Highly Overrated But Still Good

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

This film seeks to be a remake of the 1959 film "House on Haunted Hill". As in this film, the action takes place in an isolated and allegedly haunted house, with a mysterious and painful past, which is watched over by a couple of caretakers who refuses to sleep there, so everyone is left alone in the mansion at night. But the similarities end here because this story is totally new. If the original film's action took place during a birthday party, the reason for the stay in the house is now a scientific study of fear, disguised as a study of insomnia. So, comparing both films ends up being inglorious. As a remake, "The Haunting" sucks. But if we want to forget the 1959 film and see this production as something entirely new, although inspired by an earlier work, we can see this film from another perspective, perhaps more prudent and just.The actors in the film did a relatively decent job. The cast was led by Liam Neeson, Lili Taylor, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Owen Wilson. By virtue of their roles, Neeson and Taylor stood out, him with his skepticism and calm gradually fading away, she acting increasingly emotionally as she discovers the story behind the house. However, they have not always been up to the challenge, particularly Neeson, who seems unable to get into the spirit of the film. Sometimes the actors make small mistakes, exaggerate the theatricality, but this is due, in my opinion, to the bad management of Jan de Bont, a good cinematographer but definitely an incapable director and producer.Another problem with this film is the lack of sense of rhythm. The movie has two hours and a little bit, but the first hour is almost entirely spent introducing the audience to the subject, the mansion and so on. Not a single scare. The second hour is that it truly tries to scare us. The film also has enormous difficulties in provoking suspense and grabbing audience's attention through a mysterious and frightening atmosphere. The mansion's setting is fantastic and helps but it's not enough. The picture could be darker at certain times and sound effects are very poor. To make matters worse, the film seeks to frighten us through absolutely hilarious special effects, which end up having the opposite effect and make the public laugh.In short, it's a reasonable light horror movie, which is seen without great scares or expectations. The strongest point ends up being the house and the scenarios. I would definitely buy a house like that. Not being a true remake, it turns out to be funny because of it's poor special effects.

What made the original so haunting and unsettling is its atmosphere, and its psychological effect on the main protagonist. This film, however, takes the whole psychological and atmospheric concept and replaces it with crappy CGI and a horribly written story. Since this was during the time when CGI was being exploited, I see what they were trying to do with this. However, its tacky that they should rely on new technological features on a remake of a film that was purely affective for its subtly. In terms of writing quality, if your expecting a film that dives into questioning the parallels between the paranormal and the human psyche like the original, be prepared to be disappointed. There is no mystery behind anything- this purely a light vs. dark movie. It's not smartly written what-so-ever. This being said, I surprisingly do have a couple of pros. (1) the mansion is unbelievably and gothically beautiful, and even more than the one from the first movie. The house they used is called Harlaxton Manor, which is owned by the University of Evansille for students studying abroad. It is the PERFECT setting for a Gothic horror movie. (2) casting is actually decent (minus Owen Wilson. Sorry bud, not your movie). Lily Taylor is actually a pretty good replacement, bringing a gentleness and gravity to the role. These two pros are what really makes me sad. With such an incredible setting and actors who can actually act (once again excluding Owen Wilson), and if they had just lost the CGi and stuck to the psychological story- this could have been a decent movie. Really disappointed!

This movie upon first impression leaves this reviewer asking, " Did I do something to mess this up? Was it me?" Only after a second viewing does it becomes apparent that it's the movie's fault. This is a remake of a 1963 movie that was itself a poor poor adaptation of the Shirley Jackson masterpiece The Haunting Of Hill House- if you haven't read it, the book is like a modern day epic poem as a tale of horror. Certainly the 1963 film adaptation fell short, and this version manages to fall short of the '63, that's a big empty space of a difference between The Haunting (1999) and the book. The book is classic, the movie is lowest common denominator over-the-top Hollywood psychopathy on display. You would have made more money if you just did a film version of the book- good stories are eternal, special effects are forgotten.

Because the overall reviews are just so bad i felt compelled to say something. I saw this movie when I was around 15 years old and thought at the time that it was pretty scary, now not so much.I find it to be a Disney horror, if Pixar and Disney were to make a horror movie this is what you would get. you have mystery, action and a feel good ending. I never saw the original and I'm not really someone that likes horror movies so that says enough about the film to know that it really is not that scary. I loved the special effects and build up to the end, although the end is somewhat exaggerated I loved the part when he is defeated and the child ghosts go to heaven.What can I say I love Disney movies.