A Face do Mal

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.

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?

Very similar in look and feel to "The Conjuring" (2013) and "Insidious" (2010) but with central characters that are teenagers rather than adults. The similarities make it feel a bit formulaic, but it's a good formula. Scary and frightening like a haunted house movie (the movie's self-aware opening narration describes itself as a ghost story) ought to be, its intensity is too much for PG-13 but lacks the explicit violence and gore typical for R. Three jump moments were quite effective, which again indicates a PG-13 level of scariness, but the overall creepiness of the unfolding mystery is even more compelling. Rather than coming apart in the third act, the movie features a complete ending that wraps up and justifies the story. Kudos to the prop maker who created the vacuum tube-era radio box, one of the creepiest "characters" in the story. This movie is well-made, scary, and a welcome addition to the modern horror genre.

If you are looking for a spooky movie then "Haunt" is not really the best of choices. It has a mediocre storyline and some fairly cheap scare tricks going on.

A family has moved into a new house where mysterious things are going one. And when the teenagers have a séance they get in touch with something inside the house.

It is a mediocre storyline that initially did seem okay, but it just lacked proper scary atmosphere and spooky moments. And whenever they did attempt to scare the audience by showing a haunt or apparition, they usually made use of a lousy out of focus effect with the camera. I guess that it is an easy way to glance past perhaps a lack of great effects or make-up?

The acting in "Haunt" was okay, although the cast were extremely limited by the script and the storyline.

"Haunt" did have potential to be a good horror movie, but director Mac Carter couldn't bring the ship safely into harbor, so to speak.

All in all, an average movie experience, but a weak horror experience. As such, "Haunt" fails to haunt the audience and scores a mere five out of ten stars from me.

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.