Paul Giamati is in this. Sometimes that alone is enough for a movie to be good. Not always (Fred Claus) but  a good deal of the time (American Splendor). Even when the movie isn't great  he usually holds his own and elevates garbage (Shoot Em Up).

ANYWAY, this is not really about the talented Mr. Giamati but the good, small movie, Win Win.

What do I mean by "small movie." Others may have different definitions but mine has a few components. The movie didn't cost loads of money, it is not grandiose in setting, scope or , overtly at least, in subject matter. I will allow no contemplation of deep eternal mysteries in a "small" film. It is not about some great leader and it is shot in an understated fashion. When it is all these things, to be good, the writing has to be spot on and the acting has to be too. This isn't a complete definition but like the U.S Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart I state, "I know it when I see it." I am referring to "small movies" not pornography like Justice Stewart.

These are often my favorite type of movies when done well ("small movies" not porno). They call to mind last year's Get Low and Turtle Diary (1985). They are about everyday people living everyday lives who have to confront something--and that something might be everyday living or it might be a plot to release prisoner turtles.

No one in this film is made out to be EVIL or turned into caricature. Everyone has faults and does stupid little things and sometimes stupid big things. But you see the characters know what they are doing is wrong. Good people who feel trapped often do things they are not proud of but where does it leave you in the end?

In an old fashioned, Old Testament-style story or any episode of The Untouchables, the bad or even those who make a small mistake GET IT. But in these small movies it doesn't happen like that. How many truly evil people do you know? Bad? Sure. Evil? I mean Hitler-evil? Probably none. And sure people sometimes make a bad but everyday decisions with severe consequences. They tar the driveway when it is 103 degrees out and get heat stroke. They try to clean the rain gutters with a rake during a thunderstorm and get struck by lightening.

But these are few and far between. Mostly we make mistakes and we learn from them and live with them. We usually get a second chance, a third chance a fourth chance and then we learn something. And that is what small movies are like--life.

You will notice I have not mentioned anything about wrestling yet. That is because this is about wrestling in the same way True Grit is about horses. It is something people do. It is a great choice of a sport because it is both an individual and a team sport in a unique way. Everyone in this movie is part of a team of some sort.

I could write about what people do and the plot but I won't. There are no M. Night Shymalan twists here. But the slow unfolding of who each person IS, in the film is worth seeing for yourself rather than having someone tell you about it.

Horror movies always require complete suspension of disbelief. Because, really, there are no vampires, ghosts, zombies or demons--with all due deference to the exorcists of the Catholic Church. To accept the premise of ANY horror movie is to step outside the bounds of reality.

But once outside of those bounds the horror movie needs to give something back. They have to creep you out, make you jump or make you think about it later when you are in bed in the dark. Insidious delivers on the first two at least. There are creepy moments and there are several “jumps.” I am also fairly sure this movie has convinced me that baby monitors are the primary mode of communication for evil entities with the living.

The music and title that bracket the film hearken back to horror films of the 50s and early 60s; think Vincent Price, think Peter Cushing, think grand ideas, hammy acting (juxtaposed against FINE acting) , grandiose ideas and low budgets. In this case you can (mostly) leave out "hammy acting." Insidious’ acting is understated and professional. They seem like real people which contrasts nicely with the more otherworldly characters.

The “other world” is where the movie sort of moves a bit into the silly. It is hard to imagine this wasn’t intentional. The “other world” itself looks a lot like the dream sequence from a Mexican soap opera. The film also has the least scary demon ever to be put on screen. He looks like someone who couldn’t remember if the casting call was for Darth Maul or an extra in Cats.

BUT, again, no way is this not consciously done. This is camp by design so accept that before you see the movie and you will be fine!  I’d say demons and ghosts and the like are always scarier when you catch just glimpses of them rather than a clear look (especially when you want to keep the budget down). That is also when Insidious makes you jump. You do not jump when you see a puppet-loving demon sharpening his (or her) claws while listening to Tip Toe through the Tulips (although that song creeps me out on its own). You jump when you hear loud bangs, when forms slip by in the background or when ghosts (or whatever) appear for a split second. It is those sorts of things that, in real life, make the hair stand up on the back of your neck. It is the same in the movies.

The early part of the movie recalls (for obvious reasons) the Paranormal Activity films.  There is creaking. There are shadows. But UNLIKE the two "Paranormal" movies, Insidious moves on from this rather quickly and into ghouls of a more corporeal sort.  You see them in the background and then BAM; they are in your face. Some of the creepiest parts of the film are, literally, snapshots the characters look at.  I wouldn't frame any of those family pics in my house if I wanted to be able to sleep again.

The movie doesn’t try to explain the rules of the supernatural much. That is mostly a good thing. Knowing specifically how a demon can be defeated is a good thing in a movie.  But it can also be bad. When the explanations are stupid you wind up with Poltergeist 3. They can also be long winded. So, unless you have a succinct, coherent set of rules? Leave that shit OUT.

Insidious delivers on the basics of horror and gives a little more with the use of ACTORS. I tremble to think of this movie with a cast incapable of understated performances. I also tremble to think of it with writers who felt the need to explain everything or directors/producers who felt that they needed to have a JUMP every ten seconds instead of allowing tension to build. In this movie sometimes you get wound up and nothing happens, which makes the next time, when something DOES go bump in the night, seem much more alarming.

And the bumps are not all in the night. I liked the fact that the ghosts were daytime active too. Why wouldn’t supernatural beings that can astral project come out during the day? That always sounded like bullshit to me in ghost stories, reflecting our fear of darkness. Why would our disembodied souls be the opposite of US? I make too much of this but I am pedantic. What can I say?

In most ways Insidious gives all you can ask in a horror movie (but not in ALL ways). The self-conscious kitsch may not appeal to all.  But you probably will jump here and there, catch references to other recent horror films here and there and learn a tad more about how not to dress as a demon next Halloween.

Wow. I have rarely been as surprised as I was about an hour into the movie, Hop. I stepped into the theater making bets with myself not over whether I would want to scratch my eyes out but how many minutes into the film would I want to scratch my eyes out. I was surprised, not only by the lack of blood and eye goo on my fingernails, but by the fact the movie was actually GOOD. Seriously, it is good. No self-inflicted optic distress whatever is necessary.

Some will roll their eyes at this but this movie isn’t supposed to be for grown-ups and yet grown-ups can watch it. I have seen a lot of kid’s movies in the past decade. Most of them are unwatchable. Some of the animated films are fine but not really for young kids. Hop even has a few laughs in it, a minimum of cultural references aimed at the middle aged (there is one subtle very funny one though) and James Marsden is suitably clueless and charming in his role as a man-boy loser confronted with a talking rabbit.

David Hasselhoff makes an appearance and when he showed up the five year old I was with turned to me and said “He was in Spongebob!” I was also accompanied by a 13 year old who laughed.

The movie does a basic layout so the plot makes a modicum of sense but they do not spend a lot of time in this explication. Many such movies make a mistake and feel the need to “fill in the back story”.  Most films with a talking rodent for a leading man should lay off the back story. It is a movie about a talking rodent. Just keep the fart and poop jokes to a minimum and for the sake of all that is HOLY do not kill any close relatives of any protagonists.

I don’t know about you but I am not sure five year olds need to deal with their parent’s mortality when they attend a movie. All those old Disney movies have a dead parent and revenge of some sort at their core.  They suck. Yes! I know! Heresy.  But Bambi and Dumbo are maudlin and boring as hell and really depressing. Kids don’t need to see that shit and I think you will find kids won’t watch that concentrated tedium these days. We were just more easily entertained as kids. We had three networks and pong for fuck’s sake. These kids have hand-held computer games with exponentially more memory than used by the computers that ran the Apollo program. Those old Disney movies are for old people. Your kids will HATE them.

“Ooooh the animation is so beautiful.”

So what? There are probably porno movies that had decent cinematography too.  Doesn’t mean they are classic and art. Snow White can blow me. And lets not even get INTO Song of the South.

Disney produced stuff continued to suck until Pixar appeared and started making movies with less murder in them (even Tarzan has dead parents and the bad guy gets HUNG at the end…awesome! What is next a kid’s cartoon of Faulkner’s Sanctuary)? AND if anyone tells me Fantasia is a better movie than Wall-E I will punch them in the face (I threaten to do that a lot more frequently that I actually do it).

But I have digressed from Hop. This might be spoilerish but one of the things I liked was that pretty much no one in the film seems shocked by a talking rabbit. As Hasselhoff explains “My best friend is a talking car.”

The film just doesn’t waste time getting from point A to B. It isn’t memorable particularly but as one friend of mine said, “It is about time they made an Easter movie.” I was comparing it to Elf but it probably isn’t THAT good but it is that good-natured.