll be sure to point out where and when with all the appropriate web shenanigans -- but there's really no big reveals here.
Insidious, the new thriller from director James Wan, is one of the best horror movies to come down the pike in quite some time. I am, admittedly, a person who made a solemn promise -- to which I have remained true -- that I shall never see one of the Saw movies. Thus, it was tough to drag me to this little pic by the original's writer/director, (Wan) and the co-writer of Saw, its sequel, and Dead Silence (Leigh Whannell). But I am one of these audience members who had to admit to himself that the Paranormal Activity movies looked pretty good -- except for the fact that they cost 50 cents and thus I didn't see the point in going to some Blair Witch Redux where I was going to have to constantly operate under the ruse that the low production value was only the result of the fact that the story was TRUE! Oooooh! No. No "Oooooh."
I have no problem with there being weird crap in your house and your kids thinking they saw footprints and you and your spouse freaking out and it scaring the bejesus out of audiences the world over. These are all obviously good things. But I scare easily. So if I am going to head to a movie like that -- I need some extremely good looking people to play the leads. Insidious was just that. Rose Byrne and Patrick Wilson? I'm obviously in.
Amazingly, what Wan and Whannel did so astutely was to keep the scope of the film remarkably limited -- despite how trippy the actual "device" may seem when it's thoroughly explained -- I will not be the kind of spoiler, so you won't get that explanation here. But we're basically talking about two small houses, a cast of eight or nine -- excluding the weirdo ghosts -- and much more sound design than insane visual effects. This "contained" horror structure was the absolute perfect set-up to keep even this particularly out there horror conceit plausible. If it's all just in the house? Great. I buy that.
Rose Byrne and Patrick Wilson were perfectly cast as a believable couple with all the right tension between them. Some of their heart to heart conversations had some down and out clunkers -- but once you get to the later twists of the film you can see why this would be possible. They're exceptional actors who can pull off anything from Little Children and "Damages" to The Watchmen and Adam. Great work all around. If they were going to pick a horror film from the slate of projects at the studio level -- this was the one. They're parents -- the don't seem old. They both look great. They're both right and wrong about the encounter. The audience switches sympathies between them. And frankly, one doesn't trump the other in the looks department.
So what happens in this thriller?
There's no point in destroying the journey of this horror film -- because it's very well done. It takes its time, cranks it up when it needs to, lets itself move along slowly when the story calls for it.
So here's the SPOILER portion -- as the poster appropriately points out, the house isn't haunted, the kid is. The way that this portion -- and it is only a portion -- of the device plays out is excellently well done.
I cannot think of higher praise to give Insidious than to say that once I realized it was the kid who was the problem, I turned to my sister and said "So ditch the kid." She agreed whole-heartedly. The situation is that spooky and that terrifying. Putting that kid into some kind of a facility and focusing all energy on the other two non-haunted children seemed a perfectly moral alternative whose regret component could easily be off-set by the fact that you at least got a piece of demon bait off the premises.
The extent to which James Wan and Leigh Whannel created a believable yet unexplored form of supernatural terror is perhaps what makes it so very scary. Once folks realize it is the boy who is haunted -- not the house -- and start exploring the reasons why -- frankly, it's completely believable. The insanity of the final half-hour just plain works.
The only problem with this movie -- that seems to hamstring most horror films -- and I would say in the case of Insidious, it's definitely far more acceptable than Jeepers Creepers -- is showing the monster. It's the Jaws problem. At least with Jaws the audience knows it will ultimately see a shark. When it comes to "Who the hell is that outside the window?!" "Who's driving the van?!" "What the hell are we running from?!" It seems the only correct move in horror movies is to show the killer the entire time -- Freddy, Michael Myers, Jason. Even if it's going to end up being the type of killer that pulls off its mask -- a la Scream -- at least I know I'm dealing with a human in a black suit the entire time. With these more supernatural, multidimensional, "Can you see what I see?" movies -- nailing the beast is next to impossible. For Insidious this is barely an issue because so many other things are going on and the revelation of a specific creature is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to solving the character's problems. I have no solution except not to show the beast -- which clearly doesn't work either.
But this is a dynamo in the horror world and should be viewed by anyone who likes a bit of fright and will even let themselves get more scared than normal if the logic behind the madness is sound. Insidious is a smart thriller that sticks with you once you leave the multiplex -- because it just might be possible!
-Matthew J. McCue
No comments:
Post a Comment