Halloween Shelf: The Frighteners (1996)
I haven't watched our copy of The Frighteners in some time (and not only because of the terrible, terrible DVD cover that this official release of the movie received).
PLOT: Many years ago, a small town was rocked by a mass-murder. A young female doctor arrives in town in present day 1990's and is startled to discover that one of her patients was actually involved in the long-ago murder -- but was this gal a willing participant, or an innocent dupe? Meanwhile, people in the town begin to mysteriously die -- is it natural causes, or somehow connected to the murders? Then we meet Frank (Michael J. Fox) a man making a living as a psychic investigator who can purge ghosts from your house -- a hoax incorporating his friendships with a couple "real live" ghosts pals. Can he team up with the young doctor to stop the mystery plaguing the town?
Minor Nitpicks
First minor nitpick: okay. This movie was made during the early days of CGI. Therefore, most of the effects look hideously primitive.
Um. Yeah.In truth, it bothered me less than I thought it would (even though watching most early CGI films are now an experience not unlike rubbing a bunch of jello and nachos into your eyes). After the initial moments, and some terrible CGI "jokes" (one of the ghosts is going to THROW UP! Oh, he covered his mouth, so his face expands -- and then vomit shoots out of his ears! It happened because he's a ghost, you get it? And ghosts are apparently just balloons so they don't have brains or guts or skeletons or anything to keep the contents of their stomachs in the right places -- except, wait, they have stomachs? And can eat food? Wait, this "joke" doesn't make any sense...)
Second minor nitpick: You see this image? This image that looks like a non-professional badly photoshopped together a few images from the movie for the release that was going to go in the $3 bin at Wal-Mart?
This was an actual, official DVD release cover -- which graces the DVD I own. It ANGERS AND DISGUSTS ME. Somebody photoshopped together three unrelated photos from the movie and called it quits for the day, and I'm assuming received a paycheck for this work. Question: WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST USE THE ACTUAL MOVIE POSTER? Granted, it's not a lot more complex, but at least it looks as though it was purposefully done and planned by professionals. This thing above is just shameful.
Overall Thoughts
Basically... This movie holds up pretty well. The meat of the story is about Michael J. Fox recovering from a dark backstory and the mystery behind these murders -- and those parts are all right. It's an enjoyable and entertaining story, surprisingly heart-felt at times, and Michael J. Fox gives a good performance (which was at once the same Michael J. Fox we've seen many times and a more broken, vulnerable version of the same character, which worked).
That said... the majority of the "ghosts" in this movie (except for a solitary scary one) are basically the comic relief. That's not necessarily a bad thing, except that the comedy goes excessively low-brow (and that is said by a person who adores The Three Stooges -- i.e. poke-in-the-eye, pants-fall-down-level humor). There's an old cowboy ghost played by veteran actor John Astin (aka the original Gomez Addams) -- and one of the "jokes" we are treated to seeing him perform is his humping a mummy in a crypt (followed by him uttering the "not-creepy-in-a-good-way" line, "I like it when they lie still like that.") Granted, John Astin got to make a paycheck that day -- and that's about the best thing you can say about that.
Most of the "jokes" for the ghosts are not far above that level (like the vomiting ghost thing I mentioned above. It doesn't even really work as a joke, because it immediately begs the question of the mechanics behind ghosts which cuts any potential comedy from the situation short...) In other words, we're talking "Garbage Pail Kids" trading-cards level humor -- i.e. gross booger hanging out of nose = comedy.
Also: our heroine in this movie comes across somewhat poorly. Now, I'm not saying that in a surface sense; on the surface, she was a cute little lady with a pleasant, sincere, Andie-MacDowell-ish quality.
And, admittedly, the story needed her to be open to the idea of ghosts and the supernatural -- and to believe the best about certain people when it wasn't really merited -- but the way she's written, she comes across as a bit of a naive dunderhead who will believe anything that is told to her -- regardless of the really unreliable source.
Ultimately...
I liked the movie. But that isn't to say that it didn't have its faults -- mainly in the writing and certain beyond-lowbrow attempts at "comedy". But our hero and heroine are very pleasant to watch, the story is basically entertaining, and there's a satisfactory wrap-up to the story. So, yeah! If you haven't seen it, and you like Michael J. Fox, it's worth it to add to your Halloween-viewing this season.
RECOMMENDED(With Reservations)
PLOT: Many years ago, a small town was rocked by a mass-murder. A young female doctor arrives in town in present day 1990's and is startled to discover that one of her patients was actually involved in the long-ago murder -- but was this gal a willing participant, or an innocent dupe? Meanwhile, people in the town begin to mysteriously die -- is it natural causes, or somehow connected to the murders? Then we meet Frank (Michael J. Fox) a man making a living as a psychic investigator who can purge ghosts from your house -- a hoax incorporating his friendships with a couple "real live" ghosts pals. Can he team up with the young doctor to stop the mystery plaguing the town?
Minor Nitpicks
First minor nitpick: okay. This movie was made during the early days of CGI. Therefore, most of the effects look hideously primitive.
Um. Yeah.In truth, it bothered me less than I thought it would (even though watching most early CGI films are now an experience not unlike rubbing a bunch of jello and nachos into your eyes). After the initial moments, and some terrible CGI "jokes" (one of the ghosts is going to THROW UP! Oh, he covered his mouth, so his face expands -- and then vomit shoots out of his ears! It happened because he's a ghost, you get it? And ghosts are apparently just balloons so they don't have brains or guts or skeletons or anything to keep the contents of their stomachs in the right places -- except, wait, they have stomachs? And can eat food? Wait, this "joke" doesn't make any sense...)Second minor nitpick: You see this image? This image that looks like a non-professional badly photoshopped together a few images from the movie for the release that was going to go in the $3 bin at Wal-Mart?
This was an actual, official DVD release cover -- which graces the DVD I own. It ANGERS AND DISGUSTS ME. Somebody photoshopped together three unrelated photos from the movie and called it quits for the day, and I'm assuming received a paycheck for this work. Question: WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST USE THE ACTUAL MOVIE POSTER? Granted, it's not a lot more complex, but at least it looks as though it was purposefully done and planned by professionals. This thing above is just shameful.
Overall Thoughts
Basically... This movie holds up pretty well. The meat of the story is about Michael J. Fox recovering from a dark backstory and the mystery behind these murders -- and those parts are all right. It's an enjoyable and entertaining story, surprisingly heart-felt at times, and Michael J. Fox gives a good performance (which was at once the same Michael J. Fox we've seen many times and a more broken, vulnerable version of the same character, which worked).
That said... the majority of the "ghosts" in this movie (except for a solitary scary one) are basically the comic relief. That's not necessarily a bad thing, except that the comedy goes excessively low-brow (and that is said by a person who adores The Three Stooges -- i.e. poke-in-the-eye, pants-fall-down-level humor). There's an old cowboy ghost played by veteran actor John Astin (aka the original Gomez Addams) -- and one of the "jokes" we are treated to seeing him perform is his humping a mummy in a crypt (followed by him uttering the "not-creepy-in-a-good-way" line, "I like it when they lie still like that.") Granted, John Astin got to make a paycheck that day -- and that's about the best thing you can say about that.
Most of the "jokes" for the ghosts are not far above that level (like the vomiting ghost thing I mentioned above. It doesn't even really work as a joke, because it immediately begs the question of the mechanics behind ghosts which cuts any potential comedy from the situation short...) In other words, we're talking "Garbage Pail Kids" trading-cards level humor -- i.e. gross booger hanging out of nose = comedy.
Also: our heroine in this movie comes across somewhat poorly. Now, I'm not saying that in a surface sense; on the surface, she was a cute little lady with a pleasant, sincere, Andie-MacDowell-ish quality.
And, admittedly, the story needed her to be open to the idea of ghosts and the supernatural -- and to believe the best about certain people when it wasn't really merited -- but the way she's written, she comes across as a bit of a naive dunderhead who will believe anything that is told to her -- regardless of the really unreliable source.
Ultimately...
I liked the movie. But that isn't to say that it didn't have its faults -- mainly in the writing and certain beyond-lowbrow attempts at "comedy". But our hero and heroine are very pleasant to watch, the story is basically entertaining, and there's a satisfactory wrap-up to the story. So, yeah! If you haven't seen it, and you like Michael J. Fox, it's worth it to add to your Halloween-viewing this season.
RECOMMENDED(With Reservations)
No comments have been added yet.
