Rating: 
Summary: Quite dissapointing.
Review: Well I thought they have a good director Jan De Bont from Twister they have good trailers and great actors as Liam Neeson and Catherine Zeta and the movie opened like with 30 million dollars on its premiere so I thought this is going to be such a ride but no It was quite dissapointing not that good effects and a terrible story I don't know how this actors agreed to make this movie maybe because of the money.
Rating:
Summary: not bad!
Review: My review is very simple: not bad, you can watch this movie but you might find it boring a bit.I dont recommend this to people who enjoy movies that have a good story and directing.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent Premise But fails on many levels
Review: This was a great premise update the 1963 version of the movie with the same name and make with big budget special effects. It works for the great looking mansion and the special effects and some truly scary parts but on other levels it just fails. Mainly the cast a good cast with Liam Neeson and Cathrine Zeta-Jones and lilly Taylor they are wasted and those to characters who in the begining who are sent into town but never hear from them again what is up with that? Directed By Jan de Bont famous for speed this could have been truly scary and exciting. But it is only partly scary and exciting. But i reccomend it for the special effects and the production design.
Rating:
Summary: No classic but enjoyable horror flick
Review: Yes, the book is a classic. But the 60s adaption was boring and unscary. I dig this movie on its merit. View it solely alone and you can appreciate: 1. the super cool house, the floors, the angel heads etc are visually stunning 2. Lili as Eleanor, her performance is really enjoyable, I KNOW she's way too pretty to be the Nell of the novel but hey. 3. The creepy writing on the walls, an effective and scary device I think the film's flaws are: 1. The premise of "an experiment in fear' 2. The casting of Liam Neeson-he is completely lost here and gives a really poor performance 3. Catherine Zeta Jones seems like she's wandered into the wrong movie, goofy bisexual storyline. The film didn't work because it tries to explain the haunting. When left ambiguous it works. Worth seeing, but maybe not worth buying.
Rating: 
Summary: A New HAUNTING
Review: People have booed and hissed this second adaption of Shirley Jackson's truly terrifying novel THE HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE until they're blue in the face. Stop comparing to the book and the masterwork 1963 adaption and look at this film. Lili Taylor, Liam Neeson, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and the guy that played Luke all bring in wonderful performances, even if they lack the character developement that shined in the original movie. The Hill House set creates a substantial amount of suspense and fear, and the script is great, even if it has almost nothing to do with its source material. This is a very suspensful, fluid horror movie that is never boring, always exciting, and moderately scary. The standout is Lili Taylor, who brings a lot to Eleanor and the hysteria that she endures as Hill House tries to claim her. Mrs. Dudley the housekeeper sets the mood nicely, and the computer generated ending is actually not as stupid as the one in the HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL remake, which I heartily recommend. So don't compare this film to other movies, and enjoy a wonderful treatment of a horror movie from Hollywood. Great score by legendary composer Jerry Goldsmith.
Rating:
Summary: Hauntingly Good!
Review: This movie is a very good watch and has some very good surprizes in it. If you want a movie that will scare you out of your wits then don`t get this but if you want a fun horror film then this is the one to get. The special effects were really special and there were one or two frights in it, so overall I liked the movie and recommend it to anyone.
Rating:
Summary: okay movie with a couple scary parts
Review: You might like it and you might not.i havent seen the 1960's version and i bet it's a whole lot better than this.it depends if your a ghost story fan.if you are,see this.
Rating:
Summary: This is not "The Haunting of Hill House."
Review: I went into this movie expecting to see an screen adaptation of Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting of Hill House." However, aside from the names of most of the characters being the same (Why the gratuitous name change from Dr. Montague to Dr. Marrow? Too many syllables?), the movie has little in common with the novel. None of the relationships between the characters are the same, and Luke is no longer the heir to Hill House, but just another guy who can't sleep well. The novel had a dreamlike quality to it; there was delicacy and subtlety. There was also a sense of closeness among the four characters, setting up base in the parlor of the huge Hill House, that was lost in the film. There is a saying that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. In the novel, the house seduces Eleanor, and one of the more memorable scenes is her elated dance through the house, having been accepted by it, merged with it, able to hear and sense the happenings in most every room. That was far more creepy and eerie than the usual "house bullies occupants" device used here. I guess I'm rambling a bit. The point is: it is the screenwriter's job, when adapting a novel, to externalize interior action so that we can see it. I think that Mr. Self did a good job of this with the initial scene with Nell and her sister. But there is a responsibility to retain the spirit of the original story, even if scenes must be added or removed. "The Haunting" fails on that count. Framing the visit to the house as a deception on the part of the doctor eliminates the closeness that the characters have to each other in the novel. The other, more significant, deviations from the original plot serve to make the story more conventional and destroy the unanswered questions and unexplored locations (e.g., top of the library tower) that make the novel so effective. On the positive side, the set design and special effects are great, the actors do a good job of working with what was given to them, and the DVD quality is very good. The DVD contains a behind-the-scenes feature that is interesting, though it makes me feel bad that so many people put in so much hard work making a visually exciting movie based on a weak script that has no respect for the source material. As other reviewers have said, this movie would have been much better off if it had not been conceived and advertised as "The Haunting of Hill House." That creates expectations that the movie just doesn't live up to (and the faithful screen adaptation that was done in the 60's doesn't help here). In summary, worth seeing at least once for the special effects and, if you've read the book, as an example of how far a supposed adaptation can deviate from its source material.
Rating:
Summary: Why all the bad reviews?
Review: This is a great horror chiller with excellent and scary special effects. The scariest scene is the one where a sentence is written in blood on the walls, but the whole thing has a chilling feel. People are saying that this is useless, not scary and nothing like the old version. Well duh, the old version is an entirely different movie. They had to change it, otherwise we'd have seen it all before, wouldn't we. Should be a 15 rather than a 12, but that doesn't alter the movie. Rent it NOW!
Rating:
Summary: Decent
Review: The Haunting was an odd movie. The special effects were amazing. And much to my surprise, it was actually scary. I think it may be the first time in my adult life I ever screamed while watching a movie (much more from surprise than fear). But the script was definitely lacking. I came close to pitying Nell, the main character, but really felt a lack of empathy for the characters overall- Rather than being shocked if something was about to happen to one of them, I was more anxious to see what special effects would be used. There were also serious holes in the plot. This is a good movie if you just want to relax and have fun, but don't expect a moving experience.
| 
