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…

Imagine a plant that could think... Think!

The Avengers 4.12: Man-Eater of Surrey Green
Most remarked upon for Robert Banks-Stewart having “ripped it off” for 1976 Doctor Who story The Seeds of Doom, although, I’ve never been wholly convinced. Yes, there are significant similarities – an eccentric lady making who knows her botany, a wealthy businessman living in a stately home with an affinity for vegetation, an alien plant that takes possession of humans, a very violent henchman and a climax involving a now oversized specimen turning very nasty… Okay, maybe they’re onto something there… – but The Seeds of Doom is really good, while Man-Eater of Surrey Green is just… okay.

This isn't fun, it's scary and disgusting.

It (2017)
(SPOILERS) Imagine how pleased I was to learn that an E Nesbitt adaptation had rocketed to the top of the US charts, evidently using a truncated version of its original title, much like John Carter of Mars. Imagine my disappointment on rushing to the cinema and seeing not a Psammead in sight. Can anyone explain why It is doing such phenomenal business? It isn’t the Stephen King brand, which regular does middling-at-best box office. Is it the nostalgia factor (‘50s repurposed as the ‘80s, so tapping into the Stranger Things thing, complete with purloined cast member)? Or maybe that it is, for the most part, a “classier” horror movie, one that puts its characters first (at least for the first act or so), and so invites audiences who might otherwise shun such fare? Perhaps there is no clear and outright reason, and it’s rather a confluence of circumstances. Certainly, as a (mostly) non-horror buff, I was impressed by how well It tackled pretty much everything that wasn’t the hor…

You better watch what you say about my car. She's real sensitive.

Christine (1983)
(SPOILER) John Carpenter was quite open about having no particular passion to make Christine. The Thing had gone belly-up at the box office, and adapting a Stephen King seemed like a sure-fire way to make bank. Unfortunately, its reception was tepid. It may have seemed like a no-brainer – Duel’s demonic truck had put Spielberg on the map a decade earlier – but Carpenter discoveredIt was difficult to make it frightening”. More like Herbie, then. Indeed, the director is at his best in the build-up to unleashing the titular automobile, making the fudging of the third act all the more disappointing.

Don't worry about Steed, ducky. I'll see he doesn't suffer.

The Avengers 4.11: Two’s A Crowd
Oh, look. Another Steed doppelganger episode. Or is it? One might be similarly less than complimentary about Warren Mitchell dusting off his bungling Russian agent/ambassador routine (it obviously went down a storm with the producers; he previously played Keller in The Charmers and Brodny would return in The See-Through Man). Two’s A Crowd coasts on the charm of its leads and supporting performances (including Julian Glover), but it’s middling fare at best.

It could have been an accident. He decided to sip a surreptitious sup and slipped. Splash!

4.10 A Surfeit of H20
A great episode title (definitely one of the series’ top ten) with a storyline boasting all the necessary ingredients (strange deaths in a small village, eccentric supporting characters, Emma even utters the immortal “You diabolical mastermind, you!”), yet A Surfeit of H20 is unable to quite pull itself above the run of the mill.

Believe me, our world is a lot less painful than the real world.

Nocturnal Animals (2016)
(SPOILERS) I’d heard Marmite things about Tom Ford’s sophomore effort (I’ve yet to catch his debut), but they were enough to make me mildly intrigued. Unfortunately, I ended up veering towards the “I hate” polarity. Nocturnal Animals is as immaculately shot as you’d expect from a fashion designer with a meticulously unbuttoned shirt, but its self-conscious structure – almost that of a poseur – never becomes fluid in Ford’s liberal adaptation of Austin Wright’s novel, such that even its significantly stronger aspect – the film within the film (or novel within the film) – is diminished by the dour stodge that surrounds it.

Have no fear! Doc Savage is here!

Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze (1975)
(SPOILERS) Forget about The Empire Strikes Back, the cliffhanger ending of Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze had me on the edge of my seat for a sequel that never came. How could they do that to us (well, me)? This was of course, in the period prior to discernment and wisdom, when I had no idea Doc Savage was a terrible movie. I mean, it is, isn’t it? Well, it isn’t a great movie, but it has a certain indolent charm, in the manner of a fair few mid-‘70s SF and fantasy fare (Logan’s Run, The Land that Time Forgot) that had no conception the genre landscape was on the cusp of irrevocable change.

Let the monsters kill each other.

Game of Thrones Season Seven
(SPOILERS) Column inches devoted to Game of Thrones, even in “respectable” publications, seems to increase exponentially with each new season, so may well reach critical mass with the final run. Groundswells of opinion duly become more evident, and as happens with many a show by somewhere around this point, if not a couple of years prior, Season Seven has seen many of the faithful turn on once hallowed storytelling, and at least in part, there’s good reason for that.

Some suggest the show has jumped the shark (or crashed the Wall); there were concerns over how much the pace increased last year, divested as it was of George RR Martin’s novels as a direct source, but this year’s succession of events make Six seem positively sluggish. I don’t think GoT has suddenly, resoundingly, lost it, and I’d argue there did need to be an increase in momentum (people are quick to forget how much moaning went on about seemingly nothing happening for long stretches of previ…

James Bond, who only has to make love to a woman and she starts to hear heavenly choirs singing.