Skip to main content

You’re a busy Betty, and I don’t like busy Bettys!

Haunter
(2013)

(SPOILERS) Haunter is nothing if not derivative, but frequently not of other horror movies. Which means it isn’t a hugely scary movie, so it’s unlikely to be clutched to the bosoms of aficionados of the genre. It’s also unlikely to be sought out by those who aren’t that partial to horror movies, as it sells itself as another teen horror flick. A medley of Groundhog Day, The Sixth Sense, A Nightmare on Elm Street and Ghost, Vincenzo Natali’s picture has enough inventiveness to escape becoming just another formulaic frightener.


The most refreshing part of Haunter is that it doesn’t make a meal of its twist premise. Of course, it’s only a twist if you don’t know about it in advance (Netflix apparently gives the game away in it’s movie description). We’ve seen more than enough pictures, post-Shyamalan, that have made themselves all about the reveal. This creates a top-heavy construction, guiding the audience by way of anticipation that is rarely satisfied. Here, we’re told in the first few minutes that Lisa (Abigail Breslin, all Goth eyeliner and Siouxsie and the Banshees t-shirts) is experiencing every day over and over again. It's a waking nightmare where she must watch Murder, She Wrote again and again and again. Any questions that arise over why she hasn’t done more to test the limits of her situation are answered when it is made clear she has only been in this self-aware state for a week.


Her relationship with her blissfully unaware parents, Bruce (Peter Outerbridge) and Carol (Michelle Nolden) is a neat variation on the troubled petulant teen; they refuse to entertain her problems, yet she is not inventing or exaggerating them to attract attention. Perhaps she should have been clued up much sooner that the imaginary friend of her little brother Robbie (Peter DaCunha) isn’t a figment of the mind, so in this at least it yields to the horror’s reliance on idiot protagonists.


Lisa is trapped within her home, a sea of fog permeating outside, and only she is aware that disturbing events are taking place there (objects moving of their own accord, ghostly presences). Natali is having fun, overlaying Peter and the Wolf as a signature on the soundtrack, but he’s slightly less proficient when it comes to conjuring the 1985 setting. The artefacts are there (video tapes, pop group posters, Pacman) but the cinematography really needed to go the extra mile; digital makes it a little too immediate.


Lisa’s attempts to contact the unknown forces via Ouija board trigger the reveal that she’s dead. Soon after, her parents stop repeating the day by rote, most notably as dad takes up smoking at the dinner table (“That’s not part of the routine”) and then descends into the mode of raging psycho (Outerbridge’s performance is outstanding, note-perfectly essaying the change from caring father to demented loon). Then the mysterious Pale Man (the legendary Stephen McHattie, the guy you get if you can’t get Lance Henrikson) pays a call and warns her to stop rocking the boat, or house. Natali keeps the audience guessing during this passage, and it reminded me a little of Christopher Smith’s elusive Triangle.


True, the Pale Man is your bog standard serial killer, complete with a ready line in archaic phrases (“You’re a busy Betty”) that wouldn’t sound out of place in Misery. But, to be fair, this is part of the picture’s time-jumping design, with a 1950s milieu lurking beneath the surface. His ghost was the former resident of the property (dying the year before the family moved in) and he is modus operandi is to lure more dwellers to their deaths.


Fairly familiar sounding, but McHattie’s drawn, menacing presence adds flavour to the scenario. More than that, the shuffling time periods furnish an effective extra layer to his sub-Krueger antics. This allows for intriguing variations on mysteries under the floorboards and nasties lurking in the cellar. Lisa is able to jump forward to 2013, into the body of the teenage girl intended as one the Pale Man’s latest victims, and so prevent history repeating. Her father is enacting the same Pale Man-guided routine that caused Bruce to kill his family (another striking reveal).


Natali was quiet for a few years prior to Haunter. His previous picture, Splice, was a divisive affair, an potent take on “scientist plays God” Frankenstein tales, but with an icky incestuous twist. Cypher, which shares Haunter screenwriter Brian King, fell into the previously mentioned category, a twist movie whose reveal didn’t quite support the groundwork laid. Natali’s first feature Cube illustrated his fondness for puzzle boxes, as a means of character self-realisation, which Haunter continues. For some reason he hasn’t quite attained the next level of success, perhaps because he likes to do his own thing (this may be a reason he can currently be found earning a crust and adding style to the overrated Hannibal), as does one of his heroes Terry Gilliam (Natali can’t claim to be quite so distinctive).


The finale works thematically, and Natali stages it efficiently, but it does feel like it's gone down the genre staple route (protagonist returns to face the monster alone). The most surprising part of Haunter is its unabashed happy ending. Lisa is reunited with her family in the afterlife, having defeating the Pale Man during a so-so showdown.  Sure, Natali adds McHattie calling Lisa over the credits, but that was probably a producer’s stipulation in case it did enough business to warrant a moribund sequel. It will be a shame if Natali’s career lingers in development hell (adaptations of High Rise and Swamp Thing). Haunter is one of the better haunted household movies of late, economically told while favouring narrative twists and turns over shock tactics.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

I don't like bugs. You can't hear them, you can't see them and you can't feel them, then suddenly you're dead.

Blake's 7 2.7: Killer

Robert Holmes’ first of four scripts for the series, and like last season’s Mission to Destiny there are some fairly atypical elements and attitudes to the main crew (although the A/B storylines present a familiar approach and each is fairly equal in importance for a change). It was filmed second, which makes it the most out of place episode in the run (and explains why the crew are wearing outfits – they must have put them in the wash – from a good few episodes past and why Blake’s hair has grown since last week).
The most obvious thing to note from Holmes’ approach is that he makes Blake a Doctor-substitute. Suddenly he’s full of smart suggestions and shrewd guesses about the threat that’s wiping out the base, basically leaving a top-level virologist looking clueless and indebted to his genius insights. If you can get past this (and it did have me groaning) there’s much enjoyment to be had from the episode, not least from the two main guest actors.

An initiative test. How simply marvellous!

You Must Be Joking! (1965)
A time before a Michael Winner film was a de facto cinematic blot on the landscape is now scarcely conceivable. His output, post- (or thereabouts) Death Wish (“a pleasant romp”) is so roundly derided that it’s easy to forget that the once-and-only dining columnist and raconteur was once a bright (well…) young thing of the ‘60s, riding the wave of excitement (most likely highly cynically) and innovation in British cinema. His best-known efforts from this period are a series of movies with Oliver Reed – including the one with the elephant – and tend to represent the director in his pleasant romp period, before he attacked genres with all the precision and artistic integrity of a blunt penknife. You Must Be Joking! comes from that era, its director’s ninth feature, straddling the gap between Ealing and the Swinging ‘60s; coarser, cruder comedies would soon become the order of the day, the mild ribaldry of Carry On pitching into bawdy flesh-fests. You Must Be Joki…

Luck isn’t a superpower... And it isn't cinematic!

Deadpool 2 (2018)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps it’s because I was lukewarm on the original, but Deadpool 2 mercifully disproves the typical consequence of the "more is more" approach to making a sequel. By rights, it should plummet into the pitfall of ever more excess to diminishing returns, yet for the most part it doesn't.  Maybe that’s in part due to it still being a relatively modest undertaking, budget-wise, and also a result of being very self-aware – like duh, you might say, that’s its raison d'être – of its own positioning and expectation as a sequel; it resolutely fails to teeter over the precipice of burn out or insufferable smugness. It helps that it's frequently very funny – for the most part not in the exhaustingly repetitive fashion of its predecessor – but I think the key ingredient is that it finds sufficient room in its mirthful melee for plot and character, in order to proffer tone and contrast.

Like an antelope in the headlights.

Black Panther (2018)
(SPOILERS) Like last year’s Wonder Woman, the hype for what it represents has quickly become conflated with Black Panther’s perceived quality. Can 92% and 97% of critics respectively really not be wrong, per Rotten Tomatoes, or are they – Armond White aside – afraid that finding fault in either will make open them to charges of being politically regressive, insufficiently woke or all-round, ever-so-slightly objectionable? As with Wonder Woman, Black Panther’s very existence means something special, but little about the movie itself actually is. Not the acting, not the directing, and definitely not the over-emphatic, laboured screenplay. As such, the picture is a passable two-plus hours’ entertainment, but under-finessed enough that one could easily mistake it for an early entry in the Marvel cycle, rather than arriving when they’re hard-pressed to put a serious foot wrong.

Ain't nobody likes the Middle East, buddy. There's nothing here to like.

Body of Lies (2008)
(SPOILERS) Sir Ridders stubs out his cigar in the CIA-assisted War on Terror, with predictably gormless results. Body of Lies' one saving grace is that it wasn't a hit, although that more reflects its membership of a burgeoning club where no degree of Hollywood propaganda on the "just fight" (with just a smidgeon enough doubt cast to make it seem balanced at a sideways glance) was persuading the public that they wanted the official fiction further fictionalised.

I didn't kill her. I just relocated her.

The Discovery (2017)
(SPOILERS) The Discovery assembles not wholly dissimilar science-goes-metaphysical themes and ideas to Douglas Trumbull's ill-fated 1983 Brainstorm, revolving around research into consciousness and the revelation of its continuance after death. Perhaps the biggest discovery, though, is that it’s directed and co-written by the spawn of Malcom McDowell and Mary Steenburgen (the latter cameos) – Charlie McDowell – of hitherto negligible credits but now wading into deep philosophical waters and even, with collaborator Justin Lader, offering a twist of sorts.

How many galoshes died to make that little number?

Looney Tunes: Back in Action (2003)
(SPOILERS) Looney Tunes: Back in Action proved a far from joyful experience for director Joe Dante, who referred to the production as the longest year-and-a-half of his life. He had to deal with a studio that – insanely – didn’t know their most beloved characters and didn’t know what they wanted, except that they didn’t like what they saw. Nevertheless, despite Dante’s personal dissatisfaction with the finished picture, there’s much to enjoy in his “anti-Space Jam”. Undoubtedly, at times his criticism that it’s “the kind of movie that I don’t like” is valid, moving as it does so hyperactively that its already gone on to the next thing by the time you’ve realised you don’t like what you’re seeing at any given moment. But the flipside of this downside is, there’s more than enough of the movie Dante was trying to make, where you do like what you’re seeing.

Dante commented of Larry Doyle’s screenplay (as interviewed in Joe Dante, edited by Nil Baskar and G…

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.