Insidious: Capítulo 3

Visto durante Challenge Tour - Caza Fílmica: Tarea número 10 - una película que te asusta o a la que le tienes miedo. Para el tercer episodio, me emocioné mucho, estuve asustado en algunos momentos, lo cual necesito y pido de una buena película de terror. El guion no es necesariamente la joya de toda la película, pero no tengo altas expectativas para las películas de terror. Si me asusto cinco veces, tengo malos sueños o tengo miedo de entrar a la oscuridad, estoy satisfecho y la película ha cumplido su propósito. Hasta ahora, la mejor parte de la serie es la segunda. (13.07.2015)

Sustos intensos del grupito que los sabe hacer mejor que nadie. Es que Blumhouse es para películas de terror lo mismo que Pixar para las de animación. Pero el final es flojo, y el esquema argumental, incluyendo cada escena individual, es solo un reciclador de cosas ya vistas. Debido a esto, la más débil de las tres. (21.06.2015)

Solidly made, but this time unfortunately it’s an utterly uninteresting safe bet. The first one laid down the rules and introduced us to the Further and the second one expanded the story in an interesting way, but the third instalment just follows the path set by the trend in ghost/exorcism movies and doesn’t have anything that I didn’t already see in the previous two episodes, and better. For Whannell’s standards, the script this time is woefully unoriginal and unsurprising. Lin Shaye is still great, but she alone is not enough for a higher rating, especially if she lacks the support of the other stars, who unfortunately deliver weak performances. The demon is also great, but we don’t get to know much about it. The film is chock full of jump-scares – unfortunately, I must add, because they always erase any signs of an atmosphere. And the worst is that they go nowhere, the demon shows up, says Boo! and then leaves. Throughout the film I never felt that the heroes were in any sort of danger, that the creators will really let the demon kill them. A barking dog doesn’t bite. That’s probably the biggest complaint for a horror movie. (05.06.2015)

I must admit that I had expected a loose but very similar sequel to the first two parts of Insidious. But it never occurred to me that I might be getting a film that knowingly pokes fun of all those monsters, demons and nightmares. It’s as if the movie took the Insidious name only to make fun of it and it got away with it without any problems. On the other hand, I was saying to myself whether I should cry about those illogical plot holes or whether I should simply enjoy scene after scene. You see once two guys with the punk image of ghostbusters burst into the teen horror halfway through, the movie gains a whole new unique dimension. On top of that, the technical side of the film isn’t actually too bad. All in all, this is a film that you can’t take seriously and that’s how you have to approach it. (17.10.2016)

Well made, but no more than that. Where the first movie was innovative and the second was interesting in terms of story, the third one is routine and repetitive. Whannell honours Wan's work and manages to produce a satisfying amount of effective jump scares, but he rather overdoes it in the climax, and the final exorcism of is a recyclate of the shoddiest nature. Does it matter that it's nice to look at and that the cinematographer, director and composer all deserve praise when they have contributed to a film that nobody needed to see, given its predecessors? 65% for the intention and the honesty. (28.07.2015)