They're having such a joke on us because there is a ridiculous element to it and one of the things that I think they fall into the trap of showing too much. Horror and being scared is much more effective without actually seeing.
You couldn't have said that better. It got to the point where I just started to assume that there would be a scary face or a jumpy part around every single corner. And what was up with the "Michael Jackson" version of Hell at the end??
Jul 26 - 11:52 PM
Not to mention Darth Maul being the villain!
Aug 8 - 03:30 PM
I actually liked this movie much more than other commentors here, but I do have to say I think maybe the exposure of the main villain at the end in "the further" was maybe not a good idea. Sort of interesting in some respects, but also made him cartoonish.
Aug 9 - 02:57 PM
You essentially just admitted to being retarded.
Aug 30 - 01:23 PM
I agree with this review. The first half of the movie was quite scary, but then it dissolved into silliness for the reasons you mentioned. As an aside, I did think the view of the primary antagonist demon in his chambers, with the music playing was pretty cool. Not scary, but cool.
Aug 19 - 08:50 PM
Completely disagree , to many of todays modern horror such as paranormal activity ( which in my opinion was a terrible film ) build vast amounts of suspense and then leave you with nothing. Whereas, insidious topped off the suspense with pure horror making it far more shocking and horrifying than most of the recent films which are unsatisfactory. Personally I think this was a step in the right direction for the modern horror genre.
Sep 19 - 03:05 PM
I strongly disagree with you. I would rather have a monster or ghost in a movie revealed then have it hidden the whole time. Whats the point of seeing a movie about ghosts and not seeing any?
Jun 27 - 07:44 PM