Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: James Wan's Malignant

  1. #1
    Administrator Ian Jane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Queens, NYC
    Posts
    63,217

    James Wan's Malignant

    "On September 8, every kill brings him closer to you. Watch the new trailer for Malignant - from James Wan the Director of Saw, Insidious, and The Conjuring. Coming soon to cinemas. #MalignantMovie

    “Malignant” is the latest creation from “Conjuring” universe architect James Wan (“Aquaman,” “Furious 7”). The film marks director Wan’s return to his roots with this new original horror thriller.

    In the film, Madison is paralyzed by shocking visions of grisly murders, and her torment worsens as she discovers that these waking dreams are in fact terrifying realities.

    “Malignant” stars Annabelle Wallis (“Annabelle,” “The Mummy”), Maddie Hasson (YouTube’s “Impulse,” TV’s “Mr. Mercedes”), George Young (TV’s “Containment”), Michole Briana White (TV’s “Black Mafia Family,” “Dead to Me”), Jacqueline McKenzie (“Palm Beach,” TV’s “Reckoning”), Jake Abel (TV’s “Supernatural,” the “Percy Jackson” films) and Ingrid Bisu (“The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It,” “The Nun”).

    Wan (“Aquaman,” “Furious 7”) directed from a screenplay by Akela Cooper (“M3GAN,” upcoming “The Nun 2”), story by Wan & Ingrid Bisu and Cooper. The film was produced by Wan and Michael Clear, with Eric McLeod, Judson Scott, Bisu, Peter Luo, Cheng Yang, Mandy Yu and Lei Han serving as executive producers.

    Behind the scenes, Wan was joined by his frequent collaborators, director of photography Don Burgess and editor Kirk Morri (“Aquaman,” “The Conjuring 2”), production designer Desma Murphy (art director, “Aquaman,” “Furious 7”), as well as costume designer Lisa Norcia (“Insidious: The Last Key”). The music is by Joseph Bishara, who has composed the score for all seven films in “The Conjuring” Universe, among many others.

    New Line Cinema Presents, In Association With Starlight Media Inc. and My Entertainment Inc., An Atomic Monster Production, a James Wan Film, “Malignant,” will be released in theaters beginning 1 September 2021 and will be distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures."

    Rock! Shock! Pop!

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    2,026
    He certainly is!

  3. #3
    Administrator Ian Jane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Queens, NYC
    Posts
    63,217
    New trailer.

    Rock! Shock! Pop!

  4. #4
    "Conjuring universe"? Egad.

  5. #5
    This will be on HBO Max starting September 10.
    VHS will never die!

  6. #6
    Oh my, I saw this recently, and I wasn't really planning to, but someone spoiled it a bit for me. I won't go all into it, but during the first few minutes of the movie, you get the idea what you'll be in for. Also, I could have figured it out early on, just as I figured out what the deal with the hair was early on. The spoiler I got, and I'll be vague, is that someone mentioned it was not a possession film and if I had seen a certain film with a Basket. FUCK! Ya spolit it! Then again, now I want to see it.....

    The movie, you'll get the idea what is going on early in the film, so don't mind. It's not a possession film. Myself, I liked it! It's not exactly a remake, HOWEVER, there are some subtle nods to that 1982 film that Malignant, at times, somewhat heavily borrows from, such as that neon sign glowing into a certain apartment. Oh, I got that nod, for sure.

    So, hey, I had a good time! It was better than Green Knight, for sure. Now, it is a bit over the top at times, especially at the end, but, hey, was that film from 1982 not also over the top at times? Now, the 1982 film, one of my favorites, and Malignant can't reach the levels that film is, however, as a film that borrows from it, and does something a bit different, it was good stuff.

    ALSO, it has some practical effects! Ah, so nice to see on the big screen, reminds me of how, "Realistic" things once looked before almost everything became CGI. Reminds me, i hope one day that recent "Thing" film gets released with the practical effects in there. I recall being so disappointed after that film was hyped about practical effects, only to find out later some higher-up didn't like 'em, and had it almost all replaced with CGI. Now, there is CGI in this film, however there is a decent chunk and some key scenes that use practical effects, and it was so nice to see.

    Give this one a look, it's a bit silly at times, over-the-top during the last 1/4 of the film or so, but, it was a decent time I liked it. Not a possession movie! Film does run a bit long, could have been tightened up just a bit, and the very end could have been a bit different, but, it was a decent time. I'd watch it again!

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    2,026
    Welp, this movie went over at the box office like cancer.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Darcy Parker View Post
    Welp, this movie went over at the box office like cancer.
    I read that it only brought in 5.5 million over the weekend, 40 million budget. Still, it placed 3rd.

    It's not a bad little film, over-the-top, but a bit of fun. Also, some practical effects which are always nice to see in a modern, especially horror, film. It's a film that's worth a look, it's not a possession film.

  9. #9
    Dick, you beat me to it. I was going to say a lot of what you said.

    The movie didn't start out as anything unique, and as I watched it I realized why I don't care much for a lot of Hollywood horror movies nowadays, not just Wan's: filmmakers seem to think that having "frights" occur every couple of minutes is more effective than building up to them. It isn't. After a while, it's gets tiresome. (That's why to me, in the recent IT offerings, Pennywise became pretty boring in short order.) They really don't seem to understand pacing very well.

    That said, what ultimately makes this movie entertaining is the way it transforms in the last act into an outrageous action/sci-fi/horror hybrid, with a twist worthy of any Z-grade flick. Would I recommend it? Probably not, at least not the whole thing. But if you have a half-hour to spare, you may want to cue this thing up to around the 80-minute mark, sit back with your favorite junk food and enjoy.
    VHS will never die!

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorne Marshall View Post
    Dick, you beat me to it. I was going to say a lot of what you said.

    The movie didn't start out as anything unique, and as I watched it I realized why I don't care much for a lot of Hollywood horror movies nowadays, not just Wan's: filmmakers seem to think that having "frights" occur every couple of minutes is more effective than building up to them. It isn't. After a while, it's gets tiresome. (That's why to me, in the recent IT offerings, Pennywise became pretty boring in short order.) They really don't seem to understand pacing very well.

    That said, what ultimately makes this movie entertaining is the way it transforms in the last act into an outrageous action/sci-fi/horror hybrid, with a twist worthy of any Z-grade flick. Would I recommend it? Probably not, at least not the whole thing. But if you have a half-hour to spare, you may want to cue this thing up to around the 80-minute mark, sit back with your favorite junk food and enjoy.

    Lorne, I'm a bit more kind than you are towards it. I wouldn't skip the first 80 minutes, the whole package I think works pretty well, I'd have just tightened it up a bit. Instead of a 111 minute run-time, it could have shaved 10 minutes off, though, it was still good stuff.

    James Wan, looking at films from him, I've actually not see many of his films, though I did pick up Conjuring 1 and 2 on Blu-ray at a Dollar Tree a while back, I'll have to give them a look sometime. I also see he did the film Malevolent, which I do recall seeing and finding pretty mediocre.

    This one here, it could have been Scooby-Dooby-Doo that directed it, wouldn't have mattered, to me. I still found it a decent little ride! It has spots I did not care much for that slowed down a bit, or made me roll my eyes a bit, though when I look at the entire film, hey, I had a decent time, and I am glad I went to see it. What sold me on it, was someone telling me it's not what I thought it was, some type of possession/ghost/whatever film.

    It's worth a look, for those who may have been on the fence about it, give it a go, it's not bad! Sure as heck better than Green Knight!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •