Rating: 
Summary: The best scary movie of the year
Review: It is about this haunted house that these people go and stay a
Rating:
Summary: Another to add to the Favorites
Review: This movie consists of a great cast/crew and is of top-notch quality. The music is great, the story is great, acting, effects, etc....It isn't horror, but it makes you think and it is entertaining.And when I grow up, I think I want to buy "The Gates of Hell"
Rating:
Summary: I loved this movie
Review: This was a very good, lavishly entertaining with special effects, making it extroadinary. This is a special effects extravaganza, and I can't wait till July 23 to buy this DVD. It is one of the best special effects films of the 1990s, besides The Matrix and The Mummy.
Rating: 
Summary: Ghostly Apples and Oranges
Review: Okay. You have two movies here that many critics and customers want to compare. We have the original "The Haunting," impeccably filmed in 1963 in black and white by the talented director Robert Wise. The stars were Julie Harris, Claire Bloom, Richard Johnson and Russ Tamblyn. One cannot help but admit that this version is superior to the remake on a psychological level. Also you can't do better than Ms. Harris or Ms. Bloom. It was a frightening movie and one I remember from my childhood days. Now, on the other hand, here in the 21st Century, we have Jan DeBont's remake of "The Haunting." Would people have wanted DeBont to do what they did with the remake of "Psycho?" Filmed it exactly? We know how "Psycho" fared, don't we? Anyway, I found the special effects, scenic design, and sound effects mind-boggling and fun. Sure, we see MORE in this film, but is that wrong? If you don't compare the remake to the original, you may have a better time. I was disappointed in Liam Neeson's lifeless performance, and Lili Taylor is no Julie Harris. Owen Wilson was rather annoying in his role, but Catherine Zeta-Jones was the surprise star. Sure, they updated her and made her look like a tart. But what a tasty tart. And along with her incredible beauty, she brings a lot of life and vitality to the spooky surroundings. And weren't Bruce Dern and Marian Seldes a hoot as the creepy caretakers? So, the plot is much different than original, and the ending lacks the psychological/emotional impact of the 1963 version. But I had a good time throughout the movie, and don't think it's fair to compare such different movies. Apples and oranges. But, if you have an open mind a good bowl of popcorn, I think you'll have fun.
Rating: 
Summary: GREAT ATMOSPHERE & SET; LEFT MUCH TO BE DESIRED ELSEWHERE
Review: " The Haunting " is not as bad as critics and other reviewers here lead one to believe. The film was panned by critics due largely to the fact that it was released at the same time as the god-awful hideously overblown piece of... known as " The Blair Witch Project ". While miscast and weak in the script, " The Haunting " does have worthy points. While " Blair Witch " showed what hype can do for a bad movie, " The Haunting " shows what a good set & and eerie atmosphere can do for a weak script. The Hill House set is stunning. The gothic architecture will blow you away. The place is beautiful and creepy the same. The CGI effects add to the creepiness of the film. Peolple who complain about computer-generated effects need to get over it. It's 2001, not 1963. The horrified faces of the wooden cherubs and the supernatural terror wreaked by Hugh Crane's spirit can send chills down your spine. Watch the film late at night for maximum shivers. If you sit back, relax, and let your imagination draw you into the story, you'll enjoy it. If you're looking to pick apart the storyline and performances, go watch some vanilla foreign film. The actors aren't so bad that it ruins the movie. Liam Neeson gives a mailed-it-in collecting a paycheck performance. Lily Taylor was ok, but isn't an interesting leading-character candidate. Owen Wilson is flat-out awful ( how'd this geek get into movies? ). Catherine Zeta-Jones, while not a great actress, looks stunning throughout. The script is wafer-thin, and you can usually predict the next line. But then again, what films aren't painfully predictable these days? But the plot is well-thoughtout and well-suited to the horror genre. My advice would be to buy the DTS DVD, turn the lights out, watch it as late as possible, and allow yourslef to savor the atmosphere. If you're looking for Oscar-caliber acting, you're in the wrong place. If you're looking for an eerie horror flick that relies on scenery and atmosphere as opposed to grisly slasher-flick multiple murders, " The Haunting " is worth a buy.
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! .
Rating: 
Summary: Horrible, not horror.
Review: Wanna be scared? Watch this movie, it is horrible. More words would just be a waste here.
Rating:
Summary: The House is alive...
Review: A film that is absolutely recommended for the entrepeneur of parapsychology. Herein, is described actual manifestations of spechtral activity, brought to life to be actualized in a past story bent from the 60's, in a classic remake of this wonderful film based upon several visitors to this old house in order to determine whether or not it is haunted. However, in this presentation, modern effects are used to accentuate those scenes which were left to the imagination before - although it is questionable whether or not these were a positive inclusion or a negative. Personally, I would side with the original, in keeping with the perceptions of the originator of the horror genre, as it is ultimately more mystical or "creepy", if the various ghostly manifestations were left to the imagination. Still, it must be expressed that the effects created for this film are up to CGI callibre. I would side with the original Myself, in that the scenes are left to be personally experienced for the deeper experience of a haunting. Actually, I believe actual parapsychologists were consulted for the manifestation of the details of ghostly apparitions. And it is well done.
Dr. Marrow is assigned to caretake over several participants in an experiment in sleep deprivation, which hold various personality traits which serve to ultimately accentuate the atmosphere. There is a sensitive personality, who has been sheltered all her life while taking care of her mother, who eventually becomes an avatar of the forces in the house; another who is an adventurous sort, a brunette bisexual lovely; & others who fill the other various traits such as the jock {who resembles 'Flash Gordon'}; & the doctor who initially summoned them all forth. Interestingly, two of the entrants dissappeared from the movie completely, never to be seen again.
They all eventually discover that the house to be haunted, by a deranged former owner whose spirit has possessed the house so thuroughly that his essence permeates the property completely, to the point where his very essence, or "soul" manifests in the very beams, the ceiling, the furniture, & the furnishings thereof, which by & by shows itself in various manners, to the horror of the inhabitants.
Rating:
Summary: Better than the original
Review: Don't form an opinion against it merely because Hollywood tells you that you shouldn't like it. At least in this remake, there's a believable reason for the house to be haunted instead of "just because" as it was with the original. This was scary when I first watched it and there was enough suspense without gore. Granted, it isn't as scary the second time around, but I've enjoyed it enough to watch it again and again.
Rating:
Summary: The Raunching of "Hill House"
Review: Movie: BOMB DVD Quality: **** DVD Extras: *
It's ironic that the DVD of "The Haunting" also includes the theatrical trailer for another film titled "Unfaithful", because "The Haunting" is unfaithful both to its source material and to its makers' stated intentions. Writer David Self supposedly based his screenplay on Shirley Jackson's classic novel, "The Haunting of Hill House", but aside from the characters' names and one brief snippet of dialogue mouthed by actress Marian Seldes playing the housekeeper ("No one will come any closer than that ... in the night ... in the dark"), there's not even the faintest resemblance between Self's childishly obvious re-plotting and Jackson's adult and oh-so-subtle original. Self's screenplay is loaded with scenes that demand special effects, including statues and paintings coming to life; faces and forms appearing in curtains and under bedsheets; rugs zipping across rooms; doors kicking people; ceilings lowering down upon hapless victims ... and then in the overly scripted "making of" documentary, the director, producers, and actors all talk about genuine scares being the product of what you DON'T see, and about the film being filled with "psychological" horror! Uh-huh. Okay. Right.
The deviation from Jackson's novel and the apparent confusion of the filmmakers would be forgivable if the end result were a success. Unfortunately, the movie is just a big incoherent mess that never jells. It neither frightens nor fascinates, and by the end is merely tiresome and trite. Huge plot holes are left gaping wide open: what became of the two characters in the beginning who leave the house when one is injured? how did they get through the gates and what was the point of Neeson actually not secretly having a key to the gate? how has Eleanor managed to trace her family tree back to the childless Hugh Crane, and with such precision ("Grandpa, I'm home!")? The film is an embarrassment, really, and one can only feel especially sorry for Catherine Zeta-Jones when, as hostess of the DVD's behind-the-scenes featurette, she has to try to inform viewers with a straight face that the sets were so frightening that many crew members refused to work on the film after dark ... like anyone would believe that professional crew members were blithering idiots who don't understand the fakery of the movies; or as if that kind of nonsense would be tolerated in the big money world of film production.
In all fairness, the DVD does feature excellent technical quality. Both the sound and video transfers are razor sharp and crystal clear. But honestly, why would anyone care? There are too many really good movies (including Robert Wise's superb 1963 original film telling of Jackson's story) worth watching to waste your time with this disappointing fiasco.
|
