Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

Insidious on Saturday channel 4 at 9 oclock


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-09-2013, 16:25
Spider Rico
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,056
Excellent film. One of the best horrors of the last few years, in my opinion.
Spider Rico is online now   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 08-09-2013, 16:59
Orangemaid
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Thin Land--haha :p
Posts: 40,967
it was scary i thought
Orangemaid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 19:38
meechyemoo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 530
I enjoyed it.

Spoiler
meechyemoo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 19:40
Muttley76
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: I wear a Stetson now...
Posts: 89,353
I liked the first half, didn't really like the odd sort of tangent it went off in the final third.
Muttley76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 19:44
Barbra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,823
I think this film is average at best, can't see how it can be the most profitable film of 2010 (according to wiki).
Barbra is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 20:04
Muttley76
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: I wear a Stetson now...
Posts: 89,353
I think this film is average at best, can't see how it can be the most profitable film of 2010 (according to wiki).
Quite easy - It only cost $1.5 million to make and took $97,009,150 at the box office worldwide. It's profit margin in the US alone was 3601%

http://dkfwriting.wordpress.com/tag/insidious/
Muttley76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2013, 00:01
jalal
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 421
I think this film is average at best, can't see how it can be the most profitable film of 2010 (according to wiki).
Based on cost-to-gross which is a good measurement of profitability, so $1.5 million budget to $99 million box office gross is near equivalent to a film that could have had a budget of $99 million and grossed $1 billion, which no film did in 2010.

Although Toy Story 3 and Alice in wonderland grossed $1 billion they had a enormous budget of $200,000,000.
jalal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2013, 22:09
PJ68
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,652
i really liked the first half of this film. the director knows how to build tension, i jumped quite a few times. the conjuring was the same AND don't forget he made the first saw which was a brilliant film.

shame it goes all jokey in the second half. the ghostbuster in the specs (also the man NOT cary elwes in saw) is the writer yeah..?
PJ68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 15:03
dee123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,135
Quite easy - It only cost $1.5 million to make and took $97,009,150 at the box office worldwide. It's profit margin in the US alone was 3601%

http://dkfwriting.wordpress.com/tag/insidious/
1.5 million? Does that include the pay for Rose Byrne, Patrick Wilson and Barbra Hershey? They must have worked for next to nothing.
dee123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 20:28
Muttley76
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: I wear a Stetson now...
Posts: 89,353
1.5 million? Does that include the pay for Rose Byrne, Patrick Wilson and Barbra Hershey? They must have worked for next to nothing.
yep, total production budget, it won't include promotional costs, but for this film they would not have been high.

I wouldn't know about what sort of deal the actors got, but it may be they were on a contract whereby they got a % of any profits on top of a flat fee.

I think even given my mixed feelings about the second half of the film, it has to be said when you consider the film was made for around the same as a 45 minutes of a show like Doctor Who (which costs around a million pounds per episode) you have to say they did a good job really.
Muttley76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2013, 14:49
degsyhufc
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Up North
Posts: 48,006
I watched this last night. What a pile of wank!

I can't believe that some people are saying it's one of the scariest and best horrors of recent times. (ok, maybe I can because recent horrors have all been a bit shit).


It had a few of the usual 'scares' which I would compare as the equivalent of a cat jumping into shot. That was it.
degsyhufc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2013, 09:43
Karis
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,561
I find it depressing that people are using such derogatory terms for this movie. I happen to love it, but I rarely think any movie is w@nk or drivel. It's like the people making these off the cuff comments aren't investing any effort and / or intelligence into a movie and therefore it's rubbish.

But love it or hate it, Insidious is NOT a w@nk movie (or any of the other ridiculous comments on here).

What's far more offensive are the comments made on here.
Karis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2013, 09:47
JasonWatkins
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,890
Utterly abysmal film. Comes across as a low budget episode of 'Supernatural'. Or, to be fair, comes across more as the director took inspiration from early episode of Star Trek with their polystyrene sets and channelled that spirit of low budget film-making into this pile of dross.
JasonWatkins is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 13-09-2013, 00:00
wiseguy100
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hull, England
Posts: 1,126
What makes Insidious different from most horror films is the jump scares.

All other horror films use the clichéd hand on shoulder, cat jumping, shadow in foreground movin across the screen etc'.

The jump scares in Insidious were all real. As in, they were all the actual demons, ghosts etc', and not fake jump scares.
wiseguy100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-09-2013, 02:08
CJClarke
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The Middle of Nowhere
Posts: 7,265
Just saw the sequel earlier tonight as part of a double bill with the first film and surprisingly really enjoyed it. It was actually quite clever, I really liked how it tied into the first film. And thankfully they've left Darth Maul on the scrap heap for this one. Quite a few effective scares and a really good tense atmosphere. If you liked the first one or The Conjuring then you'll like Insidious: Chapter 2 ( I enjoyed this more than The Conjuring, partly due to the fact that this doesn't treat the audience like gullible idiots while attempting to pass itself off as a "true story"...).
CJClarke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-09-2013, 08:07
intruder2k
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 184
What makes Insidious different from most horror films is the jump scares.

All other horror films use the clichéd hand on shoulder, cat jumping, shadow in foreground movin across the screen etc'.

The jump scares in Insidious were all real. As in, they were all the actual demons, ghosts etc', and not fake jump scares.
But they're still jump scares, which is one of the most hackneyed, overused and over-obvious ways to provoke fright in an audience.

Give me a growing sense of unease and creeping dread a la The Orphanage or Ringu any day - mood and sustained ambience is much harder to achieve and much more impressive when it works...
intruder2k is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 21:04.