Rating: 
Summary: This was a VERY SCARY MOVIE
Review: Public warning: this is not some teen slasher flick. A thoughtful scary movie? What a concept! This movie is not gory nor does it have peppy, popular teen stars. It is creepy and really makes you think. It has a good plot and a very weird ending. It is definetly a good remake...like the 60s version but with better special effects. Much more tastleful than "Scream" and with better FX than "Urban Legends", this is a must-see movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Special effects and no substance ruined this one
Review: I was expecting a lot out of this movie and I must say I was dissapointed in the presentation. The acting in this movie was mediocre and could have been ALOT better. The final scenes were so corny, I almost burst out laughing in the theatre. With the acting being so bad, the special effects were even worse. Many times they were out of place, and overdone. When are people going to realize that special effects alone do not make a good movie? I was not scared ONCE during this movie I spent most of the time guessing when the next special effect was goign to happen, and I was almost always right. The special effects themselves were done pretty well, but they hardly ever went along with the movie and like I said before there were too many and drastically overdone. It seems as if the creators had a lot of money to waste on this movie. This movie had so much potential but it fell way short. If you like a movie that focuses on computer animated special effects more than the actual story line, then this movie is definetely for you. For the rest of us that perfer substance first and eye-candy later, then all you should do is rent this movie. It was a waste of my time and I will never even consider watching this again.
Rating: 
Summary: GREAT EFFECTS, NOTHING ELSE.
Review: This effects-heavy movie sure lays it on visually and sonically -- at the expense of a storyline or such horror essentials as suspense, pacing, etc. Even in the included making-of documentary, they mention that in horror it's not necessarily what you see, but what you don't see ... unfortunately they don't take their own advice.There are a few genuinely scary moments, but the momentum is lost, and the viewer is left with the impression of having seen some cool CG effects, but there's no effective build-up to a climax. After a while, the effects overpower everything else. DVD sound and picture quality are great. I'd recommend renting this one, since I can't see why I'd want to watch it again.
Rating: 
Summary: Some things are better let alone
Review: I just can't find the words to tell people how bad this movie is. Knowing Shirley Jacksons brilliant novel and knowing the also brilliant movie by Robert Wise from 1963 I was kind of sceptic when I heard that "Mr. No-Content" Jan DeBont would direct a remake of that movie. And believe me, I was not disappointed. They simplified the story (mabye Hollywood thinks that we, the audience, are too stupid for a psychological ghost story). They erased every psychological aspect from the story, which is quite an achievement when you do a movie based on a book that was all about psychology. They miscast all the actors. Especially Liam Neeson was not worth his money - stoically saying his lines like a zombie. They threw in completely useless and childish looking special effects. They built a house which wouldn't have been built the way it is shown in the movie back in the victorian times. They basically did everything wrong in this movie. When will Hollywood producers learn that real thrills come from the things you DON'T see (like shown in Robert Wise's brilliant adaption of the book) and not from throwing in hundreds of special effects? Well, this absolutely horrible movie shows us two things: 1) ...that everybody should stay away from this movie 2) ...that cameramen should not be allowed to become directors.
Rating:
Summary: Sue me
Review: I'm doing something risky here -- I'm giving this movie one star and I haven't even seen it. I'm doing this because the original 1963 movie was not in need of a remake, and nothing in these posts or, more importantly, in any of the professional reviews that came out last summer, has convinced me that I might be even the slightest bit wrong. You can't take a previously filmed story, throw money and technical wizardry at it (not to mention Technicolor), and expect to improve on it. And if you tell me that improving on it wasn't the intent, then why touch it? Are filmmakers supposed to do a *worse* job than their predecessors?
Rating:
Summary: Razzle-Dazzle Special Effects and Nothing Else
Review: Unlike the smart and creepy 1963 original (of the same title) or the spine-tingling Shirley Jackson novel (titled "The Haunting of Hill House"), Jan De Bont's brainless thriller "The Haunting" beats you mercilessly over the head with great special effects, but leaves you wondering where all the story and logic went. The film's razzle-dazzle visuals make it somewhat fun, but it's unescapably a downer.
Rating:
Summary: Haunting, Horrific Movie
Review: Four people assemble in a haunted house in an attempt to investigate and document reports of the ghosts said to reside there, led by a charming parapsychologist (Neeson), though only he knows their true purpose... the other three people think they're there for a sleep study. As the night unravels, however, one of the party (Taylor) finds her psyche unraveling under the strain of strange voices, and strange forces. Soon, the group is at odds against each other, and surviving the night no longer seems like a certainty, at least not with one's sanity intact...
Rating: 
Summary: Good movie!
Review: The Haunting was a good movie. It has plenty of really great effects that you will find amazing. Directing and acting was not very good with only a few exceptions and maybe the rating I am giving it is too high but I think it deserves more than two and a half stars. It is going to scary some people, although it's not so scary for horror movies fans. The original version of 'The Haunting' is also very good and I totally recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: Absolute Crap!
Review: Okay, if you're a special effects freak, you might like this. However, there are much better films with equally good effects. If you're a fan of minor things like say, oh... plot, character development, etc., then stay away! The 1963 Robert Wise film is the scariest film I've ever seen, and the scares come from what Wise DOESN'T show you. The '63 version was brilliantly plotted and paced, with one of the greatest ending lines in film history. The 1999 version has none of this. Do yourself a favor, and see the '63 movie, or better yet, read the Shirley Jackson novel. The only reason this gets one star is because C. Zeta-Jones is just SO easy on the eyes!
Rating:
Summary: Special Effects and Art Direction overshadow a thin story
Review: It's hard to enjoy this 1999 The Haunting if you're familiar with the 1959 novel or 1963 film version. In this 1999 film, the characters are nasty and stupid. The scientist tricks his subjects into coming to Hill House (claiming to study sleep, when in reality he's studying fear), which is an unecessary change to the original plot. There are some gory effects and obvious ghosts. The audience figures out what's going on early in the film, long before any of the characters. Early on, a ghost child asks Lili Taylor for help. Gee, think maybe some ghost children are in trouble? She's not sure. The characters' responses are stupid and unnatural. One moment they're expressing affection, the next scene they're expressing indifference or hate. The average summer camp slasher film features smarter, more realistic characters. Aside from a beautiful set and two gory effects (including a decapitation), there's not much to recommend this film. See the original 1963 film instead, which had no gore but was through-provoking and scary, with likeable, intriguing characters.
|
