The ludicrously popular ‘Paranormal Activity’ franchise ushered in a new era of haunted house/possession/creepy kids/paranormal-themed hybrids that, unfortunately, tend to focus on jump scares and atmosphere, but little else.

 

‘Insidious’ comes to us courtesy of the producers of that very lucrative franchise, and is director James Wan’s first visit to the spooky house (his second being this year’s rather good ‘The Conjuring’), but it is also one such beast – lots of ghosts, lots of creaking stairs and screeching violins, but little else.

 

Though it grossed enough worldwide to warrant a sequel (due out later this month), there’s still something niggling about ‘Insidious’ that doesn’t quite sit right. It does everything it should; the atmosphere is creepy and tense, and it is established immediately with a creepy ghost lady, reminiscent of the infamous woman in black, whose cinematic outing was less impressive.

 

The score screeches and honks at all the right moments, while things pop out and yell “Boo!” each and every time it gets slightly quiet. It’s spooky, tense, and unsettling, but that’s it. There isn’t much else to it, and certainly nothing lurking beneath its creaky, old-timey surface, which betrays its modern setting, and sensibilities.

 

Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne play parents to a child who, after they move into a new house, lapses into a coma that remains medically unexplained for months until the mother starts hearing voices on the baby monitor and seeing people who aren’t there, etc. As is customary with this kind of flick, she freaks out and insists they move but, of course, that doesn’t help because – dun dun duuuun – it’s the kid that’s haunted, not the house.

 

‘Insidious’ is very frightening, in parts, but it is also incredibly derivative, borrowing from practically every film one could possible think of, from ‘Paranormal Activity’ to, of course, ‘Poltergeist’ which it desperately wants to emulate. A subplot involving goofy paranormal investigators is so tonally inconsistent, it might as well have been edited in from a completely different film, while the moment a psychic puts on a gas mask to contact the netherworld should be unsettling, but is stupidly funny because of just how deadly serious it tries to be.

 

The ghosts, or demons, or whatever, are mostly effective, but they are stock of the most obvious sort, from a Victorian child, to the aforementioned woman in black and, somewhat hilariously, a hoof-footed fellow who bears more than a passing resemblance to Darth Maul. They are all quite terrifying, until Wan gets too cocky with his flimsy creations and shows us a little too much of them.

 

We should be frightened, disturbed even, but it’s difficult not to laugh when faced with Darth Maul, sharpening his knife-glove (sound familiar?), and a slightly burned Argus Filch, ambling around as though he has no idea whom he’s supposed to be attacking.

 

The main issue with ‘Insidious’ is that more time is dedicated to establishing the spooky stuff than the main characters, whom we need to invest in to care about whatever else is going on. Wan, along with writer (and sort-of star) Leigh Wannell, seems to think that simply putting people in a spooky house is enough, sometimes over-explaining, or showing too much, others not at all, which leaves the film feeling empty and emotionless, while the moments that do hit, jar quite badly. The reliable Patrick Wilson is great as the sometimes absent father with a sort-of secret from his childhood that sets up an undercooked twist in the final act. Wife Rose Byrne constantly tells him she’s terrified but doesn’t act as though she’s anything more than bored and a bit sleep-deprived. Ty Simpkins is rendered almost useless, as disturbed son Dalton, since he spends most of the film comatose, but when he does get a moment to shine, he’s given little to do besides whinge and act terrified.

 

It’s all a bit of a waste, especially since, for a film such as this to function correctly, and to really be scary, the characters that populate them need to be really well drawn. If they are simply props, around which spooky shit can happen, it’s little more than a rickety old ghost train, playing out onscreen to varyingly entertaining levels. In a lot of ways, ‘Insidious’ is little more than a rubbish theme park ride that lasts a little bit too long.

 

It’s scary, spooky and fun but neither original nor inventive enough to be memorable. The ending makes a vague attempt at shocking the audience into submission, but it’s more of a pop than a bang. The sequel apparently picks up right where this one left off, but hopefully it has some ideas of its own, which are hopefully outside of what far superior paranormal-themed films have already done, or we may be in for much of the same again, only this time, with even less of a surprise element.

 

Editor Footnote:

 

While completely agreeing that some demons may not as be half as terrifying as they first appear, and the lack of involvement or depth held by the lead family, without a doubt 'Insidious' is one of the scariest films of recent years. Darth Maul may not be the most inspired casting choice but support from Lin Shane gives a terrific performance as mediator Elise Rainier and with Chapter 2 just around the corner, hopefully Wan can keep everything that made Chapter 1 so terrifying and add some "further" depth to the characters.

 

There is no doubt that 'Insidious' is a worthwhile addition on every horror fans collection and shows how to make a scary film without the use of gore that paved the way for this years smash hit, 'The Conjuring'. A 5 rating for fear speaks thousands and is no lie although a 4 rating would be more fitting if you want to watch this as the scare fest it truly is.