Rating: 
Summary: Scariest movie I've ever seen in my entire life
Review: I saw this movie 30 years ago and I can still remember a lot of it in bone-chilling detail. I've been looking ever since for something as good -- nothing ever came close. Does anyone have any suggestions (no slice 'em, dice 'em-ups, please)?
Rating:
Summary: THE Ghost-Story Movie
Review: "The Haunting" is in every respect the finest film of its type. Subtle, sophisticated, intelligent, wonderfully atmospheric, and chock-full of genuine and effective moments of terror. For example, I was deeply impressed when something unseen and unheard writes in a childish scrawl, with "something like chalk," "Eleanor" on a wall. This was so terrifically indicative of the covetous malevolence that's in the house (or that is the house).No, there's no blood, gore, teenage sex (or even teenagers), and no special effects worth mentioning -- just an outstanding depiction of Evil (most definitely with a capital "E"). "The Haunting" even beats out other great movies of this type -- e.g., "The Uninvited." It's simply the best horror/terror movie ever made. Enjoy!
Rating:
Summary: A classic - a wonder realization of a great short novel.
Review: Tis is a wonderful movie because it is a nearly perfect realization of the novel on which it is based. The casting, the acting, the script and especially the cinematography, are, I feel, just how one would envision in reading the book. Some are disappointed that is not that "scary", or that it is slow. You may as well level this criticism against Shirley Jackson's novel. This is not really a horror story as such, but a subtle psychological tale of an unstable woman, who is seduced and destroyed by an evil house. Like the book, "The Haunting" casts a spell on you, brings you into its world, and gives you some chills along the way. I think if you understand this, you will less likely to be disappointed. (Having said that, there are some scenes I still would not watch alone in a dark room!). My only real criticism of the movie, is that it leaves out some great material in the book that could easily have been incorporated, and the made the movie a bit fuller. Also I wish the screenwrtier had not bothered to add so much dialogue that's not in the book. You can always tell which are the best lines - they are the author's. As for the new 1999 version, it is nothing but a rip off a classic book and movie. It has only the basics of the plot, and absolutely none of the magic and atmosphere. I really fear appreciation of the classics is on the wane.
Rating:
Summary: Horror Noir At Its Best!
Review: I read the book as a teen. I have seen this version many times. Nothing stands up to it. Those too dim for anything without special effects will hate it. It is dark, brooding and truly haunting. Now go get the book & video from Amazon!
Rating:
Summary: The best
Review: As a lover of horror movies, I have seen nearly all that are available. While others go overboard on monsters, special effects, sex, or unbelievable storyline, The Haunting starring Julie Harris ALWAYS scares the bejeesus out of me. You never see what's haunting hill house, but you believe it. Scene that sends a chill: Nell wakes up and says "oh my god, who was holding my hand?"
Rating: 
Summary: The Haunting
Review: I thought the effects were outstanding. There were a few scenes that would just give you chills. The house itself was breathtaking. I really enjoyed the suspense.
Rating: 
Summary: Pretty Dull
Review: Before the remake of this hit the theaters I rented this version and watched it with my wife and son, who kept asking "When is something going to happen?" I must admit I felt the same. Lots of dull conversation and banter and really only one good scary scene in the whole film. One tepid manufactured scare later on turns out to be nothing at all. I guess it seemed better than it was back in 63, when I first saw it, because I was comparing it to the B monster movies of the time which were really awful. At least this was a serious film with a good performance by Julie Harris. But honestly, for me this was boring.
Rating:
Summary: MUCH TRUER TO SHIRLEY JACKSON THAN THE UNINSPIRED REMAKE
Review: After seeing the new version of "The Haunting", I decided to watch this 1963 version as a comparison. This one is a keeper and wins hands down as the superior adaptation of the Shirley Jackson novel "The Haunting of Hill House". Julie Harris is incredibly right for the role of Eleanor and Claire Bloom is sophisticated and icey in her interpretation of Theo (I agree with a previous reviewer that Bloom's Theo could have been played lighter and funnier). Russ Tamblyn is adequate as Luke Sanderson and Richard Johnson is a real ladie's man as Dr. Markway (not the stuffy Dr. Montague of the book). Valentine Dyall is amusing as "Dudley-at-the-gate" and Rosalie Crutchley is just as Jackson made Mrs. Dudley in the story: coldly unemotional with an air of dirtiness about her. Mrs. Markway is very different from Mrs. Montague and her assistant Arthur Parker never appears in the movie at all. The classic part where the two women cower in Theo's bed in the Green Room while pounding is heard up and down the hallway is as good as could be expected as is Eleanor's disgust at holding the hand of something unseen. Cleverly, the film even includes the part where Eleanor asks Hugh Crain, in the form of a marble statue to dance with her. In the book, Hugh Crain was simply a sad, embittered eccentric man and not anything near the atrocious monster we saw in the insipid remake. Someone could make Jackson's story into something very atmospheric and totally bloodcurdling; the book let the reader's imagination wander whereas this competent adaptation leaves room for a bit of improvement.
Rating:
Summary: The HOUSE is the real star
Review: I first saw this film on the big screen at the tender age of 14, when it was originally released in 1963. I have since viewed it countless times (the screen was smaller but the chills, just as big). I must admit the acting is superb. Julie Harris and Claire Bloom have never been given enough credit for these performances. We can relate on several levels with all of the characters. But all of the reviews I have seen have failed to consider one of the most dominant characters in the film: the house itself. Although not credited, this structure exudes evil in every perfectly framed shot it is in. This, of course, is a credit to the award winning direction. (Those odd-angled shots of the facade never fail to make my spine crawl.) But you have to admit, the interior scenes with the off center camera angles and gothic architecture are part of what scares us. This film was shot in a purportedly "haunted" mansion in England and suffered several unexplained incidents during filming. A large light tower tipped over quite spontaneously and several sealed cannisters of film were overexposed and ruined, among other occurances. Whether this was "studio hype" or factual reporting I can't say, nevertheless the structure sets an atmosphere for the film that no sound stage could ever equal. This atmosphere, which is produced by the house itself, is evident throughout the film. Anyone who has seen the film knows what I'm talking about. So let's hear it for the unsung hero: the house. I highly recommend this movie for a dark, windy night. Wear an extra heavy sweatter. The chills are comming.
Rating:
Summary: Were there any ghosts, really?
Review: I don't know if this is the greatest haunted house movie ever made. It certainly ranks up at the top of the list, as do "The Shining" and "Alien" (yes, Alien). "The Haunting" is my favorite though. It's so wonderfully ambiguous. What does it take for a house to be "haunted" anyway? Much is made in the reviews on this list that you never really see any ghosts. Well? Were there any? Although the House certainly has a morbid history, it's not as though everyone who lived in the house has died under suspicious circumstances, or has been driven mad. Some, like Crain's daughter, lived to a ripe old age. And after all, Eleanor has a history of psychokinetic experiences. That's one reason she's there to begin with (that, and her desperate need to have some sort of life). It's every bit as likely that she's the source of the disturbances as the House is. Perhaps the unexplained (supernatural?) happenings are the result of the psychosexual tension between Eleanor and Theo. Or perhaps they're akin to a bizarre courtship between Eleanor and the House, and everyone else is swept along for the ride. Regardless, it's worth going along on the ride with them.
|
