General
Movie review: You won’t want seconds of “Happythankyoumoreplease”
Apr 1st
“Happythankyoumoreplease,” a Manhattan rom-com starring, written by and directed by Josh Radnor (Ted on TV’s “How I Met Your Mother”), is a case of when bad scripts happen to good actors. Given its similarities to a bygone sitcom, one might call it “Friends” without benefits.
The film shares much in common with Radnor’s character, Sam, a gifted short-story writer who has yet to master long form. While individual scenes are appealing, the movie does not cohere.
Its three central characters are at that awkward age: too old for casual relations and not ready to commit. Sam is a writer circulating the manuscript of his first novel, a one-night-stand kind of guy. His friend Mary Catherine (Zoe Kazan) has a boyfriend who wants to move to L.A. His best friend, Annie (Malin Akerman), isn’t over her ex.
Sam is irresponsible on so many levels that it sabotages the movie. On the subway to meet with his literary agent, he rescues a young boy, Rasheen (Michael Algieri), separated from his companions. When Sam finds that Rasheen is at odds with his foster parents, he takes the boy in without notifying authorities.
Rasheen is not a character, but a plot device. Sam uses Rasheen to ingratiate himself with Mississippi (Kate Mara, sister of Rooney), a flirty redheaded bartender, and to create third-act complications.
The performers are likable and their attitude is fundamentally sunny. But in “Happythankyoumoreplease” (which takes its title from a cabdriver’s affirmation of gratitude)the plausibility quotient is so low that though you like some of the characters, you don’t believe in them.
From www.denverpost.com
Rose Byrne & Patrick Wilson talk ‘Insidious,’ superheroes and sequels
Apr 1st
Rose Byrne & Patrick Wilson talk ‘Insidious,’ superheroes and sequels April 01, 2011 ι Jarett Wieselman
Starting today Patrick Wilson & Rose Byrne can be seen in “Insidious,” a new horror movie from the creators of “Saw” which eschews that franchise’s penchant for gore in favor of endless old school scares. The result is an all-out assault on the senses that forced me to babygate the last third of the film. A commendable feat given the sheer volume of horror I imbibe in a given year.
To celebrate the film’s release, I sat down with the stars to talk about the arduous process of making “Insidious,” what attracted them to this movie and which of their past projects is due for a sequel!
PopWrap: Right off the bat I have to tell you, I’m a huge horror movie guy and “Insidious” had me babygating the whole time.
Rose Byrne: What is babygating?
PW: You know, where you watch a movie, like a baby, through your fingers.
Rose: [laughs] I love that!
Patrick: That’s a fantastic phrase!
PW: Are you guys fans of the genre?
Rose: I am. At least when I was younger. I used to make my mom get me the original “Elm Street” movies and “Creepshow.” Patrick, are you a horror fan?
Patrick: For me, it’s more about the experience – I still have images that freak me out, which is hilarious in hindsight, because most of the movies that scared me as a child really aren’t that scary anymore. But when I saw “Salem’s Lot,” the kid scraping on the window to me is like my “Red Rum” moment. I saw that movie again when I was 19-years-old and couldn’t believe I was frightened of it. But it really freaked me out as a child. I think it was actually a TV movie, which tells you how lame it was.
PW: What I liked about “Insidious” is how it embraces the idea that you’re more scared by what you don’t see.
Patrick: Yea man, it’s Jaws in the water.
Rose: There’s a lot of restraint. And that was a big appeal to me. It’s like a family drama inside of a horror film. The fear builds so slowly and by the end you’re ready to pop. I’m not really into the torture horror kinds of movies.
Patrick: I think that’s a different kind of scare. Movies like “Friday” and “Nightmare” and “Chainsaw” where you’re afraid of someone chasing you are different versions of fear. I always like headier scares …like “Salem’s Lot!”
Rose: [laughs]
Patrick: Like “the Exorcist.” I love complex character and actor and human emotion. That’s why I liked this movie. We hook them in with a very real situation of a family in a new environment and he’s not home that much, and she’s frustrated with kids and stressed. That’s a human element. Then, once you’ve got the audience, you can go wherever you want.
PW: I’d imagine as an actor in a horror movie, having actors playing these ghosts and monsters physically on set must be endlessly helpful.
Rose: Absolutely. It was very instinctual. I mean, when people jump out of closets at you, it’s scary. There was a lot of creepy music playing, things rocking, men staring at me through the window — I didn’t have to cast my mind really at all.
PW: With this, you’ve both spanned multiple genres — is one easier as an actor?
Rose: I don’t think so. I think they’re all exhausting in their own way. Comedy is so hard – it’s like drama but you have to get a laugh. For me, they’re all exhausting.
Patrick: Yea, I think in a weird way, horror is similar to comedy in that it’s really up to the edit. The way you deal with a scare is the way you deal with a laugh. The timing has to be perfect. When you’re dealing with fear or laughter – emotions that happen spontaneously – you hope it’s working. But in the moment, you really have no idea. Just keep asking the crew, “how was that?”
PW: Rose, I have to tell you — I’m mildly obsessed with Jackie Q’s music [her character from "Get Him To The Greek"].
Rose: [laughs] Get out!
Patrick: “Supertight” is awesome!
Rose: I played it for poor Patrick on the set.
Patrick: Poor Patrick? I loved it!
Rose: Oh you’re very polite. I was over excited one day and came into his trailer, like, “oh, these are my tracks” [laughs]. Meanwhile, he’s like a Broadway star and recorded music legitimately.
PW: Well, I bring it up because your character in “Insidious” is a composer — is there a burgeoning musician inside of you?
Rose: [laughs] Oh my goodness. I was pretty scared by the piano stuff. What I did as Jackie Q is about the maximum of my range. I had so much fun doing that in “Greek” and here, but it’s still very intimidating to me.
PW: I was shocked when I heard about the movie’s budget — it looks like an multi-million dollar production, but it was really made for around $800,000. Is that true?
Rose: Yep!
Patrick: It’s all on the screen. A movie like this separates the men from the boys. You gotta believe in the story you’re telling because it’s going to be long hours. I’m not an actor who complains – in fact, there’s nothing worse than an actor who complains. “oh, the shoot was soooo long.” I mean, how many people would trade places with you in a second? Come on. But that said, yes, this was a lot of hours crammed into 22 days, pretty quick takes.
Rose: We had this hilarious trailer, where everyone had a room separated by a sheet [laughs].
Patrick: You could hear everything! So you had to be game. You had to be all in – there was no time for attitude. It was fortunate that we all got along.
Rose: And [director] James Wan & [writer] Leigh Whannel are so great.
PW: Well, Rose, I don’t know if you’ll still feel that way when you hear Leigh is going around telling people you had a Brass Bathtub filled with Crystal in your rider.
Rose: [laughs] Where is that Crystal, I’m still waiting!
PW: One of the things I always love asking actors is, if you could revisit a character you’ve previously played to tackle part two of their story, who would you pick?
Rose: I wouldn’t mind another go at Jackie Q – she’s got a pretty flamboyant lifestyle. I would just love to see what her next move was.
PW: She’s “Supertight” with God now.
Rose: [laughs] R: Yea, she became Kabbalah. But I think that would be fun. what about you Patrick?
Patrick: I have a few. I did a comedy that no one saw called “Barry Munday,” I’d love to play him again. I’d like to see what Dan Dreiberg was up to from “Watchmen.”
PW: Did you get any superhero advice from Patrick when you signed on to “X-Men: First Class,” Rose?
Patrick: I didn’t know you were in that!
PW: [laughs] I’ll take that as a no.
Rose: Yea, you didn’t give me any tips!
Patrick: Who do you play?
Rose: I’m Moira MacTaggert, a CIA Agent – I’m not a mutant. I bring them together.
Patrick: Wow. That’s awesome.
Rose: It was really fun – a big ensemble. Like crazy big. But it was fun. I wasn’t familiar with the comics before, so it was a whole new world to me. That genre is amazing. the fanboys and all that. it’s wild. Did you have to do major greenscreen for “Watchmen?”
Patrick: Not really, no. Did you?
Rose: A little bit towards the end but not too much. The superheroes had more of that. I’m sure there will be some superhero envy when I see the film, but at the time I was thrilled not to get up at 2am [laughs].
“Insidious” is now playing
Photo: FilmDistrict
From www.nypost.com
New ‘Monsters, Inc.’ movie to be directed by Dan Scanlon
Apr 1st
Pixar has found a director for the upcoming Monsters, Inc. movie. Dan Scanlon, will make his full-length movie debut with the recently announced Monsters University.
But Scanlon is no stranger on Pixar grounds. He worked as a writer on Cars, and co-directed the short Mater And The Ghostlight. He also worked as story artist on Toy Story 3 and produced Up.
According to TotalFilm.com, Pixar’s chief creative officer John Lasseter confirmed Scanlon’s involvement in a press release: “Yes! Dan Scanlon is directing Monsters University! We’re very excited about it. Kori Rae is producing.”
Scanlon will follow-up Pete Docter, who directed Monsters Inc. in 2001.
Previously, The Daily Blam reported that the animation movie will function as a prequel, following Mike and Sulley during their tenure at the University of Fear, where they started off as enemies.
Monsters University will hit theaters in November 2, 2012, with Billy Crystal and John Goodman returning as the voices of Mike and Sully.
From thecelebritycafe.com
Jake Gyllenhaal Recalls ‘Debate’ On ‘Source Code’ Set
Apr 1st
For the skeptical filmgoers out there who love to naysay Hollywood plot twists and turns, the stars and director of “Source Code” want you to know that they’ve already taken any questions and concerns you might have about the story into consideration.
The film revolves around Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) on a mission to solve the mystery behind a devastating bombing, via Source Code technology — venturing into the mind of one of the passengers on the train, eight minutes before his death.
While director Duncan Jones told MTV News recently that the film requires a “leap of faith,” actor Jake Gyllenhaal promises that any questions you may have were already debated during production.
“The entire movie was a debate and the entire movie was also having to ask all the questions that the audience might be asking,” Gyllenhaal revealed. “Which is why I find it so successful that when you watch the movie, you can ask whatever question and think you know the answer, and we’ve already asked it or answered it,” he said, adding that the audience is constantly surprised. “Even if you’ve found out who the bomber is halfway through the movie, you don’t really know what’s going to happen.”
Gyllenhaal went on to say that everything came together perfectly in order to execute the story in the most entertaining and interesting way possible.
“It’s brilliantly written, it’s very clearly and brilliantly directed, which is so hard with a sci-fi movie and also at the heart of it is a character [for whom] we created a backstory that we thought a lot about,” he explained. “Each piece of his action is connected to what he does and why he does it and his own fate. I think, overall, we thought all the time, and that’s what made it so fun.”
Check out everything we’ve got on “Source Code.”
For breaking news, celebrity columns, humor and more — updated around the clock — visit MTVMoviesBlog.com.
From www.mtv.com
Insidious aching under the pressure of so many cliches
Apr 1st
Insidious
Insidious review: Scary movie genre could use more of this kind of homage
Joe Neumaier
Friday, April 1st 2011, 4:00 AM
A family is haunted by beings from another dimension. With Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne. Director: James Wan (1:46). PG-13: Scares, violence. At area theaters.
Shhh, hear that? That cree-eee-eek-ing sound? Was that coming from inside the house in “Insidious”? No, it’s “Insidious” itself, a horror drama aching under the pressure of so many cliches.
Yes, the scary movie genre could use more of this kind of homage than, say, another knife in the head. But there’s a thin line between turn-of-the-screw appreciation and been-there/jumped-at-that redundancy. Not to mention that this new film from James Wan (director of “Saw”) actually spends its second half haunting 1982′s “Poltergeist.”
Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne are Josh and Renai, parents of three young children who haven’t even unpacked the boxes in their new home when things go bump in the day and night. After their oldest son hits his head while poking around in the dark attic, he goes into a coma and can’t be awakened. Then Renai hears voices crackling on a baby monitor (movie ghosts love those things) and finds a bloody claw print on the kid’s sheets. Time to move again.
The creepy hijinks continue in the second new house, so Renai and Josh’s mother (Barbara Hershey, ahh!) call in a spiritualist (Lin Shaye) and her two goony assistants, who appear to be from an Upright Citizens Brigade sketch.
These otherworldly forces? They’re from another dimension the boy has “astral projected” into, they’re very familiar with the family and, naturally, now there’s a fire-faced demon looking to inhabit the body of the comatose boy upstairs.
If a scare-fair is going to work such familiar territory, a new take or tone goes a long way, something like “The Others” or “Drag Me to Hell.” To Wan’s credit, most of the dread in “Insidious” does come from anticipation and is paid off by low-FX moments like the demon’s shadow slowly opening his claws in a corner of a room, or a glimpse of a puckish ghoul dancing to old music on a phonograph.
Yet the movie’s internal logic never makes sense — the malevolent spirits want to steal empty bodies, except when they seem to be able to cross over “into our world” anytime they want — and the vision-in-a-photograph idea just isn’t startling anymore.
“Insidious” doesn’t feature the lazy, home-video-style terror of “Paranormal Activity,” thankfully. But it’s also pretty normal activity for a ghost story.
From www.nydailynews.com
Review: Little bounce in ‘Hop’
Apr 1st
Click photo to enlarge
“Hop” is a chip off the old munk — as in chipmunks, “Alvin and the Chipmunks.” Like the Alvin movies, it has critters interacting with real people. The critter in question — a bunny — is all about music, just like the chipmunks.
And like the last chipmunk picture, about the best one can say for “Hop” is that it adheres to that Hippocratic oath of children’s entertainment — “First, do no harm.”
The latest semi-toon from the creators of “Despicable Me” features an adorably animated and lifelike Easter Bunny and a somewhat less animated James Marsden, the hilarious prince from “Enchanted.” The bunny (voiced by Russell Brand) bangs away his days on Easter Island (literally), wrapped up in his drum kit. “E.B.” wants to be a rock star.
But Dad (voiced by Hugh Laurie) isn’t having it. It’s Junior’s turn to take over the family business. “We can’t make any mistakes. The whole world is counting on us,” the father counsels. The kid, growing up in a vast factory where the eggs, chocolate bunnies and candies are made, rebels. He runs away from home to Hollywood.
That’s where he runs afoul of Fred O’Hare (get it?), a 30ish slacker still living with mom (Elizabeth Perkins) and dad (Gary Cole). Fred hits the rabbit with his car and takes him in out of guilt.
Fred has to help E.B. find his way to Hollywood “heavyweight” David Hasselhoff. (“Hoff Knows Talent,” don’t you know.) And E.B. has to help Fred find his purpose, his “destiny.”
All well and good. But would it kill a writer or three to find a couple of laughs in all this? You’ve got Hugh Laurie and Russell Brand and you can’t give them a couple dozen zingers to make this thing move along? Why cast the hilarious Elizabeth Perkins and the reliably deadpan Gary Cole (“The Brady Bunch Movie”) if there’s nothing funny for them to do?
Only Hank Azaria, vamping it up as the Head Easter Chick in Charge, a megalomaniac named “Carlos” with an Azarian-Mexican accent, lands consistent laughs.
The slapstick is mild-mannered; there’s no romance, not a hint of emotion. The best gag might be the one before the opening credits. The Universal globe logo is shaped like an egg. Director Tim Hill (he helmed the first “Chipmunks” movie, shockingly) is all wrapped up in the “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” scenes — the egg-shaped Easter Bunny sleigh (pulled by chicks) and making sure the rabbit looks at home behind a drum kit. When E.B. jams with the Blind Boys of Alabama, you will believe a rabbit can keep a beat.
But even for a kids’ movie in the post-”Yogi Bear/Marmaduke” marketplace, even for a critter comedy where the critter has very big feet, “Hop” stands out as particularly flat-footed.
From www.mercurynews.com
Movie review: Hop
Apr 1st
by Alex Bentley
Easter movies aimed at kids are in short supply. Now we know why.
In the grand tradition of commercializing making movies about holidays, there’s nothing quite as underrepresented as Easter. Christmas, of course, far and away leads the pack, but everything from Halloween to Valentine’s Day to freakin’ Groundhog Day has gotten their turn at the cinematic bat. Easter, of course, has been well-represented in the religious sense, but watching The Passion of the Christ again is almost no one’s idea of a good time. And when the “best” movie featuring the lighter side of Easter is It’s the Easter Beagle, Charlie Brown, it was only a matter of time before someone decided to fill that void.
Jumping at the chance to do so is Hop, a half animated/half live action comedy about the origins of the Easter Bunny. Turns out that it’s a tradition handed down from generation to generation of bunnies living on, naturally, Easter Island. The island contains a massive factory where chicks (as in tiny chickens) oversee the production of any kind of Easter candy you can imagine, from chocolate bunnies to jelly beans. The current Easter Bunny (voiced by Hugh Laurie) is all set to hand the reins to his son, E.B. (voiced by Russell Brand). The only problem? E.B. has no interest in the job, preferring to spend his days lazing around, playing the drums, and dreaming of a life far from his own.
When he’s about to be forced to take up the Easter Bunny mantle, E.B. hops in the magical portal used to deliver all that candy around the world to transport himself to Los Angeles, where he soon makes the acquaintance of human slacker Fred O’Hare (James Marsden) – insert groan here. The duo teams up for a series of nonsensical events, with an extended cameo by David Hasselhoff and the continued pursuit of E.B. by a trio of mercenaries known as the Pink Berets being the highlights.
Some will question why this needs to be said, but Hop is first and foremost a movie for children. It’s silly fun that only has a passing interest (a stop at the front gates of the Playboy mansion here, an appearance by the actual Russell Brand there) at engaging adults on any level. “So what?,” you may say. “Kids deserve their own entertainment, right?” Well, yes and no. I have no objections to filmmakers taking direct aim at kids’ sensibilities. But when two of the writers, Cinco Paul and Ken Daurio, were also responsible for one of 2010′s best animated films, Despicable Me, which offered plenty for both kids and adults, the bar should be raised a bit higher. On the other hand, Hop is also directed by Tim Hill, who helmed such other animated/live action combos as Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties and Alvin and the Chipmunks, so things kind of balance out there.
None of the actors fare very well. Everybody who appears in human form is given free rein to overact, the only natural thing to do when you’re trying to converse with a talking bunny. Marsden takes advantage of this the most since he’s the one who’s in the majority of the scenes with E.B. Brand seems to have a ball as E.B., but given his normal comedy persona, it’s hard to see him as anything but overly restrained with most of his lines.
Whether Hop is successful at the box office or not depends on whether families are willing to tolerate a film that thinks that blasting random pop/rock songs is a way to generate excitement, that drops key plot points shortly after bringing them up, that views the height of cleverness as having an egg-shaped globe. Some may not expect more from their “kids” movies, but I sure do.
From www.pegasusnews.com
‘Hop’ director Tim Hill: Our movie almost didn’t make it
Apr 1st
Unlike most of their peers, directors of animated-live action hybrids live largely in the Hollywood shadows. Their names are rarely front and center, even though they have among the the trickier jobs in the movie business, balancing studio demands, creative needs and effects logistics.
Tim Hill learned of these issues firsthand when he got behind the camera for this weekend’s “Hop.” The buddy (bunny?) comedy tells of a slacker twentysomething (James Marsden) and the Easter Bunny’s reluctant heir apparent (an animated rabbit voiced by Russell Brand). The Universal movie is the second offering from Illumination entertainment, the “Despicable Me” production company headed by Chris Meledandri.
Even by hybrid standards, the challenges didn’t let up on “Hop” — to the point that the movie almost didn’t make its Easter-themed release date. On a recent afternoon in the production offices of the movie, Hill, who previously directed “Alvin & the Chipmunks,” opened up on those challenges.
24 Frames: Part of what’s tricky with a hybrid movie is that you’re essentially directing two films for the price of one. Does that make for a difficult experience for a filmmaker?
Tim Hill: It does. You shoot half your movie, and then when you stop it’s kind of a false summit. You think, “Whew, that’s over.” And then the mountain’s so much higher. There are 10 or 15 minutes of full CG in this movie that hadn’t even been conceived until after we stopped shooting. And we only had 10 or 11 months to make the movie and, once we stopped shooting, six months.
And you had the added issue of the Easter tie-in — it wasn’t like the film could get pushed to Christmas.
TH: The way you calculate this kind of movie [coming in] is you say, “What’s the most time-consuming, what am I going to get screwed on” and you start to identify the hotspots that are really going to kill you. And in this case there were a lot of them. Animation you can change as you go — it’s not like live-action. You’re spitballing way after you should be, and that’s when we got into the “Oh [crap], are we going to make it?” And they [animation and effects studio Rhythm & Hues] finally said, “We’re not going to be able to deliver your movie.”
Yikes, did it actually get to that point?
TH: It was a crisis, basically. I think what they were doing is drawing a line in the sand. So we got it to them and then we said, “Where are we?” And they said, “This we can do and this we can’t do.” So there were a lot of things we still wanted to do and they would say, “We can’t do that.” They had hundreds of people working, but there wasn’t enough time. They have to animate and go through so many processes. That’s why it takes animated films two or three years to make instead of less than a year. They said, “You can throw all the money you want at us. We can’t do it.”
So it wasn’t about them hiring more people?
TH: No, they had people in India, they had a worldwide effort to bring out this movie. It was crazy. It really felt for a while like something was going to suffer. I got really worried. Either the acting would suffer or the characters would suffer, or everything would come out of the oven too soon. It would need a couple more passes that would make it better. Because I am pretty picky. So I’d say that there are a few shots in there where, I don’t necessarily cringe, but I’m like “Oh, I remember we had to final that one because of the time.”
When did you first get the sense this would be such a crunch?
From latimesblogs.latimes.com
‘Limit’ less than accurate
Apr 1st
Imagine a pill that could give you the ability to recall every single moment of every encounter you ever had and access the information when needed.
This creates the concept of “Limitless,” starring Bradley Cooper (“The Hangover”), Abbie Cornish (“Sucker Punch”), and Robert De Niro. The movie presents an account of a fictitious drug that can alter the intelligence of a person’s brain.
Cooper portrays a down-on-his-luck writer Eddie Morra, living in New York City as a shy, reserved slob. A chance encounter with his ex-brother-in-law, Vern, introduces him to a new pill, called NZT. Although not yet released to the public or deemed medically safe, Eddie takes the drug and finds himself with increased focus and intelligence.
Able to finish writing his book in one night, he becomes addicted to the drug. Immersing himself in the stock market and corporal world, he catches the attention of corporate mogul Carl Van Loon (De Niro). Van Loon soon invites Eddie to work for him, but Eddie is distracted by the disastrous side effects of the drug as well as harassment from a suspicious gangster. Eddie must evade threats toward him and his girlfriend Lindy (Cornish) and cure himself while simultaneously deciding on his business ventures.
The movie starts off from a certain point in the story, and the previous events are told through a documentary-style narrative. The storyline is solid, with a few action scenes intertwined, including a chase scene and suspenseful fight scene.
Cooper is decent in the film, considering his character evolves from a pessimistic writer to a confident and adept investor. De Niro presents a concrete performance, yet his character is slightly underdeveloped, appearing in mostly non-pivotal scenes. However, it is satisfying to see an actor of his ability still making films with diverse concepts.
Some elements of the movie are not scientifically accurate, though. For example, the movie states that we use only 20 percent of our brain, when in fact we use 100 percent, according to a 2008 article from scientificamerican.com. It is not surprising to find fictional facts in a movie, as most nowadays contain some.
The concept of the drug is what makes the movie intriguing. The premise questions the possibility of a pill like NZT. While it could exist in reality, an MSNBC.com interview with Professor James Kakalios from the University of Minnesota reveals that the user would actually have an opposite effect, resulting in decreased intelligence. For now, it is suitable to imagine this possibility by watching an action film with some suspenseful scenes.
From www.thebv.org
Movie Review: ‘Insidious’
Mar 31st
The makers of “Insidious” — who have, by the way, done a shrewd and scary job — cite various supernatural titles as inspirations, including “The Exorcist,” “Poltergeist,” “The Sixth Sense” and the great, supple nightmare “The Innocents.” From such a list we can only glean that director James Wan and screenwriter Leigh Whannell admire all sorts of fright, from the blatant to the insidiously subtle. This one lies at an effective halfway point between those extremes.
New home, new life: That’s what the couple played by Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne want from their relocation to a handsome, wood-trimmed bungalow. With three kids in tow and boxes still unpacked, however, the family slowly realizes it’s playing reluctant host to supernatural guests. First, a few bumps in the night, a missing keepsake or two. Then comes a frightening voice on the baby monitor. And before long, son Dalton, played by Ty Simpkins, suffers an “accident,” and lands in an unexplained coma.
The script initially carried the title “The Further,” which is the otherworldly realm where the young boy’s mind takes him in comaland. In a “Poltergeist” nod, the distraught parents turn their son-recovery concerns over to a seasoned occult expert, played by Lin Shaye, who travels with a pair of comic-relief paranormal investigators. As the movie progresses the story grows more and more baroque and horror-movie-y. I prefer its earlier, more indirect and atmospheric scares, but “Insidious” represents a sound compromise of instincts, straddling the need to grab teenagers interested in PG-13 gotchas and the collaborators’ desire to rework an old haunted-house formula, honorably.
One of the producers, Oren Peli, was the young phenom behind the stripped-down, daringly uneventful “Paranormal Activity.” I liked both “Paranormal Activity” pictures; for millions of teens jaded and pummeled and clobbered by “Saw” and “Hostel,” they were among their first movie lessons in the virtues of slow-burn tension over high-volume viscera. It’s a matter of taste, of course. But “Insidious,” nicely acted by all and photographed in creepy, cold, underlit tones by John R. Leonetti and David M. Brewer, restrains itself in terms of technique sufficiently to appeal to an uptight middle-aged fud like me.
mjphillips@tribune.com ‘Insidious’
MPAA rating: PG-13 for thematic material, violence, terror and frightening images, and brief strong language
Running time: 1 hour,
42 minutes
Playing: In general release
From www.latimes.com
