Ghost Story

Rating:
Summary: My own diatribe voting for this movie.
Review: I've read very mixed reviews of this film. I suppose I can understand how those who have gotten used to seeing high rate gore and special effects could get used to letting their imaginations lapse when it comes to seeing this movie. Those who can only focus on the sex scene - well, I imagine that has something to do with their brains being the size of a lima bean. This movie, you must remember, was made in the early, early 80's, so no, the special effects aren't up to modern day picky standards (although the scenes with Eva in all her glory are pretty gruesome). The majority of the book has been left out, and you'll just have to get over that, but it's hard to channel an entire book the length of Ghost Story into a 1 and a 1/2 hour movie. So the focus is on Eva, her death, and her revenge. It is all about the revenge in this movie for what a group of high society boys did one summer night and tried to cover up. The storyline is presented romantically, the music is truly haunting and beautiful (unfortunately the soundtrack is out of print), and the sleepy snow scenes (like the opening scene) are creepy and enchanting as Eva's vengeful laugh is dubbed in. This is a good, creepy movie. I will end my diatribe with this - grab a large bowl of popcorn, a Coke (or preferred soft drink), wrap your legs up in a comfy throw blanket, turn out every light in the house, and give this movie a go. If you just don't like it, close your eyes and listen to the music.

Rating:
Summary: DANCE WITH ME YOU LITTLE TOAD
Review: What can I say about this much maligned movie that hasn't already been said? Is it a poor adaptation of Peter Straub's novel. Yes, but then again so are 99% of all books that find themselves recast on the silver screen (ask any Stephen King fan). The good news is that this film led me to Straub's book (the first of many). After reading it, of course, I had to agree with everybody else. My point is that I saw this movie (in the theatre) first and feel that I can be a little more objective about it. Is this a great movie? No, but it's a serviceable horror story. The real strength of this film? Alice Krige. In the absence of major special effects, she carries the tale with her presence, otherworldly acting, and chilling laughter. This is the first time that I saw her and I wouldn't see her again until I picked up Barfly and Sleepwalkers (another excellent horror turn for her) on VHS. The down side? Craig Wasson. Forget about the rest of the cast (any of them could run rings around Wasson - over the hill or not), he single-handedly breaks the spell that director John Irving is trying to weave (much as he'd do 3 years later in Brian De Palma's Body Double). I've seen less wooden acting out of Pinocchio. All in all, a welcome addition to my DVD collection. It's just a shame that it took this long to put in an appearance on DVD (like Terror Train that was released the same day).

Rating:
Summary: Assimilate Alice Krige in "Ghost Story"
Review: Four men who like to tell ghost stories are soon trapped in a ghost story of their own. A woman from all their pasts comes back to haunt them for murdering her & then trying to cover it up. Great makeup! Mediocre special effects. Alice Krige is HOT!
Also starring John Housemann, Fred Astaire & Douglas Fairbanks Jr.

Rating:
Summary: "Dance with me, you little toad."
Review: Pull down the shades and turn off the lights as it's time for a ghost story, of sorts...Ghost Story (1981), based on the bestselling Peter Straub novel, was directed by John Irvin (Raw Deal, Next of Kin), and lists an impressive cast including Fred Astaire, Melvyn Douglas, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., and John Houseman. Also appearing are Craig Wasson and relative newcomer Alice Krige, whose only other film appearance prior to this was Chariots of Fire (1981), although she has since had a long career, and I most remember her as the creepy mother from the film Sleepwalkers (1992), which was adapted from a Stephen King novel. She's also the best element in the film.

The film takes place mostly in a small New England town and is about four elderly men, members of The Chowder Society (they get together regularly to tell each other ghost stories), and a secret they've shared for the last 50 years, one that coming back to haunt them, both figuratively and literally speaking. It seems these men, now town elders, participated in an event, one which they vowed never to speak of again, but has begun to manifest itself, possible through guilt, in terrible nightmares suffered by all four men. Also, there's a little matter of a couple of nasty deaths...

Having read about this film so long ago in a Fangoria magazine, I had wanted to see it at the time it came out, but, alas, being all of about 11, I was restricted from partaking in all the nekkid and/or gory goodness of R-rated films. So, what's the deal with this film? Based on excellent source material and incorporating an experienced and highly talented cast, you'd think you'd have a real winner on your hands, right? Well, yes and no...what one may really notice the most after watching this film is the missed opportunity. I think the main problem is the same one suffered by author Stephen King in that the source material, the novel by Straub, is very lengthy, highly detailed, and extremely difficult to transfer onto the silver screen without seriously altering the material. Sure, the main elements will come through, but it's the intimate, complex details that tend to get lost, the ones that give the story depth and heart. The actors do a wonderful job, although Wasson, even though I like him a lot, seemed an odd choice to play the son of one of the elderly men. He ends up being sort of the catalyst that forces the older gentlemen to dredge up secrets buried, but never forgotten. The cast is wonderful, the direction well, done, the sets and scenery highly effective, but the element that brings the film down is that even at almost two hours, the story is missing the ookie goodness from the novel. Obviously the adapter had to pick and choose what parts to keep and what parts to omit, as is the case with any novel adapted to the screen, but the poor decisions as to what to keep and keep out become apparent as the story progresses, and the viewer begins questioning why the story becomes spotty and even crumbles at some points. The pacing is extremely slow, giving up little until it's ready. This may cause some viewers to become bored, but I rather enjoyed the gradual build up as it allowed for the viewer to really become immersed and soak up the positive, along with the negative, aspects of the plot. There are numerous flashbacks throughout, as the mystery unfolds, and I thought they were handled particularly well. The motivations of some key plot elements seemed unclear, specifically the Krige's character and the reasoning as to why she had contact with one of the elder men's sons, but I was able to get past that.

I thought the special effects were done very well, and helped immensely in adding a somewhat gothic feel to the film. The film was definitely a horror movie, but took the road less traveled focusing on more of the horror inherent within the story, rather than providing the visceral imagery we've come to expect in modern horror films. The nudity in the film seemed a bit gratuitous, and while I enjoyed seeing an attractive woman bare her assets, it wouldn't have hurt to have a little less. There are some really good scares here, and given a bit of patience, the viewer will be rewarded. There are weaknesses in the story, and viewers who've read the book will most likely be disappointed, as the film just cannot compete, even though it does give a good effort. All in all, a solid, spooky, atmospheric slow-moving horror film with definite flaws that more or less equal its' strengths.

The wide screen print here isn't as good as it could be, as the picture appears murky and has a dull, lifeless quality. This isn't constant, but very apparent in a number of scenes. The audio could use a bit of remastering, as it's uneven, soft and hard to discern sometimes, but there are English subtitles available, which I made use of through most of the film. There are no special features other than a theatrical trailer, which I found a bit disappointing. While this isn't one of the better truly scary films I've seen, it does have something to offer, as it's certainly not the worst, either. It wouldn't be among my top recommendations, but if you find yourself one lonely and dark night looking for a bit of a fright, you could do a lot worse. If you've read the book, you might do well to skip the film.

Cookieman108


Rating:
Summary: DISMAL HORROR FILM WHOLLY LACKING IN SUSPENSE!
Review: A best-selling novel is just about the safest insurance that any director can buy toward the success of his own movie. Unfortunately, it's no guarantee or recipe for greatness. Author Peter Straub's "Ghost Story" is the rather chilling tale of four friends who accidentally murder a wealthy socialite - then move on with their lives. Too bad director John Irvin's "Ghost Story" is a convoluted chop job of the book with four imminent actors literally thrown into the plot. The film begins with four old men, Ricky (Fred Astaire), John (Melvyn Douglas), Edward (Douglas Fairbanks Jr.) and Sears (John Houseman) living in quaint domesticity in a picturesque New England town. In the evenings they get together for tea and sharing tales of terror around the old campfire, or, in this case, fireplace.

All, however, is not a postcard! Seems the boys are having a bit of trouble catching their winks. A series of disjointed nightmares about a rotting corpse ensue. But before we can invest in the terror of their subconscious, there's an abrupt and jarring cutaway to a fashionable New York apartment where a naked David Wanderley (Craig Wasson) finds his bathtub filling up. He also discovers a mysterious equally naked woman (Alice Krige) face down on a pillow in his bed. When he flips the seemingly harmless babe over it turns out to be a wormy disgusting corpse and David plunges to his death. Now we are introduced to the Mayor of the small New England town - Edward Wanderley (Fairbanks). He calls his other son, Don (also Wasson - presumably because the film's budget precluded two actors from participating) to tell him about his brother's `accidental' death. Don immediately comes home. But then Don learns about his father's club and, after daddy unexpectedly drowns Don regales the remaining members with a story of haunted romance. Seems he was a reasonably successful professor in Florida when he met Alma Mobley (Krige). The two are hot and heavy even though she throws out practically every sign known to man that she's a few apples short of a pie. Then the affair turns ugly and Don is sure that David has been killed by Alma who is really Eva, the ghost of the woman that Ricky, John, Edward and Sears killed nearly a half a century before. Go figure!

The plot, such as it is, simply does not work. There's no provocation for Eva/Alma wanting either Don or David dead; no reason why Eva/Alma should wait sixty years to take vengeance on her killers (eg. an anniversary, a birthday, a round number...sixty years to the day, this sort of drivel), no explanation why the deaths occur in the order that they do; no logic behind Alma's invitation to Don that she's "going to take him to places he's never been," and, finally; no reason why Mark Chamberlin, the actor who plays young John should look more like a youthful Fred Astaire than Tim Choate, the actor who plays Astaire's character, Ricky as a youth.

This is not a cohesive narrative but a series of disjointed vignettes and bits of dry melodrama strung together with the hope that an audience will "get it" in the end. The film is big on gratuitous nudity - so much that a few scenes could technically be classified as soft core porn. Wasson is not an actor. He's a marionette, overplaying his hand like a prize ham. It's tragic to see the likes of Douglas and Astaire desperately trying to save face in this dismal excursion that ends as abruptly and absurdly as it begins.

Albert Witlock's traveling matte effects - usually masterpieces of flawless escapism - on this outing are obvious and, in some cases, laughable. Watch for the scene where naked David plummets to his death through a plate glass ceiling into a swimming pool. It's the same slow-mo technical effect used in "Psycho" during the scene where Det. Arbogast (Martin Balsam) descends the stairs with a knife wound to his face. But that was 1960. Hardly worked then - definitely doesn't work now, and "Ghost Story" is a film unable to even begin to pucker up to the blood-soaked shower curtain of Hitchock's most gruesome thriller.

As Universal's DVD packaging heralds, "The time has come to tell the tale." Indeed - this one's a stinker! This disc has been mastered from a film print, not an original negative. As a result there are age related artifacts throughout this presentation. Although they do not distract, they nevertheless degrade the visual material. The anamorphic DVD exhibits colors that can be nicely balanced. But on the whole there's a decided pasty quality to the film. Blacks are deep and, for the most part, solid. Flesh tones are way too pink! Fine film grain is present throughout. Details are generally nicely realized. A hint of edge enhancement is present as well as shimmering of fine details. Neither is distracting. The audio is 2.0 stereo with a characteristically dated fidelity. The only extra is a theatrical trailer.


Rating:
Summary: Better than it's reputation
Review: This movie has been taking an unfair beating for the last 20 years. CRITICS BE DAMNED....it's really pretty good. If you do not compare it to the book it more than succeeds within the horror genre. Alice Krige plays her role so well that when I saw her years later as the Borg queen in Star Trek First Contact all I could think about was her role in Ghost Story. Hell hath no fury like that of a scorned woman.

Rating:
Summary: Novel: Excellent, Film: Not!
Review: First, let me say that Straub's novel is one of the finest ghost stories ever written. It's terrifying, too, as good ghost stories should be. Hence, I had high expectations of this film. The fact is the film is dreadful! It's almost nothing like the novel, and the only reason I give it two stars is due to some atmosphere. The cinematography looks good. That's about it. Spend your money, sure, but spend it on the novel and you'll spend many dark evenings in your reading chamber casting furtive glances at those darkened corners.

Rating:
Summary: SENIOR SCARES
Review: When I first saw GHOST STORY on its initial release, I found it to be an entertaining, if not faithful, adaptation of Peter Straub's frightening novel. Now, some 20 years later, I found the movie less entertaining. The main problem I think is the enigmatic nature of the ghost, Eva Galli or Alma Mosely. Was she evil or supernatural prior to her death? And why doesn't she kill Donald as she did his brother? Was she really alive when she went down in the car? And what in the world do the Bates have to do with anything? And the classic "I am You" line is powerless without an explanation.
John Irvin's direction is also lackluster and sober. Of all the classic actors involved, none of them showed the power they have possessed in other roles. Although a talented actor, Craig Wasson was woefully miscast. Only Alice Krige as the ghostly Alma and Jacqueline Brookes as Astaire's wife bring any luster or poignancy to the film.
It's not a bad film by any means, and it does have some frightening moments with a wonderful score by Phillipe Sarde. I wish someone would remake it, however, and bring out more of the wonderful scariness of the novel.