An invisible entity haunts a 19th century family, and family secrets soon begin to surface.An invisible entity haunts a 19th century family, and family secrets soon begin to surface.An invisible entity haunts a 19th century family, and family secrets soon begin to surface.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 5 nominations total
Zoe Thorne
- Theny Thorn
- (as Zoë Thorne)
Philip Hurd-Wood
- Partygoer
- (as Phillip Hurd-Wood)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
A divorced mother is living in the woods with her daughter suffering from nightmares. She finds a letter from 1848 by the previous occupant recounting the tale of the Bell Witch. It's 1817 Red River, Tennessee. The church finds John Bell (Donald Sutherland) of usury for charging 20% interest against rumored witch Kate Batts. However Batts doesn't get her expected reciprocity and vows revenge on him and his beloved daughter Betsy (Rachel Hurd-Wood).
It looks good but there are few scares. The jump scares come with regularity which only makes it less scary. It's a lot of loud surprise noises and horror soundtrack. Sutherland and Sissy Spacek seem to be slumming it here in this one. This could work with Rachel Hurd-Wood front and center. Instead the movie starts with another girl in a different time period. It takes awhile to get to her and the movie keeps going back to the veterans. The reveal is problematic and a little bit confusing. This is a fair ghost story but it isn't scary.
It looks good but there are few scares. The jump scares come with regularity which only makes it less scary. It's a lot of loud surprise noises and horror soundtrack. Sutherland and Sissy Spacek seem to be slumming it here in this one. This could work with Rachel Hurd-Wood front and center. Instead the movie starts with another girl in a different time period. It takes awhile to get to her and the movie keeps going back to the veterans. The reveal is problematic and a little bit confusing. This is a fair ghost story but it isn't scary.
Acting. Thats the most noticeable thing you will find in this movie. All the characters have performed well and acted according to the period of the story. I haven't watched Bell Witch Haunting (2004) but I have read a lot about the original legend. Instead of retelling the actual event, this movie revolves around it, giving us an entirely different interpretation of the haunting. Also, it tells nothing about General Andrew Jackson who visited Bell's family during that time and later became the American President. Its worthy to note that he was once quoted as saying - "I'd rather face the whole British Army, than face the Bell Witch again".
Around 1818, a farming family living in Tennessee is haunted by a spirit, the most affected ones being the daughter Betsy and the father John Bell. While the father's health deteriorates, the daughter gets all poltergeistic treatment. Slowly, they suspect the woman (also witch?) Kate Batts who previously has some legal issues with John and curses him that he and his daughter will suffer for his deeds. The haunting gets worse and the family members try to fight back the ghost in their own ways. By the end, when they seem to have abandoned their faith, the spirit itself reveals the reason for its existence.
The scary scenes are predictable but good. The notable ones are the first major attack on Betsy, the swing encounter, Richard's questions, John's visions, the cave and the best of all is the chariot ride. Excellent cinematography. A few good things in this movie keep us on the edge and makes us wait for the best part. But that best part never comes.
The fictional ending, though unexpected and slightly shocking, is not conceived properly. The movie begins with a Night-Shyamalan-like atmosphere. Most of it feels like as if you are watching The Village. Later it goes on to remind us of The Poltergeist, The Exorcist, Child's Play and several others, even The Omen. The ending is tried in a Lynchian manner - just tried. Sadly, it doesn't register in us at all.
Overall, this movie has good acting, good cinematography, few honestly scaring scenes and a different interpretation to the original Bell Witch Haunting. Nevertheless, it has a confused screenplay, half-baked script and an overhasty direction. The slow scenes are empty and the fast scenes are packed. So the balance is knocked out and what results is boredom. Watch it for the good aspects but make sure to take lots of popcorn inside the theatre. You'll need them to stay awake.
Around 1818, a farming family living in Tennessee is haunted by a spirit, the most affected ones being the daughter Betsy and the father John Bell. While the father's health deteriorates, the daughter gets all poltergeistic treatment. Slowly, they suspect the woman (also witch?) Kate Batts who previously has some legal issues with John and curses him that he and his daughter will suffer for his deeds. The haunting gets worse and the family members try to fight back the ghost in their own ways. By the end, when they seem to have abandoned their faith, the spirit itself reveals the reason for its existence.
The scary scenes are predictable but good. The notable ones are the first major attack on Betsy, the swing encounter, Richard's questions, John's visions, the cave and the best of all is the chariot ride. Excellent cinematography. A few good things in this movie keep us on the edge and makes us wait for the best part. But that best part never comes.
The fictional ending, though unexpected and slightly shocking, is not conceived properly. The movie begins with a Night-Shyamalan-like atmosphere. Most of it feels like as if you are watching The Village. Later it goes on to remind us of The Poltergeist, The Exorcist, Child's Play and several others, even The Omen. The ending is tried in a Lynchian manner - just tried. Sadly, it doesn't register in us at all.
Overall, this movie has good acting, good cinematography, few honestly scaring scenes and a different interpretation to the original Bell Witch Haunting. Nevertheless, it has a confused screenplay, half-baked script and an overhasty direction. The slow scenes are empty and the fast scenes are packed. So the balance is knocked out and what results is boredom. Watch it for the good aspects but make sure to take lots of popcorn inside the theatre. You'll need them to stay awake.
Out of sheer curiosity I was offered to attend a screening of the world premier of 'American Haunting" -- so I went assuming it was going to be just another kind of scary -- kind of twisted -- kind of blasphemous -- kind of whatever -- kind of films -- WoW I was completely wrong in more ways than I can possible say! WOW! That is the best I can muster! This film kicked my butt up down and sideways. From the moment it starts up until the very last breath it toys with you, teases you, and never prepares you for something so intelligent at the climax that its hard to guess why someone hasn't done this kind of film before. My guess, is they don't have the talent or the guts that the filmmaker had -- not to mention the cast; or the composer for that matter. My god it rocked me and I'm betting it will definitely rock a hell of a lot of people who dare go see it. WoW! Count the days til this comes out -- you wont regret it -- seriously. Its one of a kind on all fronts. I decided to write this because I cant stop telling every single person I know how freaking scary the damn thing was. WOW!
Whatever possesses the demon in "An American Haunting" to ruin the lives of the Bell family is never made clear. Nor are we ever sure that it was the curse put upon the family by a woman who felt cheated by the father in a land dispute. And why all the attention is put on the girl (RACHEL HURD-WOOD) instead of the father (DONALD SUTHERLAND) is another factor never really explained. He's the one the entity really wanted to destroy but he's not the first target. He's excellent in a rather underwritten role that makes him an ambiguous figure.
With all of these reservations aside, the film is beautifully filmed and despite being shot on location in Rumania has an American Gothic look that is appropriate for the story. The acting is uniformly good. SISSY SPACEK excels as the worried mother who sees how tormented her daughter is by the demon. JAMES D'ARCY is interesting as the teacher who has a hard time realizing there is a real haunting going on, his disbelief being another factor hard to rationalize. THOM FELL is fine as the stalwart son anxious to protect his sister.
And for a story about things that go bump in the night, it has plenty of chilling moments for lovers of films of this genre. And yet, despite all of the good elements--the settings, the photography, the fine performances--it never manages to be completely convincing, especially as it tries to explain things toward the end. The book-ending that frames the story with an opening and closing in present time seems an unnecessary touch.
At times, it's so overdone that it's hard to believe it's based on a true story. I'm sure there's some truth at the core, but surely the writers embellished the tale with a lot of manufactured dream elements reminiscent of the "Nightmare on Elm Street" variety, letting their imaginations run wild with menacing wolves and the howling wind.
A project that could have been so much better if it just concentrated on the real ghost story at the center of the tale.
With all of these reservations aside, the film is beautifully filmed and despite being shot on location in Rumania has an American Gothic look that is appropriate for the story. The acting is uniformly good. SISSY SPACEK excels as the worried mother who sees how tormented her daughter is by the demon. JAMES D'ARCY is interesting as the teacher who has a hard time realizing there is a real haunting going on, his disbelief being another factor hard to rationalize. THOM FELL is fine as the stalwart son anxious to protect his sister.
And for a story about things that go bump in the night, it has plenty of chilling moments for lovers of films of this genre. And yet, despite all of the good elements--the settings, the photography, the fine performances--it never manages to be completely convincing, especially as it tries to explain things toward the end. The book-ending that frames the story with an opening and closing in present time seems an unnecessary touch.
At times, it's so overdone that it's hard to believe it's based on a true story. I'm sure there's some truth at the core, but surely the writers embellished the tale with a lot of manufactured dream elements reminiscent of the "Nightmare on Elm Street" variety, letting their imaginations run wild with menacing wolves and the howling wind.
A project that could have been so much better if it just concentrated on the real ghost story at the center of the tale.
There are countless scenes of poor Betsy being held up and pimp-slapped around by an invisible force. Perhaps it speaks to my own maturity, but it just kept getting funnier every time it happened.
That aside, this is overall a dull story. The framing device of a modern-day single mother moving into an old house and reading a letter is clunky, and the fact that the present day scenes only exist as bookends just makes them feel disconnected. Perhaps if the film had jumped back and forth between past and present it would have worked better? As it was, by the time it gets back to the present, I'd all but forgotten that I wasn't watching a period piece.
With the period piece, which makes up most of the run time, it feels like they didn't know quite where the story was going, and it drags on and on. The twist ending is pretty obvious, but the director chose to include a sequence of flashbacks to all the times it was foreshadowed, which frankly feels a bit insulting - "See, it's been happening all along under your nose, aren't I sneaky?"
I admit to being scared easily, but this film isn't scary. There's no tension built, nor really any scares throughout, it never seems to get going, and as I mentioned before, the dramatic scenes came across as comical. The soundtrack is melodramatic and the intricate sweeping camera work and shifts between colour and black and white don't serve any purpose.
All in all, this feels like a good idea that needed a lot of refinement and a better director. I will probably watch poor Betsy get smacked up again though, if only to cackle at it.
That aside, this is overall a dull story. The framing device of a modern-day single mother moving into an old house and reading a letter is clunky, and the fact that the present day scenes only exist as bookends just makes them feel disconnected. Perhaps if the film had jumped back and forth between past and present it would have worked better? As it was, by the time it gets back to the present, I'd all but forgotten that I wasn't watching a period piece.
With the period piece, which makes up most of the run time, it feels like they didn't know quite where the story was going, and it drags on and on. The twist ending is pretty obvious, but the director chose to include a sequence of flashbacks to all the times it was foreshadowed, which frankly feels a bit insulting - "See, it's been happening all along under your nose, aren't I sneaky?"
I admit to being scared easily, but this film isn't scary. There's no tension built, nor really any scares throughout, it never seems to get going, and as I mentioned before, the dramatic scenes came across as comical. The soundtrack is melodramatic and the intricate sweeping camera work and shifts between colour and black and white don't serve any purpose.
All in all, this feels like a good idea that needed a lot of refinement and a better director. I will probably watch poor Betsy get smacked up again though, if only to cackle at it.
Did you know
- TriviaThe movie is actually based on a purportedly true story. Andrew Jackson was quoted as saying, "I would rather take on the entire English Fleet than stay one night at the Bell House," however his presence at the house is disputed and there are no official records that confirm he was actually present or witnessed any supernatural activity. The haunting is documented in M. V. Ingram's 1894 book, "An Authenticated History of The Famous Bell Witch". This movie was based on the book by Brent Monahan, "The Bell Witch: An American Haunting the Famous Bell Witch". However, the Ingram book has been called into question by researchers, who have noted that it's based on secondhand accounts and that no firsthand accounts to the haunting survive, and records from the time have not supported the story of the haunting. The Ingram book calls on quotes from letters and diaries but those documents no longer exist (if they ever did) and it is impossible to verify if the haunting actually happened or if it was a hoax or an early urban legend. Some researchers have even raised the possibility that the Ingram book was actually a work of fiction now mistakenly believed to be a factual account.
- GoofsThis movie is set in 1817-1820. Richard and Betsy were married "shortly after" Betsy's father died. The walls are adorned with their wedding photos, but photography was not introduced until 1839. Even then the pictures would have been small hand held daguerreotypes, not big framed enlargements.
- Quotes
Richard Powell: [of Betsy] Can she love me?
Lucy Bell: She will.
- Alternate versionsThe DVD is released in an Unrated Version, which has a number of differences from the original PG-13 version.
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official sites
- Language
- Also known as
- Apariciones
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $14,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $16,298,046
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $6,380,000
- May 7, 2006
- Gross worldwide
- $29,612,137
- Runtime1 hour 23 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content