Rating: 
Summary: Worst movie I've ever seen
Review: This has to be the worst movie I have ever seen. It is a disgrace to the classic 1963 version. Not to mention the worst ending I have ever seen. The only things this movie has going for it are the special effects and the house itself even though the house in the 1963 version looked a lot scarier and more sufficating, like it was truely alive. If you get any movie get the original The Haunting.
Rating: 
Summary: High-Tech Kills Suspense
Review: Why do we get scared, why do chills run down our back? It's the fear of the unknown, the awaitening of the menace that is brewing above us. The main ingredient of the artistic success that made the 1963 original a classic in its genre was the lack of effects (which might have been technically impossible at that time anyway).As soon as the evil becomes visible, it materializes and we can face it and battle against it. This was avoided in the original and stressed to the maximum in this remake.In the former version, the protagonists are haunted psychologically and the viewer as well. In the latter, Hugh Crane seems more like an alien. The technical execution (which is perfect) undoubtedly causes excitement but not fear, thrill but no chill. That's why I would call the film (at least the last third)a science fiction or an action movie rather than a horror picture.Although this all is true, I'd consider the many negative critics unfair, for there are quite some moments (especially in the first third)that really scared me and which made the film bitwise even superior to the original. This production will certainly not belong to the career climaxes of all the persons involved in, but it won't affect them either, for it's an enjoyable piece of nowadays' mainstream cinema after all.
Rating: 
Summary: This HAUNTING is a flop
Review: Being a fan of horror movies and having never seen the original 1963 film, I found myself eager to catch this remake, which looked interesting from the theatrical trailer. However, I could have never been more mistaken. THE HAUNTING, with its expensive special effects and large budget, looks more like a 'tamed' episode from TV's Goosebumps than an actual feature film. What's worse is that this incredibly dull chiller lacks what many of these types of films require to work...chills! Infact, the only scary thing about this flick is how DreamWorks managed to green-light this expensive dud into production. The paper-thin plot finds a psychological researcher tricking a group of people to staying a night at a haunted mansion in hopes of studying them and their reactions. While the cast seems promising, they are surprisingly wasted...Neeson especially, with Catherine Zeta Jones offering a pretty face to look at, but nothing more. And surprisingly, I never thought that director Jan DeBont could top the horrendous Speed 2: Cruise Control, but once again I was wrong. All in all, THE HAUNTING was one of 1999's biggest Hollywood disappointments and, in my opinion, I would seriously consider that you walk passed this one at the video store. DROUGH!
Rating: 
Summary: The Haunting
Review: It was terrifying. I loved it, and thought it had a great story, and wonderful graphics. It's a cool movie. Rated PG-13 for violence, very, very brief language.
Rating:
Summary: horrendous remake
Review: Recently, Entertainment Weekly published a list of the "25 Scariest Movies of All Time", compiled by the employees of the magazine. Clustered atop the list were the usual horror film suspects, fine films all: "The Exorcist", "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "Alien", "The Silence of the Lambs" and "Halloween". Perhaps predictably, absent from the Top 25 were the horror films of yesteryear, particularly four films from what I consider to be the "Golden Age" of horror. For in an amazing four year span, 1960-1963, a quartet of films, each released in a different year, emerged to lift the genre to heights it has not been able to reach again. In 1960 came the great British sci-fi thriller, "Village of the Damned"; in 1961, there was Jack Clayton's brilliant ghost story, "The Innocents"; then, in 1962 came the piece de resistance, what, for me, is the greatest horror film of all time, Herk Harvey's low budget masterpiece of eeriness, "Carnival of Souls"; finally, in 1963, Robert Wise directed the classic haunted house spectacular, "The Haunting", based on Shirley Jackson's novel "The Haunting of Hill House". Each of these films share, in addition to their effective use of black-and-white photography and haunting musical scores, an appreciation of the power of suggestion, their realization that true terror lies in the imagination and that a creepy mood counts for more than inane gruesomeness and heavy handed special effects that just end up detracting from the horror. (I would include "Night of the Living Dead" on my list except that it was released in 1968).Now, with the new version of "The Haunting", each of these films has been subjected to the indignity of a modern day remake. Jan De Bont's version is a travesty on so many levels that it's hard to know where to begin, but each of its many failures stems from a basic problem of modern commercial moviemaking: wretched excess. The first element that makes it inferior to the original is one that probably can't be avoided in this day and age; the simple fact that black-and-white is far more effective a medium in establishing the kind of eerie atmosphere necessary for this type of tale. In color, the picture is simply too clean and bright and one loses the sense of danger hidden in the shadowy corridors and corners of the house. And the house itself creates a problem. For although the art direction is a true miracle of design and decor, it actually detracts from the suspenseful ambience the film so desperately wants to achieve. Even Hill House has to be realized on a scale of some believability. In the original film, the rooms looked as if someone might one day have actually lived in them. Here, the setting is so preposterously ornate that the house looks more like a museum or grand fun house than a center of ghostly activity. The film fails far more dismally on the level of its screenplay. In the original story and film, the parallels between past and present that connected Eleanor, the protagonist, to Hill House were worked out with such a fine logic that they helped hold the plot together. For instance, an earlier inhabitant of the house was a bed-ridden invalid who had to be looked after just as Eleanor had looked after her ailing mother. Also, the car crash that kills Eleanor in the original is presage by a carriage accident which kills one of the earlier inhabitants and which begins the curse that befalls this house that, as the originals claim, was "born bad". In the remake, the house has no logical reason for choosing Eleanor so the plotting degenerates into arbitrary silliness. Indeed, part of the fun of the original was the atmosphere of anticipation that came from knowing this house had a reputation for evil and the slowly dawning realization that it was searching for a new victim. In the new film, this is never established and, in fact, the characters aren't gathered to hunt for ghosts at all, but have been lulled there by a researcher, ostensibly to help them cope with their insomnia, but actually to function as guinea pigs in a study of the effects of fear on the personality. Yet, this is inexplicable because the doctor has nothing to do with the ghostly phenomena and, in fact, doesn't believe in its existence, so, by what method was this fear to be manifested? This is typical of the illogic that permeates the film. And, surprisingly, in these more permissive times, all the sexual tension between the doctor and Eleanor is completely eliminated from this version. The ultimate indignity comes in the film's appalling final half hour when any attempt to replicate the subtlety of the original film is abandoned in favor of overblown special effects and lines like "Hugh Crane, I'm not afraid of you!". By this time, the audience has erupted into bursts of incredulous laughter and Hollywood has succeeded in trashing yet another of its classic films.
Rating:
Summary: dam
Review: the graphics were amazing, the actors were well chosing, and i love the end making of the movie. But one thing still bug's me what happend to that women who's eye was almost takin off and the guy who went with her.
Rating:
Summary: Loved Owen Wilson, But That's All
Review: When my dad said this movie was one of the boring films he had ever seen, I agreed with him. In fact, the only thing that kept me from leaving was taking one look at Owen Wilson and nearly falling off my chair. ( The man is gorgeous. And for all of you who don't agree with me, you can go and have your head eaten by a lion-headed flue:op) Then, I ended up watching it again with seven teenage girls who all wanted to own the house. ( The only way you could get me to stay there was if you gave me $1,000,000 and Owen to do with as I please >:P) In short, I gave the three stars for Owen being there, otherwise, the plot is lame and there are too many effects. Also, Liam Neeson had me wishing he would die.If you want me to recommend a good movie, go see " Shanghai Noon", a great film, with a cute story, and the even cuter Owen Wilson. I'm not going to say this film was awful, but it was pretty boring. That's all folks!
Rating:
Summary: Big Thumb's Down!
Review: Lousy, poorly adapted film that takes an excellent book and tacks on the lamest, un-scariest, unneeded Hollywood ending. Why? Just so it could have a happy ending. Terrible! Terible!
Rating:
Summary: Scary,funny,with C.Zeta Jones and an extremely ugly ghost!!!
Review: Finaly a good remake,its not as good as the original but still a must see with some breathtalking special-effects! Lilly Taylor in one of her best roles yet and a well acting Catherine make this picture an unbelievable one! It doesn fright you as much as the "old Haunting" because you see "animated" ghosts in the remake! In the original you dont see ghosts at all and thats much scarier! Its an intertaining movie which I saw about 12 times and I never get enough of it! A must see for every fan of the ghosthouse-stories! With some good Special Features!!! And an ugly, frog-looking-like ghost called "Hugh Craine"
Rating:
Summary: The worst movie I've seen since 'Wing Commander'
Review: I rented this movie thinking that it would be excellent. I mean why wouldn't it? With Jan de Bont directing {directed the excellent films 'Twister' and 'Speed'} and Liam Neeson {best known as Jedi Master Qui Gon Jinn in 'Star Wars Episode 1' or as Oscar Schindler in the 'Schindler's List'} I was almost positive this film would be excellent. But it's not, I haven't seen a more pointless and more stupid movie since the awful 'Wing Commander' that came out last year. Not only did this film have no plot or point was soever but had barely any kills and the even the ones that it did have were so stupid that it my best friend and I spent over half of the movie laughing at it. The people are so dumb, for instance a dulcimer's strings are coming loose and this woman puts her face right over it so she obivously gets hit by it. Another part was when that idiot blonde guy from 'Anaconda' screamed near the end "burn the house down!" whenever they were inside of it because they couldn't escape! The only thing that kept me watching this ronchy film were the special effects by Industrial Light and Magic and even a few of the effects were disappointing! All in all, this definately ranks up in my least favorite movie list ranking even higher that 'Jaws 4' which I absolutely hate and yes even 'Life' as hard as it is to believe. I am very disappointed not only in Jan de Bont but Liam Neeson and Catherine Zeta Jones, not for their performances in or behind the film but for even considering for a split second to read the script let alone perform in it. Don't buy this movie unless you have suicidal tendances!
|
