Rating: 
Summary: Webster's definition of contrivance and absurdity.
Review: When "Josie and the Pussycats" and "The Mummy Returns" were released earlier this year, I thought I'd been subjected to the most silly and contrived of the year's plots. After seeing "13 Ghosts," I'm reconsidering that opinion. The film is a rehash of a 1960 camp classic by the same name, though I doubt that the word "remake" is justifiable. The bare bones of the original plot are borrowed, giving the filmmakers room to add their own story structure and plot twists for a modern audience. What a shame, though, that this movie turns out to be little more than an insult to the intelligence of even the most open-minded audience members, not to mention a striking disappointment from Dark Castle Entertainment, whose previous "House on Haunted Hill" remake was more intense, more likeable, and far more interesting. "13 Ghosts" begins with a scene that could have absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the film, except to set us up for the surprise at the end. Here, a wealthy man named Cyrus (F. Murray Abraham) busies himself searching an auto junkyard in search of a ghost, which he hopes to trap in a box and take back to his mansion. Of course, all hell breaks loose, and Cyrus is killed, leaving behind an expansive mansion and a highly unstable partner, Rafkin ("Scream's" Matthew Lillard). What a break for Cyrus's nephew, Arthur (Tony Shalhoub), who lives in squalor with his two children and a nanny (the movie's obligatory black character) after a fire destroyed his home and took his wife years ago. They get to the house and are immediately enraptured by it's walls, large panes of glass with intricate Latin phrases that become illuminated when a special pair of glasses is worn by the inhabitant. It's never made clear what these glasses are for: they are just there for the unsuspecting family to start seeing the ghosts that start permeating the house once the machine downstairs starts twisting and rolling, thanks to some less-than-effective special effects. There are so many things that go wrong with the movie that its predecessor got right, one has to wonder if the screenwriters actually paid any attention to the original material. The glasses are a ripoff of the theater gimmick for the first movie (special viewers were given to the audience to allow them a choice of seeing the apparitions onscreen or not). Why the characters bother wearing them is beyond me: the audience is able to see the ghosts much of the time, diminishing any effect the movie may have had had we not been able to see what was going on, just as the characters do. The panes of glass with Latin phrases... well, they turn out to be spells, spells which cannot be bypassed by those trapped in the world of the dead, "whether spoken or written," as one character points out. It's a complete machination on the part of the writers, who throw this, that, and the other into the story whenever it looks like something might get remotely interesting. This provides a very funny scene, however, as Arthur and Rafkin venture into the basement to find the children, carrying a large pane of glass with them for protection. The machine idea is the movie's most contrived, only serving to sink the plot lower into the depths of its own ludicrousness. Apparently, Cyrus collected certain ghosts that were needed to feed power to the machine once it reached its full velocity, therefore opening some eye of hell that would make him the most powerful man on Earth. Completely tongue-in-cheek dialogue for such explanations, though it's never funny, and never interesting or serving to advance the plot. As the credits rolled after the obligatory loud and happy ending, I began pondering why "13 Ghosts" was indeed such a mess. "House on Haunted Hill" followed a similar strategy of reworking a classic horror movie, but with this film, there is no interest behind the rework. The plot has no energy, no logic, no sense of what it so desperately wants to be about, and the result is a muddled mess of gory bloodshed, ridiculous plot twists and long periods of boredom. One of the year's worst films.
Rating: 
Summary: Finally, a Worthy Horror Film (4 1/2 stars)
Review: Sure, a lot of critics hate this movie, but when are critics supposed to like horror movies. My answer: Never. So a good suggestion is to pay no attention to the critics and see the movie yourself, and then draw your own conclusion. In my opinion, this was an awesome horror movie that keeps you guessing. For a horror movie, the story was very complex. The directing and acting was really good in the movie. Especially Matthew Lillard's performance. There are enough creepy ghosts and surprises that will get you hooked in no time. If you liked, "House on Haunted Hill," chances are that you will enjoy this movie as well, being that it was produced by the same people. The audio and visual effects were incredible, and made the movie that more impressive. Although all the flashing lights might give you a little bit of a headache; small price to pay, if you ask me. My only complaint is that I think the movie could've been a little more scarier at certain parts. Other than that, I thought it was great. I'm not going to take the time to go over the movie's story, because you'll find out when you go see it. The previews have been very careful about not giving anything away, so I will do the same. Just know this; Poor family without a home + vengeful ghosts trapped in glass rooms in creepy mansion = one hell of a time! This movie was not as good as "House on Haunted Hill," but it was still a quality horror movie. It was certainly a hell of a lot better than those "I Know What You Did Last Summer" movies. Go ahead, and give the movie a try. All in all, this was a great movie with cutting edge special effects and stomach-turning suspense. "Thirteen Ghosts" is an awesome movie.
Rating: 
Summary: A halloween film, not much charecter devel.
Review: I enjoyed the movie, but I wouldn't care to own it. I was in the mood for a good halloween movie and this hit the spot. The house was ver interesting. I liked the ideas for the spells and such. The special effects were great in some parts, poor in others. I wasn't a big fan of the jerky sped-up scenes where the ghosts were chasing the charecters. It just seemed poorly done. A few times you could tell where a portion was cut out of the movie, like a bad transition from one part to another.. like in a book ending a chapter and staring a new one mid sentence. Some of the charecter development was rather weak. Especially the "ghost freedom fighter" girl. The scene towards the end when the main charecter figures out the truth about the bad guy was a little lame. All in all I guess you can criticize every film even if you enjoyed it or not and i did enjoy this one. Just don't expect it to be an earth shattering theatrical or eye dazzling film.
Rating:
Summary: Did they change directors midway?
Review: I especially liked the bathroom scene with the ghost and the daughter. If all the ghosts had scenes interacting with the people, then the movie would have kept me chilled. The ghosts needed a background or more depth. I loved the make-up and design of the movie but the screenplay lacked information. The first half of the movie was creepy, the second half was dull. If you like special effects, this movie is entertaining enough.
Rating: 
Summary: Totally awesome
Review: I went to see this movie on Halloween and was completely amazed by the action in it. This move didn't just entertain you...it scared the hell out of you by jumping up in your face and bring the horror of the Ocularus Infernum to your own. The people who don't like this movie and write bad reviews must have seen a different movie than I did or something. The theature was packed at the opening but lost a few viewers one a couple of the ghosts got loose. I don't mean from lack of intrest....I mean because they went running out. This movie had people running out of the theature by themselves, as well as whole groups doing it. I've never seen the original, so I can't say if its better or not. I can only say that with the "up in your face" horror techinques used in this move, it will have your eyes attached the whole time. If you go to see a movie expecting to see the same thing you saw in the original, you might as well watch the original because each film maker is going to add his or her own brand of manipulation to the film, in order to tell the story from their point of view.
Rating:
Summary: I wanted to be scared. I wasn't.
Review: Don't waste your time or money. We went just before Halloween for the 'chill' effect. It wasn't scary. I admit the house they are trapped in is very interesting and cool, but the characters are shallow and un convincing. The house was the best part of the movie. The outcome was totally obvious. And what's even worse, most of the characters live. What kind of scary movie leaves all the characters alive except the evil ones?
Rating:
Summary: This was a very stylish cool horror movie.
Review: This was a good movie to me. I dont know why some people have a problem with it. It has great effects and the ghosts look awesome. This movie is a 5 to (...). It is very fast paced and does not let off for 1 minute. This is a movie you need to see in the theater.
Rating:
Summary: 12 Awesome Ghosts
Review: I saw this movie at a matinee on Halloween. This movie is good just for the ghosts. The Ghost makeup was excellent and the ghosts were scary and freaky. While the ending of the movie left me wanting more and was anti-climatic i felt it was worth it just for the ghosts. They used some good cinematography of the house added with some creepy music and long drawn camera shots (ala Halloween) but this movie isn't as scary, or gory as the trailers and commericals say. The ghosts are the best part of this movie and for once i actually like Lillard in a movie, his character was actually pretty cool. The Princess ghost is just too cool and too freaky, the juggernaut is another excellent ghost. Go see the movie for the ghosts and don't get your hopes up too high and you'll like this movie, i think.
Rating: 
Summary: Pathetic remake based loosely on the original!
Review: The newest movie to get a bad remake is "13 Ghosts". It's based loosely on the original William Castle movie made in the 1960's-1950. Other than that that just about all it shares in common with the original. If you like the other William Castle remake of "House on Haunted Hill"(another remake that did not to be done, you might like this. This movie is a mess, with too many plot holes. too many special effects etc.. Also why could'nt people watching the movie wear special glasses like they did with the original movie? Having the actors wear them was pretty lame. If you like any of the movie stars fine but I'd rate it as one of 2001's worst movies! I wonder why Matthew Lillard was in this movie? Maybe he has a contract with Warner Brothers? As for me, I wish I spent the movie I used watching this trash and bought the original on DVD. Please Hollywood stop remaking classic movies and just release the original movie instead!
Rating:
Summary: Great Story, Great Ghosts, Crappy Directing!
Review: This movie (. . .)had so much going for it. The storyline was a really orignal adaption from the 1960 version of this movie. The house was absolutely beautiful, which you hardly get to see (. . .), and it has some of the most innovative special effects I have seen in a long time, and the ghosts were incredible. (. . . ) the direction in this film is awful. I compare it to the direction in "HouseGuest" with Sinbad. What's the comparison? The fact that the camera angle changes every freakin' second. This gave me such a headache, although it was cool while the ghosts were in sight, since they helped to draw away from the constant scene changes, it also made it hard to get a real look at the ghosts. And about the ghosts here, why couldn't they have given a little more information about the ghosts before we actually show them. It's like we see the ghosts, who are visually explainable, and then we are given an explanation. Plus it seems that half the time only one or two ghosts are really having any impact on the movie at all, the others are just there to count as a number. Getting back to the directing at hand, I would now have to go off on what was in the director's mind. It's like he was trying to make a scene that had no reason in being scary at all seem scary. Like when the family is babbling about their apartment and then a lawyer is shown walking down the hallway extremely slowly. Why is he walking so slow? Don't ask me. And the director does this throughout the movie. Completely pointless. Plus the acting is mind-numbingly irritating (. . . )
| 
