You have to be logged in to comment! If you don't have an account register now for free! Your account allows you to post comments and reviews, upload videos and images, access or our forums, write personal blogs, and maintain your profile.
i saw this in theaters with a girl friend. it was fun for a friday night, last minute movie outing, but i would never buy it. it had potential, but they failed to bring it home.
Posted By: bloodnguts313 at 10:33am, August 25, 2009
This movie is ok just not as good as i hoped it be :/
I have to give this movie a 2?
It takes a lot for me to see a horror movie and not at least be tempted to purchase it when it's released on DVD, but for 'An American Haunting' I didn't even have the slightest pull. The only horror movie I've seen that I thoguht was worse, I think, was 'The Haunting' with Catherine Zeta Jones (which doesn't seem to be on this website!).
All I remember from my one time seeing this movie, was thinking "What the f***?" the entire way through. It seemed like an independant film, a movie that nobody even thought of trying to make good. Without even the slightest bit of fear.
The story could have been interesting, but facing the facts, it really had little potential, and so there was nothing more the filmakers could have really done. The acting was terrible, the soundtrack was screeching, and there was nothing scary about this movie whatsoever! I hope to never see any part of it ever again!
This movie shouldn't be rated... It is just terrible I rented the UNRATED verision... HAHA yeah lets just say please people don't waste a minute watching this movie... go do dishes or scrub your tiolet bowl....
I don't remember ever watching any reaally good ghost movies that were rated pg13... I would like to see rated R, bloody,raunchy...I want my mouth to drop... Its a shame cause the story itself is good. But the movie itself, made me want to put thirteen loops in a strong rope... Horrible shit!
I would have call this film An American Waste of Money and Talent. Despite a great cast, Solomon doesn’t quiet pull it off. When watching a Horror film or a scary movie, and that 40 minutes into it the only thing in my mind was “is there any beer left in the fridge”, it ain’t a good sign. The director forgot something; building tension over nothing leaves nothing. You must reward the viewer by actually scaring the shit out of him. Instead the director went for some cheap white eyes and some lame apparitions in the woods, them come the wolf chase and the lame Linda Blair rip offs. This also felt like some kind of unwritten novel, maybe 'Bram Stoker's Exorcist'? Well, this isn’t gonna be enough to make people actually scared. Solomon probably saw the ring and the Exorcist the week prior to start production and thought he would make the scariest movie ever, or maybe he just went for the paycheck without actually writing a script, thinking that Horror movies don’t really need a script. Well, this is a great proof that money only doesn’t make a good movie or even a movie at all. To be honest I didn’t go through the whole film, I was way too bored for that. I would suggest anyone to stick to classic and skip these 90 minutes of pure and simple, waste of time.
~D
Posted By: mikethademon at 10:00am, January 9, 2009
OK. not that good, but worth watching on cable for free.
there are parts of the movie which are chilling but then there are the crappy parts ,like the whole side story of the woman from 2006 reading the journal from 1818 ,that was annoying
Even a decent cast and good production values can't cover up the fact that this seems like a half hearted attempt.The book is good,but this film took a lot of libertys with that story...The wrong kind of libertys.I can't recommend this movie to anyone other than to have a laugh at the ridiculous "Slapping" sound effects during one scene.In a nutshell,Buy the book for yourself...Buy this movie for someone you hate.
This was a ghost story that I have been fascinated in since I was a little girl. When the book came out I read it in one evening and loved it. When the movie was announced I was so thrilled. Then I heard the casting and was even more excited. I have to say its one of the biggest movie let downs for me since Interview with a Vampire. The book shows the ghost as more of a presence...much more of a everyday part of the family's lives. Malevolent and evil but also sympathetic to Mrs. Bell. I really wish they had made it more of the multi-layer story that the book was. If you want to enjoy this story....read the book and never see this movie!
Posted By: Protecious at 2:51pm, September 30, 2008
a handfull of half assed scares that dont deliever anything new in the ghost film genre, why donald sutherlund and sissy spasek thought this was a good film is beyond me.
Posted By: roostergore at 11:37am, September 28, 2008
This as a real downer to me in that it showed so much hope for a promising ghost flick and the final delivery was pretty much a swing a miss. The acting by Sutherland and Spacek was great as expected, just the sceenwriting/directing and overall implied arrogance of itself as a good film kinda ruined it. Not even for a rainy day.
"Since most of the movie was utterly disappointing, I will start with the only positive aspect, Donald Sutherland and Sissy Spacek. Both of these actors played their part well and if it weren't for such a terrible story and generic scare tactics, they may have been able to save the movie. Alas, like many of the PG-13 horror films of today not even good acting can make up for a shady plot, bad directing and terrible editing. The film is based on the poltergeist story involving a family in rural Tennessee in the early 1800's. The story is filled with the garbled and incoherent dreams of seemingly possessed Betsy Bell, played by Rachel Hurd-Wood. In a movie built around a ghost story it was disappointing to see cheap scare tactics instead of making the movie all around eerie. I am not sure what director Courtney Solomon was thinking when he chose to film the movie with a style similar to a low budget "hack 'em slash 'em" film from the 80's, but clearly there are better ways of scaring an audience. While the filming style could have used some work, the editing and special effects were a disaster. It mostly resembled a bad soap opera. It jumps around between dreams and reality faster than Ricky Williams' in a Marijuana haze. A movie like this doesn't need a whole lot of special effects but the few that it had were terrible and even ruined the scenes. The poltergeist was nothing more than Betsy with a slight hue around her.
The only scary thing about this film was how many 13-year-old girls turned up to the theater to watch this on opening night. As a fan of horror films I understand if you want to judge this for yourself, but listen to my words wisely; don't bother." --Josh Collins, imdb.com
I love this movie. I mean i love the story line. I just wish that crazier shit would have happened to the girl and that the ending with the modern people was clearer(i want to know if she go the car to stop).
Many films try to add a twist to the tale and the horror genre has really thrived upon that premise. American Haunting tried its hand at it but came out a failure and an embaressment for the mind.
AH tries to add in a twist to what otherwise would be an average ghost story by actually misleading its audience before they even lay their eyes on the title menu. If it hadn't have made the promises it made on the cover and back of the box then it could have gone 1 of 2 ways and stuck with it. Instead if pretends to be something that its not which ultimately leaves you feeling shocked at how they managed to ruin the actual story so badly. It is sad to say that the movie looked better before you paid for it.
One notably negative point was the rather poor use of lightning for mood and atmosphere. Sorry guys but editing in some flashes of inverted colours is not convincing!
Please don't subject yourself to this, even if you MUST know the unnecessary twist at the end.
