Malignant (James Wan, 2021)
Having seen the trailer for Malignant, I was expecting a film which was closer in kind with James Wan's The Conjuring. I don't think I can be blamed for expecting a more self serious, straightforward film, due to most of its directors work in the horror genre. James Wan and Leigh Whannel brought the Saw franchise to life. Later entries in the series would be a little more self aware and take themselves a bit less seriously, but Wan's first installment was a straight, serious film. As much as horror can be about having fun with a good scare, some level of self seriousness is more the norm these days, despite how fantastical or absurd different parts of the premise or story may be. Wan's Insidious took itself a bit less seriously than his other horror work though, and as it had some good scares, it was also very aware it was about having a good time. It's worth mentioning he's also the director of the DC comics film Aquaman, whose charm is in the degree to which it does not take itself seriously. He also directed Furious 7, the seventh installment of the Fast and the Furious franchise, the entire point of which is defying physics, human psychology and logic far, far behind the importance of having a fun time watching impossible characters do impossible things with cars and motorcycles. As closely associated as Wan is with horror, he knows how to have other kinds of fun at the movies.
Aquaman, made over a billion dollars in globally. There have been nine films in the Saw franchise, at least six of which dominated October's box office, as it became something of a tradition to get a new Saw film around Halloween each year. The franchise has made $477 million dollars, in total. The Conjuring franchise has become it's own cinematic universe, with 7 installments currently and at least two more on the way. It is a veritable goldmine, having grossed a combined $2.1 billion against a combined budget of $178 million. The Insidious franchise, now with four films and a fifth on the way has grossed $539 million against a combined budget of $26.5 million.
All of this is must be understood because it is the only possible explanation for a major studio to finance and release Malignant. There is no possible way a director without a history like Wan's convinces a major studio to make this film. It is utterly bonkers. It is not at all what the trailers suggest.
Instead of being a straight forward horror film, it's somewhere between the melodramatic, semi-paranormal psychological thrillers of the 80's and 90's like In Dreams, starring Robert Downey Jr. and Annette Bening, and the ridiculous oeuvre of Larry Cohen. There was a spate of 90's thrillers which based their story, in some part, on someone seeing through a killers eyes as they commit their crimes (this much is in the trailer, so it's not a spoiler). Expecting something much more conventional, I initially had a hard time with the first two acts of the film. It doesn't lean quite hard enough on the camp to give itself away in those first two acts and my initial reaction was befuddlement. Wan's films have their issues, but on a technical level he's a gifted filmmaker and this was coming off as just terrible, almost as if The Hallmark Channel decided to try making a genuine horror film. In the third act though, it commits to being completely, unreservedly batshit crazy to a degree it became clear I'd been misreading and misinterpreting the intentions in the first two thirds. Taken as a whole, the overwrought melodrama in those first two thirds is actually camp, and this isn't a film taking itself at all seriously. It is absolutely dedicated to being silly and fun, in a container shaped like a horror film. I've seen a number of critics suggest they saw some degree of influence from the Italian giallos of the past, but outside of the commitment to melodrama and a few quick shots using color in a stylized manner, it's hard to see giallo as a primary influence. Giallo is a genre/sub genre generally defined by a fully stylized approach to the cinematography, use of bright color and either an undertone or unmistakable overtone of suggested sexualization in its violence and/or story. None of those are present in Malignant. Of course, I could be wrong, and someone may provide some evidence for this that I missed, but as of now, I just don't see it.
Had I seen this on Netflix, without much idea of it's pedigree, I would have been impressed with the filmmakers commitment to the concept, star Annabelle Wallis' commitment (including a noticeably unflattering wig), and the success with which they pull the entire crazy enterprise off. That this is a film financed by Warner Brothers, distributed by Warner Brothers in theaters and on its streaming platform, HBO Max, is stupefying.
Where this film goes in the third act is shocking in its audacity, because of how utterly ridiculous it is and how hard it leans into it. In a way, this is a perfect marriage of what Wan has done before. It does take the violence up to a pretty graphic level. Everything is so utterly over the top and ridiculous though, there are moments which ended making me laugh harder than any straight comedy has made me laugh in years. There is a specific line during the big finale, between Wallis protagonist and the antagonist, which caused me to cackle and double over. Annabelle Wallis' commitment is a thing of wonder and beauty, because it is so utterly ridiculous, and she plays it so perfectly straight.
The closest film I can think of to Malignant, might be Sam Raimi's Darkman. If Darkman were the story of a comic book superhero, Malignant is the story of a superhero villain in that same universe. Malignant, being the villains origin, leans hard into the horror of the story. Both films share a strange conglomeration of commitment to their premise, reaching some level of camp due to this commitment and the absolute refusal to acknowledge in any way how over the top and ridiculous they are. This plays out in the depictions of violence as well, they're so over the top as to be closer to something like a comic book than the standard horror fare which is meant to frighten or unnerve.
This is by no means a general audience movie. I repeat again, I am dumbfounded by this being a major studio film. It's weird, bloody as hell, with a tone I don't think a general audience is going to be able to embrace. That being said, for those who can appreciate the weird and unusual, this is basically guaranteed to become a favorite. I have nothing but respect for James Wan for choosing such a bizarre project as the film he was going to make after Aquaman. The same is true for screenwriter Akela Cooper for a screenplay so dedicated to the ridiculousness in the story by Ingrid Bisu. Let's hope some of the other filmmakers who are making finding incredible box office success with comic book movies and other previously established intellectual property are as adventurous and have as deep a commitment to the weird.