So of all the things I could have used to try and kickstart things again, why this? Because I was watching it again the other night after an interval of years, and man—I’d almost forgotten how craptacular it is. And because as I was watching, I started captioning things in my head, which is usually a good sign.
In which Jan de Bont and David Self teach us all new appreciation for Robert Wise’s 1960 adaptation of Shirley Jackson’s seminal horror novel by botching every one of its set-pieces. In which a subtle tale of psychological horror becomes the $80 million equivalent of trying to frighten someone by blowing up a paper bag and bursting it behind them.
In which we learn that 19th century architects never argued with their clients, that decapitations don’t bleed, that a dead child in your bed is nothing to get worked up about, and that the best way to rid your house of an evil spirit is by yelling at it.
Oh – and that scientists are unethical. Big surprise.
#1 by RogerBW on January 22, 2012 - 3:16 am
Quote
They did have ethics panels in ’99, right? I’m sure I heard about them before that. This sort of thing might just barely have been possible in the sixties (Milgram, etc.) but not thirty years later… unless (in movieland terms) you’re on a deeply dodgy government grant and not planning to publish, but that would probably be a layer of conspiracy too many (and two years too early for that particular strain of modern paranoia).
Yay Todd, who had the sense to get out of a bad situation…
I’m not familiar with the original The Haunting of Hill House, but from your synopsis of the setup my initial assumption was that fake scares are planned as part of the experiment but that some of them will turn out to be real. But the actual story seems to be more trite than that; is it that the experiment is basically just a device to get people isolated in the house, after which it’s more or less forgotten? Oh dear…
Judging by the bloodshot eye windows and the conservatory stair, the set designer seems to have had a lot of fun. Glad someone did.
#2 by lyzard on January 22, 2012 - 3:51 am
Quote
Nobody spoils Hollywood’s fun like…the ETHICS COMMITTEE!! Such a bunch of killjoys…
In the original Hill House, its a genuine investigation into potentially supernatural phenomena, and the manifestations are real. The question is – or becomes – what is the source of them? (That said, the biggest jump scene in the film version is entirely real world.) Here, Marrow doesn’t do anything but “suggest” things and sit back to see what happens when his subjects’ imaginations get to work. The others come to believe he was responsible for creating what they initially experience, but there’s no in-film proof of that.
#3 by Ed on January 22, 2012 - 11:33 am
Quote
God, I had the misfortune to see this in the theater. Even worse than the film being a pile of crap, the f/x at the end gave me a nasty eyestrain and I spent most of the rest of the day stumbling around like a man in dire need of a guide dog and a cane with red tip. Looked real studly walking around Target that day, believe me.
I guess you could say I have a tiny bit of a grudge against this movie.
#4 by Blake on January 22, 2012 - 12:47 pm
Quote
My brother went to see it with his friends on opening weekend and dismissed it as a lame piece of crap, so I never gave it the time of day. I’m sure it’d take a B-Masters Secret Santa-esque Dare to get me to watch it.
Great review, Liz. The picture of Hugh Crain in the screenshot makes him look like Wolverine. *Now tries to picture a movie with Hugh Jackman running around a haunted house with his claws unsheathed*
#5 by Braineater on January 23, 2012 - 9:08 am
Quote
I was thinking César Franck on a bad day.
#6 by Jen S on January 22, 2012 - 12:57 pm
Quote
Oh, brother, this one!
I actually saw it in the theater (I think I was out of socks to sort and pair that day and was casting around for a time-waster) and, after the intial “really?” incredulity, settled into that happy frame of “how low can they go?” You know, when you realize you’ve handed over eleven dollars to watch a film that no one involved seemed to have actually written or plotted or storyboarded, and have decided to just wait and see how preposterously idiotic things will get before the final credits.
Two things make this kind of film fun–inexplicably “name” actors (who have a certain amount of cache’, however unearned, so you wondered if they were in this film because of blackmailing/a lost bar bet), and giant, ridiculous sets that resemble nothing but giant, ridiculous sets. Thirteen Ghosts, the remake, is another outstanding example of this class of bad movie.
#7 by DamonD on January 22, 2012 - 12:58 pm
Quote
Well…I quite like some of the music. That’s about as positive as I can get.
I am enlightened on the awesomeness of Todd, though. He gets out of this mess with dignity intact, unlike…let’s say, Zeta Jones for instance.
The early banging on the door scare is another great comparison point. Unnerving in the original, annoying in this remake. Kinda sums up the two versions pretty well.
I’m gonna remember that “what would they tell the police?” theory.
#8 by kbegg on January 22, 2012 - 3:50 pm
Quote
Good lord, woman. I’m clearly never going to win a masochism contest with you.
The Haunting is my all-time favorite horror movie, so you can imagine how much I enjoyed this turd when I saw it in the theater. That said, “It’s about family! It’s always been about family!” is about my favorite bad movie climax line this side of “Eat the cookie!”
I have one fond memory of this. Although I’m not sure my fellow victims in the packed movie house I saw this in hated it as much as I did, the general feeling of intense dissatisfaction was pretty obvious. Indeed, the audience collectively jumped ONE time…when the practical gag skeleton reared out of the fireplace. I remember how hilarious I found it that a five thousand dollar prop you might have seen in a William Castle movie scared the audience while the film’s tens of millions of dollars of CGI effects left them entire unmoved. If only Hollywood were capable of learning a lesson from that.
#9 by lyzard on January 22, 2012 - 4:07 pm
Quote
That happened at my screening, too! Although to be fair, the average age of the audience was about fourteen, so it’s entirely possible that they had actually never seen a “special effect” that cheap before.
“…in my day, they used to wire the seats to give electric shocks and fly plastic skeletons through the air overhead on wires; but you tell the young people of today that, and they won’t believe you…”
#10 by Mr. Rational on January 22, 2012 - 6:15 pm
Quote
“Dead children who’d seen Marrow’s ad in the Boston Globe.”
Well, be fair now. Does anyone ELSE read the Globe these days?
Great review as always!
#11 by B. Wood on January 22, 2012 - 7:32 pm
Quote
I actually have fond memories of this movie. It was the last movie me and all my high school buddies saw together. We all agreed it was pretty lame. The thing that puzzles me most is this though. Out of all the movies they could have picked, why did Scary Movie two chose to primarly parody this one?
#12 by The Rev. D.D. on January 23, 2012 - 5:34 pm
Quote
I also saw this opening weekend, although it was not my choice; I was talked into it by friends who for some unknown reason wanted to see it. There were a bunch of noisy teens in attendance, but I can’t blame them for my dislike of the movie. Nor can I claim to be insulted in deference to the original, since I’ve not seen it.* It was just bad. I don’t recall people jumping at the skeleton, but I have to admit I rather enjoyed that over-the-top yet bloodless decapitation.
*I’ve still not seen it, either. I tried once but it was very late and I ended up dozing off. So, yes, I’ve paid to see this, and have not seen the original. Let the mocking commence.
I will say, though, that the original on my DVR now, waiting for me to finally get the time to watch it (and the many other movies on there.)
#13 by Jason Farrell on January 24, 2012 - 7:53 am
Quote
Why, oh why does Jan Debont get these budgets? There’s enough money up on that screen to fund four Romeros or Carpenters. There’s enough to fund the entire downside to Lucio Fulci’s career. Was TWISTER enough that nobody even watches the dailies?
#14 by José on January 24, 2012 - 8:24 am
Quote
“Hill, hell, what the heck?” I was almost screaming too at the end “Wrong, wrong, you adapted another book!”. I fell asleep a few minutes watching this movie in the theater (just before the death of Owen Wilson). Because of that (I lost part of a movie, what a shame!), I try to see it again on TV a few years later… and fell asleep at the same spot. Boooooring…
Anyway, it´s great how Liam Neeson keep almost undisturbed after A BIG GIANT STONE STATUE try to kill him.
Great review as always.
#15 by ronald on January 26, 2012 - 7:15 am
Quote
A house decorated with Oompa-Loompas? That’s *somebody’s* definition of pure evil…
#16 by lyzard on January 26, 2012 - 1:34 pm
Quote
Yeah, MINE.
#17 by Chentzilla on February 1, 2012 - 8:03 am
Quote
Gates of Hell are by Rodin, not Rodan.
#18 by GalaxyJane on February 6, 2012 - 2:10 pm
Quote
It’s probably telling that the original is one of the things I unequivically recommend when friends ask my about genuinely scary horror movies, yet this one fails to even make the honorable mention list when they ask my recommendations for entertainingly bad horror movies. How I became the sort of person from whom my friends ask advice about both subjects is left as an exercise for the reader.