IN: Review: Somewhere in his non-fiction book DANSE MACABRE, Stephen King suggests that one secret of writing scary stories is to avoid showing your readers exactly what horrible thing is waiting behind the door to get them. If at last the door bursts open and a bug ten feet tall lurches through, the reader may be a little scared, but he'll also think, "Well, I can deal with that. At least it wasn't a HUNDRED feet tall." There's nothing more frightening than what lurks, unseen and unknown, just on the other side of that tightly closed door, waiting to get you.

THE HAUNTING is so completely misconceived that director Jan De Bont more or less starts off his movie by metaphorically throwing open that door himself and yelling: "Look, everybody, look! It's a ten-foot-tall bug! Isn't that SCARY?!" The law of diminishing returns immediately kicks in. By the end of the movie, the director is, so to speak, jumping up and down, banging his CGI pots and pans madly, and hoarsely screaming: "Look, everyone, look! Here come ten HUNDRED-foot-tall bugs! ... And now, here come a hundred THOUSAND-foot-tall bugs!"

The filmmakers apparently believed that special effects alone could compensate for all the other shortcomings in this endeavor (and there are many). They can't and don't. In fact, impressive as they are, the special effects are so insistent and obtrusive that the distracted viewer winds up staring at them -- whether in admiration or annoyance -- instead of being immersed in a story.

For me, the nadir of this film's sheer stupidity comes when a statue, with "blood" gushing from its mouth, tries to drown Liam Neeson (as Dr. Marrow) in a fountain. The filmmakers clearly didn't know what to do with this alleged idea once they had it, so they just have Neeson thrash around in the water a bit, flailing his arms and going glug-glug. By the next scene, the good doctor has apparently dried himself off and, ho hum, forgotten all about the annoying incident.

Shirley Jackson's novel seems to have been dumbed-down into this ridiculous screenplay by a committee of low-IQ teenage stoners who thought the way to frighten people was to make every effect bigger and louder: "Okay, next, let's, uh, make the ceiling, you know, look like a creepy face, and, uh, come down on her ... and all these spiky things, like, trap her in the bed."

The sole saving grace of THE HAUNTING is that it at last becomes so awful that it's actually funny. By the time Owen Wilson (as Luke Sanderson) fell on the floor and then went on his Magic-Carpet Ride O' Death, I just about fell on the floor myself, laughing.

Badly constructed, witless, grotesquely heavy-handed, utterly unbelievable, and filled with clunky dialogue and pointless scenes, this vacuous HAUNTING is a textbook example of how NOT to make a horror movie.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: This movie isn't terrible, really. Somebody commented that Mo is the type of American Europeans snicker at. But there are those, and not necessarily Anglo-Saxon yahoos, who do not care for Frenchmen; and the Xavier character isn't going to sway them.

Let's consider his stereotypical Frenchman attributes:

1). Cynical - very cynical. Check.

2). Reedy, underfed appearance, check, despite:

3). A great appreciation of cuisine. Check.

4). Lukewarm work ethic. Check. (Forget the fact he is supposedly a rich stockbroker, from watching him in the film he seems to put in ten hour workweeks.)

5). Beautiful wife, check. Despite that:

6). Loose interpretation of the marriage vows. Check.

7). Big sexual ego, which says an American girl owes you sex if you buy her dinner. Check.

Whether Mo is a hick or not, there's no reason for her to fall for this smug European twit other than the script dictates so.

On the other hand, as other male reviewers have, I did enjoy seeing Karen Allen's cute, petite body. I'll give the movie four stars; two of them are for that.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: well well One cant b wasting time just cause of a big star-cast ..i think all i could see is a bunch of talents wasting their time on a big screen with some pathetic humor which will appeal to i do not know who? some pathetic songs that will be heard by who? some pathetically abrupt turnings justified by who? race against time? u mean waste against time? OK so first you spoil your kid,then you teach him a lesson wow we are so ignorant of this fact whoever said its a brilliant new concept probably is some other species other than human alright fine let me come comment like humans do movie has a nice message to be given but it could well have been given by a stranger sitting besides you in the bus rather than you going for such a wasteful movie to learn it Hindi movies have proved it a lot already and also i cant waste my time writing about waste anyway!
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: I've often wondered just how much CASPER was meant for children...with all the issues revolving around his identity (in this film we are lead to believe that he is the spirit of a dead child, as his home is a cemetery plot), as well as the disturbing message brought by this particular film. Maybe Casper was meant more as a morality play, or Famous Studios felt like breaking new ground in 'reality' cartoons.

THERE'S GOOD BOOS TONIGHT is a well-animated project-no doubt there. But, the plot development involving the fox (who becomes Casper's friend, but meets a tragic end) is a concern.

Give Famous Studios credit--they tackle death with respect...but, the stark image of Casper's mourning is rather graphic and disturbing for children (though the denouement does offer a happy ending, but I won't give away the ending), and the violence is rather steep, even for 1940's standards.

This might be a good cartoon for parents to use in helping explain death to children--but I wouldn't pop it into the VCR for a perky cartoon break.
What is this review like?
OUT:
positive