Insidious - An Empty Shell of a Movie

I was worried.

You see - with all the buzz surrounding the new film by James Wan (Saw), I thought maybe someone had made the new classic haunted house/demonic possession movie before I could.

Turns out I needn't have worried.

Insidious is an empty shell of a movie, adrift in a nether nether land, with other nasty, scary movies forcing their way into it's lifeless corpse. Hey... that also happens to be the film's premise - what a coincidence!

It has its moments of great jump-scares, but never really develops the undercurrent of dread necessary to make a movie like this really get under your skin.

And why is that?

Well, it's simple.  It seems like James Wan has made a scary movie about other scary movies - kinda like Scream, but without all the fun.  Starting with the blood red embossed lettering of the title (a la Suspiria), Insidious follows the predictable path of The Exorcist, Poltergeist, The Entity (nice casting of Barbara Hershey by the way) and eventually all the way to Carnival of Souls (stumbling white-faced ghoulies anyone?) and back to Suspiria (bright red lighting) once again.

Wan even throws in a sketch of his Saw puppet on the blackboard behind one of the characters just in case we're not getting the hint- THIS IS A MOVIE ABOUT MOVIES!

Now, the whole thing actually almost works because he's borrowing from some really great films, so moments of the film hold your attention, draw you in and elicit some real nice scares, but you find yourself counting the references (a drinking game for sure) more than actually caring about any of the characters.

I did however, like his attempt to stay away from digital effects and go with mostly old-school costume, makeup and lighting, but while this works fine in the buildup phase of the movie it kinda left me wanting more when we enter the third act and we're supposed to accept the fact that this amazing, limitless astral-projecting reality we're entering is just a dark old house with red lights and a dude who look like Tim Curry.

I'm starting to understand why certain horror movies work for me and some don't.  This quote from William Friedkin sums it up nicely:

“The only way I could have made ‘The Exorcist’ the way I did, is if I believed it.  If you look at the film, it’s a film made by people who believe this – we’re not kidding.  The guy who wrote it and the guy who directed it, accept demonic possession and exorcism as a possibility.”
 
This is exactly why Insidious only works on a superficial level.  These dudes don't believe any of it, and they never expect the audience will either.  Everything is done with a wink and a nod.  The only things that ever terrified James Wan as a kid were obviously other horror movies. If you were ever a kid with night terrors, you would never present them like they are in this film - trust me, I should know.

Real horror comes from tapping those deep lurking fears within us and expressing them for others to see.  Not because it seems like a fun thing to do, or to make the next hit movie, but because you have to.

Because you are compelled.

Wait for my next movie... then you'll see what I'm talking about.

What is a Horror Movie?

Ok  kiddos, hate to go on a rant here, but let me make this perfectly clear...

BLACK SWAN IS NOT A HORROR MOVIE!!!!

(phew... glad to finally get that off my chest)

It is psychological thriller that examines a young woman's descent into madness.

Is it scary?  Yes.
Is it disturbing?  Yes
Is it a horror movie?  No.

Just because a film is scary, suspenseful, disturbing, even terrifying, that does NOT make it a horror movie.

Let me tell you a little secret...   Are you ready?  Ok, here goes...

Jaws is not a horror movie either.  (uh oh, I can hear the masses grumbling)
Neither is Psycho. (ducks head, awaiting flying cookingware)
Silence of the Lambs? ...forget about it - it's a straight up thriller (hey, put that pitchfork down willya? lemme explain!)

Stop looking at me like that, Lecter, lemme explain

I tend to be protective of the term "horror".  To me, it represents a very specific type of movie, and in this age of inclusiveness, I feel people have tagged many films as "horror" in order to justify the genre.  They want to say, "Hey look!  Look at all the "horror" films that have won Oscars!  We're legit!  We're not the grade-B low-budget degenerate shlockfest that people think we are.  Please like us..."

Well EFF THAT!  Horror does not need justification or legitimacy.  It's just fine as it is, thank you very much - in all its bloody, subversive, thought-provoking glory.

Therefore, I think a little clarification is in order.  A comprehensive definition of what a horror film is, so these constant mis-classifications can stop.  If a term like "horror film" is used incorrectly, eventually it loses its meaning and has no value anymore.

Once we have a solid definition we can use that as a filter to pass a bunch of movies through it and see how it stands up under scrutiny.

I'll take the first stab - here's my definition.  A horror movie has to have the following elements:

- it has to have an element of the supernatural (witches, ghosts, demons, alternate realities, etc)
or
- it has to have a monster (some creature that does not actually exist)
AND
- its primary aim has to be to elicit fear, horror, disgust or suspense.

This means that many of the most famous movies that you see on those best horror films lists, ARE NOT EVEN HORROR FILMS!

Ok, let's go back to the films already mentioned and pass them through my filter.

M. Night Shyamalan and the Career Arc of a Director

No, I haven't seen The Last Airbender yet.

And I'm not gonna.

Know why?  Two words - The Happening.

I loved Sixth Sense - liked Unbreakable - loved Signs - tried to like The Village - was totally unimpressed with Lady in the Water.

I figured I'd give M. Night one more chance with The Happening.  But do you know what happened at The Happening?...  He took my 10 bucks and spit in my face.

Really.

That movie is an affront to filmmaking - either one of the worst, most tone-deaf movies made in the last 30 years, or the most brilliant satiric self-immolation ever put to film.  I seriously thought he was trying to purposefully trash his career so he could get out of his current contract by making the worst movie ever.

Then he made The Last Airbender... and it's getting even worse reviews.  I don't need to see it.

How can this be possible?  How can the same guy who made Sixth Sense and Signs, two of my favorite movies of the last decade, slide steadily into absolute dreck? Has he totally lost his mind?  Does he not care anymore?  Did someone else write and direct his first three movies for him?

I wanted to see just how bad it really was, so I did what I always do...

I made a chart:

This chart shows the ratings (per Rotten Tomatoes) for every M. Night directed movie.  As you can see, it looks like a big ol' slide to wretchedness.

That got me thinking... What do other director's charts look like?