The Frighteners - Director's Cut (1996) **1/2

Let's get this out of the way up front: the CGI in Peter Jackson's The Frighteners (1996) is bad. It was bad in 1996 and it's really bad in 2022. And there is a lot of CGI in The Frighteners. It's a shame because if the film went the practical f/x route I would like it a lot more. I'd like the film a whole lot more if it was shorter as well—at just over 2 hours the director's cut superfluously adds 13 minutes to the theatrical cut (which was already longer than necessary). 

On top of the terrible CGI, there is a bit too much goofiness in The Frighteners for my tastes (with occasional weirdly serious shifts in tone which sloppily attempt to address trauma). Jackson seemed to be going for a Ghostbusters (1984) (review), Evil Dead II (1987) (review), and Beetlejuice (1988) (review) vibe but what he ended up with is a big swing and a miss for this viewer.

It blows my mind that Jackson made Heavenly Creatures (1994) and then made The Frighteners (which feels much more in line with his early work but with the unfortunate quality of having a big budget, much of which was squandered on the poor CGI). HC was such an accomplished film for the director and proved that he could branch out of gore films and make a serious, dark drama if he wanted to (and don't get me wrong, I love early PJ). 

But then he made The Frighteners, spent entirely too much time in Middle-earth, and made the unfortunate King Kong (2005) remake. It looks like he's slated to direct a Tintin sequel (which will be released in 2027??)—my review of the 2011 Spielberg film (which I liked more than expected) here. Jackson's sadly never made a film like Heavenly Creatures again, instead opting to make tentpole movies. His career very much followed the same trajectory as George Lucas and James Cameron. It would make my heart happy if the man directed a smaller-scale and more personal film again someday.

I have many friends who adore The Frighteners and it's become a cult film. I get it, to a degree, but I've never loved it. I can't recall if I saw the film in the theater but I know I definitely owned the DVD around the time it was released in 1998. I've seen the director's cut at least twice and I believe I've seen the theatrical cut as many times. It's just never quite clicked for me and this viewing only cemented my feelings for it (and made me like it even less).

I will say—there are some funny moments in the film, Danny Elfman's score is solid (before his work became sonic wallpaper in the 2000s), Jeffrey Combs is superb, and Michael J. Fox is good for the role (I particularly appreciate the callbacks to Back To The Future (1985) (review) that producer Robert Zemeckis and Jackson put in). But overall I find The Frighteners to be a bloated picture in either of its versions, much of the humor doesn’t land, and, man, did I mention how bad the CGI is…?

Peter Jackson Feature Films Ranked