Haunter (2013) [review]
Haunter (2013) [review]
An unusually good horror movie centered around a younger actress
Quick Review
Good film.
The level of incompetence required to put a films twists in the synopsis is unfathomable. So yeah, that’s spoiled. Well done. Fortunately I didn’t read the full synopsis before watching. Neither should you. I put it in the spoilers section.
I would say ‘Haunter’ is about a girl in her mid-teens named Lisa, played by Abigail Breslin, trapped in a house, stuck in a loop, repeating the same seemingly mundane day with her unknowing family. It’s revealed within the first 6 minutes, so not really a spoiler so much as the plot.
The remaining twists are drip-fed and explained as the movie progresses. There’s no sudden reveal, everything is tactfully unveiled to keep you watching. Knowing this is a horror movie, the twists are quite predictable. A boring movie will have you analysing it throughout and guessing the ending. Not the case here.
‘Haunter’ has unsettling moments. There are only 2 jump scares and some borderline spooky events. There’s no gore or torture porn, quite the feat for a movie centered around captivity. Lisa is confined to a house, of sorts, trying to escape the loop with an oblivious family and menaced by an otherworldly presence. It’s this unknown entity which provides the scares; mostly psychological.
The fictional family connect well. Abigail is great for such a young actress. Her younger brother Robbie will have you wincing in agony every time the morning walkie-talkie cracks. There’s also a surprise guest appearance by Dr Rodney McKay of the ‘Stargate’ TV series’. Awesome. The film focuses exclusively on Abigail who, while not perfect in her performance, does a stellar job.
While everyone can enjoy this movie, I say it’s one for a younger or more feminine audience. A date night movie which won’t have anyone throwing up their expensive meal. A film for teens to watch during a sleepover that won’t give them nightmares for the next decade.
“Lisa Johnson! Lisa, me and Edgar found the pirate treasure…”
Ugh. Every time.
Overview
Genre(s): Horror, Mystery, Ghost
Location(s): A house (USA)
Writer(s): Brian King
Director(s): Vincenzo Natali
Main Actor(s):
'Abigail Breslin' as 'Lisa'
'Peter Outerbridge' as 'Bruce'
'Michelle Nolden' as 'Carol'
'Peter DaCunha' as 'Robbie'
Official Synopsis:
An epic dent head wrote spoilers in the synopsis and king of the dent heads approved it. So I’m putting this under the spoilers section.
Box Art:
In More Detail (no major spoilers)
No major spoilers here, but film structure and plot is analysed in detail. If in doubt, just watch the film.
The first time I watched ‘Haunter’ was around 10 years ago, at initial release, on a day where I must have been in a bad mood. I remember it being a good movie but lacking in scares. So I never watched it again until writing this review. It never jumped out at me when looking through my library.
My second viewing was a enjoyable experience. Which is a shame because there’s a lot of positives to be found. I with I had watched it more. Now I’ve watched it again, I feel more confident in recommending ‘Haunter’ as a good movie. One with that’s more spooky than scary.
While this is a horror movie, it’s nothing to make an adult sleep with the light on. The scares mostly revolves around a mysterious shadowy figure lurking inside the house. Around less than half way through the film we discover who they are, their intentions and the movie switches to more suspense than horror. Viewers will be left wondering how things will unfold rather than the families fate.
The terror is sparse and predictable at times, but Abigail sells it well. She’s also key to why I recommend this is an entry level horror movie. Hollywood has a well documented agenda to normalise paedophilia.
Every movie they make about teenage girls has to portray them as unnaturally horny, slutty and demand they get their tits out regardless of age. Not the case here. No nudity. No romantic love interest. No whorishness. As it should be.
Abigail plays a normal teen girl in jeans and a t-shirt, doing normal girl things. She’s not trying to bang anyone, get drunk, high or work through daddy issues. A refreshing deviation from nearly every Hollywood movie I’ve endured since 1999. My only criticism is… it’s barely worth mentioning. How can I put this delicately? Abigail is a young and very talented actress, but maybe lacks worldly experience. Her gestures are quite repetitive.
Trying to politely say she has limited facial expressions. Which isn’t a bad thing. She’s young! Well, she was when making this movie. As a teenage girl playing the part of a teenage girl, her mannerisms are that of a teenage girl. So there’s nothing to complain about. This is more real than a 25 year old wearing too much makeup, playing someone ten years their junior.
I noticed that regardless of terror, bemusement, confusion, anger; Abigail had the same face. A sort of? I can’t finish that without being mean and I like her. As an actress. Probably a horrible person in real life like every other actress.
Robbie, Lisa’s younger brother, is the next most notable person in ‘Haunter’. You will mostly remember him for that damn walkie-talkie. Every morning Lisa is awoken by Robbie’s shrill mantra of…
“Lisa Johnson! Lisa, me and Edgar found the pirate treasure! Meet us down in the secret cave. We’re gonna spend all Sunday morning there!”
The pain does not translate well from audio to text. I’ve nothing against the actor Peter DaCunha, who played Robbie. This is how a little brother is meant to act. Robbie is not limited to the walkie-talkie though, he plays a reasonably important role which could have been a movie by itself. Lisa is the one who wakes up so it makes sense to follow her. Although that could have been wound cleverly in to a Robbie-centric movie.
The parents have a role to play but don’t stand out much. Kind of hard to make a lasting impression when you’re living the same day over and over. Each member of the family has a specific link to the loop and the mothers surprised me the most. I didn’t put it together. Pay attention and you may be able to figure it out. Or go to the spoilers section.
As mentioned in the quick review, there’s a pleasantly surprising appearance by Dr Rodney McKay. It wouldn’t be a surprise if I had read the cast list beforehand. I was curious why the film got recommended to me and this would explain it. The synopsis sounds interesting, though it’s a 50/50 chance whether I would have found it at all if not for Rodney.
There’s no big reveal. Or at least one which couldn’t be predicted within the first 15 minutes. Twists are intelligently explained as the movie progresses and viewers aren’t patronised with clumsy exposition. That’s not to say it’s entirely predictable.
There were a few moments which could have gone one way and I picked the other. Simple things like a shadowy figure, the silhouette of which lurks ominously under the gap of Lisa’s bedroom door. Why is there a gap there? More importantly, to the story anyway, who is the figure? I got it wrong. Sort of.
Throughout the film we’re treated to brief musical exerts from ‘Peter and the Wolf’ by Sergei Prokofiev. Not Disney, the entitled copyright Nazis who think they own everything. I’ve tried to identify some link between the piece and the movie but came up blank. Lisa plays the clarinet, which represents the cat, who was hunting the bird, before hiding in a tree from the wolf. Her being the cat doesn’t make any sense. If anything she… see the spoilers section. However, the piece she recites comes after the line:
“Boys like Peter aren’t afraid of wolves”
She’s not a boy either. Maybe it was just something fun to throw in the film? Would have been nice there were more of a connection between the 2 stories. If anyone needs a refresher, I’ll put a narration by David Bowie below.
The time loop is set in the late 1980’s. I had no idea until the date was visually cued. The clues were all there. What young boy would willingly play the original Pac-Man in 2013? The family gathering at night to watch, what I think was, ‘Murder, She Wrote’ (1984-1996). A wired phone with metallic ringer.
There was nothing out of place for the period but it didn’t feel like the 1980’s. Maybe it was the modern filming techniques and methods? Would a grainy, pixellated, poorly colour corrected picture make the setting more authentic? It doesn’t matter. This was only an afterthought while writing my review.
So far it sounds like a family friendly adventure movie. Where does the element horror come from? There’s an almost haunting presence to the house. Hence the name of the film! Moving objects, a Ouija board, ghostly apparitions, slamming doors and secret passageways. What could it/they/them want and how does it relate to the looping day?
Barring a few ancillary details, this is mostly revealed less than half way through the film. Once you understand why things are happening then, tense chases and slamming doors aside, there’s not much to be scared of.
Why is the day repeating? Why this day? Why is Lisa the only one to realise? How does she come to realise? Most questions will be answered by the end of the film. For everything else, there’s the spoilers section. Which will probably raise more questions than it answers.
Took me a painfully long time, but something finally clicked and now I know why Abigail Breslin seemed so familiar. She played the youngest of the sisters in ‘Zombieland’ (2009). She was very good in that movie too. Nice to see her headlining.
If you’re wondering what’s written on Lisa’s t-shirt, it’s ‘Siouxsie and the Banshees’. A London based alternative lesbian rock band from the late 1970’s. They have a single song credited to them in the film, titled ‘The Killing Jar' (1988). Lisa’s family were based in 1985. A minor niggle but one easily avoided.
Apart from one other minor consistency issue, it’s a solid movie.
Don’t let this song put you off. ‘Haunter’ is a really good movie.
Don’t Read This Section!
I’m not covering the entire movie and taking away potential earnings. This is an area for parts of the review which may ruin the viewing experience, not for disclosing every plot point.
Synopsis
“Lisa Johnson (Abigail Breslin - Zombieland) and her family died in 1986 under sinister circumstances but remain trapped in their house. Unable to move on and tormented by their killer, they must live out their last living day over and over again. Lisa soon discovers that she is trapped in limbo and must fight to free her family from their prison.
Over a period of six 'days', Lisa must reach out from beyond the grave to help her present-day living counterpart, Olivia, avoid the same fate Lisa and her family have suffered.
Also starring Peter McHattie (Watchman, 300), Peter Outerbridge (Saw VI, Silent Hill Revelation 3D) and David Hewlett (Splice), HAUNTER is a chilling supernatural horror with a twist.”
Butterflies
The opening credits sequence is an entirely computer rendered tour of butterflies in jars, which clearly cost a lot of money to produce. I’m taking a stand and saying it is irrelevant.
There is a painfully minor reference to butterflies in the flashback to Edgar murdering his parents. You’ll likely not notice and probably have forgotten about the opening credits when it appears.
It would have been so easy to set this up better. Instead of trinkets from each ghost being found in their burnt ashes, Edgar could have placed them in jars? These could have been hidden over the house or in a secret room. Lots of potential and money wasted. Wasted money annoys me.
Opening
Previous readers know of my hatred for jump scares. So it’s frustrating when such an enjoyable movie opens with a jump scare. Literally, the first thing after the butterfly sequence is a jump scare. Why?
It’s not that kind of film and it sets a bad tone. People shouldn’t be half asleep at the start of a movie, so it doesn’t need a jump scare. If jump scares are to be used, it’s during moments of extreme tension or relaxation and sparingly.
A Brief Timeline of Events
Edgar was born in the early 1900’s. He murdered his family when he was a child. He committed various murders up until 1983, after which he died. Lisa’s family moved in to the house during 1984. Her family died in 1985. Olivia’s family were living in the house during 2013.
The remains of all Edgar’s victims seemed to be incinerated in the house with spirits trapped in unique realities.
Edgar’s Motivation
He’s a dick? I’ve seen the movie twice in 10 years and didn’t pick up on why Edgar kills. I don’t want to watch it again simply to pick apart the narrative, if his motivations were so important then they would have been emphasised in the story. Does not knowing affect my opinion? No.
We’re shown a flashback of Edgar murdering his parents in the early 1900’s. He appears to have a boner for Chloroform, which is a connection to the butterfly opening. A tenuous connection. Why does he relate people to butterflies? These insects aren’t preserved in jars, as the human ghosts are with the house, they rot away unless preserved.
I’m noting that Edgar killed many people before he died. Lisa discovered this by perusing old paper clippings in the loft. Why did he kill and why did he persist after dying? Was it because he cremated the victims in the house and that also trapped him inside?
Why does Edgar target these specific people; his family, random girls, families in the house? Was it just Lisa and Olivia’s families? Was it Edgar’s choice to haunt the house or punishment for his crimes? Why did Edgar possess the fathers to kill the families? Why not possess Robbie, who could represent Edgar as a child? Maybe possess Robbie indefinitely? Does he kill the women because they’re beautiful butterflies for his collection and everyone else is collateral damage?
I guess in order to comprehend Edgar’s motivations, one first needs to understand the mentality behind trapping butterflies in jars. Which, to me, is just a dick thing to do.
Peter and the Wolf
This sparked quite the interest with me. If the inclusion was only as a lighthearted piece of royalty free music to break the tension, that’s cool. I appreciate that more than degenerate ethnic beats for morons. It’s considered a fair’y easy tune for the clarinet and makes sense for a teenage girl, 2 girls, to be playing.
I’ve embedded a video of ‘Peter and the Wolf’, narrated by Bowie, further up in this article as a refresher. The story is brief and easy to to follow. However, I’m struggling to make the connection between the events or characters between that and ‘Haunter’.
The clarinet, played by Lisa and Olivia, represents the cat. I think the implied symbolism of this can be dismissed. It’s just an instrument. The cat was hunting the bird when a wolf appeared, the wolf ate the duck, the bird flew in to a tree, the cat ran up a tree and they waited for Peter to chase the wolf away. Neither girl were hunting anything, so why would they be the cat?
A flute represents the bird. There’s no reason why the girls couldn’t be playing one of those. Or a stringed instrument, which depicts Peter. So the clarinet was an intentional choice.
If anything, I would say the girls could be Peter, the wolf Edgar and the family is the other animals?
Or the wolf is the house, the family are the duck which was eaten whole by the wolf, Lisa is Peter and Olivia is the bird?
Maybe the music can help? The tune Lisa recites throughout the movie, plays as Peter ignores his grandfathers wishes and ventures out alone. That implies Lisa is Peter. Towards the end of the movie, Lisa goes full-on Nicolas Cage and belts out a tune which allows her to take control of Olivia. This piece plays when Peter first meets the bird. Lisa is Peter and Olivia is the bird?
The more I think about this, the more confused I become. I’m not paid to think. Especially when I’m paid nothing. So for my sanity, let’s go with notion that ‘Peter and the Wolf’ was something fun and relatable to include. Not to be dissected and analysed!
How Did Lisa Connect with Olivia
I’ll preface this by proclaiming it to be the clarinet. Although the movie suggests it’s a necklace. So why do they only connect when playing the clarinet?
My reasoning behind the clarinet is that both Lisa and Olivia play one. We don’t see Olivia playing, but it would appear both girls are reciting ‘Peter and the Wolf’. The connection can’t be overlooked. Though it doesn’t explain why. There are other similarities between the girls in age, family and dwelling. Do 2 people who perform similar actions at similar times automatically qualify for a cosmic connection?
Maybe Lisa’s clarinet is what woke her up? Maybe, because she played it during her final day, it was something to inevitably trigger her awakening and Edgar couldn’t stop it?
Edgar would have to concentrate hard every day to hide it from her, but how is that different from the other family items? If the family only see what Edgar wants them to, why didn’t he simply hide the clarinet? Perhaps he did but become distracted with the new family, let it slide, Lisa found it and woke up?
In case you’re wondering, as I was, the girls play different clarinets. So the connection couldn’t be that Olivia found and played Lisa’s instrument.
Lisa died in 1985. Olivia lives in 2013. In 28 years there was no one else that either family member could connect with? Maybe they did and failed to dethrone Edgar? That could be another story.
Olivia is wearing Lisa’s necklace and it’s implied this is how they connected. Maybe that’s how Lisa woke up? It wasn’t Lisa interacting with an object, it was Olivia finding her necklace? Then the clarinet created a strong bond through the concentration required to play the music?
Does Robbie Know They’re Dead?
I don’t think so, though this is confused by a conversation Lisa has with her parents. She’s at a table arguing with them, yelling out “Because we’re already…”. Robbie cuts her off by screaming from the other side of the room.
That implies Robbie doesn’t want to hear the truth. Maybe he knows they’re dead? More likely is that Edgar feeds Robbie information and coerced him to scream. If the parents knew they were dead, would that cause them to wake up? I don’t think it would.
Who was the Shadowy Figure?
Initially I believed this to be Edgar. In retrospect, it makes more sense that the shadowy figure under the door is Lisa’s father before the murders. At this time he was either possessed, or heavily influenced, by Edgar.
Technically I was right and wrong.
How Lisa’s Family Woke Up
Lisa’s family repeat the same day over and over. Every day. They awaken by finding objects which link to the day they died. It’s been 28 years since they parted and are only now finding them?
This could be explained by a comment Edgar makes. In a confrontation with Lisa, he states her family only sees what he wants them to. Either with the arrival of Olivia’s family, or by the passing of so many years, Edgar’s concentration may have started to wane. This could have led to the family going off script and finding their trigger items.
Remember Edgar is awake and in control. For 28 years he has seemingly been playing with Robbie. Every day Robbie wakes Lisa with the same message about Edgar, implying Edgar is also trapped in some sort of loop. Or is this Robbie’s imagination and not actually Edgar? There are far more questions here than answers.
In case anyone missed or forgot the trigger items, I’ll list them here. Lisa’s father wakes up after finding the spark plugs (sort of), Robbie wakes after finding his glasses and the mother after finding the missing clothes. The mothers trigger threw me. I never thought of the missing clothes as an object. That was a nice surprise.
The Most Minor of Inconsistencies
Olivia, possessed by Lisa, is tied up in the back of her fathers car. She finds a lighter on the floor, uses it to burn through her bindings then drops it. Olivia’s father then enters the vehicle, sits in the drivers seat and uses the lighter to spark a cigarette. Wouldn’t it be on the backseat floor?
It’s the most minor of inconsistencies. Perhaps a scene of the father picking up the lighter from the backseat is in a special edition not yet released?
Also, wouldn’t the father have smelt the burning from Olivia’s bindings?
Meat is Murder
Fuck off
