A tiny, globular confection that changes colours and flavours is described as an immortal gobstopper in Roald Dahl’s “Charlie & The Chocolate Factory.” It repeatedly repeats this. And it never diminishes, never vanishes, and never quits spinning a web of experience. I’m happy to say that James Wan’s films are, in my opinion, timeless stunners because of this.
The Australian auteur has directed tonal explosions of film for the past 17 years, movies that pour everything but the kitchen sink onto celluloid and create art from the leftovers left festering in its disposal. No genre is impenetrable and no cliché is uninteresting. The melodramatic revelation of unexpected family relations can find the new flavour of knowing camp in Wan’s hands. A CGI-heavy set piece can have an uncanny, dismal, and earthy vibe to it. It’s hardly surprising that Wan has become one of our most financially and artistically successful producers of blockbuster entertainment; after all, the everlasting gobstopper was created as a method for anybody, regardless of income level, to feel wealthy through a simple yet profound experience.
Movies can do this as well. And whatever of your opinion of Wan’s work, it’s difficult to contend that they fall short of that promise. You weren’t paying close attention if you leave any of them feeling as like you didn’t get your money’s worth. So, here is a list of every James Wan movies in alphabetical order:
Aquaman
“Aquaman” by Warner Bros. is a fairy tale. If you haven’t seen James Wan’s most popular movie to date, that could sound counterintuitive, but it’s made obvious right away. The tale of a man who can communicate with fish returning home to defend his dignity, his family, and his undersea realm certainly sounds like it meets the definition of a fairy tale, which is a children’s story about magical beings and lands. This fanciful approach is what sets “Aquaman” apart from every other comic book movie that has been made this century.
Looking back, widescreen folklore was always the finest method for telling Arthur Curry stories. Being trendy is not something that magic worries about. Magic is a fun pastime (and, occasionally, spiritual transformation). In Wan’s movie, Aquaman is transformed from a joke to a titanic travel guide through the history of Atlantis, dangerous desert temples, and the deepest parts of the Marianas Trench. Wan was the perfect director to guide that voyage because his movies nearly always delved deeply into complex, frequently comical lore.
As well as allowing Julie Walters to voice an underwater beast and Patrick Wilson to provide his most theatrical on-camera performance to date, “Aquaman” also gets to be hilarious, badass, and awe-inspiring all at once. It goes beyond its comic book roots to actually contribute to the corpus of contemporary fairy tales.
Death Sentence
James Wan’s “Death Sentence” is a must-see, but it doesn’t make it a great movie. The plot, which is frequently cliched and involves a regular dad (Kevin Bacon) witnessing the death of his son by gang members and becoming vigilante on the entire group, doesn’t distinguish between its knowing platitudes and its worn ones. What’s worse, even from dependable mainstays like Bacon, Kelly Preston, and John Goodman, who are always a highlight of Wan’s films, the performances are frequently hit or miss. There are many more successful possibilities if you’re looking for a revenge film in the style of the 1970s.
So why is “Death Sentence” even worth talking about? Simple: the chase through the garage. For two minutes and twelve seconds, “Death Sentence” elevates to its highest potential and demonstrates Wan’s sincere, talent-expanding effort. The sequence, which was captured in a one continuous take, shows Bacon dodging a number of irate ne’er do wells on several levels of a concrete parking garage. Several times, the camera even passes outside the structure itself as it swerves in and out of moving vehicles. It’s ostentatious and highly staged, yet it also tries to be original in some way.
There was nothing comparable in Wan’s filmography at the time of its release. Years later, it seems like a sudden development of cinematic strength that would have enabled Wan to hammer out “Aquaman’s” close-quarters battle or power-lift the sweeping action of “Furious 7.” As a result, “Death Sentence” is significant. Simply put, it still isn’t good.
Dead Silence
I find it interesting that the definition of “critical faculties” in the Miriam-Webster dictionary is “the ability to make judgments about what is good or truthful.” This concept dispels the notion that a work of art, like James Wan’s “Dead Silence,” cannot simultaneously be good and nearly unbearably horrible. Camp is permitted by “good and true,” and “Dead Silence” is a happy form of camp.
The Leigh Whannell-penned “Dead Silence” was first met with some confusion, much to Wan’s most recent film “Malignant.” Its narrative, which revolves around a murderous ventriloquist doll, indicates a departure from the dark mind tricks of “Saw,” but in reality it was just that and more. In this movie, Donnie Whalberg embraces 1940s noir detective clichés while oddly constantly shaving, Shirley Jackson’s small-town Gothic is prevalent, and there’s a sequence when row boats are placed in the wrong spot. Is it decent? Yes. Is it really so horrible at times? Sure. Does Wan appear to be aware of these two facts? Yes, but in future works he’ll do a better job of executing that dichotomy.
In retrospect, “Dead Silence” serves as the foundational element of Wan’s style. With its paint-splattered dialogue and completely absurd final plot twist, “Dead Silence” seems much more intentional when viewed via a campy perspective. It is accurate and, more importantly, it is good.
Furious 7
Near the middle of the exuberant “Furious 7,” Brian Terretto (Paul Walker) yells, “Dom, cars don’t fly!” and then a cherry red muscle car rips through the glass of an imposing Dubai tower and ploughs through another. With a wink and nudge, it delivers a rush of awesomeness. The jubilant set pieces of Wan’s significant contribution to the Fast and Furious series, however, are all apparently built up for its shocking conclusion.
Let’s discuss that conclusion. There is no getting around it, just as there is no getting around Paul Walker’s passing or the unbearable realisation that the road every person takes eventually comes to an end. The loss of its initial North Star was ironic and unavoidably terrible for a series whose second act is focused on accomplishing the impossible — automobiles towing safes through Rio De Janeiro’s cities and confronting armoured tanks. How in the world does a film, much less the creators of it, even start to understand Walker’s absence?
Wan’s solution: make use of the director’s talent at emphasising subtext for gut-wrenching effect. The movie’s climactic sequences are too remarkable to reveal, but suffice it to say that they both uphold the series’ propensity for escape and explain why it’s important. They serve as a reminder of the reasons we like watching movies and how much we may even depend on movie stars. They are the most exposed sequence of images Wan has ever committed to film, and they elevate “Furious 7” to the status of one of the most accomplished and fulfilling action movies of the 20th century. Heroes ride out into the distance in flying cars. Maybe we’ll run into them again.
Insidious
Wan, a talent whose work was not only remarkable but also practically ubiquitous, was, in many ways, covertly, the formative filmmaker of my twenties. In the Saw franchise, which saw a new episode come out every year from 2004 to 2010; he dropped two movies in 2007. So, by the time Wan created “Insidious,” it was simple to understand him. Even the most indifferent moviegoer could say, “Oh, yeah, the ‘Saw’ man,” and then recline in their seat.
The movie “Insidious” completely destroyed that idea. Wan and Leigh Whannell’s fourth joint project has a really wicked undertone. You get the overwhelming feeling that this will be the simplest section of the movie to sit through when Rose Byrne slowly shuts the door to her child’s attic bedroom minutes into the film. You are correct, too. Light terrifies. the unexpected removal of important characters. It all gets done in “Insidious.”
Wan’s penchant for excess is turned into a kind of self-imposed test in “Insidious”: How many unique ways can I frighten a crowd? Then it vaults the bar that it has repeatedly established. Because they stick in your head, Wan’s movies are worth writing about. Your most exposed cortices accept “Insidious” and hum. At 24 years old, I saw it, and I’m still buzzing.
Insidious: Chapter 2
The sequel to “Insidious” is not James Wan’s worst work. One may contend that a number of other images on this list deserve to hold that distinction on any given day. However, it is difficult to dispute that “Insidious: Chapter 2” is anything but the least James Wan movie. The director had never directed a sequel or a film that felt like a rehash of his earlier work before it came out in 2013. But “Insidious: Chapter 2” deliberately goes back on itself; Josh, a nice dad with a square jaw (played by Patrick Wilson, a regular with Wan), has been tormented for decades before the revelation that made the first “Insidious” so unforgettable.
And just to be clear, sequels frequently follow that route! However, Wan performs best when he sincerely strives for something novel; you can almost feel his excitement. That spark is absent from “Insidious: Chapter 2”. The reason it’s the worst James Wan film—rather than just being bad—is that it’s tedious. Skip it whenever you want.
Malignant
Please watch “Malignant” twice, I beg of you. No, it’s not dense with mythology or tough to grasp on the first watch, but you won’t know what kind of movie you’ve been watching until you get to the end. Giallo was used to market “Malignant”. Its trailers sent chills down our spines. nonetheless, the last movie? Not really. A campy horror soap opera influenced by “John Wick” and 1980s VHS tapes, “Malignant.” It is without a doubt the most James Wan movie that has ever been made.
Is it now fantastic because of that? Not naturally. However, what’s intriguing about the complaints levelled about “Malignant” — that it’s illogical and inconsistent in tone — is that they mirror the compliments paid to Wan’s most well-known work. However, “Malignant” makes the absurd its main currency, in contrast to “The Conjuring 2,” which abruptly departs from naturalism with stylistic accents, and “Aquaman,” which adds drumming octopi as a flourish.
While watching this film, you’re encouraged to feel foolish and bewildered. It’s more akin to “Sorry To Bother You” or “Dr. Strangelove” than “Insidious,” and thanks to its stunningly original mashup of amusements, it becomes one of the most entertaining blockbusters in recent memory. Twice watch “Malignant.” Not only will this make more sense, but it will also demonstrate how outrageously entertaining the film actually is.
Saw
“Saw” shouldn’t exist because, even by independent film standards, it barely made it to the finish line, not because it unintentionally gave rise to a plethora of inferior clones and coined the awful term “torture porn.”
“The film I ended up with was more gritty and raw around the edges, due to the lack of time and money,” James Wan said in an interview with the A.V. Club. Wan genuinely struggled to capture all the necessary video while he was filming. We took a lot of steps to close plot holes all throughout the movie, he said. “We actually did that out of need,” the author says. “Whatever we cut to, whether it be newspaper clippings and something like that, or surveillance cameras, or still photography within the film, which now people say, “Wow, that’s such a cool experimental way of filmmaking,”
More than a clever strategy, excess out of necessity is what makes Wan a masterful director and what keeps “Saw” from becoming a flop. It testifies to Wan’s natural instincts regarding aesthetic pivots that “Saw,” which is him at his leanest and meanest, yet contained unexpected detours, which eventually became the secret weapons of both “Aquaman” and “Malignant.” “Saw” is the archetypal horror movie of the aughts thanks to its nauseating cinematography, nihilistic story twists, and schadenfreude-filled sense of humour. That demonstrates both its efficiency and Wan’s skill in capturing the zeitgeist since the beginning of his career. The existence of “Saw” has permanently changed mainstream culture even though it shouldn’t.
The Conjuring
No James Wan movie, in my opinion, has lost more money than “The Conjuring.” Yes, “The Conjuring” is a classic of the genre. The seven movies it gave rise to undoubtedly make up the most popular shared cinematic universe that isn’t called “Marvel,” and the original skillfully strikes a balance between tense set pieces, lavish period details, and tired franchise-expansion. It’s equivalent to saying “Candyman” into a mirror to claim that “The Conjuring” has lost any of its power. It looks awful. Then what? I’m moving forward.
This is a ranking of the finest James Wan films, not that “The Conjuring” is poor. Each film is being judged on its general excellence as well as how well it accomplishes the director’s goals. The latter sense is where “The Conjuring” suddenly falls short. The Conjuring 2 more fully realises every aspect of it. In hindsight, “The Conjuring” is a little boring.
The movie also fails to make the Warrens, whose real-life past is somewhat shaky, into anything more than blank canvases onto which scares are projected. Here, they merely exist, unlike in the sequel and “Annabelle Comes Home,” which cleverly portrayed them as silly but honest representations of core Christian principles. Although not as strong as it once seemed, “The Conjuring” is nonetheless important. Something’s not always fantastic just because it’s a mainstay.
The Conjuring 2
Soon after a demonic nun is forced into the Amityville horrors, but before Patrick Wilson sings Elvis Presley’s “Can’t Help Falling in Love,” 2016’s “The Conjuring 2” becomes the creation of a single artist. James Wan’s films have always stood out, but they hadn’t before been so cohesive. It’s not all jump scares and musical pieces in “The Conjuring 2.” It’s a franchise-launching, world-hopping thrill that really works as a movie. Why? Wan is first and foremost at the top of his game technically.
Take this straightforward fright. As Lorraine Warren makes her way into a haunted basement, the build is all exuberant camera motion, a terrifying glide that veers toward Dutch angles. We are aware of the location of the threat when the movement finally comes to a stop in front of a mirror covered in sheets. Wan then keeps us waiting for another 30 frantic seconds. That construction is superb.
Wan also has confidence in himself. With “The Conjuring 2,” director James Wan begins to gallop with unchecked zeal after taking a stride toward gonzo filmmaking with the parking garage sequence from “Death Sentence” and showing a passion for the technical aspects of his craft with “The Conjuring.” There are set pieces in this movie. It doesn’t leave anything out, which feels more like the movie’s central concept than just sloppy cutting. The first movie of James Wan’s second era, “The Conjuring 2,” screams, sings, and fires on all cylinders.
