The Haunting

1999 "Some houses are born bad."
5| 1h53m| PG-13| en| More Info
Released: 23 July 1999 Released
Producted By: DreamWorks Pictures
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

Dr. David Marrow invites three distinct individuals to the eerie and isolated Hill House to be subjects for a sleep disorder study. The unfortunate guests discover that Marrow is far more interested in the sinister mansion itself — and they soon see the true nature of its horror.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Prime Video

Director

Producted By

DreamWorks Pictures

Trailers & Images

Reviews

willruddock-36172 When I saw this movie in theaters, I couldn't sleep for days. I was 12 and images like Hugh Crane lunging out of the fireplace or his angry face appearing in the window frightened me beyond belief.I watched it last night for the first time in many years a few days after revisiting the 1963 film. And it was just truly awful. I found myself resisting the temptation to quit early because I believe in seeing things true to the end unless I absolutely can't bear it. Annoying acting saved by Liam and Owen. Catherine cannot play terrified and as much as I admire Lili, she's no Julie Harris. I will admit that the face in the window seen still gave me a little bit of a chill but nowhere near what it did when I was 12.One other positive is that it has reaffirmed my enthusiasm for exploring huge houses.
MaximumMadness In 1963, director Robert Wise unleashed onto the world a pure vision of terror with his film "The Haunting", based on Shirley Jackson's earlier novel "The Haunting of Hill House." An incredibly nuanced and subtle exercise in fear and psychological drama, Wise's film is a incredible achievement by any stretch of the imagination, and to this very day it remains an important and beloved masterwork of horror. Some (myself included) would go so far as to call it one of the greatest horror films ever made....so why not put the remake in the hands of a director known for effects-driven action schlock? What's the worst that could happen? Oh, yeah... the worst that could happen is exactly what DID happen- it's a complete mess!Jan de Bont's 1999 release "The Haunting" (which is most certainly not based on the 1959 William Castle film "House on Haunted Hill", despite several other reviews incorrectly stating this) is one of the more notorious remakes of the past twenty years, in no small part thanks to its complete and utter misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the works that inspired it. Released in the late-90's heyday of then- modern digital effects and in-your-face thrills, the film is a complete and utter betrayal of the original. It takes the careful, methodical and subdued storytelling of the original and replaces it with on- the- nose set and production design and a plethora of "Boo!" scares. It takes the thoughtful and mature character development from that amazing film and replaces it with the broadest and most hackneyed of clichés and stereotypes. And it takes the subtlety of the Robert Wise classic and destroys it by smacking you in the head with its blatancy in every single scene. It's complete trash to the original's treasure.We follow a group of insomniacs who agree to be a part of a study on their condition, set to be held in Hill House- a mansion built in the 19th century by eccentric textile tycoon Hugh Crain. However, things are not what they seem, and the director of the experiment, Dr. Marrow (Liam Neeson) has actually lured the group there under false pretenses. He instead is seeking to study the effects of fear. Soon enough, it becomes all too clear that something is amiss in Hill House, and that the spirits of the past wander the hallways at night. And for some reason, group member Eleanor "Nell" Vance (Lili Taylor) in particular seems to attract the attention of the ghosts around her...To give the film what little credit is due, there are some positive aspects of the production that I could certainly see working with a better script and in the hands of a more confident and clever filmmaker. Lili Taylor makes for a magnificent protagonist and is splendid in a slightly modernized update of the character portrayed by Julie Harris in the 1963 classic. She's the only aspect of the film that felt like it could have fit in perfectly with the original. (Thankfully, she fulfilled this promise recently when she co-starred in the wonderful haunted-house thriller "The Conjuring", which finally made good use of her talents.) I also found the cinematography to be stunning, and the film does look oft-gorgeous. Director de Bont got his start as a cinematographer, so he knows hot to compose a shot, and he works well with DP Karl Walter Lindenlaub.Unfortunately, pretty pictures and a good lead performance do little to combat the negative effects of a contrived script and numerous sequences that are tonally confused at best... and brainlessly nonsensical at worst. The film can never seem to settle on what it wants to be... it tries its hardest to strike fear with Gothic set designs and digitally-assisted jump-scares a-plenty... yet it also wants to be a whimsical and uplifting story about how the "power of love" (ugh) can save the spirits of the damned. So you get a series of jarring and awkward sequences that radically shoot back and forth between two opposing tones in a very inorganic way.The "horror" of the film is poorly handled, and generally revolves around cartoonish "ghosts" that waft through the air with all the grace of a crumpled paper airplane and hilariously tacky digital renderings of the house suddenly "morphing" into devious shapes while horns shriek in the background. I'm not one to bad-mouth digital trickery and computer-generated effects... but they need to be used in moderation in key places to be effective in the confines of a horror film. Here, de Bont seems content with throwing as much at the screen as possible, giving it a kitschy "made for TV" kids-movie vibe. It's like one of the bad episode of "Are You Afraid of the Dark?" with a budget. It's lazy, trite and completely without atmosphere.And to top it off, the story and the characters are all lazily handled and mind-numbing thanks to a script that can only be described by the word "hack." Co-star Catherine Zeta-Jones stars as a character named "Theo", whose only development involves showing off her barely- covered breasts and piling on references to her bisexuality. The story-line is incredibly dumbed-down and every major development smacks you in the face like a brick due to over- explanation. And without spoiling anything... the climax is completely out of left field, preposterous and anything but climactic.Jan de Bont is clearly trying to make the crazed 90's roller-coaster version of Robert Wise's film. And he's relishing in adding in as many loops, twirls, cork-screws and drops to its tracks as possible. But he's made one fatal flaw... he's wasted so much time on aesthetics, he's forgotten to add in the cars for people to enjoy his roller-coaster. And thus, we're left with something that looks exciting on the outside... but it completely empty and without any real fun or purpose."The Haunting" is a 3 out of 10.
Kirpianuscus if you do not know the book and ignore the first adaptation, it could be a decent Gothic story adaptation, who preserves, in large manner, the rules of genre. sure, as opportunity for a generous use of technology. and this is the first great mistake because the story becomes, scene by scene, senseless. the second mistake is the cast. who, except Marian Seldes,remains only a list of names. the third sin - absence of coherence. large parts from the novel are ignored for give more and more fireworks. and this is the bizarre thing - a film who has every chances to be seductive, because propose an old fashion story, becomes a mix of confusion. the only chance is the classic warning - "only for the fans of actors".
cjs6547 Nobody. And then, "I won't let you hurt the children!"These two lines are perfect examples of how the movie fell apart in the second half. Mainly because there was no prompt for this iconic dialogue from the first film in the second one. No one was shown to be holding Nell's hand, or that her hand was in any position in which it would be 'held'. And secondly, she didn't hear the terrifying noises of child abuse in the dark. Being a remake of the 1963 classic, I don't think anybody expected it to be as good as the first. But still it was off to a promising start, with lonely, unwanted Eleanor against the glamorous have-it- all Zeta as Theo. Even Owen Wilson being Owen Wilson in Hill House was entertaining. Unfortunately, the second half nose-dived. They didn't keep up the motif of the desperate Eleanor with no home being hounded by society - except in that one scene in which Owen Wilson trashes her only legal possession against the iron gate (he gets his poetic justice). Instead of the house PREYING on Eleanor's weakened mind, the idea that Eleanor DID somehow legally belong with the house was pushed a bit too far (the woman wearing the necklace in the painting and Eleanor spewing a lot of ancestral details which no one can possibly verify there). That and the abundant use of CG takes away from all horror and leaves us with an adventure film with one horrible accident.Watch the original 1963 film for your dose of chills and terrors.