Rating: 
Summary: The Haunting
Review: The Haunting was a "good" movie. I say "good" very loosely. I think that the special effects could have been scarier. I like a good scare. The movie was scary in some parts but not enough. I think they could have worked with the plot a little bit more instead of leaving you hanging at the end.
Rating: 
Summary: Just terrible
Review: No, it's not as good as the original. But let's rate it on it's own merit - hmmm, it has none! This movie sucks whether you compare it to the original or let it try and stand alone! One of the worst movies of recent years, it has ridiculous acting (except for Liam Neeson, but it's not like he's good, I don't know why he did this) and one of the stupidest plots I have ever seen in my life. This is such a waste, don't buy it, don't rent it. This is a terrible movie. Period.
Rating: 
Summary: good movie
Review: What's with all the bad reviews? I thought this was a very good movie. Great special effects, exciting, suspenseful, sort of scary, and last but certainly not least, Catherine Zeta Jones. She's worth 5 stars no matter what! Lately, a lot of movies haven't impressed me, but this one did. This was one of the better movies of the year.
Rating:
Summary: Absolutely horrible
Review: Movies don't get much worse than this one, folks. The plot was poor and the acting was terrible. The scene near the beginning with the two ladies prancing around the house was incredibly lame. The filmmakers tried to overcome the shoddy storyline by tossing in some mediocre special effects. If they were intended to be a distraction, they didn't work.I have to admit, my review is based only on the first 30 or so minutes of the movie. That was all I could take before I got up off the couch, rewound the film, and promptly returned to the video store.
Rating:
Summary: Nowhere near as bad as everyone says!
Review: The Haunting was not nearly as bad as everyone said it was. The special effects were amazing and the plot was better than that of most horror movies. The stars, with the exception of Liam Neeson, did a fine job, especially Catherine Zeta- Jones. However, Neeson was very dry in his role as the doctor who lures the people to Hill House. Sure, The Haunting was not as scary as a lot of the modern horror movies, but it's not meant to be. It's intended to be suspenseful, not jump-out -of-your-seat-scary. Definitely worth a look.
Rating: 
Summary: SHIRLEY JACKSON'S CLASSIC STORY SLOPPILY DONE
Review: The new version of "The Haunting" is an overblown hodgepodge which doesn't do justice to the original novel. It's obvious the makers of this film went for the sensationalism route via the use of technology: the special effects were mostly unneccesary, and, for the most part badly conceived; (the set was too brighty ornate to be creepy!) The acting in this movie is mostly embarassingly bad (the ludicrous script was partly to blame)-but Liam Neeson seemed to be really completely lost. Catherine Zeta-Jones was good as the beautiful Theo, but Lilli's interpretation of Eleanor was tiresome and inane. Jackson's story, "The Haunting of Hill House" is known by thousands as a psychological study of loneliness and madness; it ain't about using millions of dollars worth of "special effects" to bring the masses in, so the movie will reap finacial rewards from the producer's personal gain. Phoney and contrived, with banal elements which weren't in the book, this film is an insult to fans of the genre, and I just hope Shirley Jackson isn't rolling in her grave!
Rating:
Summary: A Truley Horrible Horror Film
Review: A truly horrible horror film. Over use of not so special "special effects" attempted to divert our attention from the fact that the movie never gained any momentum, and that the characters were never developed or interesting. The only thing that's scary about this film is that someone actually tried to improve upon a classic horror movie so frightening the memory of which still scares me after 30 years. The other thing that scares me about this movie is the reoccurring memory that I actually paid to see it.
Rating: 
Summary: Good nonetheless
Review: Many people have seen this movie, many didn't like it. I, on the other hand, thought it was alright. One complaint I've heard for this film like many remakes is that "it wasn't like the original." Hmm... do you think maybe that's because IT'S NOT THE ORIGINAL? In order to truly like a remake, you have to look past the fact that it is probably not gonna be even close to the original. However, it seems anytime Disney remakes something like Hercules and Mighty Joe Young, they get praised for it even though they take remakes way out of the original context. This movie wasn't too bad. It wasn't scary, but still not too bad. I found it more of a story than horror film.
Rating:
Summary: Great special effects, looks good an DVD, not too scary
Review: This movie started out good. The sound was great and it actually scared me a couple times. BUT towards they end they had the oppurtunity to wrap it up with a good ending, they ended up using too many special effects. The acting was ok but the script tried to spoon feed you the plot too much. The color, sound, and picture quality was very good on DVD so you just like watching "clear" movies this would be a good choice.
Rating:
Summary: GOOD MATERIAL POORLY DONE
Review: Fans of Shirley Jackson's classic novel "The Haunting of Hill House" will remember that the story had a genuine frisson quality to it, as did the 1963 film starring Julie Harris and Claire Bloom. Those of you who are expecting an improvement in either are going to be sorely disappointed (as I was) in this laughable re-make. The gargantuan set was overly done and the producers obviously wasted an AWESOME amount of money on mostly meaningless special effects which, I suspect were meant to give the picture "shock value" Liam Neeson gives a lifeless and uninspired performance and Luke Sanderson is ridiculousy portrayed by Owen Wilson. I like Lilli Taylor and think she's a decent actress, but her playing of Eleanor was not effective, the fault of which lies mainly in the stupidly written script which makes the audience laugh in all the wrong places. There was no "Great-Grandmother" in the original story at all and this makes the film ludicrous as does the insinuation that Hugh Crain is beezlebub himself-he was responsible in the torturing souls of God knows HOW many children?-Implausible and utterly unconvincing, this movie is a sad ,sorry filmization of a potentially terrifying story (it could have been more truly chilling on a quarter of the budget!) Grotesquely overblown, poorly acted and written, the movie leaves ASOLUTELY NOTHING to the imagination which any ten-year old knows is where real creepiness begins. Catherine Zeta-Jones's beauty was the BEST thing in the whole show. Shirley Jackson's masterpiece deserves better, more THOUGHT OUT treatment than this hodgepodge;it would help to follow the original story-these new Hollywoodisms STINK! .
|
