When watching “Hide and Seek” audience members cannot help but feel this movie has been done before. Many times. Over and over and over again. That is because it has.
“Hide and Seek,” directed by John Polson (“Swimfan”) and staring Robert De Niro and Dakota Fanning, is a sterile and boring film that attempts to give its audience a real feel for psychological horror. Unfortunately, the only that thing the paying customer will be feeling, is the bottom of their empty Sour Patch Kids box.
The film, written by Ari Schlossberg, is so cluttered with Hitchcock characters, references and look-alike scenes that the viewer is left straining to find an inch of originality in the film. Don’t bother yourself. There is none.
The film follows the lives of Dr. David Callaway (De Niro) and his daughter Emily (Fanning) as they move from their posh Manhattan apartment to the quiet town of Woodland, New York, after the suicide of David’s wife and Emily’s mother.
Upon arriving in Woodland, Emily begins to separate herself from her father and starts to spend most of her time with her imaginary friend Charlie. David, a psychologist, views Charlie as a way for Emily to cope with the loss of her mother. When Emily begins to act up and cause problems around the house, David realizes that there may be more to Emily’s behavior than just a child trying to cope. When Emily’s actions begin to turn on her father, David realizes that Charlie may not just be some imaginary friend that Emily has manifested, but a real person.
One major problem with this movie is that the first hour and fifteen minutes rely on Emily’s creepy factor. Unfortunately, she has none.
The fact that Emily is not spooky is not Fanning’s fault, she does the best with what she has. It is the fault of the creators and the makeup department.
This film’s concept on how to make a child frightening was not to give her good lines or give any insight into her inner person, but rather have her mope around the house. This ridiculous sight is only enhanced by the makeup department who put gigantic bags under Fanning’s eyes and thin out her rounded face. What is left is not a threatening child, but instead a 10-year-old waif. That is not scary. That is just sad.
Even Academy Award winning De Niro is not able to save this film. For the first hour and fifteen minutes his character awkwardly bumbles around, viewing Emily as a psychology study, rather than a daughter.
It is appreciated when actors try to break out of their normal casting mold. Robert De Niro has certainly earned the right to do whatever he wants, but this movie does not suit him. This role would better be fitted for someone younger, who actually looks like a father, such as Kevin Spacey or Edward Norton. It is not just the age that makes De Niro seem like an outsider. It is the lack of the use of his talent. He just wanders around without any direction or purpose. It makes sense for the character that he is playing, but he seems to do it only because that is what he is told to do. He does not take much stock in the character, even towards the end of the film when he is called upon to do some real acting.
An example of De Niro being out of his element is during a scene when David is confronting Emily about a broken window and the disappearance of Elizabeth (Elisabeth Shue), the woman who David is currently seeing. When Emily begins shouting at him and blaming Charlie for what happened, you can tell that David is aggravated and ready to smack the kid across the face, but holds off. Right before David storms out of the room and locks Emily inside, a brief look comes over De Niro’s face. It is the look of; “I’m Robert De Niro and I just got told off by some ten year old … what am I doing?”
The supporting cast even seems to be confused as to why they are in this film. Dylan Baker, who plays Sheriff Hafferty, walks around the town and the Callaway house with the face of a hard-hitting cop, but with the eyes of a guy who just wants to get back to the buffet line. His character is meant to be imposing, but the best Baker can muster is indifference.
It is not until the last 30 minutes of the film, when Charlie is revealed to us, that any of the actors are actually given a chance to show their true talent. Fanning, who still looks like some early ’90s catwalk accident, is finally given a chance to act, rather than walk around like a mindless puppet. When given the chance to perform, she shows why she is considered one of the best young actresses in film. De Niro and the rest of the crew go through their roles as told and do not make much of an effort to add any true energy to the film. There is one scene however, which is supposed to be scary but is actually hysterical, involving De Niro, Baker and a shovel, that left several members of the audience laughing for several minutes.
This film is a mess. And the apparent love affair that writer Ari Schlossberg and director John Polson have with Hitchcock is distracting and cheesy.
It is not uncommon for filmmakers to show homage to their film heroes when making a movie, but to literally lift characters and scenes from that hero and place them in your film does not show homage, it shows unoriginality. Homage, when done best is done with care and subtlety. This film does it with a jackhammer and a bull horn.
