The Haunted Airman (2006 TV Movie) User Reviews

Nightmares and Paranoia

[claudio_carvalho · 5/10 · 23 June 2013]

In the World War II, the airman Toby Jugg (Robert Pattinson) is hit in the spine during an airborne attack and he becomes paraplegic. His aunt- in-law Julia Jugg (Rachael Stirling) is his only relative and sends him to rest in a clinic in the countryside. Toby is in love with Julia and writes several letters to her but she does not respond. Toby is haunted by shadows and bugs and Dr. Hal Burns (Julian Sands), who is responsible for his treatment, complains that Toby does not open his feelings to him.

One day, one intern goes to the town and brings a letter from Julia to Toby, and he finds that Dr. Burns is hiding his correspondence. When Julia is informed, she comes to the clinic to stay with Toby that seems to be mentally ill. One night, Dr. Burns gives a razor to Toby and tells him to do the right thing, trying to induce him to commit suicide. But late night Toby discovers the secret of Julia and Hal.

"The Haunted Airman" is a tale of paranoia, with a confused story, melancholic but beautiful cinematography with blue filter and great performance of Robert Pattinson. I was expecting a horror movie and not a drama, but anyway the director and screenplay writer Chris Durlacher completely fails since he never develops the character of Julian Sands. Does he fall in love with Julia reading the correspondence between Toby and she? Is he trying to dope and kill Toby since Julia is still loyal to him and he wants to get rid off Toby to be with Julia? The pace is also very slow, but helps to make the creepy climate of the story. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): Not Available.

The art of going Nowhere very slowly...

[keith_g · 3/10 · 4 December 2006]

Yet another reminder that the Dennis Wheatley novels may well be a very good read (or they were, many years ago) but that they invariably make (or are made into) pretty crappy movies. I don't even remember if I actually read "The Haunting Of Toby Jugg" myself or just have an awareness of it and think I did, so I can't compare in this case and just took the movie on its own merits.

It was ostensibly very well made (props, camera-work, location, lighting &c.) and the acting is difficult to fault, in fairness, but disappointingly the storyline was not entirely free of some fairly well-worn clichés and dragged on without going anywhere much for so damn long I was ready for just about any ending just to get it over with. Which is just as well - the ending was such a mess it was almost a case of 'Times's up, please hurry up and vacate the lot, we need it for someone else!' and it was neither particularly satisfying or shocking when it did finally arrive....

The whole thing was pretty much a letdown like a sandwich with little or no filling - a pity really, it could have been so much better if it had tried a little less hard to be weird and suspenseful!

so bad it was funny

[josie_dragon · 3/10 · 3 April 2011]

you never feel really connected with any of the characters. it was so boring i cant even remember much of it, all the dialog weighs the film down. i managed to sit through it once when i was ill but from about 10 minutes into the film i became distracted, you didn't feel in it like you do when reading the book.

Robert Pattinson tries so hard to convince us of his madness, so hard he looks more funny than sinister.

i attempted to watch it a second time with a friend but by the second half we had given up. i can now see why it was a freebie with another DVD i bought, don't waste your time watching it, read the book instead.

Thank God it was short!!

[mandykittycat · 11 November 2009]

What an awful movie!! I could barely manage to watch it for the hour it lasted — any longer and it would've been off.

Low-budget I can handle. Weak supporting performances, poor special effects, bad editing… OK, fine. But there is no way to get past a film that is painstakingly slow, boring, and completely lacking a plot (or even an explanation)! Nothing happened! I watched the whole thing and still couldn't really say what it was about. Basically it's a guy who's scared of the shadows. Is he crazy? Why is he in a mental hospital? Is he imagining the spiders and the moving shadows? Who knows — or, more importantly, who cares? Sorry, but a slightly moving shadow on the floor in the middle of the night means nothing, especially when the curtains are open; it's probably just a branch moving outside the window.

Robert Pattinson is attractive as ever and turns in a pretty good performance, but there was no way he could salvage this piece of crap.

My response in a nutshell: yeah, it was only an hour lost…but I can think of so many better and more interesting things I could have done in that hour. Like, the dishes.

Very disappointing

[Cleulow · 2/10 · 9 November 2006]

A disabled and traumatised WW2 airman is sent to a convalescent home in Wales, where his mental health gradually degenerates as a result of disturbing hallucinations, and growing suspicions that the doctor in charge may not be as benevolent as he at first seems.

Though billed as being based on The Dennis Wheatley story 'The Haunting of Toby Jugg', the relationship is a highly tenuous one. Unlike the book, this is a psychological drama with no hint of the supernatural, and while the technical quality of the filming is very good, it is very, very slow-paced and, at the end, downright confusing. I can only guess that the film's makers were trying to emulate the ambiguous nature of 'The Turn of the Screw', but this is not in the same class at all.

If you liked the book, I can't recommend it. As a psychological chiller it certainly has some unsettling moments, but on the whole it is far too slow and uninvolving.

Don't blame Dennis Wheatley

[karlpov · 2/10 · 7 November 2009]

As a fan of the late prolific Dennis Wheatley who found "The Haunting of Toby Jugg" to be one of his most gripping thrillers, I was confused to find that this tedious mess was supposed to be inspired by that work. What there is of plot is undercut by uncertainty whether Jugg, from whose POV the story is seen, is a reliable narrator or a nutcase. Playing Jugg, Robert Pattinson mostly gives the perfect Goth fashion model note of cool emotionlessness, which presumably serves him well in the hunky teen vampire stories to which he owes his fame. For this story I would have preferred an actor.

Just for fun, the script includes a bit of interracial flirting which is perfectly appropriate to the 21st Century and perfectly inappropriate to World War II, during which the story is set. Casting a black woman as nurse in a British countryside rest home was inane altogether considering the era.

Don't waste your time. Read the book if you can find it.

Give me my dollar back. NOW.

[reeseslightning · 1/10 · 21 November 2011]

First, let me say that I had not seen Twilight when I originally rented this back in 2009 (and the only reason I am writing this now is because this atrocity was on chiller last night). I got it out of Redbox and watched it with my brother for an annual movie night.

Second, I'm a huge movie watcher. There's rarely a movie I don't like because I can find something to like about it.

This is not one of those movies. In fact, can this even be considered a movie?? It's like someone in Britain said, "Hey, this guy is somewhat good looking so we need to make a movie with him in it that's based on a great book. While we're at it, let's throw the scrabble letters against the wall every time we want some dialogue in this 'movie' and that will be what the actors say." If this was the case...mission accomplished.

I honestly can't even begin to describe how horrible this movie is. To name the bad things that 1) happened in the movie, 2) how the movie was made, and 3) what the movie is about would be a massive list that I neither have the time nor the patience to write. If you want to know what's the worst part about it - cast wise to the direction, editing, script, etc.- I would answer you, "All of it. Literally." I actually asked my brother if he would turn if off because not only was I bored to near sleep, but I was incredibly confused at the ending. I kept waiting for a real one to come up.

Whoever thought this movie was a great idea not only needs to be banned for life from everything media but needs to be told not to base a concept of a movie from his drug - induced, scrabble letter throwing haze.

Horrible Waste of Time...

[skidude6200 · 1/10 · 31 October 2009]

Made for TV movies should stay on the 1AM slot of the station they were made for... How this flick ever made it to the "Number 7 Pick" at Rogers Video I'll never know. With all the cigarettes that are smoked throughout the movie (the protagonist has a cigarette in his mouth for 80% of the movie), you'd think the tobacco companies put this one out.

Ruined from the start by amateur acting and camera work, this flick has very few redeeming qualities. I wasn't expecting much from Robert Pattinson, but he under-delivered yet again.

Leave this one behind and look for something else... Or head outside and watch the grass grow... Either way, you'll be more entertained.

Heavy-handed and obvious (rather, then, in keeping with Wheatley)

[wyldemusick · 2/10 · 4 November 2006]

It's been an open question as to whether anyone would make a concerted attempt to adapt any of Dennis Wheatley's stories into a more contemporary style of film. This adaptation of "The Haunting Of Toby Jugg" doesn't really answer that question. The occult cant of the original is replaced with a psychological leaning, but this doesn't much matter as the adaptation is, frankly, clumsy, obvious, and heavy-handed. There is not one ounce of subtlety anywhere to be found in the piece -- whether it's the protagonist's memories of bomber runs, or the blue-grey tone slathered all over the photography, or the hallucinations of the PTSD-afflicted Toby Jugg.

I suppose this is in keeping with Dennis Wheatley's own work and philosophy, however, as Wheatley didn't consider himself any sort of stylist and his books are notably light on quality and long on gung-ho plot, with dialogue redolent with cliché and childishness at times.

Confusing story but impressive acting

[Nyx_Selene · 6/10 · 8 April 2009]

I have not read the book, so I saw this film with no expectations what so ever. Honestly, the only reason I did see it, was sheer curiosity with Robert Pattinson. I'd only ever seen him in Harry Potter and the atrocious attempt at a movie adaption of my most beloved book Twilight, and apart from a beautiful face I thought he showed talent.

I think he does very much so in this film too. As I found most of the storyline quite confusing, his acting was the only thing that kept me watching; I understand that the story in general is about a RAF pilot who gets injured during a bomb raid, and later is tormented by the memories of war, but then it gets a bit... thin. My guess is that the director had an at least semi-clear vision of what he wanted this film to be, but no solid idea of how to get there.

Don't Bother

[trick_of_light · 2/10 · 3 December 2009]

NOTHING HAPPENED IN THIS MOVIE!!! I figured it was just a slow starter and kept watching. Then the credits started rolling. ????? Neither the character development or the plot have any substance. I came into this with no bias (i.e., I am not a crazy Twilight fan but I wasn't going to discount this without cause). There really is no point in watching this movie. I didn't find it unbearable and torturous as some other reviewers did, but honestly there was nothing to be gained from having seen it. The best thing I can say about it is... at least it wasn't 2 hours long. There is so much emotion that could have been tapped into considering the subject matter... this really fell short. I would not recommend this to anybody except a preteen girl who isn't really watching the movie anyway, just staring at the average looking actor who plays a crappy sparkly vampire elsewhere.

Don't Judge a Book By its Movie

[astridt-1 · 8/10 · 11 November 2006]

I think this was a good and solid made for TV feature, however, it had not much at all to do with the Dennis Wheatley novel. It is only very loosely based on the book and die-hard Wheatley fans will therefore be rightly disappointed by it. If you watch it as a stand-alone movie it quite well portrays the story it is supposed to tell. I knew already when I saw the length, that it couldn't be close to the book, so I decided to NOT compare and therefore liked the movie, regardless.

One thing is for certain - Robert Pattinson shows an excellent range! This role is quite a departure from Cedric in GoF and therefore quite nicely shows the capabilities of this up and coming young actor!

Give it a try and have patience, it's worth it!

[woinaroschy_1979 · 7/10 · 16 February 2010]

Being a big Robert Pattinson fan (I admit it is due to the whole Twilight madness, he did not catch my eye in Harry Potter at all, wonder why? I probably am mostly in love with Edward in fact), I was curious to see this film...so I saw it had a lot of bad reviews, but as a fan you have also some responsibilities, so...I have to say, the only really bad things about this movie are the script and Julian Sands. I have not read the book, so no idea what the movie wanted to describe, but to me (spoiler alert) this movie just shows how Toby is slowly but surely getting mad, due to a guilty conscience from his awful war experiences, added to his fury and despair that he is now impotent(being paralysed from hip down or so). Did I get that right? The script is just awful, and I mean awful, leaves too many holes, scenes at the beginning are just like stop and go, action/cut..perhaps they want to show how Toby feels, the chaos and craziness?? If that was the point, good job, no one understands a thing anymore and people get bored. At the middle of the movie, things seem to flow a bit better. Rob plays really well his part, very mature and convincing,I was impressed! Julian Sands on the other hand is not convincing at all and seems not to know exactly if he should play the bad doctor or the good doctor...or is that intended too? for me he is really trying in his way to help Toby, then gets too involved with auntie and gets a bit carried away, but he does not seem like a Dr. Frankenstein to me. The shadows and spiders are all in Toby's mind. So yeah, all a bit confusing, I guess for this movie it all depends on what you want to see and understand from it, you need a bit of patience and to have an open mind. Still it is an interesting movie, a bit different from the whole Hollywood-industry-big-block-buster-same scripts-same ideas-stereotypes-movies. Watch it!

Not worth a 99 cent rental price

[mikentami1116 · 1/10 · 6 February 2010]

If there was a lower rating than a 1 star, this movie would earn it. This movie has Robert Pattinson in it, you get to see his pretty face. That's about the only thing this movie has going for it. The plot NEVER comes to a climax, when the movie ends you find your self wondering.."OK....what exactly was the plot?". Truly pathetic and please do not waste your 99 cents for the rental price. Just Awful! In fact I'm having a hard time finding the words to write a minimum of 10 lines to describe it. At no point in this movie do you truly know who were the bad guys. So many appeared to possibly be involved yet in the end you still have no clue. Never once do you get any idea of why he constantly saw spiders. Who killed the other patient? It never comes to a close. It's almost as if they tried to make a twisting plot movie and then abruptly after drawing out the openers for too long came to a halt.

Terrible

[treeline1 · 27 May 2010]

During WWll, a young pilot (Robert Pattinson) who was crippled in combat is sent to a mysterious sanitarium for shell-shocked soldiers. Not only is he tortured by nightmares, but his therapist (Julian Sand) has some pretty unorthodox techniques.

This BBC pseudo-thriller is big on shadowy atmosphere but short on every other essential; there is no coherent plot, the music is terrible, and it all seems sadly pointless. Made two years before "Twilight," Pattinson doesn't yet have the shaggy hair, bushy eyebrows, and blank gazes that would make him so popular as a vampire; here he's clean cut, youthful, and gives a fairly good performance, albeit one that relies heavily on long, slow drags on his cigarettes. As his doctor, Julian Sand's character and motives are never explained; most of his performance must have ended up on the cutting room floor. In any event, he is wasted in the part. The problem is the script - it is completely incoherent. The characters aren't developed and the action is confusing. We never know if what we are seeing is real or a dream and the dialogue had me rolling my eyes and scratching my head.

This low-budget flick makes no sense. It's an utter waste of time except for those who want to see pre-Edward RPattz.

If you want to understand this film - don't watch it, read the book.

[nitzanhavoc · 2/10 · 16 November 2012]

Let me start by saying I've made a mistake. I was looking for a Horror film, and was naive enough to think a title involving "haunted" would be Horror. I must have forgotten to double check.

Second - I have no idea how to review this. I don't think I was able to understand the plot, the twist (was there one?) or even the main gist. I could only assume that the director, while trying to make us feel as confused about the border between reality and psychosis as the protagonist. Problem is - if we don't know what's real, we can't understand the film, now can we?

I have not seen the Twilight trilogy, so I'm enough unbiased to be able to say that Pattinson's acting in this film wasn't as superb as other reviews would have you believe. It was good, yes, but not magnificent. The dialogues are confusing, bizarre and almost surreal. The one thing good about the script was the poetic touch in the letters Toby wrote Julia.

So... all in all? I have no idea what happened in this film, why the events turned the way the did, and what caused it. A very unrewarding experience.

Weird

[jennlmcd · 1/10 · 13 April 2010]

I didn't like it. It really had no plot. He fell in love with his Aunt, not his biological Aunt I know, but still creepy. I couldn't figure out what was going on. The movie plot seemed to be in a million places at once. The only reason I watched it was because of Rob. I was greatly disappointed by his incestuous relationship, smoking, & overall weird behavior. I'm sorry to those who liked it, but I really wouldn't recommend it to anyone. It was overall just strange. There really isn't any other way to put it. It seems, other than Harry Potter & Twilight, most of Rob's films have been kinda out there. He's a good actor & musician, but he needs to set his sights higher when choosing what sort of films he auditions for. He could do better.

Not Dennis Wheatley - more like watching paint dry

[wooflydog · 1/10 · 12 February 2008]

If anyone deserves haunting, it's got to be the guy who has used the Dennis Wheatley name to conjure up an audience for this pathetic movie. It belongs in a film museum, in the "Dismal Failure" section, or we could use it in school to teach how not to.

It's pretentious and plodding and oh-so-politically correct, and would be bad enough in its own right, but to drag poor old Dennis down to the same depths of drawn-out inanity, with a plot that has virtually nothing to do with the book (!!), this is surely a case of tomb raiding.

If I've saved anyone a wasted evening with this warning, some good might yet come of my having watched it.

A Complete Waste of Time

[johndt56 · 1/10 · 8 December 2009]

Being a typical stereotypical Aussie, I am broadminded and satisfied with most films, be it Top Shelf, big Budget Block-busters or 'B' Grade beauties..... BUT, in this instance, I am going to be a complete hypocrite and severely knock this woeful movie. I do not care that Robert Pattinson is some kind of bubble-gum-toy-boy Twilight twit....that is inconsequential, I take each effort on it's merits. Julian Sands is a fine actor, no thespian, and I was surprised to find him accepting the outcome of this trash. Maybe the Director, his Screen Writer and such are aware of the tedious progress of this movie, but to us mere mortals...."what the heck is this plot all about, where is it going". Anyway, I've had my say, albeit probably a target of the 'Net Trolls, but I paid my hard-earned-cash to go see it and if I were more aggressive, I would have stormed back to the Ticket Office and requested a 'Refund'. I have NEVER criticised a film as I have here, so hopefully, this is the last.

Terrible

[pgdawn · 1/10 · 2 September 2009]

This was an absolute terrible film. I have not read the book and therefore cannot comment on the accuracy of the film. However the fact remains it was torture to watch. I and my wife and daughter sat down hoping to enjoy an evening's entertainment. What a mistake after only 40mins we knew this was a disaster but struggled through to the very end. The film was filmed in bad light, the story seemed to be all over the place. I believe you would more appreciate the film if you yourself had a disturbed mind maybe then the film would make sense. I thought the acting was laboured but would make a great advert for cigarette companies.

Why would we want another sloth-paced, flick?

[pithawg · 2/10 · 9 October 2009]

Congratulations to anyone in the movie, television and media industry. Full praise to those who make the effort of assembling movies and keeping us entertained. I will not be-little those who make the effort and in this case i wonder what happened with the writer's and why would the executive's afford such garbage these past years?? It is arduous to find money and quite troubling to see persons in the industry blow so much involved time & work on such drivel.

This title was painful, slow & detached from both reality and the audience. Once again the original author of the book was denied his glory. This tripe was far from paranormal and offered no real pleasure. As and artist i give this one a 2 of 10. For those who worked hard to be let down again i should consider your opinions with much sorrow.

Thanks

Fantastic acting

[Angel-teen · 10/10 · 5 August 2008]

This movie, I have to admit, I was only watching because I am a Twilight fan.I wanted to see Robert Pattinson in something other than Harry Potter before viewing him in Twilight. Watching this made me a very big Robert fan as he blew my mind as to his acting capabilities. This young actor is severely underestimated.He has shown an enormous bout of talent and hopefully Twilight can help expose him a little further into the realm of big time acting.I cant wait to see any future films he is in as they are sure to be a success for not only him but for people that go and see the films. They will be shocked by his talent.

The haunted viewer

[blackberrybabe · 5/10 · 19 March 2010]

As a Twilight and Pattinson fan, I was extremely eager to see The Haunted Airman. After it was over I wondered what the hell I just saw.

The film version of the book, The Haunting of Toby Jugg by Dennis Wheatley, is very choppy and confusing. Each scene gets stranger as it progresses and its running length, seventy minutes, is not enough to justify a conclusion. It was as though director Durlacher decided to just end it because he couldn't think of anything else.

Robert Pattinson plays Jugg and he is the best thing in this movie. This was the first non-Twilight film with him in it that I saw that PROVED he is an actor. He is absolutely breathtaking and you can clearly see his descent into madness. He realizes that his lover, Julia, has turned against him and the only person he can trust is himself. This sets off a chain of events that will lead to a tragic end.

Pattinson does very well playing a paraplegic; he drags his legs around convincingly and shows his humiliation when he has to be sponge-bathed by a nurse (Melissa Lloyd). His wheelchair fits the time, the old ones that were run manually and he moves fast! When Toby wants to get away, there is no stopping him. It is a brilliant performance and Pattinson shines.

The second reason, if there are others, to see this short film is Rachel Sterling. She plays the beautiful aunt-in-law of Toby's who starts a relationship with Dr. Burns and pulls away from him. Sterling is gorgeous and you can see the chemistry between them; it is as though they really WERE the characters and the strain of the relationship is evident…especially at the end.

Other stand out performers include Julian Sands as Dr. Hal Burns. Although the run time is short, you learn quickly that he is the one driving Jugg slowly mad. He is slime and Sands pulls it off perfectly. When he steals Jugg's letters, I was ready to throw something at the screen. Sister Sally Grant is played by the spectacular Melissa Lloyd. She shines in this role. She appears to be Jugg's friend and confidante, but it's clear whose side she's REALLY on.

I would recommend this movie for the acting but nothing else. It is good to watch near Halloween if you want to feel your skin crawl and jump over every shadow or spider. Pattinson makes this film worth it.

Average and uninspiring stuff

[bob the moo · 23 February 2008]

Paralysed during a bombing run over an enemy city, Toby Jugg is sent to a remote recovery centre run by Dr Hal Burns to rehabilitate himself mentally as well as receiving physical therapy from Sister Grant. Jugg does want to be here, he wants to be home with his love, Julia, but the gates are locked and she isn't even writing to him. While Burns continues to offer him treatment, Jugg starts to believe that all is not as it seems.

I'm all for a good ghost story because, although I do scare quite easily, the reason I tend to avoid horror movies is the gore they provide in place of genuine chills. Screened as part of BBC4's season of ghost stories, I did hope for more from The haunted Airman – more than modern "scary" movies but also more than it actually managed to deliver. Most of the problems belong in the delivery of what does seem like it could have been a very interesting story, with plenty of layering and material there to work with. Unfortunately writer/director Durlacher doesn't really seem to know what to do with it.

Is he playing out a character story on a foundation of eerie uncertainty or is it something else? It is hard to say as the film doesn't seem to settle on the strengths very often and funnily the character aspect is something that seems to happen despite Durlacher, not because of him. While he stumbles over this, he also delivers flat and obvious moments in the mistaken belief that they are creepy. At their best these do work but even then they are pretty clichéd and obvious; at their worst they smack of a total lack of imagination with easy tricks that don't have the desired effect.

The acting doesn't help, although again I suspect the performances are hurt by Durlacher not having a grip on everything. Pattinson is roundly poor and I found his performance to be part of undoing the potential in the character stuff. The dread Sands just looms around the place unsure of what he is doing but trying to have a mysterious twinkle in his eyes just in case it is important. Stirling, Lloyd and others end up hanging around the scenes with the purposeful presence of extras.

Overall then an average film at best. The story seems to offer potential but the delivery lacks focus and appears to have been constructed scene by scene, with only the aims of the here and now being considered. It felt like this was also part of the techniques used being obvious and ineffective in pulling the viewer into the film. Not awful, just really quite pointless and uninspiring.

Soooooooooo... you want to watch an interesting movie?

[cate_gorski · 3/10 · 25 February 2010]

YES, THERE ARE MASSIVE SPOILERS IN THIS POST.

Does it matter? ..... no.

No, no, and no. One hour and ten minutes of my life and a dollar and ten cents that I will never get back.

Not to say it didn't have a certain... theoretical something. But Barney on a cracker, it was bad! Movie! You are supposed to have a PLOT. Not a series of oft-unintelligible images framed by a well-regarded actor, a pretty older gal and a semi-hot teen heartthrob who is famous for acting intensely disaffected. Or is that disaffectedly intense? Whichever one, he does. For the whole movie.

I rented this thinking: hey, young Leo DiCaprio wasn't at all bad when he had leeway to ACT (even before Aviator, in which he was rather awesome). I liked Pattinson as Cedric Digory well enough. I think I'll give the shiny vampire kid a chance.

*sob* Oh, I rue the day...

To add insult to injury (do those TV lawyers do pro-bono for intellectual bludgeoning?), every time I thought something would HAPPEN... it turned out to either be a 'dream' (ARGH! CHEAT!!) or some never discussed again empty plot point.

Except for the suicide. Who then comes back. To... haunt him? Give friendly advice with a mute child from... the bombing??? I JUST watched this dreck an hour ago and I have NO IDEA.

Save yourself the agony: it's not the actors faults (probably), the script should have been tossed on the 'interesting but only for a short story' pile, the director should have called in sick (it might have been better! Julian Sands would have been, I'll wager), and the cinematographer... needs to STOP WATCHING MICHAEL BAY FILMS. Not EVERY SCENE that you want to be DRAMATIC needs to be filmed by HAND by a person suffering chronic Jazz Hands Syndrome!! Sorry to get so shouty, but... OK, any movie that starts with the Vienna Spooks Choir "AAAAAHHHH!"ing spookily as the camera pans through spooky trees to a spooky house while using a spookily blue filter (for almost the entire bloody movie) needs to be shot. Erm, never shot. Yes. Never shot.

My tuppence.