Insidious Works (Most of the Time)

 

It’s easy to look at Insidious and make a big deal out of its shortcomings. That’s usually the case when a movie drives all the way to the goal line of greatness, then fumbles instead of punching it in. But while some of that criticism is valid, I’m getting a little sick of all the bitching and moaning about how this or that aspect “ruined” the movie. Horseshit, I say. While it's not quite the film it could have been, Insidious is still a very good…ghost story? Haunted house story? Hybrid? Whatever the case, it works far more often than not, even if it comes perilously close to coming off the rails down the stretch.
 

I'm a firm believer that horror movies don't have to be original to be good, and Insidious is a classic example. In fact, it's at its best during the first two thirds, when it frequently acts as an homage to several of the most notable horror films of the last thirty years, including the film it borrows most heavily from, Poltergeist (see, when good movies lift scnes and ideas, it's called an "homage"; when bad movies do it, it's a "cheap rip-off"). So yeah, you've heard it before: a little boy (Ty Simpkins) slips into a coma after an encounter with some unseen terror; weird and scary stuff begins to happen in the house; the initially skeptical parents (Rose Byrne and Patrick Wilson) eventually feel threatened enough to call in the local psychic cavalry (Lin Shaye). Formula to be sure, but it's all so well assembled that I didn't even mind the liberal use of jump-scares, something I normally deduct points for. They're all well set up and make perfect sense in the context of what's happening, and you never feel like you're being clubbed to death by having every trick in the book thrown at you at once. Plus points here.

It's actually only when Insidious deviates from the formula that things get a bit lost, with a somewhat fuzzy stretch run that seems to meander a bit when compared to the tightness of the first hour. It's not enough to spoil the experience, but it does point back to the idea that the film walks right up to the brink of being a classic, only to back off at the last minute.


(One minor production note: there's been a bit of fuss about the a fact that a key apparition looks a bit too much like Darth Maul from Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. And...he does, actually. Not sure what the makeup people were thinking here. Still, his first appearance will definitely make you jump.)

Insidious does plenty of cribbing, but with style

I’m still having a hard time getting over the fact that this film is the work of director James Wan and writer Leigh Whannel, the perpetrators behind the original Saw, a film which I probably loathe more for the insipid franchise it spawned that for its own obnoxiousness (Dead Silence, the duo's other collaboration, was marginally better). Maybe these two copped a page from bluesman Robert Johnson’s book and made a Faustian bargain for more talent or something. In any event, Insidious is a colossal upgrade for the team, trading in the brain-dead R-rated splatter for a cool, well constructed story that feels a lot more edgy than its PG-13 rating might suggest (I know I’ve said before that I don’t have any problem with violence and gore when they’re used smartly, but seriously- this idea that horror has to be rated R to be effective is way past its due date and needs to be shot and buried in the desert once and for all).


Hardcore devotees of gore-fests, torture porn and other and "extreme" horror will likely have little use for Insidious other than to ridicule it, but even with its obvious flaws and shameless cribbing, it's strong enough to have an appeal slightly beyond the borders of the horror genre. For anyone looking for a solid tale of the supernatural, I can easily recommend it.