Cortechba Overrated

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Pjtaylor-96-138044 'The Frighteners (1996)' balances its comedic and horrific elements well, with the picture getting surprisingly dark towards its final act and the mystery that propels its plot forward being a rather interesting and occasionally enigmatic one. There's a number of moments where the CGI doesn't hold up so well, but for the most part the piece still looks remarkably good. It also helps that the world is a uniquely off-kilter one filled with odd-ball characters that are a joy to watch. Michael J. Fox gives his best performance outside of his iconic 'Marty McFly' role, with a turn that's incredibly unique and wholly believable. The infrequent, almost slapstick inspired gory moments add a gritty and darkly funny punch to the flick, too. It does sometimes seem to get a bit too dark for its own good, likely a result of the numerous clashes with the MPAA that resulted in Jackson stopping aiming for the 'PG-13' and going straight for the 'R', but becomes a more distinct and compelling picture for it. 7/10

Leofwine_draca Peter Jackson's quirky horror comedy acts as a showcase for a whole slew of impressive special effects - which, like in the similar MEN IN BLACK - work well due to the whole comic-book feel of the film. In a serious thriller or drama, they'd of course look fake and ludicrous, but in Jackson's brightly coloured world of ghosts and spirits, they're gobsmacking. While THE FRIGHTENERS is certainly a fun film to watch and a nice film to look at, sadly as is the case with most blockbuster's, it's hardly what you would call substantial, but that doesn't matter in this film's case.This has the most basic of plots as well. Basically, it pretty much consists of one action scene after another with a little bit of history/background information thrown in to pad it out. This seems to have been done for necessity rather than any real reason; this is a purely superficial film. A manic energy keeps it watchable but the ending is a bit of a mess, with a need to tie up every loose end imaginable it quickly becomes a simple series of climaxes becoming ever more ludicrous.Thankfully a team of interesting actors and actresses almost make it all worthwhile and give us something to listen to in between all of the ghoulish gags and special effects. Michael J Fox plays the film's lead, a fine enough actor to cope with all the happenings going on but a sorely shallow person to play. We never learn much about his investigator, save that he saw his wife die once and that a car accident caused him to have psychic visions. That's it. An unrecognisable Dee Wallace Stone plays a former mental patient caught up in the chaos while Trini Alvarado is the solid female lead.Elsewhere, Jackson seems determined to fill his supporting roles with the most psychotic actors available. In particular we have Jeffrey Combs in a rare mainstream appearance (rather more substantial than his blink-and-you'll-miss-it cameo in HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL) as a whacked-out FBI agent who has become more insane than the people he hunts. Combs looks incredibly odd in what I like to think is a dig at Fox Mulder's weirdness in THE X-FILES. While his acting is fine and good use is made of his expressions, his character's oddities quickly become grating and in the final third his role seems rather extraneous to the rest of the plot - his appearances eliciting sighs rather than the chuckles Jackson was hoping for.Also on hand are Jake Busey (Gary's son, briefly showing in STARSHIP TROOPERS), as the film's resident psychotic murderer who is actually pretty good, R. Lee Ermey playing a riff on his role in FULL METAL JACKET, and old favourite John Astin as a decrepit ghost who has problems with his jaw. As mentioned earlier, the CGI effects are the best things in this film with all manner of glowing ghosts, flowing Grim Reapers flying across the sky and things reaching out of walls and floors to attack people. Impressive they most certainly are, and they make the film. A macabre sense of humour makes things more amusing than they rightfully should be, but again with Jackson this is all style and visual effects over anything else - as was the case with his frenetic yet hollow BRAINDEAD. Worth catching if your brain is switched off.

jimbo-53-186511 Following a car accident Frank Bannister (Michael J Fox) develops psychic abilities which allows him to see and communicate with the dead. In order to make himself a quick and easy buck he gets a small team of ghosts to scare residents into believing that their homes are haunted. However, when performing an exorcism at one house he discovers a demon that isn't part of the act and Bannister soon discovers that this demon is killing both the living and the dead. Bannister finds himself having to use his psychic abilities for a good cause and with the help of Dr Lucy Lynskey (Trini Alvarado) and his ghost friends he sets out to try and stop the demon.The Frighteners is certainly a film that I fully expected to enjoy - at least that's what I thought after watching the first 5 minutes. It looked like the sort of film that might have been a daft bit of fun, but for me sadly the sense of fun only came in very short bursts.Initially, the story presents itself as merely a slight re-working of Ghost (only presumably a more fun version), but it expands slightly on this concept as the story progresses. I was unsure when watching this film whether it was intended as a satire or as a comedy horror. Whatever it was trying to achieve it mostly failed as it wasn't well-observed enough to work as a satire, nor was it funny enough or scary enough to work as a comedy horror. The script itself generally lacked any sort of wit and I didn't think that the film flowed all that well - it probably didn't help that I also didn't find the story all that involving. I also didn't think Bannister's ghosts were that funny and to be honest I found them irritating more than anything else.The final third of the film was silly, over the top and utterly ridiculous, but to be fair it did seem to at least bring some fun and excitement to the table which seemed to be lacking for the bulk of the film. Adopting this tone throughout the film wouldn't have necessarily made it a particularly good film or even a memorable one, but it would have at least been an enjoyable one.The only positives about this film are the special effects which were great for their time. R Lee Ermey's cameo in this film is brief but it was easily the funniest and most memorable thing about this film. Michael J Fox is pretty good here and does try to bring some energy to the film, but with so much working against him this always seemed like a lost cause. All in all it's a disappointing film considering its credentials.

Raul Faust You know, there is a strong reason why I find this movie utterly badly done: it starts out of nowhere. The story begins with a bunch of "spirits" and a medium talking lots of things. The get go is to messy to make you feel any interest for what's gonna happen next. Besides, spirits play very ridiculous, making you feel like you're watching an "adult" version of 1995's "Casper". Not only that, but you can also feel like it's a bad parody of the classic "Ghost". Given that I found the story utterly boring and it lacked any fun, 50 minutes were enough for me to turn it off, and that's something I rarely do. In the end, I don't know what was the real deal with this film-- or even it had one--, but it just plays bad for most of the time. Maybe it's just a cheap "Ghost Busters" wannabe.