Review of The Frighteners (1996) by Simon F — 16 May 2009

A psychic investigator whose co-workers are ghosts. A spectral serial killer who can kill invisibly, or strangle you with the carpet. Funny, irascible dead people. Cult-tastic performances from Michael J. Fox and Jeffrey Combs. There's an absolute ton of good things to say about The Frighteners - arguably Peter Jackson's most underrated film, and an all-round marvellous production in its own right - so why am I never in a great hurry to watch it?

The tale of complicated shyster Frank Bannister (Michael J. Fox, twitchy and compelling), The Frighteners pits our hero against an already dead adversary who kills people (and ghosts) seemingly at random, for no other reason than to get a higher body count. It's an exciting and funny adventure story as well as a neat mystery, featuring a cast of interesting character actors, relatively unimpeachable special effects (well, they are 13 years old) and a moody score by Danny Elfman. It moves at a fast pace (although to be honest, it feels a little longer than it is) and contains as many funny shock moments as scary ones.

It's a bit of a mystery, then, that it was such a failure at the box office. Peter Jackson has blamed (among other things) the film's annoying nondescript poster, but the summer release date (as opposed to the originally slated October 31st) and the blockbuster competition might have been a factor. This is a comparatively small, almost niche movie, set (rather noticeably) in an attractive but odd neck of New Zealand. The eerie overcast location, along with the swooping cameras, bring to mind such films as Beetlejuice, and such directors as Sam Raimi. It's an exciting film to look at, full of character even when there's no one on screen. The sharp script, which is a lot funnier and pacier than the writers' later work on Lord Of The Rings, has a few things in common with Ghostbusters.

Although I do wish it enjoyed greater success and infamy than it received, it's not perfect. Some of the humour is a little too black, such as a ghost humping a Mummy, or another ghost's shredded skin being thrown around after his "death". Also, the villain may be unstoppably black and white, which is in some ways satisfying, but the sheer psychopathic single-mindedness actually makes him a rather dull and obvious creature to deal with. There are annoying plotholes such as why, if this killer has being doing this for five years, Frank has only just noticed. (It would make more sense if Frank, or the killer, had only just arrived.) Trini Alvarado is reasonably interesting as Frank's would-be love interest, but we never get to know her as much as we do Frank, and her motivations don't always make sense, particularly towards the end. And the ghosts might be funny and all, but the film treats them rather flippantly, as if being dead isn't all that bad anyway. (A brief glimpse of Heaven just reinforces this. Hey, we are trying to *stop* people being dead, you know!).

Happily, the film's good aspects outweigh the bad. Jeffrey Combs, for instance, is scene-stealingly brilliant as creepy and demented FBI agent Dammers, a kind of horrible Worst Case Scenario version of Fox Mulder (without, presumably, a Scully). And the setup, with genuine medium Frank scamming people via his two dead buddies, is brilliant.

Why my vague apathy towards the film, then? Perhaps it's the simple fact that, by and large, people overlook this gem of a film in favour of Jackson's bigger (or smaller and messier) movies. Also it could be the slightly problematic structure that sees The Frighteners starting on its home stretch when it's really just got going.

They're just grumbles, though, and more fool the people who missed out. You should seek out The Frighteners immediately. Dark, strange and funny, there aren't enough movies like it.