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)
Reviews (13)
Definitely don't expect another Insidious or The Conjuring – Malignant is really a long way from some haunted house horror (except for the first 10 minutes). In its visual stylization and overall concept, it does indeed resemble a giallo, but that doesn't mean that James Wan isn't innovative and hasn't crossed genre boundaries. Apart from the great action/fight sequences, the overall audiovisual treatment is once again up to par, which is already such a "Wan" standard. I find Malignant to be such a nice contribution to Wan's filmography, which he made sort of for himself and mainly for his own pleasure. Anyway, I enjoyed it a lot. [75%]
()
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.
()
Pure fun. The trailer touted a completely different film, but in the end James Wan actually made a Giallo purely for fun, but not the 70s Giallo, the serious kind that worked with pretty colours, a classic detective line and a masked killer in a black cloak, gloves and a knife; Malignant is closer to the later Giallo, which used to be spiced up with some completely insane fantasy element. It's hard to write about it without spoilers, but it would be a shame to reveal the film's plot twists. The script is fun because of the speed to which it builds up the plot, which is actually terribly silly and trashy. If it were another filmmaker, you might well wonder whether they are joking or being serious about this kind of film, but Malignant is clearly anchored somewhere in between. It has a lot of exaggerated details that seem downright comedic, which is obviously the intention, and it should be taken as some sort of playful joke with which the director had fun on the set, and which the viewer should also have fun with. That some of the details don’t make sense, it doesn’t matter.
()
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.
()
A bland episode of Tales from the Crypt that only becomes entertaining during the overblown Troma-like finale. The problem is that before it tears off the chain, it's preceded by a full-length runtime of sheer boredom, zero tension building, unimaginative gore, slavish Giallo allusions, generic characters and non-existent atmosphere. There's a real risk that you won't even be awake for the finale.
()
Batshit bonkers! Even Wan has realised that you can't live without gore. Emotionally, maybe at four stars, but genre-wise I have to give it a full score, because James Wan has once again delivered a horror film that is essential, that will not be forgotten and that has brought something out of the ordinary. Argento, Bava, Carpenter and Cronenberg, you can see them there to be felt and it's an homage to giallo, body horror, crime and most importantly Italy in the 1970s and 80s. Gloves, a stylish murder weapon, a black cloak and dark red. The beautiful Annabelle Wallis suffers from visions where she sees gruesome and raw murders (gorgeous!). Malignant will certainly not please fans of PG-13 ghost stories and probably won't say anything to teenagers as they need to have the term giallo explained to them, but I enjoyed it. Visually, it’s very appealing, the music is downright banging (the soundtrack already has a cult-classic feel to it). Like Wan's Saw, it has a likeable B-movie like story with a creepy twist that, while guessable beforehand, is disturbing and refreshing enough to make you forgive it. Everything culminates in the insane third act, where Wan gets unleashed like a lion that hasn't eaten in days. The prison scene is so stylish and insanely paced that even the The Raid would bow before it. I screamed with delight again and again and will probably replay this sequence every time I'm in a bad mood. When I read that violence makes people sick, it makes me sick. Not for fancy people. Story 4/5, Action 5/5, Humor 0/5, Violence 4/5, Funny 4/5 Music 5/5, Visuals 5/5, Atmosphere 5/5, Suspense 4/5, Emotion 3/5, Actors 3/5. 8.5/10.
()
A festival of bad decisions and red herrings, including some outright lies during the exposition. I am glad that James Wan is gradually trampling into the ground any expectations for the next variation on The Conjuring, but the direction he's taking is very wrong-headed for the given moment. The inferno of the last half hour does show how good of an action director he is, but I simply did not have the capacity to take anything happening on the screen seriously, even for a second. And yes, I understand that there are a lot of references and homages here, but when the source material you're referencing is a genre questionable at best, and you're replicating it in the majority of factors, I won't give you credit for imitation when the result is such a B-movie.
()
If the film, especially in the end, didn't crap on the rules of its world so much (the monster suddenly can't overpower a single bloke, but then it cuts a whole police station into shreds) and didn't offer a parody of Matrix-like action, I'd give it a happy 4*. The 80s concept of Basket Case driven by Wan's dark visuals and grindhouse violence is great, and even though we can see the twist coming, it's still fun to wait for it. An interesting genre flick, too bad Wan didn't stick more to the atmosphere and mystery of the first hour. 70 %
()
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.
()
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.
()
Argento. Hee hee hee. Cronenberg. Lol. A tribute to giallo. Ho ho ho. Dude, this is a total Vidocq in the sense of the work of a visual eccentric who is totally competent in the technical elements, but basically has no control over what's actually going on underneath the camera zooms, the staged action sequences, the simulated anamorphic lenses, and the CGI gothic madness. In the third act, it goes so far off the leash that it's resorts to pure camp. I didn't expect Wan could so comically screw this up.
()
I really dig James Wan! He operates in this genre like a fish in water, so I had high hopes for this project! The trailers got me excited, though they unfortunately gave away a few things; still, as a viewer, I experienced several crazy and surprising twists! Annabelle Wallis in the lead role was excellent—she had a tough time in a few moments, but she handled it brilliantly. The visual aspect was once again precise, and the camera work was outstanding. The intense soundtrack was just an added bonus. But what’s crucial for evaluation is the story. A few times I wondered what exactly I was watching because it sometimes felt like an over-the-top phantasmagoria, but in the end, with that twist, it all came together like a perfect puzzle (and that bloody mess at the police station... luxurious :D). Plus, I appreciated it from the perspective of a medical student :D You have to see it for yourself. It’s not really worth trying to explain rationally. For me, it’s 8/10. I'm looking forward to Wan’s next project :)
()
Ads