Just not my taste, I guess.
Added 11/12/2009
I read a lot of a reviews of this movie, and I read a lot of comments from people jumping on the reviewers, but everyone should be allowed to have their own opinion. I must state at the outset that my favorite genre of movies is classics. I'm 27, and I was brought up to really love and appreciate "old" movies (my personal favorites fall between the 1930s-1950s, but I appreciate that there are really good ones made both before and after that time frame). And I really love suspenseful and "scary" classics, because I'm a true believer that what you don't see is usually scarier than what you do. One of my favorite movies of all time is The Uninvited (1944). Of course, there is a lot of what you don't see, but the terrifying ghost that you DO, and I absolutely love everything about it. I also adore House on Haunted Hill and most everything by Hitchcock.
All that being said, I recently watched The Haunting in its entirety on TCM, and I just failed to see what so many five-star reviewers saw in it. That's really all there is to it. So much can be done without special effects to thrill and chill a viewer, but I just found nothing scary about it. I guess I would have liked a little more explanation in the film, other than that the house was just "evil." I love some movies that others think are pretty dull or silly myself, so that's all I will say, and I think it's great that there are so many who love it and give it a good following. I was disappointed, as so many people love it so much. Maybe that's why I was disappointed, maybe my expectations were just a little too high.
0 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
No Slashers, Just the Unknown Comin' to Git Ya
Added 10/31/2009
This is the original movie and I believe it is far creepier than the newer version. People are invited to an old mansion, reputed to be haunted, for an experiment. Most of the people are sophisticated, pragmatic, intrigued. But one woman (Julie Harris)has escaped to the house from her antagonistic family, her wretched life. She becomes a focus for whatever haunts the house. As she appears more and more emotionally vulnerable, the haunting intensifies.
Part of what makes this work so well, is the restraint shown. There are no visible ghosts, just sounds. The camera focuses on a pattern on the wall and suddenly it seems entirely sinister. The movie uses your imagination. You keep wondering "What is going on?" Then the doors start to bow inward. There's definitely something there. The ending makes me shudder.
I won't go there -- You'll have to watch it.
To get really creeped out for Halloween, try this with the BBC production of "The Woman in Black" and the old version of the "Wicker Man." Chills be yours!
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
The Scariest Movie I've Ever Seen!
Added 10/29/2009
I was about 10 years old when the original version of The Haunting came out. My mom sent me and two friends to the movie just to get us out of the house. By the end of the film, all three of us were in one seat. I next saw the movie about 15 years later, curious to see if it still scared me. It did, and I slept that night with a chair wedged against my bedroom door. About another 15 years after that, I again watched it (having bought the video), and the movie was every bit as creepy as I'd remembered. I don't have any intention of watching it again, but I can't seem to get rid of the video.
I once lent the video to a friend who liked scary movies, and she found it very boring. Not enough special effects or gore for her. But that is exactly what makes The Haunting so scary to me. I found it every bit as disturbing as The Blair Witch Project. It's not the shocks that make you jump out of your seat that are truly frightening; it's the little, very subtle things that you may not even notice at first...until it's too late.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
The Haunting
Added 10/28/2009
This classic horror tale, written by Shirley Jackson, will give you the creeps so bad you'll spend Halloween night with all the lights on! Not only is this probably the scariest horror movie ever made, it scares without all the buckets of blood, gore, and blade-wielding mutant murderers that are so commonplace they've become boring. In The Haunting it's the atmosphere, the shadows, and the unusual camera angles that horrify. Not a ghost in sight, yet it's a damn sight better than the remake with Liam Neeson, et. al.. (Rob Zombie wishes he had the talent to actually make a movie as truly scary as this!) A terrific performance by Claire Bloom makes this an awesome movie. If you call yourself a horror movie connoisseur and you don't have this film, you're fooling yourself!
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
All tell, no show
Added 10/10/2009
As the numerous 5 star reviews attest, many people equate the "lack of show" in this movie with intelligent sophistication. I love the remake, but I thought I would see the original because of these claims. Let me start by saying that I have never been a fan of gore or "gross" imagery in horror. I prefer artistic effects, a good story, quiet building suspense and credible character reaction. But I think a good horror movie absolutely needs some disturbing auditory and visual effects, as well, or else it wouldn't be what it is. There is a distinction between the sensory imagery required for a strong horror movie and all-out CGI and gore. The remake of the Haunting had a good amount of the former and only a slight to moderate amount of the latter, a mix that I thought worked well.
This original version doesn't have any gore or blatant imagery, which is usually promising for my tastes, and naturally I thought it would focus on subtle effects. But I was wrong. It doesn't utilize many effects... at all. There is too much time spent with bland scenes with nothing to offer, and too little with suspenseful ones. In the remake, you are always aware of the house, whether through music, lighting, subtle shifts in the dialogue, or the distinctive artistic and beautiful creepiness of the house itself. In this movie, there are times when you actually forget the house altogether and feel like you might not even be watching a horror movie at all. I feel that the house should be the biggest symbol, but most of the time it does not feel ominous or unique.
It doesn't help that the characters are not very dimensional or complex, either. Nor do they seem to truly develop. Theo with her barbs and often bizarre composure is not easy to relate to at all, and her responses to what happens in the house inconsistently range from terrified to underwhelmed. Luke and John are fairly one note, and seem to be ciphers more than anything else. Pointless, drawn out or inane arguing between the characters adds nothing to the fear or suspense -- or their development: "The world is full of unnatural things - nature's mistakes, they're called - like you, for instance!" Eleanor says to Theo. (Oh, no, she didn't...)
Which brings us to Eleanor, who is immature, annoying and says almost everything in a childish whine. I know her character is supposed to be unhinged, but she is so over the top, she takes "unstable" to an unbelievable level. The Eleanor of the remake is much more sophisticated and quiet, often too calm and caring given what she'd been through, making her not only more likable, but lending a believable gravity and depth to her sensitivity.
Eleanor's inner monologue was also grating and succeeded in killing suspense. Her reactions to what was happening around her should have been powerful enough to tell us what she was thinking. Instead, we are treated to "Now I know why people scream because I think I'm going to!" and "The house is coming down around me; the house is destroying itself!" and "I want to stay here" for the fifth time. No, really? Either she was repeating what the audience could already see, which was irritating and detracted from what could have been wordless, more mysterious intensity reliant on expressions and surrounding alone (which almost always make more of an impact), or she had to think aloud those things because they weren't shown clearly enough to the audience, which is a serious flaw in film making.
In general, things were too often stated rather than shown. How many times did someone say the equivalent of "This is an evil house"? How subtle. Or lines like, "It wants you, Nell. The house is calling you"? There is a disconnect between occurrences in the house and what the characters feel, because we either don't see enough of their reactions in response to what is supposed to be going around them, or we don't see/sense enough of what caused them to feel that way in the first place (there are only a couple of modest exceptions). We are often told, instead. For example, Eleanor exits a parlor alone, suddenly cries out, and then tells everyone why. Why couldn't we see this? Why couldn't we see her reaction while this happened to her? Why couldn't we get a feel for what made her react this way -- no, probably not by seeing the "evil" itself, but a subtle visual cue or sound? We don't even get that. So even when we see the characters' reactions, they are too sudden and fleeting to be believable, and thus not frightening. I don't blame the actors. I think they did the best they could with the material, but ultimately they couldn't help the script or the filming.
One more thing: The whole premise of the remake makes it so the characters seem more vulnerable. They are tricked into thinking their stay in the house is a study on sleep, when really it is a study on fear; there is no assumption that the house is actually haunted. It adds a dynamic that contributes to the tension and the development of the relationships between the characters. Not to mention, it is more believable and intense. And there is suspense in that there is good reason why the house wants Eleanor, as certain spirits need her to discover their story and help them at risk to herself (not simply run around and whine), and there is a much deeper history that explains why the house is evil (not simply because "it was evil from the beginning" like in this version -- pretty shallow.)
There were a few things I thought were quite well-done and intriguing in this movie. Mrs. Dudley was fantastic and chilling. The actress who played her did a great job. One of the few actual effects, the chime-like child's laughter, was also hair-raising. (It's a shame the majority of the music wasn't as impressive and fell into cheesy melodrama.) And I thought the scene where Nell hears the laughter, then screaming and crying on the other side of the engraved wall was genuinely frightening, as was Grace popping out of the attic. And the use of lighting in a few scenes was interesting and beautiful.
But aside from those few positive components, the film offered little in the way of fear, intensity or intelligence, alternating between the mundane and silliness. It became difficult to sit through it. It is always good that a movie brings enjoyment to so many people -- but in this case, I am not one of them and I don't understand it. I'll leave it to others and stick with the remake.
3 out of 6 people found this helpful.
|
