Your dead soul is killing his living skin.

Insidious: Chapter 2

(2013)

(SPOILERS) James Wan was quite busy last year, what with having two fright flicks released and crossing over to the action genre to begin shooting Fast & Furious 7 (only recently completed due to Paul Walker’s untimely demise). That he made two horror pictures in a fairly short space of time (this and The Conjuring) speaks volumes about his precise, methodical approach. Insidious: Chapter 2 is a well made but cookie cutter affair, so formulaic and calculated it’s difficult to get remotely worked up by it’s made-to-order shock tactics.

Everyone’s back, pretty much, including at least one dead person (Lin Shaye as paranormal investigator Elise Rainier) and events pick up directly after the first instalment, with Lorraine (Rose Byrne) being interviewed by police about Elise’s murder. If that scene looks as if it might send the picture in a less obvious direction (law enforcement and spooks), it proves not to be. It’s clear that Josh (Patrick Wilson) is under suspicion, not just from the police but also from Lorraine. But Wan and screenwriter (also playing nerdy investigator Specs) Leigh Whannell promptly drop what could be an interesting tack. The police investigations rule out Josh (somehow, the marks on the corpse don’t match Josh’s hands) and Lorraine enters a state of self-denial about what has happened to her hubby. Both developments are disappointing; the pushing of the police to the periphery stains credulity, while Byrne is very badly served with a character who spends most of the movie wandering about her mother-in-law’s house all on edge and not seeing the bleeding obvious.

Most of the Lambert family plot is treading water while investigators Specs and Tucker (Angus Sampson), now accompanied by old friend of Elise Carl (Steve Coulter), trace the background of whatever it is that has been haunting Josh. Wan and Whannell dig deep into their bag of tricks, which include Dutch angles, repeated (and increasingly tiresome) instances of characters not seeing what another character sees (the old “There’s someone standing behind you” line), variants on the same (oblivious Dalton – Ty Simpkins – doesn’t realise he is not talking to his brother down the tin can telephone, even though its blatantly obvious to us), quiet punctuated by sudden noise, nursery rhymes used to sinister effect, children’s toys (this time a play walker) turning themselves off and moving of their own accord. Horror movies work to a great extent on the basis of tried-and-tested scares and devices, but they don’t have to be quite so relentlessly blatant and undemanding. The picture has Josh being super sinister and slowly decomposing (“Your dead soul is killing his living skin”) and Lorraine terribly useless, until eventually the investigators show up.

There is an occasional nice idea, in amongst the clockwork plotting. The opening scene is set in 1986, and places a mystery (who is young Josh speaking to on the video playback) that has an effective WTF? pay off. The ability of Josh to time travel in The Further is just about the only interesting aspect of this other realm, which Wan seems to recognise has limited shelf life; he doesn’t spend nearly as long there this time out. Discovering that the haunter is your common-or-garden serial killer with a Norman Bates mommy fixation is distinctly underwhelming (mommy bears a passing resemblance to the operatic one from Shakespear's Sister, but with Siobhan's make-up). Naturally, there are bodies stacked up in a hidden room. It isn’t clear why the mother of Parker Crane (the killer) should lead them to her son’s house, masquerading as the non-corporeal Eloise. Apart from to give Wan an obvious but effective reveal (“I’m not who you thought I was”; see also the telephone cans above), that is. The device of shaking word-dice to communicate with the dead is quite neat, however, even if it leads to some rather daft scenes (“What is Parker Crane holding behind his back?”; er, now let me take a wild guess).

In fact, much of the third act is rather awkward. The Further must be visited, and it’s nice to see Eloise again, but the threat in the corporeal house is rote, as Josh goes all Jack Torrance on his family. It makes no sense that he wouldn’t kill Carl, Specs and Tucker as he’s intent on murdering his own family. I guess it means the trio of investigators can return for Chapter 3, however. Which is out next year, sans the Lambert family (it’s slightly surprising that, after all this hassle, their arch nemesis can be despatched by beating her with a chair), and has Whannell making his directorial debut. He’s writing again, of course, which means there will be lousy lines like Josh’s, as he discusses how good it is to feel pain again; “I miss it, but not as much as I miss inflicting it on others”. Whannell isn’t going to win a Best Original Screenplay Oscar any time soon.

**1/2

Comments

I think I’m Pablo Picasso!

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) (SPOILERS) I get the impression that, whatever it is stalwart Venom fans want from a Venom movie, this iteration isn’t it. The highlight here for me is absolutely the wacky, love-hate, buddy-movie antics of Tom Hardy and his symbiote alter. That was the best part of the original, before it locked into plot “progression” and teetered towards a climax where one CGI monster with gnarly teeth had at another CGI monster with gnarly teeth. And so it is for Venom: Let There Be Carnage . But cutting quicker to the chase.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Are you, by any chance, in a trance now, Mr Morrison?

The Doors (1991) (SPOILERS) Oliver Stone’s mammoth, mythologising paean to Jim Morrison is as much about seeing himself in the self-styled, self-destructive rebel figurehead, and I suspect it’s this lack of distance that rather quickly leads to The Doors becoming a turgid bore. It’s strange – people are , you know, films equally so – but I’d hitherto considered the epic opus patchy but worthwhile, a take that disintegrated on this viewing. The picture’s populated with all the stars it could possibly wish for, tremendous visuals (courtesy of DP Robert Richardson) and its director operating at the height of his powers, but his vision, or the incoherence thereof, is the movie’s undoing. The Doors is an indulgent, sprawling mess, with no internal glue to hold it together dramatically. “Jim gets fat and dies” isn’t really a riveting narrative through line.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Fifty medications didn’t work because I’m really a reincarnated Russian blacksmith?

Infinite (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s as if Mark Wahlberg, his lined visage increasingly resembling a perplexed potato, learned nothing from the blank ignominy of his “performances” in previous big-budget sci-fi spectacles Planet of the Apes and, er, Max Payne . And maybe include The Happening in that too ( Transformers doesn’t count, since even all-round reprobate Shia La Boeuf made no visible dent on their appeal either way). As such, pairing him with the blandest of journeyman action directors on Infinite was never going to seem like a sterling idea, particularly with a concept so far removed from of either’s wheelhouse.

I can do in two weeks what you can only wish to do in twenty years.

Wrath of Man (2021) (SPOILERS) Guy Ritchie’s stripped-down remake of Le Convoyeur (or Cash Truck , also the working title for this movie) feels like an intentional acceleration in the opposite direction to 2019’s return-to-form The Gentleman , his best movie in years. Ritchie seems to want to prove he can make a straight thriller, devoid of his characteristic winks, nods, playfulness and outright broad (read: often extremely crude) sense of humour. Even King Arthur: Legend of the Sword has its fair share of laughs. Wrath of Man is determinedly grim, though, almost Jacobean in its doom-laden trajectory, and Ritchie casts his movie accordingly, opting for more restrained performers, less likely to summon more flamboyant reflexes.

Five people make a conspiracy, right?

Snake Eyes (1998) (SPOILERS) The best De Palma movies offer a synthesis of plot and aesthetic, such that the director’s meticulously crafted shots and set pieces are underpinned by a solid foundation. That isn’t to say, however, that there isn’t a sheer pleasure to be had from the simple act of observing, from De Palma movies where there isn’t really a whole lot more than the seduction of sound, image and movement. Snake Eyes has the intention to be both scrupulously written and beautifully composed, coming after a decade when the director was – mostly – exploring his oeuvre more commercially than before, which most often meant working from others’ material. If it ultimately collapses in upon itself, then, it nevertheless delivers a ream of positives in both departments along the way.

I’ll look in Bostock’s pocket.

Doctor Who Revelation of the Daleks Lovely, lovely, lovely. I can quite see why Revelation of the Daleks doesn’t receive the same acclaim as the absurdly – absurdly, because it’s terrible – overrated Remembrance of the Daleks . It is, after all, grim, grisly and exemplifies most of the virtues for which the Saward era is commonly decried. I’d suggest it’s an all-time classic, however, one of the few times 1980s Who gets everything, or nearly everything, right. If it has a fault, besides Eric’s self-prescribed “Kill everyone” remit, it’s that it tries too much. It’s rich, layered and very funny. It has enough material and ideas to go off in about a dozen different directions, which may be why it always felt to me like it was waiting for a trilogy capper.

Madam, the chances of bagging an elephant on the Moon are remote.

First Men in the Moon (1964) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen swaps fantasy for science fiction and stumbles somewhat. The problem with his adaptation of popular eugenicist HG Wells’ 1901 novel isn’t so much that it opts for a quirky storytelling approach over an overtly dramatic one, but that it’s insufficiently dedicated to pursuing that choice. Which means First Men in the Moon , despite a Nigel Kneale screenplay, rather squanders its potential. It does have Lionel Jeffries, though.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

Now In Full Color, with a Happier Ending

Search This Blog