Re: What Did You Watch? 2024-03-15 (Friday)

On 3/16/2024 4:29 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:

On 3/16/2024 1:40 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:

 

The Frighteners (blu-ray) 1996 horror comedy directed by Peter Jackson
and starring Michael J. Fox as a conman who uses his ability to see and
talk to ghosts to con people until he stumbles upon the ghost of a
serial killer who hasn't let being dead slow him down.

 

I sort of like this movie, but it falls apart in the middle. I've read
that the version distributed in the United States is heavily edited of
the New Zealand version. I've never seen what Peter Jackson intended. I
just looked; there's a director's cut that's 12 minutes longer. Also,
there are two different DVDs for home video, the second with
inferior audio.

 

I was hoping for a 4K upgrade.  I heard one was on the way over a year
ago but it never materialized.  At least not in the U.S.

 

Any idea what version you watched?

 

I watched the director's cut.  I have no idea what was put back in.  I
didn't listen to the commentary.  I do remember being less than
impressed when I saw the movie in the theater.  Over time I've more or
less forced myself to like it.  But part of that might be I've been
watching the director's cut.  I think it also helps if you go in knowing
what to expect.

 

Like you said, I sort of like it.  I honestly don't understand why I
don't like it more.  Everything about it really screams great movie,
then I actually watch it and the best I can muster is it's OK I guess.

 

Now that I think about it, maybe the problem is there are no likable
characters in the movie.  I never thought about it before now, but the
movie really has no one to care about.  The movie probably would have
been significantly better if Michael J. Fox's character was likable.
Right from the start his character is being a total jerk to his ghost
helpers and he's just in it to rip people off.  And now that I think
about it some more, the people he targets are basically widows and
orphans!  He has barely any character growth beyond that.  I know by the
end he's supposedly a nice guy, but the movie never justifies that
change.  It just happens because reasons.

 Those are very good points.
 His girlfriend's character isn't established and nothing we see tells us
why they are together. That Jake Busey grabs her doesn't work as well
because he doesn't seem to care enough about her.
 I really wanted more from the Jeffrey Combs scenes because, hey, he
saved a lousy first season Babylon 5 script, and the obsequious Weyoun
on Deep Space Nine (not to mention liquidator Brunt). But his character
just came across as weird without motive.
 

Yes!  That!  I know they paid lip service about him being undercover, but he needed way more explanation than that.

Who was a mid 90s contemporary who cold have played the part but made
the character likable?  Brad Pitt?  Johnny Depp?  Keanu Reeves?  Will
Smith?  John Cusack?

 Heh
 It was the script.
 

True.  But there's a reason they fired Eric Stoltz and replaced him with Fox after they had begun shooting Back to the Future.  Same script...but actor choice matters too.  Although personally, I think I might have preferred a Stotlz version of BTTF.  Especially for part 3.

I also read that this was in post production for close to a year and a
half because of the massive amount of time for effects in those days
that are probably created today with a couple of keystrokes.