Casper

A ghost-whispering paranormal expert and his daughter (Bill Pullman and Christina Ricci) move into a dilapidated mansion on the coast of Maine that's haunted by a friendly ghost and three mischievous ones. Cathy Moriarty plays the venal heir of the mansion and Eric Idle her assistant.

"Casper" (1995) delivers the goods if you're in the mood for a "spooktacular" Goosebumps-like horror film that's fun & silly and not scary at all. It's like Scooby-Doo but without the dog and the teens are tweens. "Monster Night" (2006) and "Ghostbusters" (1984) are other reference points, but I prefer "Monster Night," which has a similar plot, but is all-around more entertaining (even though it cost significantly less) and has a superior assortment of good-lookin' women, young and older. With "Caspar" there's Moriarty, but she plays the biyatch antagonist. There's also ricci, but she was only 14 during shooting, although she's effective in the role.

The movie runs 1 hour, 40 minutes and was shot at Universals City, California, with establishing shots of Rockport, Maine.

GRADE: B-/C+

Who says there are no such things as ghosts? Not if there is the ghostly inhabitants of Whipstaff Manor in Friendship, Maine! This desolate mansion is then, in the words of one of the members of the Ghostly Trio of Whipstaff, 'intruded' by Kat Harvey (Christina Ricci) and her eccentric father Dr. James Harvey (Bill Pullman), a ghost therapist. Carrigan Crittenden (Cathy Moriarty) had hired Dr. Harvey to exorcise the ghosts, including Casper the friendly ghost and his three obnoxious uncles, Stretch, Fatso and Stinkie, aspiring to gain Whipstaff's 'buried gold'.

Intertwining humour, all-time fun and a modern Cinderella story, 'Casper' promises to please as a movie which is compelling, hilarious, captivating, heart-warming, witty and above all, truly 'fleshtastic'.

'Casper' is recommended for any audience, regardless of age. At the time I am submitting this review I am currently 17, turning 18, but 'Casper' still manages to appear endearing and ultimately special. The magic of Bill Pullman, Christina Ricci as well as that of director Brad Silberling, executive producer Steven Spielberg, and other producers weaves between each and every scene to eventually lift us off our feet. Above all, I LOVE THIS MOVIE! Casper is my all time favourite character. Truly fantastic. You won't BOOlieve it until you see it.

The 1995 film Casper came in the wake of a number of high profile films based on older properties. Some, like The Addams Family, Maverick, and Flintstones managed to achieve impressive box office and/or critical praise while others such as The Beverly Hillbillies, Car 54, Where Are You?, or Richie Rich were met with derision and scorn from critics and audiences. Casper falls somewhere towards to the upper end of the spectrum making it better than Flintstones by a considerable margin, but not nearly as funny or memorable as The Addams Family. Casper, based on the Harvey Comics character turned star of Famous Studios' series of theatrical shorts, follows the titular friendly ghost as he deals with the schemes of heiress Carrigan Crittenden(played delightfully over the top by Cathy Moriarty), his brash abrasive uncles The Ghostly Trio, a grieving paranormal psychologist and his outsider daughter, and a whole host of shenanigans from either the living or the dead. Needless to say there's elements I'm leaving out because they're either resolved to quickly to be of merit or contribute nothing to the movie.

First the good. The performances are energized and give this movie the life it needs to justify itself. Regardless of the quality of the material, everyone here is bringing their A game be it Eric Idle as the put upon yes man, Bill Pullman as the quirky paranormal psychologist, Christina Ricci as the outsider daughter, and even Devon Sawa as Casper. Helping the performances is the amazing production design which helps create an incredible looking haunted house that feels almost like Disney's Haunted Mansion ride with more polish(though sometimes the film does feel a bit too much like a theme park ride in certain segments). The effects to create the ghosts are also quite impressive for the time, as they're designed very similarly to Jim Carrey's effects from The Mask with cartoonish exaggerations and elasticity that make them feel dynamic and alive(no pun intended).

The Negatives. The script has problems finding pacing and direction. There's no one single story pulling the characters from scene to scene, the instigating plot involving Carrigan looking for a secret Treasure takes up the first 10 minutes of the movie and then is brought back for maybe 12 minutes towards the end of the movie. Scenes just kind of go from one to the next as there's really no callback style jokes or running gags linking the comic set pieces together, nor are there really character building scenes as they feel like islands without much thought to placement in a larger narrative.

The movie is written by Sherri Stoner and Deanna Oliver, better known for their work on shows like Animaniacs and Tiny Toons Adventures and there's definitely a lot of their comic style on display with the Ghostly Trio who spout pop culture references and insults(with a surprising amount of hells and damns thrown in but that's honestly not much of a concern for me), but much of their comic scenes feel at odds with other scens that try to seriously address the nature of death and grief(including a very well staged scene where Casper looks over his sled remembering how he died) and the tone will whiplash from Snarky, to Zany, to serious sometimes within only a few seconds.

Casper is the kind of movie you wish were better than it is. There's clear talent on display be it the production design, the direction, the acting, and even the special effects, but it's unfortunately weighed down by a lack of focus and can feel like a scattershot imitator of Beetlejuice with its teeth filed down. It's got good moments, they just don't come together as well as they should.

Forget the story. Forget the characters; forget even the kids and rent this just to be able to see Whipstaff Manor.

For me a film can be rewarding if just one element (in practical terms, it has to be an element I can recognize) is best in class. Here, it is the absolutely engaging set.

At the end of the 19th century, a style of art, essentially a fad, swept over Europe: Art Nouveau. This focused on natural forms and continuous lines. Done well in drawing and sculpture, its quite charming. At the same time, there was a crisis in architecture as the first real architects sought solutions to how internal space affects the psyche. For only a decade or so, architects tried to employ art nouveau in their work.

The problem is that the two just don't naturally mix: it's as if someone tried to do a swimmingpool production of Hamlet. But two geniuses partly succeeded in a few experiments: Horta in Brussels and Gaudi in Barcelona. In their lives their experiments were rejected by the public and critics. Today, they are among only a few valued gems of modern architectural history we have.

So much for background. What we have in Whipstaff Manor is a reworking of Gaudi, with some elements of Horta in entry and staircase. This is notable for a couple reasons:

---The primary mission of a film is to convey a tone, ideally an unfamiliar one. Sometimes cinematography is the tool of reliance, sometimes costumes, sometimes surreal plot twists, rarely acting posture. Rarely, rarely is the set the star. The goal of Gaudi was to (in a very literal sense) raise spirits by the form of the space. See how you feel in the bedroom/corridor and `livingroom' spaces. The attic was done by a lesser talent and the cellar isn't part of this discussion. But the main house draws on some deeply spooky center of the mind.

---The second notable comment is the sheer difficulty of what the set designers have done. Gaudi, an absolute master, had difficulty pulling off what he did. Here, the Casperites had an even greater challenge: when I go in a space, the relationship between me and the space is intimate; just a simple dialog. But when the space is presented through a medium, the designers have to dramatically exaggerate elements so the combined effect appears `normal.' Its the same as with what actors must do as compared to ordinary people you encounter; but an environment is more complex, more multidimensional, less semiotically loaded than a person. Mastering this greater palette of form is remarkable, and that's before you even accommodate the physical needs of production (camera placement, sound wiring...)

Check this out; it's interesting. Just based on the set, I place this in my best films list.

I don't view films as if I'm watching them as the intended audience; I watch them for myself. And that's why I found it odd at how engrossed I was when I watched this film for the first time at the age of eighteen. Aside from the great gothic flair of the mansion, two superbly placed cameos, and nice laughable black humour from the "trio," the film took off because of its emotional core. It's something that a youngster can really get into, but also anyone who finds it sad that a child can die. When Casper plays with his toys, I just wanted to start crying. This eternal child--lost and stuck in an age of mystery and wonder. And yet, he's smitten with a girl--he's starting to go through puberty. And it's just so sad . . . and beautiful.

And then there's the father, and his sway into the afterlife, his daughter's plight, her struggle with her wish to help Casper. It's all so simple and written for kids, but I was so engrossed by the romanticism of it all.

The villains mostly butt into the greatness of all of it, but you just have to grant that in a kid's picture. And now comes my but . . . in the end, when the mother does appear, she's supposed to be this amazing, angelic, deux es machinal, she floats through the stain glass window, her long hair flows around her, her gown flows all around her but--what the hell! why is her dress such a deep red!? she looks like satan! Oh well. Bad costume choice made a really bad moment. But mostly, I loved this film for it's good parts, despite the childishness of much of it.