Haunts (1976)

Best movie of this year hands down!

Did you people see the same film I saw?

A lot of fun.

it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.

"Haunts" is a movie that put me in the mind of films like Robert Altman's "That Cold Day in the Park" and "Images" or Roman Polanski's "Repulsion." Stories about lonely women whose obsessions and mental wanderings leave the viewer in doubt about what is real and what's the result of the heroines' fevered imaginings, and that often end in violent acts carried out by the women in their own defense. Of course "Haunts" isn't anywhere nearly as good as any of those other films. It uses a serial killer premise as a red herring, but presents the protagonist's story literally, not even suggesting that there may be some doubt about what's real and what's not until what amounts to a surprise ending makes us realize that the woman was cuckoo all along. That ending is admittedly rather effective, but because there was no mystery leading up to it and the film itself is rather poorly made in most regards, it doesn't have much of an impact.It didn't help that I saw "Haunts" as part of a boxed set of terrible picture and sound quality, but I doubt that high def and pristine sound would have made me like this film much more. It's mostly just boring, which is one of the worst offenses of which a film can be guilty.Grade: D+

May Britt plays a seemingly innocent farm girl convinced that her slovenly uncle (Cameron Mitchell) is the man responsible for the bloody scissor-murders of several local girls.First of all, ignore the 10 point review from the guy who said the only reason he gave it 10 was cuz he was in it!Aldo Ray is in this before he turned to porn. He's a drunken sheriff which seems like real life, minus the sheriff. Interesting side note: the movie Aldo made after Haunts was Haunted. He looks like he on a bender throughout the entire movie.The titles on this movie make it appear like a TV film and it's rated PG so how good can it be? The sound is dismal and the picture looks like it was made with mob money for about $14,000.It's a very slow moving film that doesn't hold your interest

Once again, the 70's feels like being really weird with its titles and have them have nothing to do with the actual story. i love it. oh wait. no i don't, it's STUPID. oh well. Onto movie 9 of the Chilling classics box set.What do we have to look forward to this time? well some ultra Jesus loving chick named Ingrid! there's a bunch of murders taking place around the area with a dude with some scissors and soon enough she gets attacked, but she gets away and then a whole bunch of zaniness begins! like rapings and crazily boring scenes that don't need be there! hooray for the 70's! Supposedly Ingrid gets raped by this guy named Frankie. i say supposedly cause...well you'll see later. anyway after a while, the sheriff (who sounds like he has a touch of the throat cancer) and his cronies discover who the killer is and the good ol boys take him out. with guns...although he's unarmed. that always makes me wonder. why is it ALWAYS sheriffs in horror movies? to this day, i have never seen a bumbling sheriff in real life. do they exist? oh well, maybe out west. anywho, Ingrid doesn't believe its over because she thinks Frankie is still on the loose. her and her uncle she's living with takes him out. and all is well........or is it? Little do we know that she really didn't get raped and she made everything up with her craziness. what a twist! oh no wait...the twist was STUPID. and then the movie proceeds to go on for 10 minutes longer than it should describing what the hell happened in the rest of the movie. another reason to show that this movie messed up. it shouldn't NEED to have that explanation, it should be obvious in the storytelling. Even though i may not be a fan of the movie "Hide and Seek", it actually SHOWED us what happened as opposed to this movie that felt it necessary to give us a 10 minute dialogue because they were too stupid to figure out a way to show it.So the movie ends with the uncle going into the house and going a bit crazy. The end.Now, is it just me, or for some reason, why do all 1970's movies seem to have titles that have NOTHING to do with the movie. "Bell from hell" "Medusa", etc. i don't know WHY the 70's loved doing this so much when the film's alternate titles are so much better . The alternate title for this film is "The Veil" and granted, that ALSO has nothing to do with the movie, i think overall it's a better title than HAUNTS. because haunts promises ghosts or demons or something. Veil promises...well, a veil. and if there's no veil, i'm not nearly as disappointed.So yeah, another boring 70's movie. Not nearly as painful as Medusa, but hardly anything is.Haunts gets 3 pairs of scissors, out of 10

Haunts is perplexing and flawed, but still offbeat enough to maintain interest. Swedish May Britt gives a very good performance as a repressed, tormented, fanatically religious farm girl in a town plagued by a brutal sex murderer. Despite the potentially lurid subject matter, it's all handled with a very subtle approach (even in the uncut R-rated version). Well-cast (though Aldo Ray deserved better and Cameron Mitchell doesn't have much to do) and graced with a lush Pino Donaggio score and beautiful but unpolished photography, it has some standout moments; one unforgettable scene has Britt driving, with the scenic reflections in the windshield melding into a montage of flashbacks. What hurts it are too many routine passages, klutzy red herrings, a lack of momentum, and extraneous material. Sometimes it becomes quite frustrating, but patience is ultimately rewarded by a very original twist at the end. Most certainly not for everybody, but worth seeing if you're an art fan looking for a change of pace.Trivia note: Copyrighted 1975, Haunts was shelved until 1976 when Intercontinental released it to theaters of confused moviegoers.