The Frighteners

The R rating is appropriate for the violence as it does get pretty bloody at times. It will probably also scare some younger kids. However there is no sex or nudity and the language is really more on a PG-13 level. I didnt count any f-words all of the language would be acceptable for a PG-13. If you have teenagers who want to watch horror films this is a good one to start with as long as you are not offended by some over the top violence. While the profanity is frequent it is pretty tame for an R rating and everything you hear you will find in PG or PG-13 movies. Its pretty violent but it's a good movie and I would say it is a tamer and safer choice for teenagers who are interested in horror. Kids 15 and up will likely not be very scared and will laugh a little too there are some really funny scenes. Older teenagers are likely to be more entertained and find it cool than find it scary and terrifying. Not for young ones but ok for 15 and up.

I think this movie is very underrated; I wasn't expecting a lot based off the other reviews. The movie is really a PG-13 movie with one scene that feels like it hits the R for violence (but even that in today's cinema still feels PG-13). Michael J. Fox is great as a grieving ghost seeing con man who is going to be pulled into the hero role despite his insistence that he isn't a good guy. The cinematography and direction are beautiful with a great mix of different shots and techniques which make it visually very interesting to watch as well as the techniques enhancing the drama and character emotions. I really appreciated that the woman lead, Trini Alvarado, wasn't sexualized, and was complex, smart, caring, and kick ass.

Note: There are two versions of this film, the R rated theatrical cut (110 minutes) and the unrated director's cut (123 minutes). The director's cut does not make the movie more explicit. Movie (4.5/5.0): From Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings), comes a unique horror comedy that's both hilarious and intense. The movie follows Frank Banaster, a psychic investigator who helps remove the ghosts from people's home. However, Frank can actually talk to ghosts and uses them to haunt people and scam them out of money. One job has Frank see a client have a number on his forehead and then the next day that client is dead, adding to the disturbingly high death count plaguing the city. Frank must now try to stop whatever is causing these deaths while avoiding law enforcement who have made him the prime suspect. The movie is hilarious with the cast playing off each other well and taking advantage of the supernatural situation with hilarious results. The story is very unique and fun, while similar in tone to movies like Beetlejuice, it has its own identity that's darker and more balanced horror/comedy. The third act and a lot of the main story gets pretty dark (where there's very little comedy), however the excellent and well developed characters make it worth it to watch until the end. The writing is also great, finding that perfect balance of when to be fun/goofy and intense/serious, there's some really funny jokes here (specifically from Frank's ghost sidekicks), but it doesn't ignore the disturbing nature of the supernatural antagonist and his goal. The effects still mostly hold up pretty well (though the Reaper effects have aged hard), with the ghosts feeling really there despite being blue screened in and have a wonderful translucent look to them. The director's cut is recommended for the better character development, but the theatrical cut is still great. The Frighteners is a wonderful horror comedy that balances everything very well and has great characters to help keep that balance. If you're looking for something darker to watch with your kids but isn't too extreme, I recommend it as it isn't that gruesome, foul mouthed, or sexual. Speaking of which, I harshly disagree on the R rating, the movie has absolutely no f bombs and besides 1 really graphic moment (which was added AFTER the MPAA wouldn't lower the R rating, so Jackson put it in to make the R feel somewhat worth it [and because he was mad for censoring himself for nothing]), the violence is pretty tame. This is because Peter Jackson filmed the movie with a PG-13 in mind but the MPAA wouldn't budge (including citing silly reasons for it, like a door got shot too many times). The only reason I can see for the MPAA wanting to keep it R was because of its serial killer elements, but even then it wasn't that graphic of a depiction. Probably one of the tamest R rated films made (next to Army of Darkness and A Ghost Story [2017]). Violence (3.5/5.0): 1 graphic head explosion by shotgun, a quick shot of a body stabbed to death (blood all over, blink and you'll miss it). Flashbacks to a hospital massacre (with minimal blood and gore), old 'documentary' footage of said massacre and the dead bodies (minimal blood). Several deaths of heart attacks (the supernatural antagonist causes them, nothing graphic is show). A character shows off his scars from being an undercover cop. Characters in constant threat of death from all 3 antagonists throughout the climax. Language (3/5): Several uses of S--t; as well as uses of damn, hell, bi-ch, ass, ect. Drinking/Smoking/Drugs (2/5): Some drinking during dinners, one character was an alcoholic in the past, and smoking during conversations/working. One ghost character really wants cigars. Sex (1/5): Two of the antagonists are very passionately romantically involved with each other, however absolutely nothing graphic is show, just some making out. Kissing is seen elsewhere too. A few sexual jokes, nothing too inappropriate.

Looking to step up our Halloween movie night i thought Frighteners would be a perfect movie but was surprised to see it had a r rating. I watched it originally when it was first released and couldnt think of any reason for the rating. At any rate, it made My 9 and 11 year olds even more excited to watch a scary “r” rated movie. Having seen all the Harry Potters, Matrix, Lord of the Rings and Avatar. This movie wasn’t any more violent, dark or scary as those so, thought theyd be fine and they where. The scene where the person gets their head blown off isn’t realistic. Its dated CGI where the head turns into a blob of blood my kids described as cheesy. If your kids are easy scared and not use to movie violence, this may be too intense. However, i wouldn’t consider this an r rated movie.

I didn't think I'd need to write a review of this movie, but just happened to look up what common sense thought about it after watching it again with the wife who'd never seen it. This review is TERRIBLE. There are no "major" plot holes as the description above suggests. The "like the heroine recognizing a clue that she couldn't possibly have seen (known to the viewer only via flashback)" is completely incorrect. If the reviewer actually watched the movie (and paid attention/understood the movie), they would realize that she recognized the "clue" from the FBI agent's monologue about Bannister's crash. No plot hole there, sorry. As for any others, I've watched the films COUNTLESS times and am pretty good at seeing plot holes. Sorry, I can't seem to think of any. At any rate, this is an adult film, and possibly one of MJ Fox's best (aside from the obvious). I really love this film, and I don't like horror flicks. It's more gun violence than anything, and the storyline is great as well. Seriously, maybe I should start reviewing films for you guys, you're WAY off on this one. Great movie.

Idiotic. Jackson has no skill as a screenwriter and should stick with directing. Even that is lacking in this odd-scripted, badly acted trash. It really is amazing to think Jackson started off so badly. It isn't scary, and although better than the disastrous "Bad Taste," it still fails to deliver laughs. Overall, a terrible film that can neither be classed as a horror or a comedy.