Hide and Seek is part of an early year trilogy of horror films that also includes the stinkers Boogeyman and Alone in the Dark.
It's always fun to review these kinds of movies, just for the pure excitement that I get out of ripping on over-acting and cheap thrills, but in the case of Hide and Seek, I went into the theater expecting a little bit more.
Why, you ask? Well, mostly because I knew it starred Robert De Niro -- who I'd expect that even in the latter stages of his career couldn't possibly be settling for paycheck roles -- and young screen sensation Dakota Fanning, an 11-year-old actress already working with top-drawer talent. Factoring in both of these actors' credibility, I figured that Hide and Seek would at the very least keep me interested and possibly on the verge of enjoying a horror film.
I was right about part of that statement, but only slightly. Hide and Seek -- while appealing and at some points thrilling -- eventually finds its footing, which is located on the bottom of the barrel of cheesy horror films. What is most disappointing about that statement -- besides the fact that I now believe De Niro may indeed be running out of money -- is the fact that the movie, in its early stages, showed a bit of promise. But that promise eventually disappears in a series of classic horror movie cliches, just as nearly every supposed scary movie does nowadays.
The premise for this "scary" movie centers on psychologist David Callaway (De Niro) and his young daughter Emily (Fanning) who, following the suicide of Mrs. Callaway, uproot themselves from New York City to an upstate rural community. All is well until Emily begins playing with her supposed imaginary friend Charlie, who not only informs her of details regarding her mother's death but also begins a reign of terror over David's life. Is this Charlie truly an imaginary person or, even more frightening, could he perhaps be real?
What the filmmakers should have concentrated on, rather than Charlie being real or imagined, is a more unique take on the panic that he instills. As I was watching these trusted actors go through tepid waves of peril, I couldn't help but feel as though their apathetic mannerisms weren't really their fault. Who can blame De Niro for acting the way he does when he notices the words "Can you see now?" written in red crayon -- supposedly his daughter's -- on a shower curtain? I'm guessing that he was about as afraid as anyone in the theater was when that moment was filmed. And do I even have to explain how tired the scary closet metaphors are at this point?
I'm not exactly sure how rookie director John Polson was able to assemble the cast that he did for this film, but surely he should have been more gung ho about the opportunity presented to him. Heck, even one-time Academy Award nominee Elizabeth Shue shows up for the fun. Too bad her appearance is little more than a one-note shot at attempting a few good screams and horrified gestures; she doesn't even get a last name in the film. You're probably beginning to realize what I mean about a formulaic horror film. It seems no matter how hard you try these days, you can't keep from going down the same scary movie road. This is basically all a moot point. For as long as we, the viewing-public -- or at least part of it -- keep displaying an interest in these kinds of movies, we can expect Hollywood to keep churning them out. I won't complain, but in the future, please, for a film fanatic's sake, keep De Niro out of the loop.
