Haunt

I read about Haunt today in Fangoria Magazine and it really sounded like a cut above many of the genre films. Well, I looked it up, got my hands on a copy of it and sat down to see if it would give me some chills and thrills. No such luck.

For a ghost story that's complete with a haunted house, box that allows the living to communicate with the dead, and a pretty decent looking spirit, this is a complete snoozer. If I thought the first half was tedious and dull, the second half didn't really improve on that much.

A family moves into a house that has a history of several other family members dying there. How did they die? Why did they die? Why are the hauntings starting up again? Those questions are lost as viewers ask questions like do the parents actually have jobs or are they independently wealthy? The parents don't mind when a girl who shows up and starts bunking with their teenage son?

Truly, it's agony pointing out the plot holes because there are a huge number of them. There's a tiny bit of tension here and there, some of which is ruined by those lovely jarring scare noises when something happens on screen. It's just a sign of director who doesn't trust what he's putting in front of us to do the trick.

Simply put, don't waste your time. Haunt is a snoozer.

Such a pity, this movie started with so much promise, then seemed to lose it's way and quite possibly money and time. Was building to quite an interesting spooky story, then WHAM!, out of nowhere it ends, with so many loose ends, so many questions, so many "eh!, but what about" questions. "why did that happen" moments. Quite honestly, you watch this and you feel, well, cheated!. Such a pity, there were a few, suspend your belief moments, but weren't too niggly. But ultimately, this movie was a mish mash of Coulda, woulda, shoulda moments it was just too hard to ignore or forgive. You watch this movie and you feel time was not on it's side. It's the shell of a movie that could have been.!!. ;(

Nothing really special here, a story about a haunted house, two characters that weren't quite exploited enough, scares that came so late and soft, a twist that didn't manage to stand tall.

It wanted to be something, you can clearly see it tried, but somewhere, it failed, somewhere along the plot development, when they tried to make it more than it could be. In the end it is a movie about a haunted house, so don't get your hopes too high, cause originality is something too hard to achieve, working around with just 2 actors make the viewer feel deserted, and scares that won't come when they suppose to, leave him even more alone.

Not so many reasons to recommend this one: yes, average horror at its best, a somewhat effort put into it, but still, it falls flat. Sorry to say so.

It will come down to everyone's personal opinion, but all horror movie fans, will feel that they didn't get the larger slice here.

Sounds, visions, strange goings-on; dead people, supernatural entity, ghost telephone: yep, this is a haunted house movie. It has a few recognizable names and faces in the cast, the protagonist is a teen boy, and the climax and ending are the most notable bits. What else do you want to know?

Forgive me for being blase about 'Haunt.' It's the first feature film of director Mac Carter or writer Andrew Barrer, and their contributions are fine. It's well made from a technical standpoint, including editing, effects, sound design. I think the cast perform admirably, including those I'm familiar with (Ione Skye, Danielle C. Ryan, Jacki Weaver) and those less well known to me (Harrison Gilbertson, Liana Liberato, and others). I really do like the writing; the characters feel slightly smarter and more level-headed than most genre cliches, and the narrative and scene writing is reasonably engaging. A job well done, yes?

It just seems like this picture isn't especially remarkable in any way. It's suitably well done, but nothing leaps out as particularly grabbing, unique, or essential. We get some specific jump scares, some general creepiness and atmosphere, and that's a wrap. I mean no disrespect to anyone involved; I did enjoy this - only, unless you're a fan of someone in the cast, there's no major reason to seek this out over comparable titles. Why, it comes and goes so unobtrusively that I was astonished to look at the digital timer and realize the feature was already two-thirds over, as it felt like nothing had really happened yet.

Do I have any abject criticism to level? Well, I think the framing of the narration is excessive; it's arguably necessary, given the way the story is told here, but surely a bit of a rewrite to excise it would have only benefited the film. I also think like the resolution of the climax is a bit of a cheap shot, ruthlessly punishing an innocent in a way that felt extraneous; the result is a title that's less satisfying than it could have been. A tiny bit more time spent developing the plot would have helped to tilt the odds in the movie's favor, in my opinion.

Oh well. You could do better, you could do worse. 'Haunt' is good enough; the question rather comes down to simply how much you love haunted house movies.

An introverted teen (Harrison Gilbertson) connects with his new neighbor (Liana Liberato), and together the couple begins to explore the haunted house that his family has unknowingly just purchased.

There are some things worth liking about this film. The cinematographer is excellent, first of all, and the snow shots look great. Casting Liana Liberato was a wise move, as she has "the look" that could really take her places in the coming years. And the inclusion of the supernatural radio (for lack of a better term) was cool.

What was not appreciated was the writer's apparent influence from "American Horror Story". Maybe this is all coincidental, but the house full of ghosts, the strange neighbor, it all seemed very familiar. And not really in a good way. Other reviews have called the film unoriginal, and they are right. While few horror films are, this one is even more derivative than others.

Perhaps most strange of all was the poor advertising from IFC. The cover art is not terribly persuasive, and they make no mention of Jacki Weaver or Ione Skye. Weaver gets a mention on the back, but these are two names that should be put prominently on the cover. Why would you not play up having a two-time Oscar nominee in your film?