I know it's not fashionable nowadays to complain that a film
didn't do its source material justice, but I think it's a
justified complaint in this case as a) one of the sources is
another film and b) the people who mouth this blather probably
can't read anyway so who cares what they think. That much said,
"The Haunting" is a terrible disappointment simply because it
draws on a masterful novel and very frightening earlier film and
turns the material into so much pap. Why do they have to
explain the haunting in human terms? Why do they have to link
the main character, Eleanor, to the house to explain its
apparent preying on her?
The sad part is that this film was perfectly cast. Lili Taylor,
Liam Neeson, Catherine Zeta Jones and Owen Wilson could have
delivered knockout performances as the characters Ms. Jackson
created. And I think the story could still work in its
original, subtly psychological form (witness the success of "The
Blair Witch Project"). But instead the material was reduced to
a six-year-old mentality and the whole thing overloaded with
special effects that often arouse laughs (Taylor fighting off a
giant stone griffin with a candlestick is a real howler). It's
sad when you prostitute yourself to the lowest common denominator and can't even deliver at that level.
The only excuse for renting this film is as the centerpiece of
an MST3K party. Other comic highlights include the housekeeper
who says she's too busy cooking dinner to answer the front door,
then immediately leaves her cooking to show Taylor to her room;
Wilson getting dragged around helplessly on a killer rug when
clearly all he has to do is roll off the damned thing; and
Taylor almost getting raped--by her bed. After this and "Speed
2," Jan de Bont might
didn't do its source material justice, but I think it's a
justified complaint in this case as a) one of the sources is
another film and b) the people who mouth this blather probably
can't read anyway so who cares what they think. That much said,
"The Haunting" is a terrible disappointment simply because it
draws on a masterful novel and very frightening earlier film and
turns the material into so much pap. Why do they have to
explain the haunting in human terms? Why do they have to link
the main character, Eleanor, to the house to explain its
apparent preying on her?
The sad part is that this film was perfectly cast. Lili Taylor,
Liam Neeson, Catherine Zeta Jones and Owen Wilson could have
delivered knockout performances as the characters Ms. Jackson
created. And I think the story could still work in its
original, subtly psychological form (witness the success of "The
Blair Witch Project"). But instead the material was reduced to
a six-year-old mentality and the whole thing overloaded with
special effects that often arouse laughs (Taylor fighting off a
giant stone griffin with a candlestick is a real howler). It's
sad when you prostitute yourself to the lowest common denominator and can't even deliver at that level.
The only excuse for renting this film is as the centerpiece of
an MST3K party. Other comic highlights include the housekeeper
who says she's too busy cooking dinner to answer the front door,
then immediately leaves her cooking to show Taylor to her room;
Wilson getting dragged around helplessly on a killer rug when
clearly all he has to do is roll off the damned thing; and
Taylor almost getting raped--by her bed. After this and "Speed
2," Jan de Bont might