To me, this movie is perfection.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

An American Haunting (2005) is a fairly weak film. The acting is pretty mediocre, even laughable at certain moments. Sissy Spacek was really the only actor that I thought did a pretty good job. Donald Sutherland was surprisingly weak and seemed kinda lazy in this film, which is surprising, he usually does a pretty good job in his movies, but not this one. This movie isn't all that scary really, some of the sequences are actually more funny than scary, which is always bad for a horror movie. There is one sequence in particular where a character is slapped around, and it just looks so horribly cheesy and fake that it kinda makes you laugh. The child actors just aren't good either, they're acting is wooden and completely Fake. The effects are just alright, honestly nothing dazzling. This films plot is very very unoriginal and cliché. There really isn't anything new to see here that you haven't already seen before, and there definitely isn't anything of any good quality. The "scary" scenes that are supposed to scare you do nothing whatsoever, they just leave you scratching your head and wanting a whole lot more. An American Haunting could've been so much better, I mean so much better, it wasted its potential. The writing and directing were also pretty weak, the dialogue was cheesy and very cliché. Do yourself a favor and don't see this poor horror film, there are much better horrors to enjoy that are higher quality. 1/10 for An American Haunting.

Ran into this while looking for a horror movie to watch on a Saturday evening. I'm not really into gory horror, but this kind of psychological and maybe supernatural is more my cup of tea. It looked like an atmospheric piece with foggy scenery, old houses, churches, autumnal feel with some candles and fireplaces etc. Cast looked good, I'm a fan of Donald Sutherland and why not Sissy Spacek too. Only I was a bit suspicious since this had flown under my radar. Out of all the many many "haunting" movies to come out during this millennium, I didn't recall this one.If only I had realized the movie was directed by the same guy who did the infamous Dungeon's and Dragons back in the day. The director is not a very well known "bad director", because he only has a few movies under his resume, but none of them seem to have a very good reputation. Had I known this, I would surely have passed this.The movie is never very engaging. The atmosphere and scenery is OK, but the camera work is not. The camera moves in a very distracting manner and the shots are not very well framed in my opinion. The sets look OK, but details fail like a fireplace looks like a few fake logs on a gas fire. So much for the genuine 1800's feel. The acting is everything from downright bad to mediocre. Even Sutherland doesn't nail it, there are a few scenes that are rather cringe worthy. Rachel Hurd-Wood is OK tho, I think she does quite well and is never as lost or overacting as the others.The movie isn't very scary and since the outcome is obviously non-supernatural, it's difficult to digest all the supernatural stuff. There are cheapish tricks like the image changing from black and white to color. The sound fx were not that good, listening with headphones. The title graphics uses a typeface that is probably called "The horror movie font" on a site providing royalty free fonts. The overall feel was quite cheap and lacks any sense of style. The framing story of a single mother and a daughter living in a modern world is quite tacky too.This could've been passable as a shorter episode of Masters of Horror style series, as it's got that cheap TV feel, but even then it would've been a disappointment. Avoid.

I don't know why, because I'm a pretty harsh critic, especially when it comes to horror movies. I feel like the majority of "scary" movies rely too much on the "boo" factor and are somewhat predictable or have some silly monster that is just not believable. A lot of them, too, seem to borrow from others and just try too hard. I knew nothing of this movie going into it and started to roll my eyes after the first scene. However, when the real story in the 1800's got going, things started to get pretty chilling and I was pleasantly surprised. I was also surprised at some of the cast being some big names(Sissy Spacek & Donald Sutherland)I didn't think the plot was predictable which kept me on the edge of my seat. Unexpected elements such as the black wolf are necessary to keep a movie original and unpredictable. I wasn't a huge fan of the twist and how the hauntings were explained...In fact, that seems to be the downfall of a lot of horror...when they try to neatly tie everything up and explain the happenings.

The acting in this movie is not bad but what else would you expect with Donald Sutherland and Sissy Spacek in it? The real problem that I have with this film is it purports to be based on a real event. About the only things that are real here are the characters names. Some one decided to make John Bell the nasty rapist father. While common enough even back then I imagine, there is nothing to support this libelous assertion. In the actual legend the spirit is around for several years before Bell dies. This spirit becomes more and more understandable until it can be heard reciting sermons, scripture, bawdy songs, etc. It supposedly even carried on conversations with people. If that had occurred why wouldn't it have said something about the assaults? In this movie it is Betsy who is suppose to be projecting the spirit as a protest for the rapes. The end of the movie is a joke. As a later day relative reads the suddenly found letter about the events in 1817 her daughter is picked up by daddy for visitation. Then as they drive away the spirit appears and she goes running after the departing car. This is where this movie ends. If not for the really good acting I would have given it a three.