Directed by:
James WanScreenplay:
Akela CooperCinematography:
Michael BurgessComposer:
Joseph BisharaCast:
Annabelle Wallis, Maddie Hasson, Jake Abel, Jacqueline McKenzie, George Young, Michole Briana White, Paula Marshall, Mckenna Grace, Rachel Winfree (more)VOD (3)
Plots(1)
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. (Warner Bros. US)
Videos (2)
Reviews (13)
Malignant has everyone parroting the idea that James Wan has created a neo-giallo film. But let's be clear: this movie has nothing to do with giallo, despite the claims of some that it echoes Argento, Bava, and other icons. No, just no! I was really looking forward to this film since I usually enjoy Wan's work, but this time he completely missed the mark. I was shocked at how sloppy it felt. Sure, the bird's-eye shot is cool, but I just can't get past the overly digital visuals. It would've been better if the ridiculousness wasn't taken so seriously! By the way, I was baffled by comments saying Joseph Bishara's score is reminiscent of Riz Ortolani. That’s a stretch. Seriously, listen to Ortolani's work before making such comparisons. Also, if you're going to talk about Wan paying homage to giallo, maybe watch some actual films by Argento, Bava, Fulci, or Martino first. Wan isn't paying tribute to anyone; he's just doing his own thing with bits and pieces from various trashy sources. This is purely a James Wan film, and nothing more.
()
James Wan made a movie for fun. He made a horror film about a woman who becomes an unwilling witness to violent crimes, in the style of the B-horror films of the 1980s. He is not afraid of absurdity, even going for the slightly ridiculous at times, but at the same time the film is extremely imaginative and clever, and uncompromisingly his. You may find it terribly satisfying, or you may turn it off in disgust halfway through. But it's definitely worth a try. Because if you happen to be in tune with Wan, you'll enjoy it immensely.
()
You can definitely tell this film is directed by James Wan, especially in the second half where it really hits its stride. As many have noted, it nods to classic Italian giallo films, which is a nice touch. However, before the story picks up — and don’t expect much logic here — you’ll have to endure a stretch of dull moments that feel surprisingly out of place for Wan.
()
Cronenberg giallo through Wan’s lens? A lot of bombast that mainstream viewers won’t care about. I enjoyed the visuals, Annabelle Wallis and courage but instead of being pleased by the point and the climax resulting from it, I found myself shaking my head.
()
It seems Wan intended on making an insane horror movie about a mysterious killer. However, in doing so, he then got bogged down in all the carefully well-thumbed techniques and methods he learned from various ghost stories, and so he ended up with an overcomplicated, unintentionally ridiculous, and in every way an over-the-top piece of horseshit, in which a lot of things just do not make any sense at all because they have been thrown in simply for effect. Even so, the central idea (albeit patched together from all sorts of things that have come before), is quite interesting and thought-provoking. However, it should have been developed in a more restrained manner, with a smaller budget, and more concentrated approach. Why does this movie need those ambitious digitally enhanced CGI landscapes, megalomaniacal set design, and a running time of nearly two hours? It does not need all that really. All it would have taken was that instead of going off in an undisciplined way, doing whatever the hell he wanted. Also, if I see that every scene in his next movie is just an exaggerated onslaught of flickering lights, light-bulbs suddenly burning out, grainy images on phones, and radio static noise (because it is all supposed to be spooky bug-a-boo), I am going to be finished with him as a director for good.
()
Ads