Unfortunately, with no character interesting or animated enough to make you invest in their fates, James Crow’s Harbinger struggles to maintain any real sense of engagement once the story reveals its hand.
James Crow’s latest British horror is not without its draws, especially for fans of modern occult B-movies and new horror villains. But what this low-budget, specialist horror promises is not delivered, in plot, performances or execution.
Starting as it means to go on, Harbinger begins in chaos. Introducing both the main victim and the villain at once, the film launches into an offbeat, over-theatrical opening that provokes more confusion than excitement. The narrative that unfolds thereafter is an unsurprising pick-off of underdeveloped characters, whose lack of depth makes their fates difficult to invest in.
Five years after surviving an attack from satanic killer Henry Decker, Julia (Jeanine Nerissa Sothcott) suffers the trauma and incapacity that follows. When a struggling paranormal TV presenter and his team approach Julia with a life-changing offer in exchange for her recount, she has no choice but to accept in light of her financial issues. Joining the crew as they return to the house, she must confront her past and the ghosts that lie there. When they stumble upon the strange fortune-telling machine that has remained in Decker’s home all these years, terror ensues, and the malevolent machine fulfils its own grisly prophecies as they continue their filming.
Harbinger’s attempt at a new genre icon does have its appeal; the possessed fortune-telling machine, occupied by the spirit of a serial killer, speaks to unique champions of horror before it. Calling on Wishmaster (1997) and The Funhouse (1981), it promises a memorably sinister creation. A carnival machine come to life can lead to a spine-chilling premise, bringing inevitability and a dose of automatonophonia together into something truly disturbing. But here, the idea falters among its own complexity. When a satanic killer possesses the machine, only for the machine to then possess other figures, the film muddles its own mythology.
Rather than building a distinctive horror icon, the film reduces its most original idea to a generic possession device. What should be a singular, unsettling presence instead becomes a jumble of villains, each losing its impact. With the premise stripped of its originality, the film falls back on a typical plot, following a trajectory dictated in the first half. The subplots have potential, from a workplace affair to an estranged daughter, but from the start they feel forced, and develop so obviously that there is no room for surprise. Unfortunately, with no character interesting or animated enough to make you invest in their fates, the film struggles to maintain any real sense of engagement once the story reveals its hand.
Peter Woodward stands out as the only credible performance among a rather rigid cast, channelling Christopher Lee more than his father’s famous Wicker Man role as the menacing, theatrical villain, Henry Decker. While everyone else struggles with thin characterisation and a script that leaves little to develop beyond familiar horror archetypes, Woodward’s short scenes burst to life with the classic B-movie charisma that the production aspires to.
Attempting to call on the work of Hammer and Amicus long before it, Harbinger embraces some of the hallmarks of British B-movies, especially with the occult mythology, over-the-top effects and theatrical villains. Yet, to no surprise, it goes too far, lacking the restraint needed to achieve the campy, ironic bad-taste status. Its cinematography, in particular, demonstrates this lack of balance. Amusingly high exposure and over-saturated colour flatten scenes, leaving no room for any shadowy depth, while special effects only compound the artificiality.
Of course, the B-movie category has always allowed room for low-brow yet creative stories. Films that deliver a balance of inventive ideas and a budget that embraces its limitations are rewarded. But what Harbinger lacks in budget, it does not make up for with clever execution. There is a good premise within it, which remains buried beneath a film too half-formed to become what it could have been.
Follow Us