Haunted Hill

For once, a movie even scarier and more horrifying than the trailers for it. BUT......

The whole was not equal to the sum of its parts. Geoffrey Rush (what's HE doing in this movie?!) as Steven Price is actually a very interesting character, which can be attributed to either the effort the script takes to set him up, and/or the brilliance of the Oscar-winning actor in the role. Price's wife, Evelyn, gets similar treatment, but it is here the screenwriter(s?) get lazy.

The strangers in the house DO get a minimal amount of character set-up, i.e. who they are, what they do... but this information is never touched on again. One would HOPE that all ths information is being displayed for some higher purpose-- the background of these five strangers, the cat-and-mouse game played by Mr. & Mrs. Price, and Mr. Price's fascination with fear that is set up so intensely in the movie's opening minutes.

But alas, none of this GOES anywhere. It is all completely independent from the agenda of the House when I felt like it should all tie together, somehow. There are three forces at work here-- the ghosts who haunt the house, the humans who are trapped in it, and the Darkness that lives beneath it. These are all separate entities, we find, but for what purpose? This movie could have gone on another ten minutes, some loose ends could have been tied up, and I could have given it a much higher score.

Instead, what was truly an INTENSE build-up, sputters out at the very end of the movie. It didn't even feel like an end, it just felt like the movie stopped, and we're left without an explanation to what happens to the survivors-- including the most interesting character in the movie, the House itself.

7 out of 10. Fun to watch, truly terrifying, but incomplete.

Asylums. Crazy people. Insanity. Mental therapy, mental hospitals, mental patients have been used time and time again in horror fiction and horror films. Why? I'm not sure; maybe, it is the normality of being like those that are insane which brings a more genuine horror to us. Whatever it is, House on Haunted Hill certainly uses all the mental derangement cliches to full effect. I could easily pan this film by saying(and rightly so) that its predecessor, the original House on Haunted Hill directed by William Castle, is a far superior film. That Castle's film was filled with better acting, better timing, and easily a better script. But I liked this film, which is not really a remake entirely. It has many elements that are not in the first film; most of them centering around the mental aspect aforementioned. The house in this film was once an asylum where people...thousands perhaps..were brutally butchered in the name of mental good health. The house is scary. Empty corridors, large, vast rooms, incredible special effects all add to the frightening aspects of the film. The biggest problem with the film is that much of it just doesn't add up in terms of making sense of the plot. The film fortunately is more special effects driven than plot driven, and at least is able to deliver the goods in that arena. The acting is pretty good with all the leads really doing quite a good job. Geoffrey Rush gives his best Vincent Price impression(pencil-thin mustache and all) delivering lines with bravura gusto. The other exceptional standout is Chris Kattan as Watson Pritchard. Kattan is just wonderful in the role showcasing his obvious talent. As far as great horror films go...this film is adequate, yet very thrilling, exciting, and entertaining. If you are like me and love the old one...just look at this film as a totally different entity. It is. One thing is for sure...it is one heck of a rollercoaster ride!

I was expecting the worst--a remake of a lousy 1950s Vincent Price flick (I HATE the original--talk about boring!) and there were no previews--never a good sign. I was surprised to find an intelligent, scary movie. There was gore and violence, but they didn't overdo it (except for the part when someone was given shock treatment--talk about harrowing!). The script was intelligent--all the characters talk and, sometimes, act like real people. And, thankfully, no stupid in-jokes or character to provide "comic" relief. Everything is dealt with seriously which just adds to the tension. The setting is scary--the "house" (actually an abandoned asylum) LOOKS evil, and inside it's all darkness and cobwebs. The acting...well...Rush is having a GREAT time in his role, and it rubbed off on me. Every time he was on screen I enjoyed it. The rest of the cast is OK, but anyone could have played these roles...they were just mostly reacting to special effects. The only real disappointment here was Taye Diggs. He showed that he had charisma, could act and has a GREAT body in previous flicks ("How Stella Got Her Groove Back"; "GO"; "The Wood"). So why does he give such a so-so performance here--he's even worse in "The Best Man". Hopefully he'll start acting again...soon.

I also heard about lousy CGI effects in this movie. When the CGI effects go barreling out of control at the end though, I was scared! I'm a veteran of hundreds (literally) of horror films so I don't scare easy. The only weak part was a real stupid "surprise" at the end that comes out of nowhere. Other than that it worked.

So, this is a good, scary horror film. Worth shelling out full price at a cinema--DON'T wait for the video. This works great in a dark theatre with excellent stereo sound--it won't work on a TV.

... in that pieces of the plot are borrowed, but there is quite a bit of original material added including background information , and I'd say this version is much scarier than the 1959 William Castle film. The only thing the original had that this one lacks is the irreplaceable Vincent Price, and this 1999 version does a bit of homage to him by naming the wealthy man Stephen Price who hosts a birthday party for his wife in a supposedly haunted house.

As in the original ,the Prices are hostile to each other, but Mrs. Price is staying because she gets no money in a divorce but gets it all if Mr. Price dies. Also, as in the original, there are five guests who get - in this case - one million dollars each if they stay the entire night. Anybody who leaves forfeits their money to the others. What's different? Well the road the plot takes from there is different, and the beginning of the film details the origins of the haunted house. It was originally the Vannacutt Psychiatric Institute for the Criminally Insane run by the sadistic Dr. Vannacutt. In 1931 the inmates manage to free themselves from their cells and start a fire that kills all of the patients and all but five of the staff. The house has meant death or tragedy to anybody who lived in it since.

So the five guests who arrive are not who Price invited. His wife doesn't know them either. And after everybody is inside it turns out that turning chicken and wanting to leave would be futile because the house shuts itself down, sealing every window and door. It was a feature when the place was an insane asylum in case of escape.

So at this point wouldn't it be wise just to sit in the civilized renovated upstairs portion of the house, all in one little group, and wait out the night? But no. This group goes down the fateful but familiar path of "Some malevolent force is out to get us so let's split up and explore the basement", which is the original insane asylum part of the house. Downstairs interesting frights and discoveries about exactly who the guests are await them, and I'll just let you watch and find out what happens. It does rely quite a bit more on suspense and less on gore than most modern horror films. I'll just say this thing scared me to death when I saw it in the theater years ago, and the William Castle/Vincent Price version was eerie and psychologically interesting, but I have never found it all that frightening.

i really dig castle, and of corse, vincent price. you just can't go wrong with vincent price for sheer menace... and camp!

the remake has changed a few things. it's set in an insaine assylum instead of a house. (i am sure this is to utilize f/x and freak-scares as much as possible.) the opening credits had this we-really-want-to-be-a-Seven-kind-of-movie feel to it, but when you get in to the actual film about 5 minutes the freaky feeling is gone and it's just another new-hollywood horror film.

there is an association between the guests and the house to tighten the story up more, and the f/x are really groovey.

don't get me wrong, i LIKED the film. it just didn't keep up on the creepyness it promised to have in the opening credits and only hinted at throughout the film. if you want to see a good scary film-see this,if you want to get the creeps-see the original in w/s in a dark room...