Ghosts of Hanley House

At its best, 'The Ghosts of Hanley House' has the feel of a poor man's 'The Haunting.' At its worst, it has the feel of the forgettable Ferlin Huskey (old-time country singer for those who don't know) vehicle, 'Hillbillies in a Haunted House.' Part of this feeling was due to the guy who took the bet to stay overnight in the house (don't know the actor's name since even IMDb doesn't know who played whom!) sounds JUST like old Ferlin … which is to say a Hillbilly country singer stuck in a haunted house!

Overall, I was pleasantly surprised. As others have said, the production values, at least as far as sound goes, are terrible! It sounds like a very, very early "talkie" from about 1929! I think the ghost was standing outside the house, holding the microphone in many scenes! The camera work, though, is quite good. The film almost seems to have a blue tint, as in silent film days…except of course the handful of somewhat overdone scenes of a man's silhouette standing outside the house with the picture in a gaudy blood-red tint. The house itself is wonderful. I suspect the availability of the house may have led to the movie. I can almost see Louise Sherrill visiting the house and going 'Dang! I've GOT to make a haunted house movie about this place!'

Sometimes Ms. Sherrill gets a little heavy-handed on making sure we understand what we're supposed to see. We hear and see cars trying to start for 30 seconds to show that the cars won't start. We have at least two looks out the front door, each 20-30 seconds of panning every inch of terrain just to show that no one was REALLY knocking on the front door. A few other things that don't add up would be the painting of Mrs. Hanley looking NOTHING like the flashback image of her, the haunted house scenes at the opening bearing little or no relation to the crime that had been committed there, etc.

Don't expect 'The Haunting' or 'The Shining.' If you like B horror, though, this one should be well worth viewing.

Five people are spending the night in a haunted house. Things get dicey when some of them start turning up decapitated.

Odd film that I had never heard of before watching it on Cult O Rama on my Roku. Filled with unknowns who had very limited film exposure before or after.

One of the actresses was married to Timothy Leary!

Another made a few soft core porns after this film.

The director acting in 2 films but never directed again.

I'm always fascinated about how these movies get made and why the people involved have such a limited career.

The movie is the typical ghost house fare and don't expect great acting. The sound is horrible. Tinny and echoing. Slow exposition. And be prepared for the car key questioning. It seems to go on for 20 minutes!

They all get drunk and play cards and then the record player comes out. Plenty of laffing for no reason and dancing. Then there is what I guess is a wolf only it sure sounds human. Oh, and the black widow spider episode! Hysterical.

It's not a very good film, so maybe I answered my own question about why these people had limited careers. The biggest problem with this film is that it just keeps going with nothing really happening.

Note: The current IMBD plot description "Five people are spending the night in a haunted house. Things get dicey when some of them start turning up decapitated" is only half-right--the second sentence is very inaccurate and misleading.

This is a game low-budget regional attempt to do a traditional "haunted house challenge" story a la "The Haunting," et al. But it's undone not so much by the low budget as unimaginative direction and lack of atmosphere. (Admittedly, the soft, probably TV-copied prints this movie can be seen in probably don't help.) You know the handling will be somewhat clunky right off with some poor matching of shots including day-for-night ones. Otherwise the film makes a semi-intelligent decision to keep things relatively dark (hiding production shortcomings) and avoid overt violence, but there just isn't much sense of style or idiosyncrasy to the direction to convey any real sense of threat. Too many of the "scares" are in the form of crude sound effects obviously dubbed in later, and which the adequate (for this kind of movie) actors seldom react to at all. There's so little attempt to ratchet up suspense that when "The End" comes, it's one of those times you think "Wait--that was IT?" Not because things didn't happen, but because their presentation is so flat there's no sense of having reached a story's climax. Anyway, you've certainly seen worse, and this is notable for not being particularly lurid or cheesy in an era when most low-budget horror was exactly that. But it just doesn't really come to life. Compare it to another low-budget film from just a few years later like "Let's Scare Jessica to Death," and you can see how an ability to convey an unsettled atmosphere makes all the difference.

There was potential in Ghosts of Hanley House. Some parts are truly creepy just because of the atmosphere and eerie tone of the film. It reminds me a little bit of a modern found footage film, except actually quite spooky until ...

Our cast is awakened at 1 or 2 am by ghostly banging and then all decided to get fully dressed including necklaces, hair clips and neck ties before holding a seance. I know people used to dress up in public but give me a break. Even in the 60s people had tee shirts or could sit upright without a suit coat or hair accessories. Then they get lost in what is obviously Griffith Park in broad daylight meant to look "dark" because the film is black and white and they play crickets chirping in the background.

This film is very interesting from a sociological angle or as an historical artifact and it certainly has some atmosphere but you'll be disappointed if you pay attention too closely. I highly recommend playing this in the background at a Halloween party or watching it late at night in the dark alone. It's too ridiculous otherwise.

This is a bad movie. Badly made, that is, and not 'so bad that it's good' bad. That being said, I did keep returning to it until I had seen the end. It appears to be made by someone who had been around movie sets but really didn't know what they were doing. As another reviewer mentioned, the camera lingers on face shots for a painfully long time for no apparent reason. Sound doesn't always sync up with the picture, and it's difficult to figure whether the sounds you're hearing are soundtrack or are being heard by the characters. A woman character screams bloody murder, and no one comes out of their rooms until a minute later.

For all that, it does have a perverse charm that kept me coming back 20 minutes at a time until the end. It's like watching the first student film of someone who later became a famous director. There's something there under the poor camera technique, editing and wooden acting. The total lack of humor - intended or otherwise - keeps this one out of the midnight movie/so bad that it's good genre, but if low budget haunted house movies appeal to you, this one might be worth a look. Don't pay for it - I downloaded it from the Internet Archive.