The haunted-house genre has proved fruitful for Australian filmmaker James Wan, whose low-budget scarers "Insidious" and "The Conjuring"
earned generally favorable reviews and combined to gross more than $350
million worldwide. But according to many film critics, Wan's latest
such effort, "Insidious: Chapter 2," doesn't have anything new to offer.
In a review for The Times, Robert Abele
wrote that Wan and co-writer Leigh Whannell "confidently line up their
ducks in a row for more of the same half-shocks, fraught wanderings,
horror-repurposed items ... and garish PG-13
apparitions. But after the pleasurable free fall into old-fashioned
nightmare artistry that was last summer's 'The Conjuring,' this
busy-yet-dull sequel feels like Wan robotically flexing his manipulation
of fright-film signposts, an exercise more silly than sinister."
The New York Times' Jeannette Catsoulis called the film
"a mess from start to finish" and added, "'Insidious: Chapter 2' is the
kind of lazy, halfhearted product that gives scary movies a bad name.
From its robotic acting to its generic props (enough already with the
self-motivated children’s toys), this shoddy sequel, tacked together
with the cynicism of a carnival barker, suggests that the director,
James Wan, is long overdue for a vacation."
USA Today's Claudia Puig also found the film lazy. She wrote,
"'Insidious: Chapter 2' appears to be the sum of the unusable parts
from James Wan's recent haunted house feature 'The Conjuring.' Yes, of
course it's the sequel to 2010's 'Insidious,' but it seems cobbled
together from outtakes. ... [T]here's nothing remotely subtle or sly
about this lazy movie."
Justin Lowe of the Hollywood Reporter agreed that the sequel is overly familiar. He said,
"In 'Chapter 2,' the filmmakers essentially replicate the same
derivative approach employed in the original, stringing together ideas
and associations from 'The Exorcist,' 'Poltergeist' and numerous other
haunters, this time with a generous dose of 'The Shining' incorporated
as well. Setting aside the movie’s tediously lame dialogue,
self-conscious performances and frequently predicable scares, the
narrative's compulsively shifting chronology intermittently manages to
engage, although it does little to obscure the distracting shortcomings
of both plot and character development."
The San Francisco Chronicle's Peter Hartlaub said,
"'Insidious 2' has a few memorable frights, a willing cast and a
professional crew behind the camera. But even as it succeeds in the
moment, it's hard to get around the fact that the sequel is entirely
unnecessary. We'd rather see Wan and his co-conspirators put out
something new." That said, one can "at least credit Wan for making
quality control a priority."
Not every review has been critical, however. Variety's Scott Foundas, for example, called "Chapter 2"
a "modestly scaled and highly pleasurable sequel." He adds, "Wan and
Whannell once again spin a ripping good ghost story here. ... They’re
terrific pastiche artists, freely raiding our collective storehouse of
horror-movie memories and arranging them in fresh, unexpected ways. ...
[W]here so many sequels seem like mere remakes of their predecessors,
with bigger budgets and less imagination, 'Insidious” Chapter 2' feels
like a genuine continuation of characters we enjoyed getting to know the
first time around, and wouldn’t at all mind returning to again."
If audiences agree, we might yet see a "Chapter 3."
FROM: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-insidious-chapter-2-movie-reviews-critics-20130913,0,7428344.story
Home
Insidious: Chapter 2
'Insidious: Chapter 2' haunted by unoriginality, reviews say
'Insidious: Chapter 2' haunted by unoriginality, reviews say
2013. szept. 13.
Címkék:
Insidious: Chapter 2
0 megjegyzés:
Speak up your mind
Tell us what you're thinking... !