Indeed both were good casts. Now it has me wondering what they will think of Insidious 3. I do agree with them that they should have kept the red demon more hidden (it was scarier that way). While I found them creepy, like Jim I jumped at the "sound" not so much at what was happening.
Also, thanks to @sean.ray for sponsoring these casts.
"Lee Wuh-NELL" is how you say Leigh Whannell's name, @A_Ron_Hubbard - he's an Aussie who started off doing film reviews for a Saturday morning teen-oriented music/variety show in the 90s.
James wan was the director for Saw which he also cowrote with Leigh Whannell. He only did the first one and then went on to do Dead silence. It seemed like a.ron didn't know that.
Don't worry about Lights Out scaring you @A_Ron_Hubbard - as with 98% of all horror movies based on shorts, you will remember those 5 minutes the rest of your life, you will forget everything about the movie a day after you see it.
So, I've long heard Insidious referenced as one of those "good" horror movies that are so few and far between. I don't like the genre, to be fair, and can only count on one hand the number of horror movies that I thought were anything worth spending a minute thinking about (Poltergeist, Exorcist, Shining...I guess Alien and Jaws if those are horror). I gave Insidious a chance after listening to the first few minutes of the podcast, and...boy, did I hate this movie. I just don't get it.
All the questions that the guys raised on the podcast (who is the old woman, who is the stupid old-timey kid, who is the long-hair guy, who is the family, who is the red-face guy, how do ghosties like long-hair randomly leave the "Further" sometimes but not other times, why are they so weak and in what way are they really supposed to be a threat, why do they sometimes show up in pictures and sometimes not, what exactly was that exorcist-lady's plan, why didn't she give patrick wilson any advice before he went into the "further," etc, etc, ad infinitum? I defy anybody to answer a single one of these questions without telling me to watch the sequel, because I'd rather gouge my own eyes before I do that.
I will say that the first 45 minutes or so was appropriately spooky...voices, doors slamming, jump scares, that tiny tim song, etc. But everything that followed the long-hair guy attacking the wife was beyond logic and comprehension as the movie devolved into some kind of half-baked poltergeist rip-off. The last thirty minutes had me increasingly aggravated as I just wanted it to end, and the ending made everything before it an absolute waste of time. I just don't understand the appeal of movies like this, where nothing means anything and it's just a series of creepy images. Sorry to be an ass, but I'm seriously pissed that I wasted 4 bucks on amazon and 100 minutes of my life, so I'm going to spread the negativity around a little.
P.S. On a more positive note, I also used to hate the Conjuring films, but now they seem brilliant in comparison, for being coherent if nothing else.
I had college friends who were really into the supernatural. One wanted to study thanatology and their apartment was filled with books about spirits and death and they had spirit crystals hanging in every room. I saw the first one in that environment and needless to say I didn't get much sleep. My friend said the depiction of astral projection was very accurate, which freaked me the fuck out and I thought some of those things were possible.
After a rewatch, I still like the first one, but I don't think it needs to be a franchise. The sequel is hovering in the 30s on Rotten Tomatoes, so I haven't bothered with it. I'm surprised that you guys think it's better and it strengthens the first film in certain ways. Nobody has said anything positive about the third chapter, but I may watch chapter 2 after this.
@Dee And I've only heard James Wan pronounced (Wahn like dawn), so when he'd refer to Wan & Whannell, possibly saying both names wrong, I was howling. Wan & Whannell with a hard "a" sounds like an SNL skit.
" I defy anybody to answer a single one of these questions without telling me to watch the sequel, because I'd rather gouge my own eyes before I do that."
"who is the old woman?" a malevolent spirit that used to to visit Dalton's father Josh when he was a boy. (explained by Lorraine, Josh's mother, in Insidious 1)
"who is the stupid old-timey kid?" benevolent spirit (explained by Elise in Insidious 1)
"who is the long-hair guy?" malevolent entity, (explained by Elise in Insidious 1)
"who is the family?" benevolent spirits (explained by Elise in Insidious 1)
"who is the red-face guy?" malevolent entity, (explained by Elise in Insidious 1)
Enjoyed these commissions very much, cheers sean.ray
It has made me ask myself why did I have kids, thereby increasing the risk of hauntings and also leaving myself with no expendable cash to commission casts.
The Who IS the What, now if you're looking for this is xyz spirit that has zyx name and abc background, that's something different and really the movie would be 4 hours of it went into that much detail....I get that you didn't like it, so I guess it's best to let things lie since nothing we say will change your mind
So, I've long heard Insidious referenced as one of those "good" horror movies that are so few and far between. I don't like the genre, to be fair, and can only count on one hand the number of horror movies that I thought were anything worth spending a minute thinking about (Poltergeist, Exorcist, Shining...I guess Alien and Jaws if those are horror). I gave Insidious a chance after listening to the first few minutes of the podcast, and...boy, did I hate this movie. I just don't get it.
All the questions that the guys raised on the podcast (who is the old woman, who is the stupid old-timey kid, who is the long-hair guy, who is the family, who is the red-face guy, how do ghosties like long-hair randomly leave the "Further" sometimes but not other times, why are they so weak and in what way are they really supposed to be a threat, why do they sometimes show up in pictures and sometimes not, what exactly was that exorcist-lady's plan, why didn't she give patrick wilson any advice before he went into the "further," etc, etc, ad infinitum? I defy anybody to answer a single one of these questions without telling me to watch the sequel, because I'd rather gouge my own eyes before I do that.
I will say that the first 45 minutes or so was appropriately spooky...voices, doors slamming, jump scares, that tiny tim song, etc. But everything that followed the long-hair guy attacking the wife was beyond logic and comprehension as the movie devolved into some kind of half-baked poltergeist rip-off. The last thirty minutes had me increasingly aggravated as I just wanted it to end, and the ending made everything before it an absolute waste of time. I just don't understand the appeal of movies like this, where nothing means anything and it's just a series of creepy images. Sorry to be an ass, but I'm seriously pissed that I wasted 4 bucks on amazon and 100 minutes of my life, so I'm going to spread the negativity around a little.
P.S. On a more positive note, I also used to hate the Conjuring films, but now they seem brilliant in comparison, for being coherent if nothing else.
Honestly, you can either see this as "ghost logic" or get irritated at the inconsistency of the world rules. I don't think it's any more or less silly that Star Wars or Star Trek, it just bends different rules as a way to unleash creativity and breathe new life into old story forms.
You're right. After posting this, I was analyzing why I don't like the horror genre and came on the science fiction analogy. I guess I give more leeway to sci-fi because I just write it off as...sure, maybe someday they'll develop the technology. Your explanation shows that it goes both ways.
I do think explaining WHO those beneficent or malevolent spirits were supposed to be could have added a lot more depth to Patrick Wilson's character. WHY are some trying to help and some trying to hurt him, what's his connection to them, etc.
I watched the first Insidious. I agree that the makeup was very bad, not just for the demon but all the ghosts. I think the ghosts could have been frightening if they had little or no makeup. Like The Shining. And at the end they could have just subliminally flashed the old woman, rather than showing her outright. Or shown her eyes, or something. But this movie was not subtle.
I laughed when they set up the flashbulb machine for the seance. They just happen to need a machine that randomly makes really loud bangs in a really quiet room. Of course.
I'm also surprised how many people are down on the tech. In a world that acknowledges spirits, I can see how a gas mask that's been through war atrocities could have tangential access to a different plane.
In college I wrote a script about a boy who saw the Baba Yaga through an 8mm camera. A lot of 8mm cameras come with glass color or ND filters. In the script, the boy breaks one, cuts his finger, and accidentally covers the filter in blood. Doubling as a blood sacrifice and creating a "red" filter, he attaches it and can see the Baba Yaga through his camera. Chaos ensues. But good thing that never got made because Bald Move would be calling BOWLSHIT. Blood doesn't reveal things in a camera, it just muddies the lens! If it works in universe, it works for me, man.
Comments
Also, thanks to @sean.ray for sponsoring these casts.
All the questions that the guys raised on the podcast (who is the old woman, who is the stupid old-timey kid, who is the long-hair guy, who is the family, who is the red-face guy, how do ghosties like long-hair randomly leave the "Further" sometimes but not other times, why are they so weak and in what way are they really supposed to be a threat, why do they sometimes show up in pictures and sometimes not, what exactly was that exorcist-lady's plan, why didn't she give patrick wilson any advice before he went into the "further," etc, etc, ad infinitum? I defy anybody to answer a single one of these questions without telling me to watch the sequel, because I'd rather gouge my own eyes before I do that.
I will say that the first 45 minutes or so was appropriately spooky...voices, doors slamming, jump scares, that tiny tim song, etc. But everything that followed the long-hair guy attacking the wife was beyond logic and comprehension as the movie devolved into some kind of half-baked poltergeist rip-off. The last thirty minutes had me increasingly aggravated as I just wanted it to end, and the ending made everything before it an absolute waste of time. I just don't understand the appeal of movies like this, where nothing means anything and it's just a series of creepy images. Sorry to be an ass, but I'm seriously pissed that I wasted 4 bucks on amazon and 100 minutes of my life, so I'm going to spread the negativity around a little.
P.S. On a more positive note, I also used to hate the Conjuring films, but now they seem brilliant in comparison, for being coherent if nothing else.
After a rewatch, I still like the first one, but I don't think it needs to be a franchise. The sequel is hovering in the 30s on Rotten Tomatoes, so I haven't bothered with it. I'm surprised that you guys think it's better and it strengthens the first film in certain ways. Nobody has said anything positive about the third chapter, but I may watch chapter 2 after this.
@Dee And I've only heard James Wan pronounced (Wahn like dawn), so when he'd refer to Wan & Whannell, possibly saying both names wrong, I was howling. Wan & Whannell with a hard "a" sounds like an SNL skit.
It has made me ask myself why did I have kids, thereby increasing the risk of hauntings and also leaving myself with no expendable cash to commission casts.
I won't harp on it, but I did ask WHO, not WHAT. Your answer just brings up all the same WHY questions that the movie didn't bother trying to address.
I do think explaining WHO those beneficent or malevolent spirits were supposed to be could have added a lot more depth to Patrick Wilson's character. WHY are some trying to help and some trying to hurt him, what's his connection to them, etc.
I laughed when they set up the flashbulb machine for the seance. They just happen to need a machine that randomly makes really loud bangs in a really quiet room. Of course.
In college I wrote a script about a boy who saw the Baba Yaga through an 8mm camera. A lot of 8mm cameras come with glass color or ND filters. In the script, the boy breaks one, cuts his finger, and accidentally covers the filter in blood. Doubling as a blood sacrifice and creating a "red" filter, he attaches it and can see the Baba Yaga through his camera. Chaos ensues. But good thing that never got made because Bald Move would be calling BOWLSHIT. Blood doesn't reveal things in a camera, it just muddies the lens! If it works in universe, it works for me, man.
The red-faced demon looks like Darth Maul.
"Insidious" -> Darth Sidious?
The psychic woman dresses like a Tusken raider to enter the spirit world.
Coincidence?