I admit I was prepared to dislike this movie, being a BIG fan of the original 1963 version, (which, along with THE INNOCENTS and Nigel Kneale's THE WOMAN IN BLACK, is one of the best "ghost" films ever made) and make no mistake, this is a BAD film--a mangled mess that uses elements from not only the Wise version and other sources, and completely ignores the original novel--but strangely enough, I can hardly wait to see it again. It was hilarious--and after getting over the disappointment that it wasn't going to be good, (it's REAL obvious early on) this is the most fun I've had at the movies in a long time. It's a carnival ride, the Disneyland Haunted-House times 10, and if you're familiar with the glories of Robert Wise's original masterpiece, this movie is going to have you laughing like a hyena at the jaw-droppingly audacious deviations and liberties taken here, and that are asked to be taken seriously. This film is perhaps the ultimate parody--a skewed, big-budget comedy that's too dim to realize it's funny--making the laughs (at the hilarious expense of its makers) all the more hysterical. It is truly a disaster of biblical, Ed-Woodian magnitude-- and perhaps the most entertaining film out there this summer.
Okay, I know this movie had to appeal to a 90's audience, and I was well aware it would have a more heavy-handed approach than the Robert Wise version, (definitely still "the good version") but that doesn't begin to describe the wayward path this film traipses down. To say there are literal ghosts in THE HAUNTING is a maximum understatement; the ghosts here are more or less the equivelent of DeBont's climactic tornado in TWISTER; they're big, they're loud, and they fling debris. In fact, there are several interesting parallels to TWISTER here, another being that the team assembled to beard Hill House is similar to the neurotic band of tornado-chasers, who ultimately confront and experience the big-villain, cyclone-ghost of Hugh Crane, (manifesting itself hilariously-- looking here about as frightening as "The Beast" from the animated Disney "Beauty & the Beast.")
Somewhere around 20 minutes into the film, you realize it's not going to be good. Another 10 minutes, and you give up hoping for coherence. By the time the ghosts start manifesting, you're well-aware the filmmakers have floundered and there's no hope of rescue. But it doesn't matter--one thing this movie never is, is boring. Hill House literally tears itself apart to get at its pesky investigators, and the whole thing degenerates into chaos, as bedrooms develop faces, woodwork hands flail from the moulding, and cherubic marble children's heads gasp and scream their ghostly little lungs out. The effects are, as expected, amazing and impressive, but since they're so in-your-face, it's hard not to be totally aware of the filmmakers desperate realization that unless they could make this an effects-extravaganza, how would they ever compete with THE PHANTOM MENACE (just next door?!) Typical of the summer blockbuster mentality whose sole purpose for being is that they dazzle us visually, THE HAUNTING makes no attempt to be suggestive or scary--and it settles for a totally new, laughable "origin" of Hill House's haunting.
In the novel (and Wise's original film) the psychological background of Eleanor, her neurosis, and vulnerability, become the basis for all the ghostly phenomena--making the film and novel function on several levels, and creating a sense of doubt in the viewer's (reader's) mind; Is Hill House really haunted with literal ghosts--? Or is Eleanor making these things happen herself, unknowingly using the house to project her phobias and insecurities into visible and audible phenomena? Since she's obviously a powerful medium, (it's suggested she was responsible for a childhood poltergeist attack) Eleanor is the most likely candidate for being the unwitting culprit that actually "haunts" the house--regardless of the "evil history" of the place. This is suggested with some subtlety in Wise's film. In DeBont's, it appears this was considered, as some initial attempts to delineate Nell's character follow the original's set up, (the "mother banging on the wall" is suggested early on) but after arriving at the house, this all becomes immaterial and falls by the wayside in favor of a new "explanation" of Nell's connection to the house; an extremely trite, ridiculously unbelievable one that makes all the subtleties concrete, and turns THE HAUNTING completely away from a psychological study, and into the lamest, most literal (and clunkingly unscary) ghost story ever.
I admit, you shouldn't compare a remake to the original in cases like this, but even as its own monster, this new version fails to work on any level approaching coherency. If they're going to create a totally new story, why bother establishing a set up that suggests the old one? If the ghosts are literal, why attempt to make Nell neurotic and vulnerable in the first place? In fact, this version seems to be more a remake, not of THE HAUNTING--but of Richard Matheson's HELL HOUSE--right down to the (unintentionally funny) shouting-match confrontation with the main ghost at the end. This is one howlingly dumb movie.
Still, there's a lot to admire here. The sets (omigod--the SETS!) are some of the most baroquely impressive I've ever seen--Hill House is so crammed-to-the-gills with statuary, stone lions, cherubs, and ponderous bric-a-brac that it would be impossible to sleep in one of the palatial, overly-ornate rooms for all the overstimulation of visual input. In fact, the house is much scarier in the initial scenes before anything overtly ghostly takes place, as the sets are so overwhelmingly heavy with gloomy portent, you almost convince yourself you see statuary and marble faces move before they actually do (later). Bruce Dern has a cameo as Dudley the caretaker, and he's fun (he and his screen-wife get the film's last word), as is the actress playing Mrs. Dudley (a nice touch is her "In the night... in the dark," monologue, lifted virtually verbatum from the original film--and played for the film's one successful, intentional laugh).
Lili Taylor is surprisingly weak here, becoming an irritating, whiny presence in quick order--and playing Nell as overtly (and goofily) nutty in some scenes when they don't really call for that approach. Liam Neeson is nearly forgotten, his character being peripheral in all respects once the film gets going. Jones is a bright spot as Theo, but her bisexual character never attempts the tension of Clair Bloom's performance in the original--and she's just so gosh-wow CHEERFUL! Then there's the actor playing Luke Sannerson (can't remember his name) who reminds me of Trey Parker, creator of SOUTH PARK. Weirdly, he becomes the most likable character in THE HAUNTING--someone the audience can identify with and laugh at, as he reacts to the spooky surroundings--until he abruptly meets his end in one of the films most outlandishly retarded deviations--a scene that brought gales of laughter from the crowd.
As a serious film, THE HAUNTING fails spectacularly in any of its ambitions. As a remake, it can't hold a candle. As an adaptation of the novel, it's obvious no one associated with this movie even read it. As an original "haunted house" story, it fails to fulfil, or remain coherent to, its own set up. But it may just be the comedy hit of the summer--the audience we saw it with was hooting and howling with derisive laughter throughout--and I enjoyed the hell out of it. Therefore, I give this film an entertainment rating of 10--as one of the most unintentionally hilarious films I've ever seen. Psychotronically, it stands with the musical remake of LOST HORIZON as a paragon of the "golden turkey"--one of those special "bad" films we love to hate--because it's so flagrently, deliciously rotten.
"Some movies are just born bad..."
--Mark
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews