Histoire de fantômes

Insomniacs apart, the only viewers likely to be attracted to this curiosity are fans of Marianne Faithfull. If they hope to find a forgotten gem of her career, this will disappoint them. A weak story about the haunting of an English mansion is compromised from the start because the location, which was in India, looks nothing like an English mansion. A feeble script and direction leave even such reliable hands as Penelope Keith and Anthony Bate uncertain of how to play. Followers of Marianne Faithfull will find her in ill fitting costumes and photographed from unflattering angles. The overall effect is amateur.

Behind this film's uninspired title lies a really uninspired storyline: in the early 1930s, three university acquaintances convene at an old country house for a few days of hunting but one of the men discovers that the building in which they are staying is haunted. Now this well-worn plot might not have been so bad had director Stephen Weeks cranked up the tension and gone all out with the scares, but his film delivers tepid chills and zero suspense and is unlikely to unsettle all but the most lily-livered of viewers.

It doesn't help that the three central characters are such an unlikeable bunch: there's effeminate fop McFayden (Murray Melvin) who lies about the true reason for the reunion; Duller (Vivian MacKerrell), who is rude and arrogant; and wimpy Talbot (Larry Dann), who is afraid to tell the others about what he is seeing and hearing in the old house. In a series of 'visions', Talbot sees glimpses of the past, when a previous occupant of the house, Robert (Leigh Lawson), committed his own sister Sophy (Marianne Faithfull) to a nearby loony bin -- because he had incestuous feelings for her. Sophie gets her chance for revenge when the lunatics break out of the asylum and she is able to pay Robert a visit...

Ghost Story is so trite that it even resorts to that hoary old horror cliche, the creepy doll, which appears to be possessed by Sophy's spirit and ultimately kills Talbot and McFayden. Why? I haven't the foggiest, but I didn't really care -- I was just happy that the film was finally over.

I totally disagree with the other comments I've read here.

I regard this as one of the best ghost stories I've seen. I love the atmosphere of it, the English gentlemen going to a luxurious country retreat, and the creepy feel of the place that the film conveys superbly.

The music used is highly effective too, especially the scenes where the doll appears.

The only scenes I wasn't that keen on were the ones shown in the lunatic asylum.

I loved the scenes filmed in the country house with the three friends, from the moment they arrived to the final scenes.

The 1920's music, and the McFadden character, {Murray Melvin} dancing to it, as he played a record, was a lovely touch that added to the enjoyment. It is the sort of house that I would love to visit for relaxation in beautiful surroundings, redolent of better times.

It has been many years since I had the pleasure of seeing it, and I long for a DVD release of this wonderfully filmed ghost story.

Three college acquaintances spend time in an old Victorian mansion. One of them starts seeing visions of events from the previous century, involving a young woman who previously lived in the house. These hallucinations seem to involve an incident where her brother committed her to an insane asylum despite nothing actually being wrong with her.

Ghost Story has a reasonably interesting cast at its disposal. It includes the ultra-camp Murray Melvin (The Devils, Barry Lyndon) as the effeminate host who invites the others to the mansion; friend of The Rolling Stones Marianne Faithful also stars in the role of the ghostly girl, while To the Manor Born's Penelope Keith also appears. But unfortunately, even with this cast there is terrible chemistry between the actors. Meaning its difficult becoming very involved in their story and it is a weak story at that. The narrative is split into two threads – the current day and the ghostly flashback – but the period story is far superior to the anaemic contemporary one. This means that when events return to the three foppish central characters the film really drags. There are admittedly some decent sequences in the ghostly section such as the scene in the asylum. But overall, there really isn't enough good material here to make this obscurity worth checking out.

It's a tad difficult to completely take this seriously. With the exaggerated mannerisms of speech and body language of those chief characters to whom we're first introduced, and the off-kilter dynamics between them, all that's missing is discrete comedy for this to come off like a P. G. Wodehouse movie. While always enjoyable in its own right, Ron Geesin's music also seems quite scattered: sometimes appropriate and lending atmosphere, sometimes curiously ill-fitting for the proceedings, and sometimes almost parodic; a theme to greet our ears in a scene just after the one-hour mark sounds like something Mike Patton might have recorded with Mr. Bungle or Fantomas. (Could Geesin have just been ahead of his time, to the detriment of this title?) With that especially in mind it's hard to tell what tone the picture is trying to strike, and even more so as the tone rather shifts from one scene to the next. The storytelling itself pointedly jumps around a tad, only complicating matters, and as the halfway mark rolls around there's still little cohesiveness to be had. There are some facets that are decidedly dark, and others that are wry; a singular element to take prominence, not least in the last minutes, raises a skeptical eyebrow; some dialogue is almost laughable, and between the writing of Talbot and McFadyen, and the respective performances of Larry Dann and Murray Melvin, one can't say who comes off more peculiarly. The narrative does gel as the length enters its home stretch, but still the connective threads between the two halves are questionable, and the audience is asked to take a lot purely on faith with the benefit of active suspension of disbelief.

Mind you, I do think 'Ghost story' is more well done than not, and there's much to appreciate here. The panoply is odd, but I do actually like the acting, above all the strange energy that Dann and Melvin bring with them. Geesin's music is a true smorgasbord, but I kind of love it. Stephen Weeks illustrates a keen eye at times for orchestrating shots in a way that helps build the intended ambience, especially with some smart use of lighting. The filming locations are splendid, and the art direction; those stunts and effects that are employed look swell. Though it's a long and uneven road to get there, ultimately we are treated to the horror flavors that we crave, with underhanded dread airs and some nefarious goings-on. I can honestly say that I did enjoy this, and I'm glad I took the time to watch. Yet the fact remains that a viewer must put in some work to find the value herein - not because the feature is abstruse or cerebral, but just because the entire experience is very much all over the map. At some points it's earnestly creepy, and at others nearly inspires mocking snickers; scenes that are tongue-in-cheek or sprightly are adjoined with others that are violent and grim. None of this is accidental. I see what Weeks was doing, as director and as producer, and what he and his co-writers assembled. It's not that sum total doesn't work, but only that it doesn't come off very well; instead of a calculated conglomeration, the film feels more like a slapdash kluge of parts that don't entirely fit together. I mean no disrespect to Weeks or anyone else involved when I say that it would have taken an especially delicate, expert touch to make this work as it is, and failing that, the concept needed some reworking.

When all is said and done it is worthwhile, but it is hardly something that demands viewership. 'Ghost story' is a piece to check out on a quiet day, and not something for which to specifically set aside time. I'm glad for those who appreciate it more than I do, and I can't begrudge those who engage honestly and view it less favorably. I say this best suited for the audience that is receptive to all the wide possibilities that cinema and the genre have to offer, and who can look past the shortcomings to find the worthiness within. So long as one is open-minded and willing there is a great deal to admire here, and that is perhaps the best mindset to adopt when sitting to watch.