Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Is the acting INTENTIONALLY bad? Like, is that part of the twist? It's the only thing that would make sense.

---

I'm surprised it took you this long to realize this. How did the line/reading "It's time to cut out the cancer" two minutes in not clue you in?

---

So you're saying Wan intentionally hired bad actors? I seriously doubt it. Also, the bad acting had nothing to do with the twist, so I don't get your point.

It's melodrama.

It's was very entertaining. As a horror fan, it's was extremely refreshing as well.

TCTTS said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Is the acting INTENTIONALLY bad? Like, is that part of the twist? It's the only thing that would make sense.

---

I'm surprised it took you this long to realize this. How did the line/reading "It's time to cut out the cancer" two minutes in not clue you in?

---

So you're saying Wan intentionally hired bad actors? I seriously doubt it. Also, the bad acting had nothing to do with the twist, so I don't get your point.

---

Campiness used to be pretty commonplace in the horror genre. Wan was doing a call back to that. So yea I don't think he was looking for Oscar winning actors. And the dialogue all but ensured it would look like bad acting.

Too on the nose to be an accident.

I guess you would put this in the same category as Cabin in the Woods right? That said, this isn't nearly as good as that movie.

tamuags08 said:

---

I guess you would put this in the same category as Cabin in the Woods right? That said, this isn't nearly as good as that movie.

---

I don't know. I'd put cabin in the woods with scream as meta horror. This is exploitation, b movie camp horror like chopping mall and reanimator.

TCTTS said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Is the acting INTENTIONALLY bad? Like, is that part of the twist? It's the only thing that would make sense.

---

I'm surprised it took you this long to realize this. How did the line/reading "It's time to cut out the cancer" two minutes in not clue you in?

---

So you're saying Wan intentionally hired bad actors? I seriously doubt it. Also, the bad acting had nothing to do with the twist, so I don't get your point.

---

Not hiring bad actors so much as intentionally hamming it up. Corny dialogue, over the top music, it's all very intentional. As mentioned, this is a b-movie. It's no different than Robert Rodriguez's zombie flick in Grindhouse.

You know what would make this better? Seeing it at midnight showing in an old theater with other fans of the film. I really see this as a cult classic. Get Landmark Theaters and Alamo Drafthouse on the case, stat!

Oh man I would have loved to have seen this ten years ago in a packed college station midnight showing.

..and now the police station scene!!

....I am SO glad I decided to watch this!

Anyone reading this who have not seen this movie and is a fan of horror:

See this movie.

You may hate it (or be bored by the first half). You may not like the twist. But, by God, this movie has the most insane third act that has to be seen to be believed.

DO NOT LET ANYONE SPOIL IT.

It's a shame that this movie was dumped when it was in theaters and on HBO Max, because if this had gotten a big October theatrical release, I think it would have been a surprise hit. Especially with word-of-mouth.

GiveEmHellBill said:

---

Anyone reading this who have not seen this movie and is a fan of horror:

See this movie.

You may hate it (or be bored by the first half). You may not like the twist. But, by God, this movie has the most insane third act that has to be seen to be believed.

DO NOT LET ANYONE SPOIL IT.

It's a shame that this movie was dumped when it was in theaters and on HBO Max, because if this had gotten a big October theatrical release, I think it would have been a surprise hit. Especially with word-of-mouth.

---

One of the only movies I've seen in a while that was not completely spoiled by the trailers or commercials. An entirely different movie than the one you are expecting. Loved being legitimately surprised in the theaters for once.

Okay, I just found out on imdb that the old blonde hooker with the mullet in the holding cell was Tarantino fave stuntwoman Zoe Bell.

This movie was wild.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Is the acting INTENTIONALLY bad? Like, is that part of the twist? It's the only thing that would make sense.

---

I'm surprised it took you this long to realize this. How did the line/reading "It's time to cut out the cancer" two minutes in not clue you in?

---

So you're saying Wan intentionally hired bad actors? I seriously doubt it. Also, the bad acting had nothing to do with the twist, so I don't get your point.

---

Not hiring bad actors so much as intentionally hamming it up. Corny dialogue, over the top music, it's all very intentional. As mentioned, this is a b-movie. It's no different than Robert Rodriguez's zombie flick in Grindhouse.

---

If Aquaman also wasn't so bad, I could buy this. Is Wan on record as saying he purposely wrote bad dialogue, wanted terrible performances, etc? I totally get that this is just a dumb, fun movie I should turn off my brain for, and I get why everyone enjoyed it. I do. But I think you guys are being incredibly generous by saying Wan intentionally made it corny/melodramatic. Because everything I've seen of his is terrible, in exactly the same way.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

GiveEmHellBill said:

---

..and now the police station scene!!

---

The part where Gabriel flings the chair clear across the room and knocks them over had me legitimately LOL'ing.

---

It's the second funniest scene with a chair this year, after the one in "Nobody."

TCTTS said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Is the acting INTENTIONALLY bad? Like, is that part of the twist? It's the only thing that would make sense.

---

I'm surprised it took you this long to realize this. How did the line/reading "It's time to cut out the cancer" two minutes in not clue you in?

---

So you're saying Wan intentionally hired bad actors? I seriously doubt it. Also, the bad acting had nothing to do with the twist, so I don't get your point.

---

Not hiring bad actors so much as intentionally hamming it up. Corny dialogue, over the top music, it's all very intentional. As mentioned, this is a b-movie. It's no different than Robert Rodriguez's zombie flick in Grindhouse.

---

If Aquaman also wasn't so bad, I could buy this. Is Wan on record as saying he purposely wrote bad dialogue, wanted terrible performances, etc? I totally get that this is just a dumb, fun movie I should turn off my brain for, and I get why everyone enjoyed it. I do. But I think you guys are being incredibly generous by saying Wan intentionally made it corny/melodramatic. Because everything I've seen of his is terrible, in exactly the same way.

---

Aquaman was pretty cheesy but I think most people enjoyed it for the spectacle. Aquaman is a silly character historically. To make a $1B movie out of it (highest grossing DCEU movie btw), I'll give Wan some credit on knowing what audiences wanted out of Aquaman.

Other than that he has directed some awesome horror movies:

-Saw 1 (they got progressively worse but the first one is great and the only one he directed)
-Insidious (pretty great modern horror movie)
-The Conjuring (Halloween classic for me now)

Those are 3 of the best horror movies of the past 20 years. And the acting isn't bad in those. So I'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt as tonally this was completely different.

Pretty sure it could've had a disclaimer at the end explicitly stating that fact and you'd still not believe it.

I get that it's not your cup of tea but your cynicism towards Wan is honestly just weird.

Did you think Furious 7 was a serious action thriller?

Furious 7 pretty much sucked, and I quit the franchise after that, but at least the cast was charismatic and could act. During that movie, I never once thought, "How on earth did this person get a job acting in a studio movie?" I thought that multiple times with Malignant, though. These weren't good actors just hamming it up or whatever. They were truly terrible actors, given truly terrible dialogue. Yes, you could tell Wan was winking throughout, so to speak. I agree that the movie was "fun" in that way, and I was entertained, I guess, to a degree. But it felt to me like he was winking via the over-the-top-ness of the conceit, not that he was like, "Haha, also, look at these bad actors I hired to say this purposely sh*tty dialogue!"

This isn't to you TC, but the other stuff people were chatting about

But what difference does it really make if the actors are "truly" bad or if it's intentional? Either way it's the director's choice.

You're pretty much splitting hairs.

Saxsoon said:

---

This isn't to you TC, but the other stuff people were chatting about

---

Perfect.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

But what difference does it really make if the actors are "truly" bad or if it's intentional? You're pretty much splitting hairs.

---

Because people keep implying that Wan is some kind of sly filmmaker who was clearly in on the gag in this instance. And I'm simply countering that, no, he's just a bad filmmaker. He absolutely knows how to play to a certain crowd, I'll give him that, but there's no way he intentionally hired bad actors to give bad performances. That's all I'm saying.

Quote:

---

And I'm simply countering that, no, he's just a bad filmmaker.

---

Well that's certainly an opinion. But he made exactly the movie he wanted to make.

Even though at this point it's mostly a back and forth, I'm happy to see this thread approaching 100 replies. Had a blast watching this in the theater.. Probably watching it with my wife at home tonight.

TCTTS said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

But what difference does it really make if the actors are "truly" bad or if it's intentional? You're pretty much splitting hairs.

---

Because people keep implying that Wan is some kind of sly filmmaker who was clearly in on the gag in this instance. And I'm simply countering that, no, he's just a bad filmmaker. He absolutely knows how to play to a certain crowd, I'll give him that, but there's no way he intentionally hired bad actors to give bad performances. That's all I'm saying.

---

But, what about the rest of the movie?

You've singled out acting. Personally, I didn't see that or didn't care because the movie was entertaining as hell.

He's a "bad filmmaker" because the acting in this movie sucked?

TCTTS said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

But what difference does it really make if the actors are "truly" bad or if it's intentional? You're pretty much splitting hairs.

---

Because people keep implying that Wan is some kind of sly filmmaker who was clearly in on the gag in this instance. And I'm simply countering that, no, he's just a bad filmmaker. He absolutely knows how to play to a certain crowd, I'll give him that, but there's no way he intentionally hired bad actors to give bad performances. That's all I'm saying.

---

Agree to disagree I guess. He is one of the best modern horror directors along with Mike Flanagan and Ari Aster. If you aren't a horror fan, you probably don't like him as a director.

The fact that he can randomly go off a direct a cheesy billion $ movie like Aquaman or Furious 7 is impressive to me. They aren't even in his wheelhouse.

There is a reason WB apparently gives him free rein to do whatever he wants.

Can we get Gabriel on the Track and Field team?

Won't have the gif show up

https://tenor.com/view/malignant-chair-toss-gif-23092127

GiveEmHellBill said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

But what difference does it really make if the actors are "truly" bad or if it's intentional? You're pretty much splitting hairs.

---

Because people keep implying that Wan is some kind of sly filmmaker who was clearly in on the gag in this instance. And I'm simply countering that, no, he's just a bad filmmaker. He absolutely knows how to play to a certain crowd, I'll give him that, but there's no way he intentionally hired bad actors to give bad performances. That's all I'm saying.

---

But, what about the rest of the movie?

You've singled out acting. Personally, I didn't see that or didn't care because the movie was entertaining as hell.

He's a "bad filmmaker" because the acting in this movie sucked?

---

It's obviously not just the acting. As I said last night, it's his cinematography and his lighting as well (I legit think his movies look as bad the worst studio movies out there), along with the cliched horror tropes he uses. It's also the writing, the editing, and just the overall cheesy vibe of his stuff in general. For what this story is, on a macro level, I agree that he told it in a clever, surprising way. I'd even go so far to say that, narratively, he maximized the potential of this particular premise. And I realize that the stuff I'm referring to, most here don't give a sh*t about. But it's the kind of stuff - the technical stuff - I really care about, and I find it all just so consistently bad across everything I've ever seen of his.

I understand and have no arguments. I'm pretty much up-and-down on Wan's filmography.

Saw was a landmark movie in horror. I watched the first 3-4 before giving up as they really aren't my thing. My 14-year old son, however, LOVES the series. I might have felt the same when I was his age (I had Nightmare on Elm Street all over my walls and t-shirts).

I liked the Conjuring quite a bit. Haven't seen the second, but I see it's on HBO Max so I think I'll give it a shot after his latest movie.

Furious 7 was doomed the moment Paul Walker decided to get in the car with his friend for that ill-fated joyride. That movie had to be changed so much in reshoots and body doubles that I'm positive the movie we finally got is nothing like the movie that they started filming. It is the worst of the series, but I don't really lay any of that on Wan. I mean, the movies are ridiculous and almost border on parody.

Then, there's Aquaman. I have not seen this movie from beginning to end as I just didn't like it. As much as I want ALL comic book movies to be good, DC just has such a sh*tty record and Aquaman at least tried to be less dour than the previous DCEU movies. I watched about an hour of it on a plane and gave up.

I'm just glad that WB allowed this man (who gave them TWO billion dollar + movies) to make a movie that never would have been greenlit because it's just so.............insane.

All great points, and I'm in agreement with the vast majority of it. I'm actually glad Wan got to make this as well, and I'm legit happy it exits. It was big swing, and I almost always appreciate when directors take those. It just bugs me when people try to defend their enjoyment of it by saying that the poorly-executed elements were intentionally poorly executed. It can be fun and unique and entertaining and unintentionally bad all at the same time.

Were those aspects intentionally bad or unintentionally bad?

Don't care. The scene in the holding cell and with all the police officers was probably the most unbridled joy I've experienced with a movie since grinning from start-to-finish during "Nobody."

I thought the first half of the movie was just a pretty standard CGI horror movie that we've been getting for the past decade. But the last half-hour?