Jennifer's Body - Review

Wow! I've been reviewing a lot of horror films lately. To be honest, it's bit a little overwhelming. Sure, I'm a fan of the genre, but I typically like to add some variety to my movie viewing and blog entries. I was going to take a small break from the scary flicks after reviewing the Scream movies, but after seeing Jennifer's Body a few days ago, I thought of a few things to say about it. So consider this my last horror review for a while until I feel refreshed.

Jennifer's Body is a 2009 high school horror/comedy directed by Karyn Kusama and written by Diablo Cody. It stars Megan Fox as the sexy and self-obsessed Jennifer and Amanda Seyfried as her nerdy BFF Needy. After Jennifer and Needy go to a concert at a local bar, Jennifer makes friends with the band, only to find out that the band is a group of Satan worshipers. In order to be successful, the said band makes a deal with the Devil and offers Jennifer to him as a sacrifice. Only problem, since Jennifer wasn't a virgin, the sacrifice backfires. Instead of dying, she returns as a vengeful demon-possessed man-eater. Now, with Jennifer and her new-found demonic powers wrecking havoc on the town, Needy is forced to find a way to put an end to her rampage.

Jennifer's Body is one of those movies that was hard to judge simply based on its premise. It's main attraction (at least by the marketing standards) was Megan Fox. After hitting it big as the hot chick from Transformers, Fox saw a sudden rise to popularity. The commercials and trailers made Jennifer's Body look like a sexy horror flick with Fox's beauty as the main attraction. However, those who watch this with the hopes of seeing Megan Fox naked or some shameless T & A will probably leave disappointed. Oh sure, Megan Fox is hot, and it's not like the movie doesn't use that to its advantage, but there is definitely more going on. The movie actually has underlying themes of female empowerment, as Jennifer uses her sexuality to entice and prey on her misogynistic classmates on the lookout for tail. So what was marketed as a skin-fest is actually closer to a feminist statement. It all sounds good in theory, but unfortunately Jennifer's Body suffers thanks to sub-par execution.

Unfortunately, this was a movie that put a lot of faith in its actors, and there in lies the first mistake. Megan Fox, quite simply, is an awful actress. Her lack of talent was first apparent from her less-than-stellar performances in the Transformers movies, and not much has changed here. For starters, she still has little to no emotional range. With the exception of her aforementioned sacrifice scene (she actually displayed some decent emotion then), Fox is little more than a series of forced deliveries and blank faces. She can't blame this on a lousy character or bad dialogue this time either, there's plenty here for her to work with (more on the script later).

On the other hand, we do get a much better performance from Amanda Seyfried. Seyfried holds her own decently, with more range than Fox and better control of her character. That being said, I had a hard time buying that somebody as gorgeous as Seyfried (considerably more than Fox imo) would be perceived as a geeky outcast. This is a pet peeve of mine I see all to often in movies, when directors think that simply putting a pair of glasses on a beautiful actress suddenly makes them look unconventional. Overall, the performances in this fail to impress. Fox is awful, Seyfried is better but not great, and the rest are just kind of there. Although, I did get a few chuckles as J.K. Simmons as a one-handed English teacher.

What mainly attracted me to this film was the screenwriter, Diablo Cody. Cody suddenly found herself in the spotlight in 2008 as the former stripper turned Oscar winning screenwriter of 2007's Juno. Her skill for creating quirky characters and writing clever blog-lingo inspired dialogue has had her likened to a female Kevin Smith. I personally loved Juno, and even though I wasn't particularly stoked for Jennifer's Body, I found myself interested enough to check it out. Most of the dialogue in Jennifer's Body is appropriately quirky and witty, but the sheer stupidity of the plot kind of ruined what worked. The concept about the Satan-worshiping indie rockers is incredibly asinine, the ending is too predictable, and the script boasts a number of plot holes that really detract from any potential enjoyability. I wasn't sure if the stupidity of the Devil-worshiping bad was intentional or not. It almost look like it was going for that self-aware, too hip for the room, parody style that Scream made so popular. And of course, if you have read my reviews for the Scream series, you'll know that I never cared for it then either. No matter how you look at it, the movie just isn't that well executed.

Jennifer's Body is one of those movies that had potential but just didn't deliver. The concept had some promise, Seyfried wasn't bad, and I got a few chuckles out of the dialogue. Unfortunately, a lot of the potential success came down to Fox, and she just doesn't deliver. It's not an awful movie, but I can't really recommend it. If the premise sounds interesting to you, it might make for a decent rental, but you'll probably forget about it five minutes after the credits roll.

In short, it's neither scary, sexy, or funny enough to live up to its potential.

My Score: 2.5 Stars out of 5!

Source Code - Review

Hey look! Its another movie trying to capitalize on the success of Inception! That's the thing with the Science Fiction genre, whenever you have one hugely successful and original sci-fi movie, what usually follows is a stream of inferior knock-offs. First was The Adjustment Bureau and now its Source Code. To be fair though, The Adjustment Bureau was actually not that bad... it was at least a decent action-thriller. Source Code however... actually the same could probably be said for this one too.

The movie stars Jake Gyllenhaal as a US Army pilot named Colter Stevens originally stationed in Afghanistan. What seems to be out of nowhere, Stevens suddenly wakes up on a passenger train in Chicago... only he's not himself but rather in the body of an individual named Sean Fentress. Now totally unaware of why his identity has changed and how he suddenly transporter from Afghanistan to Chicago, a bomb on the train explodes only 8 minutes after he arrives. Stevens then wakes up in a narrow capsule, where it is revealed that he was the subject for a program called Source Code, a simulator that allows Stevens mind to be transferred into the mind of one of the passengers on the aforementioned doomed train. He was chosen for the project with the hopes of being able to find the train bomber and preventing any future attacks.

I know that seems like I might have spoiled quite a bit... but don't worry, that's all revealed within the first 10 minutes. If I do ever mention spoilers or important plot reveals, I'll make sure to give plenty of notice.

Source Code is a movie that I didn't think I would have any difficulty reviewing, but to be honest, its been a bit of a challenge. Its not like Sucker Punch, that was a movie so abstract and bizarre that it takes a while to process. No, Source Code is actually quite the opposite... its just so straightforward that trying to find any creative insights into about it is a big challenge. On the surface, there's not much that is inherently awful about it, nor is there anything that is particularly great about it. Well, I'll give it a try...

The movie boasts a really good cast, most of whom were nominated for an Oscar at one point. Jake Gyllenhaal does his usual good job in the lead role as Captain Stevens. Nothing much to say about it other than just that... he's good. There is also Up In The Air's Vera Farmiga as Goodwin, one of the Source Code operators. She spent a majority of the time talking to Gyllenhaal via a webcam, making this one of the rare occasions you'll see an actor spending most of the movie staring into the camera. She does a good job, nothing really to complain about. There is also Michelle Monaghan as Christine, one of the train passengers and love interest to Gyllenhaal. Despite the fact that her character was there only to serve as the obligatory romance, she holds her own quite well too. Finally, I have to mention Jeffrey Wright (Felix Leiter in the last two 007 movies) as the Source Code inventor Dr. Rutledge. He does a bang-up job too, I'm kind of surprised he isn't more famous than he is. Wright is a very talented actor, I hope to see him tackle some more serious roles in the near future.

The script works well for the most part... at least in the first two acts. The concept certainly has some promise, even if it is a bit hokey. The opening does a good job setting up the story and made me legitimately interested in what would follow. The action is well done, the pacing is decent, there are a few decent twists along the way, and the actors hold the story together. The third act is when it falls apart. The last ten minutes or so felt really forced and contrived, not to mention the ending was so stupid that it almost killed the movie. We're talking really dumb and outlandish, like I couldn't believe what I was watching. I couldn't help but feel like the screenwriters were trying to attach some kind of thought-provoking message, but it wasn't really working. It's a fair attempt, but I've seen similar concepts done much better. I'll say this... it's definitely no Inception.

If you go into Source Code expecting a decent action-thriller, you'll probably leave somewhat satisfied. The suspense is far from nail-biting, but it was enough to hold my attention. The film is well shot, some decent editing, and you get to see a train blow up over and over again. When you get down to it, it's the actors who really sell the movie. None of the performances are by any means Oscar-worthy or anything like that, but they get the job done and kept the movie entertaining. I should also mention that comedian Russell Peters has a supporting role as... a comedian. Hey, whatever works.

There really isn't much more to say about Source Code. There's nothing overly bad about it, but you'll probably not going to come out of the theater amazed of anything like that. Like The Adjustment Bureau, it's a decent sci-fi thriller... nothing more, nothing less.

My Score: 3 out of 5!

Scream 4 - Review

So if you've read my previous reviews about the Scream franchise, you've figured out that I don't care much for this series. The first was mediocre, the second sucked, and the third REALLY sucked. When I heard they were reviving this series for a fourth entry, as you can imagine my reaction wasn't very enthusiastic. One thing I've come to realize about Scream is this... the original was a big hit at the time and is generally considered an intriguing piece of 90s nostalgia. Even though the general public ate it up, the response from horror purists (like myself) was actually somewhat mixed. Not to mention, a common critique of the original I keep hearing was that it was decent for the time but doesn't hold up that well today. So how much of a demand was there really for another Scream??? I guess no more than most horror sequels, but that rarely stops them from being made. Nonetheless, lets take a look and see if Scream 4 (or Scre4m) actually accomplishes what the previous three missed...

Scream 4 takes place a decade after Scream 3. Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) returns to Woodsboro to promote her new book detailing how she overcame her experiences with the Ghostface killers. Gale and Dewey (David Arquette and Courtney Cox) are back and now married, albeit with a few marital hiccups. Dewey is the town sheriff and Gale is having difficulty adjusting to the small town life. Coinciding with Sidney's return, a Ghostface killer starts threatening her alongside a new group of unsuspecting teens. Only now, its a new generation along with a new set of rules.

I do have to give Scream 4 some credit for a couple of things. First off, they actually managed to rope the original cast in for this movie (the surviving characters at least). Neve Campbell, David Arquette, and Courtney Cox are all back for another go-around (or paycheck). Plus, most of the new teen cast members actually look like teenagers this time. Like the previous movies, the performances are still pretty hit and miss, but this movie's cast is definitely better than the sequels. Arquette and Cox are still basically going through the motions, but they look slightly more interested than they did in Scream 3 at least. Campbell continues to do the whole scared victim routine she's done in the previous three, not much has changed here. Nothing special about her but nothing inherently awful either.

Hayden Panettiere actually holds her own pretty well as one of the new teens in this one. Granted she's one of the actors that doesn't totally pass as a teen, but her performance is definitely one of the better of the bunch. Emma Roberts isn't too bad either as Sidney's niece Jill. There's also Erik Knudsen as the new Jamie Kennedy-eque film geek type. His character gets a little grating at times, but he has some good moments and looked like he was having fun with the role.

Speaking of grating, there are plenty of actors here that don't fail to annoy. Marley Shelton as a Woodsboro Deputy was probably the most annoying character this time around. Alison Brie plays Sidney's publisher, whose character was so pointless and annoying that the only joy I got out of watching her was seeing her get killed. Also, like the previous three, there are a few celebrity cameos Anna Paquin and Kristen Bell appear in the movie's opening scene playing out a sort of humorous "reference within a reference." Can't really complain about their acting too much, but the scene was not nearly as creative as it could have been. I guess like the first movie, the acting is a mixed bag. Nothing great but still somewhat better than the average teen slasher.

One of my most common complaints about the Scream movies was that they got so caught up satirizing the horror genre that they neglected to deliver any real suspense. I even mentioned that if they were to up the blood and gore factor that I probably would have at least enjoyed them on a guilty pleasure level. Well, I have to admit, Scream 4 actually does improve on this front. Don't get me wrong, it's still mainly a series of teens being chased up staircases and, with one or two exceptions, most of the kills usually didn't amount to much more than generic knife impalings. Still, Craven definitely didn't skimp on the blood this time and it had a higher body count than any of the previous movies. It's not an extreme blood bath or anything like that but there should be enough to satisfy your inner blood hound.

While there was some improvement on the gore front, the other story elements are hardly any better. Despite a couple semi-clever insights into the horror genre and pop culture, Scream still isn't nearly as smart as it thinks it is. The focus of Scream 4's satire is mainly on reboots or remakes of horror franchises. To fit that scheme, Scream 4 is basically a retread of the original with a higher body count and a few new twists here and there. It pokes fun at how redundant it is by making some kind of crack at itself. Its a weak gimmick to say the least, and how the filmmakers think by just giving an occasional wink to the audience makes it even less credible. Sure, you might be in on the joke, but that doesn't justify recycling the same story. To make matters worse, the screenwriter, Kevin Williamson, is still clearly stuck in the 90s. The dialogue is basically cheesy 90s lingo with a few Facebook or twitter references. So now, not only does it sound stupid, but also dated as hell. Oh sure, the reboot concept makes sense and it occasionally throws in some midly amusing quips about the 21st century and our internet-obsessed culture. Nevertheless, most of Scream 4 is little more than weak pop culture jokes and average suspense.

Okay, I'll admit that I didn't hate Scream 4. I can't say I liked it either, but this was the only one out of all the Scream movies that I actually came close to liking. Still, I have two reasons that I can't bring myself to give this movie a recommendation. First of all, there is a far better horror film still playing in theatres right now called Insidious. I wrote a review for it a few weeks back, read up on it if you need any other incentive to see it. The second and more important reason refers to what the Scream series ultimately represents... a dead end. The series has done virtually nothing to benefit the horror genre. All they did was inspired an onslaught of weak and un-inventive teen slasher comedies to capitalize off of Scream's popularity... do we really want to see another I Know What You Did Last Summer?? Filmmakers wouldn't try anything new or creative for years to come, and the horror genre was practically void of imagination for far too long. The Scream franchise isn't necessarily the worst of the genre, but its impact on it may be the worst.

Overall, Scream 4 is better than the previous movies but my feelings for this series hasn't change one bit. If you absolutely must see Scream 4, I'd wait to rent it on DVD. Otherwise you can skip it.

My Score: 2.5 out of 5!

Scream 3 - Review

Alright, we're halfway through the Scream movies. Typically I generally prefer to review a movie as a whole give my final critique at the end, but for those who just want the nutshell review up-front, I'll provide it for this movie. How I feel about Scream 3... I HATE THIS MOVIE!!! I HATE THIS MOVIE!!! I HATE THIS MOVIE!!! I HATE THIS MOVIE!!! I HATE THIS MOVIE!!! I HATE THIS MOVIE!!! I HATE THIS MOVIE!!! I HATE THIS MOVIE!!! I HATE THIS MOVIE!!! I HATE THIS MOVIE!!! Now for the full review...

Scream 3 takes place a few years after Scream 2. Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) moves to an isolated house in the middle of the woods trying to live a quiet life, Gale and Dewey (Courtney Cox and David Arquette) are broken up once again, and the third entry of the Stab horror movies has gone into production (the movies based on the events of the previous two films). The horror begins again after cast members of Stab 3 begin getting murdered by a new Ghostface Killer and Sidney starts receiving threatening calls again. Geez, doesn't this plot sound familiar???

Okay, I will say this, complaining that horror movies have repetitive plots is basically preaching to the choir, but most of the time, slasher series have no qualms or doubts about how inherently cheesy they are. The Scream series, on the other hand, rides on this constant notion that that it's far smarter than it really is, but really just bases it's premise on a lame gimmick that, while modestly clever at first, is looking seriously tired now. The main problem with this one, however, is that it abandons the little credibility the first two had by becoming EXACTLY what it's predecessors were spoofing in the first place! Scream 3 only thinks that's its a clever insight into film trilogies when in reality, it's nothing more than a generic slasher movie... and a bad one at that! The characters are annoying, the plot is a re-tread of it's predecessors, the kills are uninspired, and the story is as dull and predictable as they get.

Scream 3 aims to be the concluding movie of the Scream trilogy. Just like the first laid out the rules for a horror film and the second offered motifs into the rules for a sequel, Scream 3 includes references to trilogies. As per the movie's description, the concluding third act should be an over-the-top, no holds barred, big and epic climax. So... why didn't they follow the rules they set out? Scream 3 almost totally abandons the big or epic trilogy concept by substantially cutting down on the blood. There are no memorable kills and there's just barely enough blood to nudge it's way into R-Rating territory. So now it's not just stupid, but it's also boring as hell!

The acting is just atrocious for the most part. Neve Campbell actually kind of grew into her part a little. Even though she doesn't have much range, she actually exhibits more charisma than anyone else. Unfortunately, they pretty much ignore her until the third act, preferring to chill out with its supporting cast until then. Cox and Arquette are the focus for most of this but both phone in bland and underwhelming performances while they go through the motions of the stupid tacked on love-story subplot once again. Parker Posey tags along as an up-and-coming actress named Jennifer. The Scream series has seen plenty of annoying characters, but none as incredibly cringe-inducing as Posey. I don't think I have ever wanted to see a character get killed as much as I did her.

When you get right down to it, Scream 3's biggest problem is that nobody looks interested. Wes Craven might have well have been on creative auto-pilot when he directed this. The guy knows horror, I don't think anyone will deny that. And even though I didn't particularly like the first Scream, I could appreciate that passion for the genre that it displayed. But here, Craven doesn't care, the cast doesn't care, and the script is uninspired. Its clear that this movie was nothing more than a paycheck for those involved and a cash-in for the studio. The only thing I actually found somewhat amusing were a couple chuckles I got from a few cameos of Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith (as Jay and Silent Bob) and a short appearance from Carrie Fisher. Still, even they couldn't save this piece of crap.

In conclusion, its a dumb movie with a lame story, predictable ending, hammy performances, and no suspense. Let me reiterate what I wrote at the beginning of this review... I FUCKING HATE THIS MOVIE!!! Don't bother watching it... even for curiosity's sake.

My Score: Half Star out of 5!

Scream 2 - Review

Since I started this blog, I've only done one series review. About a year ago, I reviewed each film in the Back To The Future trilogy. I originally had planned to do something of a "series of series reviews" starting with BTTF. I even had started writing some reviews for some of my favorite franchises, but for one reason or another, I never finished them. Don't really know why, just never got around to it. Ironically the Scream franchise was never on my mind, but seeing as how I posted a review for the first movie a few weeks back and that the fourth movie comes out this weekend, why not write reviews for all four movies?

The first Scream became this pop culture phenomenon when it was released in 1996. So to no one's surprise, a sequel was quickly greenlit. One year later, Scream 2 was released with almost all of the original cast (at least the characters that survived) and Wes Craven directing again. Just like the first, critics and fans loved it... most even saying it was better than the original. As I mentioned before, I was never that fond of the first movie, but seeing as the general consensus was that the sequel was superior made me willing to give it a chance. So I rented the movie and... how does that saying go? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." So I guess I'm a least partly to blame... but I'm not going let Scream off the hook that easily.

Scream 2 picks up a few years after the first movie. Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is now in college while having difficulty putting her past behind her. Reporter Gail Weathers (Courtney Cox) wrote a book about the Woodsboro murders which was just adapted into a movie called Stab. At the Woodsboro premiere of Stab, two individuals are murdered (played by Niobe from The Matrix movies and Dr. Foreman from House) by a new Ghostface starting a new murderous rampage intent on finishing what the first killer started.

Remember that memorable opening from the first Scream (the only great scene in that movie)... the one with Drew Barrymore. Yeah, Scream 2 doesn't have anything like that. Instead, you have one of the stupidest, drawn out, and most over-the-top openings I've seen. The acting is hammy, the setting is lame, and the execution (pun intended this time) is ridiculous. I only mention this incredibly lame scene because its probably the best part of the movie... yeah, this movie sucks.

Scream 2 tries to keep the same theme as the first, the "self-aware send-up of the slasher genre." This time, though, the characters acknowledge that they're living out a real-life sequel, and the that game rules are a bit different. The killer will finish off the survivors from the previous movie, loose ends from the original are taken care of, and that sequels are inherently bloodier and more graphic. Unfortunately, it kind of cops out on what it promises. Sure, there's a bit of decent gore and some of the previous characters get the ax, but ultimately it feels like a pale rehash of the original. It has all of the problems from the first, only this time its even worse.

Scream 2's biggest problem is the lack of any real suspense or cleverness. None of the insights into horror movie sequels are particularly interesting or engaging, and the characters are still annoying as hell. I mentioned the over-the-top opening because its really the only somewhat memorable scene, not because its good, but because of its in-your-face stupidness. Everything else in the movie is bland or unmemorable. The gore and suspense is quite noticeably toned down from the merely-adequate amount of the first movie, despite the fact that Jamie Kennedy's character even mentions that sequels to horror movies are supposed to be more violent.

By the time you get to the incredibly disappointing finale, I was just bored out of my mind. You know some of the things I like about slasher movies... the promise of creative kills, over-the-top gore, and insane finales. Filmmakers get really creative with their death scenes, especially by the end... but not here. The finale results in a face slapping predictable twist, a lame monologue about horror movies, and a half-assed shoot-out. Why use a gun??? This is a SLASHER movie! Come on Wes Craven! You created Freddy Krueger! Couldn't you have thought of a more clever ending??? Such a wasted opportunity.

So yeah, Scream 2... it sucks. Aside from the Final Destination series, I can't think of a more overrated horror franchise. Even though I didn't like the first, I'll admit it had some good merits and I can somewhat understand why so many people liked it. Scream 2, on the other hand, is just awful! Why this movie was praised by critics, I have no idea! Awful movie! Don't watch it!

My Score: 1 out of 5!

Insidious - Review

A lower-budget and gore-free horror film produced by the director of Paranormal Activity and directed by the director of the original Saw... yeah, that sounds promising. Although, the hype around Insidious was fairly lackluster and its Haunted House concept had been done many times before (Poltergeist The Amityville Horror, or Paranormal Activity for instance), so this was one of those movies that could have gone either way. Now, after finally seeing it, I am happy to report that Insidious definitely lived up to its promise!

As I mentioned before, Insidious starts out as your basic haunted house story. A family movies into a creepy new house and begins to experience a series of ghastly hauntings. The family, known as the Lamberts, consists of the married couple Josh (Patrick Wilson) and Renai (Rose Byrne) along with their three kids, Dalton, Foster, and the newborn Calli. Shortly after the move, the young Dalton is exploring their new home and takes a bad fall. At first, his injuries don't seem particularly severe, but the next day, he finds himself in a coma. Despite not having any major head trauma, Dalton is unable to wake up, and shortly after the incident, the hauntings begin...

Alright, I'm convinced... director James Wan is destined to be one of the great directors of the horror genre. I expect him to eventually be held in the same light as George Romero, Wes Craven, John Carpenter and others. First, he made popular the torture porn sub-genre when he revealed the iconic Saw to the world, followed that with Dead Silence (which I still need to see, but people tell me its good), and now proves himself again with Insidious. The guy is clearly a skilled director, with a knack for creating suspenseful and disturbing scenes.

The shots are framed brilliantly, with cinematography that really encompasses the eerie and sometimes freaky images. While I didn't loose any sleep over this movie, I will admit that some moments did stick with me for a while... and I might have needed to have the TV on around my apartment for some ambient noise. The jump moments in Insidious were plentiful, and the way Wan built tension through the atmosphere and music was near-perfect... even if the constant violin screeches did get a little grating at times. There were times they would set up a long, atmospheric, and intense segment with a well-executed jump as payoff that made everyone in the audience collectively scream. There were other times where something would pop out at random without any warning or setups... and those really caught me off guard. Most of the images depicted appropriately creepy and disturbing, so you might have a bit of a time getting them out of your head for a while. There's no doubt that Insidious is scary... and it rarely lets up.

One thing that always brings a smile to my face is to see a horror film with good acting. While it really should be standard, lets be honest here, horror films don't exactly score high in the acting departments. Insidious proves to be one of the exceptions with a variety of actors who really sell their roles. While their characters may not be particularly three-dimensional (more on that later), the actors who play them are usually believable and consistent. Rose Byrne pulls off the loving mother figure while Patrick Wilson (Night Owl from Watchmen) embodies the skeptic father figure equally well. Black Swan's Barbara Hershey comes in halfway through to give a solid performance as Josh's supportive mother, Lorraine. Though, the one who appears to be having the most fun was Lin Shaye as a psychic named Elise who is called to help remedy the situation. Overall, the cast was surprisingly quite good, and ultimately gave the movie a good edge.

Insidious is one of those movies that does so many things right, that I would prefer to simply ignore its faults... but for obvious reasons, I can't do that. The movie's weakest link is definitely the script. As I mentioned before, this is not a particularly original or innovative movie. It owes a lot of its inspiration to previous films including Poltergeist, The Amityville Horror, and Paranormal Activity. The character's aren't anything new or original either. You have the desperate mom, the douchebag dad, and the psychic kid... cliche characterizations that we've seen countless times. There is no real depth to any of the characters aside from for generic horror cliches.

The first two-thirds of the movie are quite good... near perfect even. By the time the third act roles around, its a little more hit-and-miss. For starters, the first two thirds of Insidious seemed to set up a number of plot devices and secondary characters that get pushed aside or totally ignored by the final third. Plus, the ending gets pretty over-the-top and sometimes silly. One of the main evil spirits that was repeatedly popping up was a demon that looked like Darth Maul. There was also an evil old lady who was played by a male actor. Also, toward the end, two characters are introduced named Specs (Leigh Whannell) and Tucker (Angus Sampson). They're a pair of pseudo-Ghostbusters who accompany Elise and serve as the comic relief. I'll admit they had some funny moments and the added humor was welcome, but introducing such goofy characters that late in the game felt kind of off-beat. I will say, aside from the disturbing closing shot, the climax does do away with a lot of the subtle and creepy vibe... but it is entertaining nonetheless.

Most of my complaints about Insidious are nitpicks. No, it's not perfect, but dammit I enjoyed the hell out of this movie! It delivers just about everything you could want out of a solid scary movie! One more thing, for those who want a horror film but don't like blood, this is the one you've been waiting for. Totally free of blood and gore, but heavy on the scares! Check this one out... highly recommended!

I give it a 4 out of 5!