The Haunting Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Some Houses Are Born Bad.
Some houses are born bad
Sleep Tight
Welcome to Hill House. This is its body, this is its skin, this is its eyes. Won't you come in?
Ghosts with the most.
It will haunt you
Inside the Haunted
There once was a house, a bright happy home, something bad happened, now it sits all alone. It's pillars are its bones, it's walls are it's skin, it's windows are it's eyes, won't you come in.
A remake of the classic 1963 movie "The Haunting" about a team of paranormal experts who look into strange occurrences in an ill-fated house. Through the course of the night some will unravel, some will question, and all will fight for their lives as the house fights back.
| Owen Wilson | Luke Sanderson |
| Bruce Dern | Mr. Dudley |
| Lili Taylor | Eleanor 'Nell' Vance |
| Catherine Zeta-Jones | Theo |
| Marian Seldes | Mrs. Dudley |
| Alix Koromzay | Mary Lambetta |
| Todd Field | Todd Hackett |
| Virginia Madsen | Jane |
| Michael Cavanaugh | Dr. Malcolm Keogh |
| Tom Irwin | Lou |
| Charles Gunning | Hugh Crain |
| Saul Priever | Ritchie |
| M.C. Gainey | Large Man |
| Hadley Eure | Carolyn Crain |
| Jan de Bont |
4.50 out of 10 (20641 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Great production design, decent cast, terrible script
posted on 20 Aug 2009I'm beginning to think that director Jan de Bont's brilliant SPEED was just beginner's luck. It seems that no matter how many millions Hollywood tosses his way, he just can't tell a good tale.THE HAUNTING does have some good points, the production design being the most outstanding. Two of my favorite actresses, Lili Taylor and Catherine Zeta Jones, turn in fine performances . On the other hand, Liam Neeson, another one of my favorites, was a poor choice for the role of an academic psychologist and is just about invisible here.The biggest problem is that this "horror" movie is not scary in the least. The digital effects are state-of-the-art, but what weight does that carry anymore? The component of the plot that brings the characters to Hill House in the first place, the psychological study of fear in insomniacs (why in insomniacs?) begins as vague mush, never gels, and ultimately is summarily dropped and forgotten. With his extensive background in cinematography, one would think de Bont would know how to work with a film editor, but the jerky transitions in THE HAUNTING are very distracting in a movie that is otherwise beautifully filmed.I was pleased to see Bruce Dern and the beautiful Virginia Madsen in the film but disappointed that the roles were about as bit as roles can get. Dern would have been a much better choice for Neeson's character, and Madsen would have probably carried Zeta Jones' role even better, at considerably less expense.
Shows promise of a decent ghost story but falls very short
posted on 10 Aug 2009I wanted to like this movie but by the end of it I found myselfinsulted by the special effects non-sense romp it turned into. There is a decent story line under all of it, but it is complicatedby the unnecessary tactic used to get the visitors to the house. There is very little character development with the possible exception of Lili Taylor's character only she does not develop as much as takesmonumental leaps and then waits for the movie and audience to catch up. As with the original film there is excellent use of sound but with little variety thus wearing thin after a while.In the end we are left with yet another ho-hum Hollywood special effects film with little substance.
Ment to be scary, but could not manage to!!!
posted on 10 Aug 2009Here is another piece of work with an impressive cast, but also a disappointing outcome.The guy we all loved and appreciated as Oscar Schindler, Mr Liam Neeson makes a bad choice by deciding to play in this one. May be they payed him good enough to make it bearable, but its a step backwards for the talented actor.Catherine Zeta Jones, who showed everyone in movies like 'Traffic' and 'High Fidelity' that she is not just a pretty face, but also can act as good as anyone, is not as impressive as in those works of her. Including the leading actress Lily Taylor (Gaudi afternoon, Ransom, High Fidelity) and Owen Wilson (Armageddon) although none of the four are at their best, I still can say that the acting is the only thing that makes you watch it till the end.This is neither a "guys & girls from school goes to a deserted camp & got killed" movie, nor an old fashioned thriller. Computer tricks supposed to scare us but most of the time it does not. I think the best word for the plot is dull. Instead of being scared, you got bored. You notice some logical mistakes while you are watching and this was a huge distraction for me.The director, Jan De Bont - who I must admit is not one of my favorites - was much successful as a cinematographer by involving in movies like Lethal Weapon 3, Hunt for Red October, Flatliners, Shining Through and Die hard. But if he insists on directing than I thing he is better in Action (Speed) or disaster (Twister) movies. I am not a huge fan of those two but I definitely can rate them higher than this one.
Good movie but lack of horror.
posted on 04 Aug 2009I felt the movie overall was real good. The actors were real good and the house is spectacular. The only thing I didn't really see was the horror. It had some good parts of sudden shock that will probably make you jump slightly. I'd recommend this movie to anyone, just don't expect it to be real scary.
Ready to get haunted? Not quite...
posted on 04 Aug 2009I gave this movie a 4 of 10. However, if you'd ask me to rate Hill House itself, I'd definitely go for 10 out of 10. The only thing I truly enjoyed about this (fancy?) remake was the house, in my humble opinion the true star of the film.The acting was so-so (though Lily Taylor did a nice job, same for Luke Wilson) and the effects were not as creepy as they should have been for a movie that's rated +16 (in Belgium this equals the 'R' rating in case you're confused)... not to mention they look 'old school'. This movie lacks soul, and the plot gives you a 'been-there-done-that' feeling. Yet I bought it on VHS, because I simply LOVE Hill House. The sets are magnificent and it's best to simply not pay attention to the action or dialogues and feast your eyes on the splendour of the rooms and hallways. The Great Hall is my favourite: with its huge empty space, creepy statues (the lions above the fireplace are much scarier than Hugh Craine's portrait...) and the large doors which, *possible SPOILER* according to Theo look like Rodin's Gates of Hell are splendid examples of Eugenio Zanetti's talent.Other than that it can and will be a boring, dull ride...
Wonderfully animated, poor adaptation of a truly intense book.
posted on 13 Jul 2009Having read Shirley Jackson's novel shortly before seeing this film, I really hoped the plot would stay true to the original story. Certain events did, but for the most part, it was a completely different storyline.However, I did enjoy the film as it had the ability to make me jump (and scream outloud once, I'm ashamed to say) and the computer animation was extremely well done. The cast itself did a really decent job of portraying the characters from the book accurately, although I left wanting a little bit more. While Shirley Jackson focused more on the mental aspect concerning her characters reactions to the various manifestations taking place, the was more or less pure Hollywood in that what the characters saw rather then what they felt took precedence. All in all, it was definitely scary and the plot, while changed dramatically, was still interesting. My only recommendation is that you read the book after seeing the film, or you may be disappointed.
A well crafted film!
posted on 13 Jul 2009A very well done movie. I can't understand people who bash movies for having bad dialogue and bad plot, when it's only as bad as every other movie.Jan De Bont is a very talented director. He handles the atmosphere very well. In fact, I would go as far as saying that this movie has the best atmosphere I've seen since Poltergiest. Jerry Goldsmith's score, the massive, thoughtful and "Haunting" production design and the very creepy sound effects add to this. I was afriad of this movie being crud, De Bont being an action-man and not a horror movie veteran, But I found myself watching a nicely crafted film. Wes Craven couldn't have done better. It does have its flaws. It's a bit anti-climactic at times, and it does get a bit boring, but it is generally a very good movie. So, why didn't it do well at the box office, and why didn't anyone like it. Simply because it was a $100 million dollar film, the previews made it look scarier and more action packed. So, when people saw it, they were expecting a different movie and they were disappointed. It's not supposed to be a fully fledged gore fest, but a thoughtful and entertaining peice of film. It has the good old things, like the rattling chains, gothic wall sculptures and massive blowing curtains, which means that this movie doesn't takeitself too seriously, either. 8/10.
Could have been better
posted on 09 Jul 2009Some people confuse the story of Hill House with the badly made movie "The Haunting of Hell House". The plots are very similar but the Shirley Jackson story is far superior. Jan de Bont could have made a delightfully terrifying movie but instead made a movie in which the special effects are comical. Stained glass that becomes eyes, ceilings that twist and swell. The set designer for this movie missed an opportunity to use available technology to scare the daylights out of us. Instead of a truly frightening house, we got a mishmash of tacky decor and comically used sculptures. The only element of Gothic scariness was the painting of Hugh Crain at the top of the stairs. The house looked as though it had been a project on HGTV's Designer Finals and the designers lost. The story, itself, could have been retold by de Bont, in a way that would put it right up there with the 1963 version but he chose instead to try and frighten us with cartoon-like special effects and a lackluster and disjointed script. Too much about the Hugh Crain story is left as a puzzle. But, the biggest puzzle of all was why de Bont wasted all that talent and money to give us such a disappointing movie.
Not just bad....
posted on 23 Jun 2009...to one who loves Shirley Jackson's original novel and who is pretty keen on the original '63 version of the movie, this film is just awful.[SPOILERS]I heard that this wasn't the greatest remake but I was curious to see how the spookier aspects would be interpreted by more modern cinema. There are scenes in the novel that I always assumed had been left out of the '63 production due to special effects limitations. In particular, the outdoor scenes where Eleanor watches the process of "something" through the tall grass, or the ghastly midnight picnic that the two women find themselves involved in.But the '99 version dropped most of the original story opting for an other-worldly search and rescue mission for the souls of murdered children(Aliens meets Ghosbusters?) rather than a subtle and creepy tale of a vulnerable woman's unhinging. Not only the story is dumbed-down the characters are converted to either ludicrous parodies or non-entities. The fascinating interplay between the characters (Eleanor's crush on the doctor, Theo's hinted-at lesbianism) is entirely dropped.The over-the-top neo-gothic fun house really does star in the film, though it isn't spooky at all, it's just REALLY REALLY big .The last 20 minutes of the thing are when the special effects kick in to full gear. Strangely, as the special effects intensify, they also become more annoying and funny. I laughed out loud as Eleanor shooed the others off while she began whaling away at the animated griffin sculpture with a 2 x 4. This is also the point when the dialogue plummets to laughable outbursts such as "I'm back home, Grandpa!"It's just so...bad.
A truly scary movie with a weak plot!
posted on 15 Jun 2009This movie just totally scared the begebers out of me. The only problem was the plot was pretty weak. But there were quite a few times during the movie that I just totally jumped out of my seat! Don't expect the greatest ending in the world, but if you want go get scared, go ahead! Rated on a scariness scale, I'd give it a 9.9!! On an overall movie scale.. perhaps a 7.
DO NOT GO SEE THIS MOVIE!
posted on 13 Jun 2009awful. awful. awful.i wanted the studio to apologize for stealing my $8. at least i didn't buy any popcorn...about the only horror movie cliche that wasn't used in the production of this dud was 'supernatural' silverware flying at the main characters. at times i wished it had. at least that way we could get to see everything all in one place.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
posted on 09 Jun 2009Well, this movie just really sucks. Why does it suck? The plot. I just can't think of a story-line more boring or stupid. The special effects are all right, but nothing spectacular. Please, do yourself a favor and don't go see it. If you feel that you absolutely have to, wait until it's out on video. Yuck.
Brainless fun
posted on 05 Jun 2009Tales of old haunted houses have always been a big kick for me and while this one might not be a classic it is a lot of fun to watch. The effects help tell the story rather than dominate it and the acting and characterisation draw you in nicely. The pacing could have been better but it's still adequate enough to hold the interest. It's not one to go see in a cynical or analytical frame of mind, just put the brain in a jar and watch - much better that way.
Could have been scarier!
posted on 05 Jun 2009The first reviewer said pretty much what I wanted to, except for a few things. The house looks nearly identical to the one from "Casper 'Friendly Ghost'" & "The Canterville Ghost" - The acting was not bad but not good either with a few over "exaggerated" moments. The bedroom in which the spikes came down is a cut + paste from "Murder by Death" - All the scary scenes & animation were well put together and very believable. The cast was picked well except for Owen Wilson who was better in "Meet the Parents" then this flick! Out of 5 stars, I give this movie 3 1/2. If your TV is plugged through your receiver, turn on the bass for this one!!
Already reviewed,Forgot a few things.Defend this movie till the end.No spoilers.
posted on 30 May 2009I have some more things to say after reading the reviews.I liked this movie and I'm going to defend it.1.The One line summary "Some movies are born bad" is used 400 times.How childish and unimaginative can you "reviewers" be?2.You can say this movie is bad,terrible,and a thosand other things and you can blame it on lousy script,acting,special effects,whatever.That is your right,but it is not "laughable","campy","MST3kable",etc.This movie at least had dignity.3.I have been subjected to the worst of the worst.My major is film critsicm and those who say this is "The worst of film ever made",are misinformed and do not know what they are talking about.The worst films are "Troll 2","Hobgoblins","Manos the hands of Fate","Reptilucus".I don't see "The haunting on that list,do you?.4.I HAVE read the book and seen the old 1963 version.Yes,that was more scary,but made less sense.Maybe it would be better if the title "the haunting" would be left out to satisfly some people.I know how it is(just look what hollywood did to Godzilla).But you had a choise to see it and if you think you can do better,then go ahead.Make your own movie.I did:Hobgoblins(2000).If I can redeem a terrible film like Hobgoblins with no budget just think what you could do with a 80
million budget.Done.See the movie.It is worth it!
Just Dreadful....
posted on 26 May 2009Just plain horrible... and the big disappointment is.. it could have actually been good! The special effects are outstanding! and that is the only good thing about this film.The entire movie does not explain it's self and keeps you wondering through-out... and the end does not fit... (But I will know next time when I want to distroy a ghost all I have to do is yell at it and it will go away....) Maybe, just maybe... if directors/writers of these horror movies.. would spend just a little more time developing a point for their acual charecters as much as the heep load of special effects.. then they might gain some ground and not make you leave the theater thinking ... 'was that it?'Bottom line... just dreadful.
Not as bad as the critics would lead you to believe
posted on 22 May 2009I actually came in the cinema expecting the worst film of the year. To my surprise, I actually enjoyed the film. It's what I called an 'almost film'...it has great sets, musical score,excellent sound effects, good acting all around and some solid photography. For the first 3/4 of the film, it was quite an intense experience..before the digital effects came in. C'mon...they absolutelly ruin the horror element for me. The script writer (and De Bont) should have realised that seeing less is better, not the other way around. The ending though was a bit too melodramatic and groan inducing. Script wise, it started out excellent during the first half, with some clever dialogues before deteriorating tremendously near the end.All in all, not as bad as people would lead you to believe but it could have been great...a bundle of unrealised potential. (6.5/ 10)
Live Action Scooby Doo
posted on 20 May 2009I grew up watching (the classic) Scooby Doo cartoons, and I love the campy dialogue, creepy yet benign villains, and the goofy gang, with their cliche personalities. I find that kind of thing entertaining, and I enjoyed this movie for those same qualities. I kept expecting the Globe Trotters to show up with the Mystery Machine and rescue everyone. If you're expecting to be scared, you may be disappointed, but if you'd like some light summer entertainment and/or a Liam Neeson/Catherine-Zeta Jones/Lili Taylor fix, you'll probably enjoy this flick.
Don't Even Bother
posted on 30 Aug 2009One of the worst films ever made. Without Liam Neeson, this would be a complete failure. The special effects cannot redeem this pitiful adaptation of Shirley Jackson's original -- the attempt to spin this tail of psychological suspense into a modern day horror flick fails miserably and is at times almost comical in doing so.