The Frighteners

I'm a huge fan of Michael J Fox. Mainly due to Back to The Future. To be honest, looking at this filmography, the guy didn't do anything beyond Back to the Future that has really beckoned huge recognition. I however do think he is a notable celebrity mainly because of the work he's done since he retired from acting to focus on raising awareness and trying to find a cure for Parkinson's. 

But strangely enough, Fox did a film a few years before his retirement called, The Frighteners. A movie directed by Peter Jackson and produced by Robert Zemeckis, The Frighteners is one of those movies I've heard about via the internet. Not really well known by the general public but every once in a while an internet browser like myself makes me aware movies like this exist. I've been meaning to watch it for a while. 

So what's it about?

The Frighteners follows the story of a Psychic Detective named Frank Bannister (played by Fox).

Bannister lives in a small town that is littered with the souls of the dead who didn't take the "corridor to the afterlife" and following a near death experience, Bannister has the ability to see the souls that haven't moved on to the afterlife yet.

However, Bannister instead of being a regular medium, advertising that he'll help the spirits of the dead find their way to the afterlife, makes his living recruiting ghosts to haunt a house so that the owner calls Bannister. Bannister does his pretend deal to "get the ghost out of the house" and he reaps the reward.

But when a shadowy spirit, appearing to be death himself comes to town, people start dying from extreme strain to their hearts, even though they were very healthy people. Being the only one that can see these spirits, Bannister becomes the only one who can stop this spirit.

This movie has a lot of elements that work... and a lot of elements that don't work.

The first thing I think works is Fox himself. Like I said before, Fox's filmography really isn't that huge

because his career was cut short.

With that, its fun to see Fox is a different role. He's so well known for Marty McFly and random 80s movie roles that its refreshing to see something different. This is different.

Frank Bannister isn't really an ideal hero. He can see the spirits of the dead but he doesn't really use it for good. A stereotypical psychic would lend his services to communicate between the dead and their loved ones, serve as a shepherd to help them to the other side. Instead Bannister recruits the spirits to help him con people out of their money. He's haunted by the death of his wife and the mysterious circumstances in which she was killed.

Furthermore, it actually does get interesting, the way that Bannister interacts with these different spirits. Some of them are his friends, some of them resent him for using spirits to con people. And when he can see dead people and other people can't, its actually really interesting, especially when they don't know exactly how the world works yet.

There's one person who is killed and finds Bannister. He tries working with Bannister and tries to get him to comfort his widowed wife who was left alone after he was killed.

But when Bannister tries, he sees the way things can go wrong and awkward. There's several moments in the part where he's communicating between the two and the woman says some things, not knowing that her dead husband can hear her. Its actually an interesting take on the ghost whisperer storyline and you somewhat understand why Bannister chooses a little bit of a different path. Its not elaborated on enough and its not totally clear what motivates him to con people, but he's the best character of the film so we'll let it slide.

Another part I guess that works is the villain.

For the majority of the movie, the villain is recognized as a shrouded spectre, possibly the Grim Reaper. putting glowing numbers on the foreheads of his victims.

Its later revealed to be a serial killer continuing his spree of murders from beyond the grave. And when the shrouded persona leaves and its just the killer and he's not in the cloak, it gets a little bit convoluted. Its an interesting story but I'm not wild about the villains when they're finally revealed. Also, its not really clear how this killer has more spiritual powers than the other spirits, and that leads into one of the first things that didn't really work for this movie.

The rules of the universe aren't really laid down. Fox does explain that these spirits are roaming the earth because they didn't take the corridor to the afterlife. They instead had unfinished business and continued in the world as ectoplasm dripping... spectres.

Then its revealed that this Grim Reaper-like is able to kill those spirits... I guess. And Bannister is able to see ghosts because of his near death experience... I guess. A lot of things are really unexplained.

And then there's the element of who is murdered and how the killer is able to kill these people. I know there's sometimes that serial killers do kill without discretion but this was somewhat ridiculous.

However, the conflict Bannister finds himself in actually is an interesting one. He's trying to fight a spirit he can't physically fight as a mortal human. There's parts of jumping between the mortal world and the spectre world and its actually done pretty well. Not only that, but it has an effect on Bannister after it happens.

Which leads me to one of my favorite parts of the film.

Near the end, there's a part where Bannister's consciousness is floating between the present and the past in a building where a lot of people were killed.

He'll be walking through a run down building and then flash to its past watching as they're gunned down. Its a really interesting way of showing that connection to the afterlife. Unfortunately, its only one sequence and at the end of the film. Its a "perspective" that Bannister acquires by experiencing an out of body experience. But I won't give anything more away from the plot. The point is, I think this should have been a bigger part of the film and unfortunately it was substituted for the majority of the movie with effects of the spirits that, I'm sure at the time was really great but now just remind me of a mixture of Casper and Flubber.

I'll give them credit where its due, the ghosts do look like, well ghosts. And again, I'm sure at the time it was really great special effects. Unfortunately, by today's standards they look very shotty and don't really hold up. I hate to be a snob but they're not that great.

I'd be really interested in seeing a remake of this movie with updated effects and a little bit more of a fluid story. I think this could have been a really quirky but awesome film if it had had a little bit better script and better effects. That's strange to say especially since Peter Jackson wrote it. But its not the most ground breaking

It actually kind of makes me wonder if Peter Jackson is that great of a writer. I have no doubt of his directing skills, but take Lord of the Rings for example.

The Lord of the Rings is a trilogy with an incredibly rich and full mythology. There's so much to draw from. Not to mention the epicness of the three books by themselves, there is no doubt that Peter Jackson was an incredible fan of Tolkien and took from his world. Not to mention, the books themselves have a lot of content to put in. And there was a lot of content Jackson had to leave out in order to make the movies 3 hours long.

So he finishes up with the trilogy and then almost a decade later he brings The Hobbit to the screen. Now don't get me wrong, I like the new Hobbit movies. However, they're a totally different story then the trilogy. In the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Jackson had to leave parts of the book out for time. With the Hobbit, he's making stuff up to make three movies. He's got all the time in the world and not enough material to fill it up. Therefore, the Hobbit movies have not been as good as The Lord of the Rings. When Jackson brings in his own touch to it, the movie starts to suffer.

And I still think Jackson is a good writer. I don't think this movie has made me turn away from the man. I'm just a little bit skeptical, because the script could have been a lot better.

The last thing I will mention is...

This guy...

Now I've done a pretty good job at describing this movie without the presence of Jeffery Combs just strange addition to this movie.

Combs plays a very strange FBI agent. They actually say he's the guy that gets all the weird cases. And the series of murders that happen in this town are nothing but strange. But instead of being the X-Files like FBI agent, used to dealing with this stuff but a normal guy, Combs is actually incredibly strange. He's got a phobia of sorts to women screaming at him, he's been involved with cultists. Overall, this guy was just weird. And it wasn't like he was likeable, or the kind of villain you just love to hate. No, he was just a nuisance. And obstacle for Bannister to overcome and solve the mystery. And he didn't listen to reason, he didn't even really make that much sense most of the time. He pulls out an Uzi for pretty much no reason whatsoever.

And this is the part that I have to kind of doubt Jackson. Its things like this, and the random love story between the chick from lost Elf and dwarf #5 in The Hobbit. It doesn't really add to the story, its just there. Now I don't know if that's totally Jackson who is the blame for that but its just strange.

And that's really what this movie is. Strange. In some ways its really good that its this strange. Its a very out of the norm movie and I think if it had come out in a different time and a few different actions had been taken, I think it would have been a really good psychological horror comedy.

But as it is, its just a little sloppy. Its a mediocre script with mediocre effects with a big name like Michael J Fox and it expects to be good.

Like I said before, we live in a world of reboots and new adaptations. I would love someone to take this and actually do it right. Maybe Jackson could take another crack at it, maybe we'll see a new version in a couple years, but for now, its alright. It has some promise to it but its nothing really worth seeing.

But that's what I thought of the Frighteners. What did you think? What do you think of Peter Jackson as a writer, as a director? Comment and Discuss below!

I'll leave you with this. This is a WatchMojo of the best Michael J Fox performances, its a list I might actually be looking up and watching soon. Enjoy!