James Wan returns to the funhouse with the nutty, gnarly Malignant
The Conjuring conjurer adds some giallo lunacy (and gore!) to his winning fright formula
Film Reviews James Wan
James Wan is a conductor of fear, and in more ways than one. Watch Insidious or The Conjuring, and it’s easy to picture the director standing in front of the screen as though it were an orchestra, baton in hand—guiding the stings of staccato violin, yes, but also the general rise and fall of tension, and maybe the predatory movements of the camera as it slinks around corners and races into petrified close-ups. It’s perhaps equally easy, however, to imagine Wan planted coaster-side, pulling a lever to lurch a few cars of screaming teens up a steep, rickety track. He makes music from the lowly jump scare, and turns multiplexes into funhouses, like a William Castle for the age of digital phantoms. He conducts horror. By either definition, that takes some chops.
Wan’s new movie, Malignant, is more ride than symphony. But it’s a ride to remember. The film returns its director to his original genre wheelhouse after a stint in the CGI waters of comic-book cinema. The opening frames make that lurch back onto land literal, as we skim the surface of a choppy sea to find a surely haunted hospital looming on the cliffside above like a Transylvanian manor. Over the two hours that follow, Wan will riffle through his bag of tricks with a renewed sense of diabolical purpose: zooming through peepholes, leering from the inside of washing machines, ripping down hallways, pushing invasively into the pale faces of his actors. When a gust of wind blows back the curtain of an open window, revealing the towering specter it was previously concealing, you can almost see the superimposed skeleton grin of the director, cackling through his rudimentary but expertly timed gag.
Inside that medical facility, glimpsed in violent prologue and returned to for expository purposes later, lurks a croaking phantom—a poltergeist with the knifing habits of Jason Voorhees, the limberness of Ray Park, and the phone records of a serial killer taunting the authorities. A couple decades after making mincemeat of some orderlies, the shadow-cloaked “Gabriel” has reemerged to start hacking and slashing again. (He’s like Wan himself, amped to be back in the mayhem business.) The ghoul’s killing spree begins in the home of one Madison Mitchell, who loses her unborn child—the latest in a line of miscarriages—along with her abusive husband in the attack. From there, she’ll be sucked into a sleep-paralysis psychic bond with the killer, her consciousness forced to helplessly witness each of the brutal slayings that follow.
Poor, trembling Madison is played by Annabelle Wallis, who previously evaded another of Wan’s malevolent playthings, the possessed doll who shared her first name. She telegraphs what any savvy viewer will intuit immediately: that beauty and the beast have a history. Could it have something to do with Madison’s true family background? Or that horror-movie habit kids have of making not-actually-so-imaginary friends? For a while, Malignant seems just a inch left of Blumhouse boilerplate in the story department. The supporting characters have all the dimension of Halloween decorations: the stock skeptical detectives; the nerdy CSI agent who’s like a distaff relative of those annoying comic-relief Insidious sidekicks; Madison’s devoted actress sister (Maddie Hasson, who bears a distractingly uncanny resemblance to Florence Pugh). We think, for a while at least, that we’ve inhaled the musty air of this crypt before.
But Malignant has surprises up its sleeve. It gets nuttier and gnarlier as it goes, the script weaponizing an audience’s assumed familiarity with the haunted-house tropes Wan helped re-popularize. Our reward for the healthy helpings of backstory, delivered via long scenes of characters watching grainy VHS tapes, is a fiendish reveal that shifts the movie’s lunacy up several notches. Malignant does more than redirect talents squandered on green screens painted wavy blue in post-production. It also liberates Wan from the Sunday school of his more elegant Conjurings. This is not a movie with any pretensions of Catholic seriousness. It’s more unhinged in its tactics, pulling the filmmaker out of Amityville horror and reconnecting him with his bone-piercing-skin roots as Jigsaw’s daddy. There’s a touch of giallo in the red of the lighting and arterial spray, and in the stilted investigative dialogue of the cops on the case. And the film moves to the forefront the Sam Raimi influence that’s lurked like a repressed memory in the echoey halls of Wan’s style. What is his endlessly ambulatory camera, after all, but a less caffeinated version of that demonic POV ripping at warp speed around The Evil Dead’s neck of the woods?
Regardless of one’s math on the ratio of fun to dumb in Aquaman, there’s no way to watch this deranged follow-up and not conclude that Wan’s back where he belongs. Still, a little of that time in the superhero trenches seems to have crept into his supernatural comeback. Malignant is a zany psychodramatic creepfest that, here and there, veers into gory action hilarity, as though Pazuzu had taken over the body of a Batman movie. Around the midway mark, one of those archetypal sleuths bolts after his parkouring demon perp—a chase that leads down a treacherous fire escape and into a warehouse space, where the cop runs right into… a carriage like the one that took Harker to the Count. The best rides make some unexpected turns on the way to the next drop.
124 Comments
AvailabilityTheaters everywhere and HBO Max September 10Oh shit, okay. I’m literally gonna stand up from my computer chair and walk into the other room and watch it now. I love horror movies but haven’t seen a new one in ages.
26:15 into the movie, Wan has already made a mistake he rarely does. Insidious and The Conjuring spend time with us getting to know the protagonists, before the Horror starts. We see and feel Ron Livingston’s kooky partridge family, or Rose Byrne’s stressed new mother.But right now, I’m watching a woman and her abusive husband get horrored and I have no idea who TF they are. Can’t even remember a name, if someone said it.
I think that’s supposed to be the giallo influence. Seemed that way to me, at least
Malignabt bears no resemblance to any giallo film ever made. I genuinely do not understand why people keep comparing this to giallo. I suppose some shots have colored lighting that kind of looks sorta like a more muted version of some of the lighting in Blood and Black Lace?
Obviously some of the early plot obfuscation was intentional. I was a bit confused at first too, until I realized it was gonna be a very different type of supernatural horror movie than his previous ones.
I loved it.
I appreciated when it started to veer into a part Cronenberg, part early Peter Jackson tone in the third act, but I still feel like the first two acts were a bit of a slog to get through to reach that point. I think the movie could’ve still achieved the bloody conclusion it attains here while providing its cast of characters with at least a sliver of personality along the way.
You’re definitely not wrong. Basically every character was dull as hell and/or had zero personality besides their main identity tropes. And some of the characters shoulda been cut altogether (looking at you unnecessary hot nerdy CSI lady).
Tbh, the movie had many flaws, but the premise (once it got going) was so great I just stopped caring.
The CSI lady is the movie’s co-writer & the director’s wife.
Ah, totally makes sense now.
My friends I watched it with and myself all thought the woman he kidnapped from the Seattle Underground was the main character. They looked so much alike and had so little character that we were all confused as to why she’d be sometimes tied up and other times running around. HAHA! It was that muddy to us. But we sure as hell enjoyed the mayhem mixed with stupidity.
Oh yeah I thought that was Madison too. There just wasn’t much context for what you were looking at and they look similar
It’s paced like Society. The journey is kinda arduous, but my god, what a destination.
Agreed. Movie gets fun and fully deranged, but the journey to reach that point is arduous. Lots of paper-thin characters, lots of scenes and tropes lifted from other movies that any horror fan will know backward and forward. And oh, that tasteful (and here, wildly wrong) desaturated color grading. It looked good on The Conjuring but just stop it, Wan, stop it now.Nonetheless, I’m glad I watched it for the utter madness of the climax. Once it finally got going, I was cackling. But ultimately, this movie lives in the shadow of better, crazier flicks made by true madman (the Peter Jacksons and Stuart Gordons of the world).
It’s not even a horror film. It’s just a straight slasher.
BTW Update: This movie is crazy horror fun with an insane concept. Enjoyed it a lot.
I watched it at home in the day and my friend went to the theatre at night to see it. When she got out, we conferred it was a fun watch with lots of gore and plot holes and dead end plotlines so big and glaring, they were comical enough to see the movie through.
I don’t know if this is for me, but I’m prepared to offer James Won 10 shiny internet points if he calls the sequel Metastatic.
If it’s not Remission, I’ll eat my tumor hat.
When we’re introduced to the main character in 2021 she’s pulling up to her house full of 1970’s appliances and decor in what seems to be a 1978 Toyota Corolla wood-panel station wagon WHICH IS THEN NEVER SEEN NOR MENTIONED AGAIN. I kept hoping for a reveal like in the I Think You Should Leave driver’s ed/monsters/tables sketch.
TAAAABBBBLLLEESSSSS!!!!
I assume Gabriel borrowed it for *ahem* one of his tasks (bet he’s fantastic at driving in reverse).More likely it’s probably just in the garage.
I noted that Corolla, and also the fact that the huge house these people live in is furnished and decorated in Grandma 1975 chic.
As a Seattle resident what I noted was that, outdated décor aside, that was a 3-4 million dollar house in an upscale neighborhood. Seemed unlikely to be a home for a nurse and what appeared to be her unemployed lumberjack husband. Although it’s possible they got a good deal on it considering the house had a habit of teleporting to an Irish bog every night after sundown.
I was *so* confused what decade it was with the clear 90s labeling of the hospital scene and the fact that most of the stuff with Madison looked 70s. Maybe on purpose but weird once it was revealed that it was actually recent. Why did everything look like the 70s?
Holy shit, Malignant may be the greatest big budget B-horror movie ever made! Any shortcomings (some down right dumb dialogue and character interactions, for sure) are totally dwarfed by one of craziest supernatural slasher concepts ever conceived. I can’t get over how cool Gabriel is as a villain!
Honestly, James Wan’s foray into comic stories definitely shows here. Malignant should be included on the list of “best comic book movies not based on a comic.” The story has a very superhero/villain origin vibe to it, in the best of ways.Damn, this was one entertaining film. Best HBO Max release of 2021, imho.
I think with all of the progress horror has made into more serious, artful territory (which for the record I’m all for), there is a lot to be said for a movie like this one that just wants to entertain you as much as possible, and isn’t afraid to get weird, even if it is at the expense of some conventional logic.It’s the kind of movie where the stupid dialogue maybe even makes it a little better, because it’s just part of going all-in on all those madcap impulses. I laughed a couple of times at the silliness, but not condescendingly, but more in a “yeah, go for it, you fun little movie!” kind of way.
I don’t really think it’s all that crazy though? It’s executed to be at least visually interesting in a macabre way, but when you drill down to it, the story is essentially “the monster turns out to be a possessed version of the main character,” which feels like a story we’ve seen in horror films several times.
“the story is essentially “the monster turns out to be a possessed version of the main character,””
What the fucking hell are you talking about?
The story has a very superhero/villain origin vibe to it, in the best of ways.
That’s what bugged me about it. It was so transparently built to make Gabriel “cool” instead of being a movie monster (right down to the trademark weapon) so then they can do sequels where he and Madison have to team up to beat other monsters like him.
I was howling with laughter at the reveal (and the reactions of the folks watching the tape). It’s a total rip of a Stephen King story, but the scene in the cell was worth the price of an HBO Max subscription
Same here! I was the perfect level of stoned to watch this.Gotta be one of the coolest action scenes I’ve ever witnessed in a horror movie.
The cell scene, everything else in that building, to a lesser extent the earlier chase scene extending to near Predator 2 third act levels of endlessness and the improvised (if perhaps too on the nose) Mr. Show Teardrop Award-esque murder weapon made any amount of “why would these people make highlight reels (in some cases even transferring them to newer, more easily accessible media formats to facilitate plot advancement) of potentially sinister goings on?” worth putting up with.
That Stephen King story seemed like a possibility even just within the first few minutes, but holy hell, the way that the latter part of the movie went was so much better than anything I’d imagined.
I wondered how Madison’s family labeled the videocassette tapes where she was talking to her “imaginary friend”: MEMORIES OF GABE 95-96.
It’s a total rip of a Stephen King story, but the scene in the cell was worth the price of an HBO Max subscription
Not really. It’s a modern riff on the Edward Mordrake folktale that’s been around since at least the 19th Century.
Or one particular Harry Potter book?
What a beautifully bananas movie. It was just the perfect amount of camp and OMG action horror.
I was going to write this one off, but if Dowd likes it I am in!
I just finished watching it, and I can’t say I hate it, but I can’t say I liked it. There were moments that were fun to watch, but then the dumb parts outweighed the fun parts. I can say it was a fun challenge to watch. It’s the kind of movie I can get through from beginning to end. The fun challenge was, can I get to the end without skipping forward. Without rolling my eyes. Or without saying, “Oh, come on.” I lost. I have seen movies so bad, I can’t recommend to my friends. Yet I will for this one. It’s not the movie that was fun, but it was a fun challenge in my opinion.This movie fits (genre wise) perfectly between the late 90’s early 2000’s. It’s fits with the CGI Horror movies such as 1999’s House on Haunted Hill and 2001’s 13 Ghosts. It fits with slasher films such as 1997’s I Know What You Did Last Summer, and slasher films in general. And finally it fits in the R rated superhero genre. Specifically with 2002’s Blade 2.Those are not a bad combination. The problem was they didn’t combine at all. I felt the movie just switched gears into another genre and didn’t blend at all with each other. Without that balance it can be a poorly executed film. And I felt overall it just wasn’t well made. When it went into R-rated superhero genre I said out loud, “Cool, but make up your mind.”You have the jumpscares, the stupid decisions, and the twist that half the audience will figure out 15 minutes in, and mostly everyone will see the twist before it’s revealed 30 minutes in. Anyone that didn’t see it coming, I’m kind of jealous. The story fits right in with an episode of Supernatural. Winchesters would have their hands full. A lot for the actors…I personally were miscast. For 2021 at least. 1995-2005, they’re perfect.
Sadly the direct to DVD slasher films of the late 90’s acting and dialogue were the only things that blended seamlessly throughout the whole movie. However the ending, is kind of a personal pet peeve of mine. Oh SPOILERS, if you hate spoilers for…both a B/D movie. There’s no room to give it a C. Simply put, I laughed when it ended like that and said, “Oh you’re in a lot of trouble missy.”I found the part of the movie that turned into a gritty superhero genre to be fun. I kept thinking, would be a fun darker villain in Marvel. Where Dr Connors/Lizard is for Spider-Man, Madison/Gabriel is for Daredevil, or Ghost Rider. Still she screwed after that ending. Considering that Gabriel conveniently sinks back into her skull and letting her flesh heal over. The only way to show visual proof is to cut her open or show those videos and go through months maybe even years of courts convincing people it was her parasitic twin who is kept at bay within her skull. And she had no control of body. Even if she isn’t convicted, authorities or even the government aren’t going to just let her live alone in peace or start over. Any movie has the main character being framed and then it ends with the main character defeating the evil leaving them as the only link to a trail of so many corpses won’t end well for them the day after. The pet peeve is at least acknowledge that main character is gonna have a hard time convincing the law, social media, and just people who had no direct experience with the mayhem that they’re innocent. The ending to 2005 Boogeyman is an example off the top of my head. There are other movies with similar endings where they leave the character silently screwed over.
I have a soft spot for House on Haunted Hill, mainly because of Jeffrey Rush’s performance. I’m also a fan of Jeffrey Combs and was disappointed he had such a minimal role, considering all the exposition focused on his character.I also liked 13 Ghosts. It’s not great but the story has an interesting and original concept and Tony Shalhoub gives a great performance, rare in the horror movie genre.To this day, I still dream of living in a house like the Cyrus Zorba house. Obviously without the complex machine with all the gears and shit but sliding walls of etched glass would be awesome. (It was actually inspired by the Winchester Mystery House in San Jose, CA https://www.winchestermysteryhouse.com/journey-through-the-winchester-mystery-house/)Also ghost tiddy
The pet peeve is at least acknowledge that main character is gonna have a
hard time convincing the law, social media, and just people who had no
direct experience with the mayhem that they’re innocent.
That’s not an oversight, it’s a sequel hook.
With Matt Murdock as her defense lawyer.
What bugs me is that the sequel hook is such an obvious “EXPANDED UNIVERSE” set up.She’s already “defeated” Gabriel and claimed his power. So the natural follow up is that she’s not alone and now she’ll need to use that power and team with him to fight other similar monsters.Hell, they even made sure to give him a signature weapon (which was fucking hilarious)
I thought Malignant was right in line with Boogeyman, the abysmal Barry Watson vehicle from 2005 that, to me, clearly drew a line in the sand for horror films: CGI was the way of the world going forward.
Well, whether people like it, hate it, or thought it was ok it didn’t make the numbers to garner a successful opening. A 40 million dollar project and it only made 5 million on its opening weekend. It may be a mid budget movie, but those results would be seen as weak sauce in the studio’s eyes.
It came out on HBO Max at the same time, we don’t know how many people watched it there too.
True. But in the end it’s all about the numbers. It may not mean much to viewers, but for the suits that’s what counts. The movie is probably no bomb (depending on next week) but the studio and money backers would be lying if they say there were not disappointed in the final results.
It’s currently the #1 streaming thing on HBOMax… I’m sure Warners is fine with their investment.
You have the jumpscares, the stupid decisions, and the twist that half
the audience will figure out 15 minutes in, and mostly everyone will see
the twist before it’s revealed 30 minutes in.
The thing is, I don’t think “a parasitic twin who still lives in side her” was all that predictable…mostly because it was some serious bullshit.I figured, at most, that Gabriel was a conjoined twin who they removed earlier. Because it was supernatural (or at least hinting that way) I assumed the blood in back of her head was the surgical scars from them being split and that’s why she still could connect to him telepathically.But her skull splitting open and then closing up again? Like, she’d have been a bloody mess when she got to the hospital the night of her husband’s murder and the doctors would have noticed A GAPING BLOODY WOUND WITH A FACE POKING OUT
I wanted the reveal to be even crazier.
I enjoyed it overall. There’s some really great action scenes and certainly ramps up the gore. The pacing wasn’t the best and there are some plot points, as others suggested, that don’t really go anywhere. Malignant starts off much like an Insidious film but then goes bonkers from there.
The marketing for Malignant wants you to think it’s the horror version of Drop Dead Fred when it’s really an extended episode of Garth Marenghi’s Darkplace minus the self-awareness.
I’m glad they marketed as such. This movie was way more fun being broadsided with the far stranger reveal.For more of an actual horror version of Drop Dead Fred, check out Daniel Isn’t Real.
Even then the prologue nearly spoils the reveal.
Yeah, that was my only issue. Called it as a evil twin brain thing right away because of that. Would have been “better”, or at least less predictable, if it was a religious hospital or something, and there were early hints that Gabriel was a demon vs imaginary friend. “Better” in quotes, because even though I figured it out right away, it still was a damn delight.
The opening credits are clearly the surgery, but it’s set up in such a way that you expect the reveal to be conjoined twins.There’s literally nothing to suggest HE’S INSIDE HER until they actually show the Gabe/Emily thing at the same time as the reveal.
Nah, it was entirely self aware.
I’m in. Yesterday I went to the cinema to see Candyman and I remembered why I loved the cinema so much. And why the sound design really pays off in there. And it was a midly successful movie as you all said. But a bonkers James Wan in the cinema? Cannot wait.
BIG SPOILERS
When the lead was taken to the hospital for head injury, did nobody notice her back was a mass of scars where half a person was amputated & there was an extra face with its own brain crammed into her skull?
Also novelty awards are made of crappy metal unsuitable for being honed into knives.
They didn’t even bandage her head. It’s like they didn’t even notice she was bleeding from the back of her head. I mean, the paramedics found her unconscious. You’d think that’d be one of the first things they examined.
You’re not wrong, but also that’s what makes the movie delightful.
The place Gabriel emerges from is less like a wound and more like a cloaca.
Except when it’s shown in gory detail towards the end of the film she is LITERALLY OPENING HER SKIN AND HER SKULL to let him out.
I’ll check it out after my eyes have un-rolled from the “James Wan is a conductor of fear, baton in hand” bit.
Think of it less like a precise, proper Symphony conductor with baton, and more like a marching band field conductor, running around barely controlling chaotic high schoolers.
He honestly deserves it for this movie.
To open with that on a review of a movie that contains no fearful moments, no uneasy dread feels oddly out of place.
I can’t believe the pass this flick is getting. It is 90 minutes of sheer boredom before 20 minutes of bizzaro Upgrade meets Basket Case meets Freddy Got Fingered chaos. That 20 minutes was fun in a “I can’t believe this is a studio flick” kind of way but it certainly wasn’t fun enough to make up for the excruciating first NINETY minutes.
If this movie were a tight 80-90 minutes it would be a lot better. 20 minutes of batshittery does not make up for 90 minutes of watching a bad actress be a basketcase.
I agree wholeheartedly with this review. It starts off slow and boring but when baby’s let out of the corner well then that’s when the fun begins. Legitimately the only time I’ve slept through pieces of a film and then wound up enjoying it.
This movie is just wonderfully ridiculous. The script is just full of WTF, but in a good way. This is the kind of movie where you’re missing the point if you pick apart such high-minded conceits as “plot” or “dialogue” or “acting”. Wan remains a technical whiz. Quite a few exciting, mind-blowing, great looking shots and scenes. Flawlessly executed suspense.
Let’s have more of this. Why not? It’s the good kind of silly. Just so much fun, front to back.
the camerawork was indeed impeccable (that top-down shot of Madison running through her house was superlative) and the dialogue was indeed absolutely atrocious (Sidney’s line about foetuses may genuinely be one of the worst ever written or performed)wild, wild movie
Yup that was an incredible shot. The other big one that stuck with me was the one in the jail cell, you know which one. That was some next level shit. With this type of movie, I even kind of appreciate the bad dialogue because it contributes to the overall vibe in a way that I find actually pretty satisfying.
foetus don’t fail me now(foetus: Didn’t. Won’t.)
Was it ever explained why the [physical horror creature] has telekinetic powers and can slip around unseen more like a phantom than a physical creature?
Don’t think it was. But it’s a supernatural evil, take your pick. There’s no shortage of possible origins. I personally don’t really care much about explanations with that kinda stuff.Did “The Brood” even have a full explanation? I don’t remember, but I don’t think it needed one in any case.The important part with this one was: It didn’t hit you out of nowhere. It was established right in the beginning. That was a smart choice.
Did “The Brood” even have a full explanation? I don’t remember, but I don’t think it needed one in any case.
I think The Brood lays everything out on the table. It’s set in a world where Reed’s character has developed a form of therapy which causes trauma to physically manifest on his patients with the end result often being cancer, but Eggar’s character is a natural whose mastered using her trauma to reproduce asexually.
It sits firmly in the science fiction genre and – when you look at the kind of quakery being pushed in the 70’s as the counter culture began to be attracted to the more out there theories of folks like Freud and Reich – it makes even more sense in the context of that era.
Yes, that was about what I remembered too. I wouldn’t call that a “full” explanation though. It’s still ultimately a supernatural scenario. But to reiterate my point, more isn’t really needed anyway.
They needed a supernatural baddie to drive the fake-out later.
I’m frankly glad they didn’t try to explain this. The implication is clearly that her mother’s rape implanted a supernatural evil in her that grows out of human evil.
A massive contingency of ticket-buyers, sadly, will think of this twist (which I loved to0) as a huge shark-jumping moment. You can picture them in your head, you can hear the timbre of their low, guttural voice as they say “Yo, this is fuckin’ [slur redacted].” You can even picture some of them taking to RottenTomatoes to review bomb the audience score, as is currently happening. I’ve come to accept that I’ve seen so many goddamn movies that my sensibilities are warped for life, and I only like the ones that take massive fun risks like this, whereas most people just really want The Conjuring 14.
There’s a script? I thought I was watching a series of brief Law & Order outtakes spliced with some Saw sequels and a forgotten 1990s NIN video or two.
Yeah, I didn’t care for this movie. I did, however, love the Detective Cacatoe Shaw diving shoulder-first onto a dumpster and then flopping to the pavement so he could continue his pursuit of Mr. Malignant or whatever his name was.
Youre saying forget that all the parts that make up a good film are bad — check out the pretty pretty.Man; this is why terrible films keep being made. Everyone just keeps rewarding mediocrity.
That’s where I’m at. It’s wonderfully stupid…and as long as people don’t take it too seriously or try to pretend it’s anything else I’m fine with more of it.
The makeup effects would make Tom Savini weep with joy, especially during the major WTF twist. I’m so glad Wan opted for a more practical approach to a lot of the visuals.
Worst movie of the year
I love James Wan but this was just a B- for me, and I was expecting at least an A. That said, the big reveal was completely insane!
This is sort of a unicorn. A movie that A.A. Dowd apparently thought was a lot better than I thought it was. I thought this movie was terrible in execution, full of disjarring music and sound cues, a weak lead performance by Annabelle Wallis, and a plot that had to over-explain itself throughout because the central conceit of it was so ludicrous.
It definitely had a lot of issues. I think Dowd is over-rewarding it for being zany and relatively fearless. And I have to admit, I was tempted to do the same. You seldom see a horror movie made by a real name, on a real budget, that takes swings like that; hell, you seldom see horror made by anybody at all take swings like that. It’s bracing. But the movie could’ve been better for sure.
I’m glad somebody else was jarred by the music. It was clearly “this is badass!” buttrock but then it’s playing when the killer is doing it’s thing because we’re supposed to think it’s cool?There’s a theme that keeps repeating itself that reminds me of the closing tune when the bombs go off in Fight Club, and it bugged the shit out of me because my brain thought that’s what it was and kept waiting for the song to finally start.
Hmmm… Maybe I’ll attempt to continue watching it. I turned it off in the first ten minutes when that piece of shit hit a pregnant woman in the stomach. Sure, I know he’ll suffer a terrible end but it was just gross. Worth a fast forward to see what else it offers? Will think about it.
God forbid a horror film actually horrifies.
It’s not a plot point it dwells on for long.
He suffers a terrible end almost immediately (literally later in that same scene, more or less) and the movie goes to far crazier, less depressing places from there. Not a recommendation without reservations from me, but I wouldn’t let that kind of gross opening deter you, because that’s not what the movie is like.
I’ll just flat out spoil it for you: The abusive husband punching her in the stomach is solely to ensure the audience is misdirected into thinking *that’s* why she keeps losing babies.It’s not. The real reason is much later and it’s much dumber.
Fast forward to about an hour and twenty in, when it finally gets interesting.
Not that it makes it at all better, but he slammed her head against the wall and didn’t touch her stomach, I’m only saying so as it is quite an integral moment to the resolution of the plot.
the entire reason the movie exists is to come back from that momentif nothing else the metaphor journey arc of the character is crystal clear
Watched it last night. Pretty good.
I liked this movie, it was fuckin’ bonkers. Raised on trashy 80s Italian horror as I was, I appreciated the heavy influence from Argento in the story and set pieces (and the shots of the black-gloved hand holding a weird gaudy weapon, Dario’s favorite) and Fulci in the gore department. Definitely a fun, goofy modern giallo.
This one was truly insane and knew it. Fun as hell with a villain you’ll never forget. B+.
This is one of the worst films ive seen all year.The dialog alone made me want to cut my face off.
Seen it today and I thought it was highly entertaining. Like everyone in the comments, there were some fantastic shot and sequences that surprised me: (i) the top-down shot of the lead actress running around the house to lock everything and (ii) the jail annihilation which was pure fun and incredibly well shot. [SPOILERS!!!] The reveal of the parasitic was a fun twist but I swear I have seen this concept in some old martial art episodic drama from TVB (Hong Kong) back in late 1990’s/early 2000’s.
I have only seen people talk about how terrible this movie is.
Meh, I liked this movie better when it was called Basket Case.
Fantastic movie. Wan shows in several points that he’s quite competent in building uncomfortableness, suspense, and dread; then he pivots because that’s not at all what he wants to do.I will say that I basically called it from the opening sequence at the hospital (thanks in part to a Simpsons Treehouse of Terror segment, and the title of the movie itself) and it didn’t take away from the movie one bit. I hope this brings about more horror movies that aren’t completely self/genre-aware, where characters do stupid things just because, and where good/happy things aren’t immediately undercut by some cynical point.
I’m very glad everybody’s talking about this movie (which isn’t making much money so far) because the trailer made me totally uncurious about it. Psychic link with a serial killer shit, and haunting/possession/evil-spirit shit. This has those things, but more, and has more fun with them than usual. I’m glad for the burst of chatter.
Quite a few times the camera pans over documents full of medical information and you can see [CITATION NEEDED] sprinkled around. I don’t know if that’s part of the “aren’t we so hilariously lazy” in-joke, or actual ignorance on the part of the set designers, since it’s a smoking gun that they cut and pasted text from Wikipedia to avoid rights issues … but, uh, yeah, you don’t see [CITATION NEEDED] in the middle of published research or patient reports.(Spoilerth here, you guyth.) I am all for this movie. I was fully expecting the antagonist to be some kind of disembodied poltergeist, then when it fell from the ceiling I thought “okay, deranged ex-patient from the sewers”… But then the kidnapped woman fell through the attic into the middle of the living room, and FINALLY I did the math and realized why Madison’s head kept bleeding randomly. Total The Grudge situation,
And I’m a total dumbass, because ten minutes earlier when she was in the police station bathroom I yelled at the screen: “A head wound that keeps bleeding is a symptom of a bunch of things and they are ALL REALLY BAD THINGS! YOU NEED TO SEE A DOCTOR! Go get a freakin’ cat scan!!” Durrr no wonder that was off the table.
Sam Raimi needs to see this and get inspired to one-up James. He’s not busy these days, is he? Oh wait, he’s directing the new Doctor Strange movie? OH SHNAP I AM ALL OVER THIS.
Isn’t this the gritty reboot of “Drop Dead Fred”?
This was just legitimately fucking terrible. Not so bad it’s good, just so bad it’s bad. Awful dialog. Awful effects. No scares. The dumbest story that just gets dumber every act, as we patiently wait for the movie to tell us shit we’ve already figured out.I get that it’s an homage to the kind of 90s schlock that filled Blockbuster shelves back in the day. But it’s so shockingly poorly done. It would have been a bad first feature for a new director, and it’s baffling that an established director with some good flicks under his belt would deliver it.I have no idea why the critical consensus seems to be that this is worth watching. There’s so much good shit out there for horror right now, including legitimately “so bad it’s good” stuff. I’m no snob. But this is garbage.
It’s a gory movie with a “big twist” so people are giving it a standing ovation.
I agree completely. I thought it was borderline unwatchable. I think a lot of people are stretching to justify it’s existence as some sort of zany homage. It was just bad. Bad writing, terrible acting, bizarre music/score. Just bad.
Someone found the Seattle Underground Wikipedia page and realized it rained a lot there, then decided to turn that into a movie. I watched this Saturday morning and completely forgot about it until I saw this recap.
I get the distinct impression the film’s limited usage of the Underground was fully intentional because we’re going to learn the “origins” of Gabriel and discover a bunch more uber monsters live there.
I watched it and…Jesus Christ that was some grade A shlock.It reminds me of Escape Room in that you think you’ve got the ending more or less figured out and then they go in some left-turn swerve and it ruins the movie.Like, I was willing to accept some conjoined twin shenanigans…but Gabriel literally bursting forth from the back of her head?They needed to pick a lane. Either it was an absurd slasher with the parasitic twin twist…or it was a conjoined twin supernatural thriller. But they tried to do both and it’s just like…no.I was laughing during the reveal because Wan swung for the fences and had that Lucas style cred where no-one pushed back.
What an obsequious, ingratiating review.Dowd has lost it.
I think the tone of this movie is pretty squarely between the real Evil Dead and the Fede Alvarez remake…but really closer to the remake even with the nuttiness, it’s moments of humor land fitfully.I wish the CGI baddie moved a little less like Ben Affleck’s CGI Daredevil.
Wow, not sure I’ve ever disagreed more with a Dowd review. This is trash. The script is the smelliest trash here, all recycled from a hodgepodge of other horror movies. The direction is showy, masturbatory trash. The acting is trash, with some of the worst line deliveries imaginable. The CGI is trash – the gore and monster are atrocious. The SCORE! That might be the worst, most inappropriate score I’ve heard in a long time. Literally caused me to laugh out loud multiple times.If this movie works at all it’s as a parody/comedy. Was there one horror cliche this movie didn’t have? And then the fucking climax where suddenly it’s The Exorcist meets John Wick. I will absolutely let people enjoy things, and I can totally see how one might have fun watching this, in the way one might have fun watching the Real Housewives. It’s legit like a Treehouse of Horror episode.
I recently watched the original Candyman and this movie could not have reminded me more of it. This was pure early 90s camp. Or maybe The Crow meets Se7en.
I’m concerned though to think there might be people surprised by the twist. I know I’m jaded and over familiar with this genre, but about 10,000 clues were left in multiple ways: dialogue, backstory, visual cues.
Still, it was an enjoyable ride and an interesting “Hey, I know her!” of older sitcom actresses.
I’ve watched the movie once.I’ve watched the third act — basically the reveal video tape on— at least four times.
Have just seen it. Nobody mentioned the homages to Re-Animator’s style in the prologue and the titles. Even the Sydney character’s look is a dead ringer for Barbara Crampton’s. From the get-go, I immediately knew I was in for that kind of ride and LOVED IT, I kept grinning the whole time. First James Wan movie I truly liked for that reason, hat’s off.
I just watched it this weekend and holy fucking shit balls! The last 30 minutes are something else! Like wow! I’m usually someone who can guess where a movie is going 15 minutes into it but fucking shit no did I have no clue where this one would go!I fucking love Wan, Insidious still is the most scared of a movie I’ve been as an adult and the man knows how to get me to love being scared, which is something my whole family has loved forever.
It’s’Basket Case’.