IMDb > Haunted Honeymoon (1986) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Haunted Honeymoon
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Haunted Honeymoon More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 4 of 5: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]
Index 43 reviews in total 

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Fun combination of horror and comedy. I wish the movie had more laughs in it though.

6/10
Author: Boba_Fett1138 from Groningen, The Netherlands
17 July 2007

It's amazing that a movie with such a concept and people involved wasn't more fun to watch. The movie seriously lacked some good laughs at times and I feel that the movie in its core had far more potential.

It's obvious that Gene Wilder wanted to make a Mel Brooks kind of movie. The movie definitely has the same atmosphere and ideas as "Young Frankenstein". Unfortunately its not as good and it shows how much quality Mel Brooks actually has, to have the skill to have simple, predictable and silly humor and still make an hilarious and classic movie with it.

The humor in this movie is just as absurd and predictable and unfortunately it just doesn't always work out.

The story is totally uninteresting and just serves as an excuse to put as many crazy characters as possible into the movie. It's a weird looking bunch with Dom DeLuise playing a woman! Could be me but I thought the sight of him was pretty darn hilarious! Halve of the time I didn't even bother to wanted to know what the story was all about, it was that absurd really!

The movie of course also features Gene Wilder but unfortunately he hasn't given himself better material and dialog to work with. So it's hardly his best or most comical role. The movie further more also features Jonathan Pryce, in one of his earlier movie roles.

Quite frankly I don't understand who the movie has such a bad reputation. I mean the movie is not all that bad. Yes, you have to like these sort of movies (Mel Brooks-type of humor movies) but I've seen far worse genre movies receiving far better criticism. It just doesn't seem really fair.

The special effects are definitely acceptable for its genre and year it was made in. So was its make-up and its entire professional visual look.

If you like these type of movies its very well worth seeing, though it's definitely not the best movie in its genre that is around.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

I swear, they had to TRY HARD to make it this bad.

Author: vierlix
30 September 2002

This film is a bottomless abyss of waste. It is full of reasonably talented people playing characters in the situation which could be very, very funny. Instead, is is boring, convoluted, random, unfunny and stupid. Among other things, it reeks of some very bad editing. The plot is totally, thoroughly incomprehensible. It left me wanting to kick somebody in the shins. How can you have Jonathan Pryce with long hair and an American accent, and make such a pathetic wad of celluloid? It's criminal.

As a great man once said, "DISAPPOINTED!!"

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Not one single thing was funny

1/10
Author: helpless_dancer from Broken Bow, Oklahoma
1 February 2000

Nervous radio entertainer and his girlfriend are going to be married. So to unwind a bit, they go to his family estate which turns out to be a really huge castle replete with all manner of weird characters. Some guy dressed up like Lon Chaney was bumping folks off, then running to his secret hideout. I suppose he had his reasons. The cute little twist at the end did nothing for the film either.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Unredeemable.

4/10
Author: gridoon
28 December 1999

"Haunted Honeymoon" suffers from a classic case of "all setup, no payoff". It keeps introducing new eccentric characters, then drops them and gives them nothing to do. It has a promising (and game) cast, but wastes it. And it can't seem to find a consistent tone; for example, that brutal fistfight near the end is an unforgivable mistake.

The film does have a few scattered laughs (Wilder's version of the song "Get Happy"), and Gilda Radner has a wonderful presence, but nothing can really redeem this confusing and convoluted mess.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Goofy fun

6/10
Author: Leofwine_draca from United Kingdom
12 November 2015

Gene Wilder made this film as a tribute to the 'old dark house' style movies popular during the 1930s. I guess nobody remembered or appreciated those films because this was a massive bomb on release and hardly anybody bothered going to see it. It's a shame, because it's as equally enjoyable as more popular '80s fare like POLICE ACADEMY.

The plot has a straightforward premise about a group of characters meeting up at a creepy old house for a wedding, but it becomes increasingly convoluted as time goes on. There's a murderer on the loose, and the jokes and chills come thick and fast. It's very similar to MURDER BY DEATH, although not as funny or well-written as that film.

Still, Wilder is on strong form here, as is Gilda Radner as his bride to be. The worst thing about the film are the plot twists, especially at the climax, which are a step too far. Still, the spooky atmosphere is fun, and as this was filmed in the UK, there's an exemplary supporting cast including Jonathan Pryce and Peter Vaughan. My favourite character is the underrated Ann Way (CLOCKWISE) as the housekeeper.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

haunted honeymoon

6/10
Author: lecare22 from United States
19 March 2006

Okay, so it wasn't everyone's best work. If you look at it with no presupposed ideas about everyone, you will find a nice funny movie. There are bits which are priceless. If you think of the humor they were all trying to put forth with Gilda so sick and Gene so worried, maybe it will help to understand somewhat why more attention wasn't paid to a script or to more proper editing. I still find it a breathe of fresh air compared to a lot of movies released in the last 20 years. And isn't it rather funny to see an Englishman do an American accent badly, which was what they were supposed to be doing? It is a comedy, for crying out loud. It wasn't made as a movie to win a Nobel peace prize, but I am sure you will smile and even chuckle a little. Pop some popcorn, settle back, and enjoy.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Booooooo!

Author: tfrizzell from United States
30 October 2002

Stupid comedy that stars Gene Wilder and Gilda Radner as two 1920s radio stars who decide to get married at Wilder's childhood home. The home happens to be a castle and there is a whole host of eccentric relatives who seem bent on scaring the pair to death before it is over. A really silly production that never makes much sense. Gene Wilder's direction and a weak screenplay cannot help out a cast that seems lost in the venture. Turkey (0 stars out of 5).

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Haunted is Right...I Was Haunted!

Author: Tim Cox from Marietta, OH
5 March 1999

Silly concept for a feature film. Wilder, Radner and DeLuise are all dismal in this comedy-romance-thriller-musical...Jeez! I guess nobody here could make up their minds. It certainly shows.. .

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Great Performances; Lousy Movie

3/10
Author: gftbiloxi (gftbiloxi@yahoo.com) from Biloxi, Mississippi
18 April 2005

I enjoy Gene Wilder, and certainly I'll be the first to say that he has done some wonderful work both on screen and behind the scenes in many films. But he is also the frothy sort of artist who is at his best when firmly grounded by the restraint of a hardnosed director--and for HAUNTED HONEYMOON he had no such restraints. He was writer, director, and star, and the result is way too much froth and not nearly enough substance.

The premise of the film is clever, a parody of the spooky-comedies of the 1940s and 1950s that were popularized by the likes of Red Skelton, Abbot and Costello, and Crosby and Hope. Two radio stars (Wilder and Radner) have become engaged and they rush off to the groom's ancestral home for the wedding... and promptly encounter everything from cobras in the closet to werewolves in the winecellar. And the script and production values are often quite amusing, with repeated references to James Whale's 1930s classic THE OLD DARK HOUSE, and even the score borrows a few phrases from "I've Written A Letter To Daddy" from WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? But the plot goes no where, and not even the stars of the film can save it.

Which brings us to why the film is nonetheless worth watching. Wilder is excessive, to say the least, but his failings here are as director and writer; as a performer he manages quite well. And his co-star is the late and much missed Gilda Radner. Sadly, Radner never found her place on the big screen before her untimely death, and HAUNTED HONEYMOON is no exception; Wilder doesn't seem to know how best to display her talents. But even so, there are moments when she illuminates the film to a remarkable comic degree, giving the viewer a glimpse of what might have been if the role had been more carefully tailored to her talents. And then there is Dom DeLuise, who offers a hilarious throw-away performance in drag as Aunt Kate... And when Gilda and Dom join forces to perform the old Vaudeville song "Ballin' the Jack" the result is pure movie magic.

Unfortunately, though, it isn't enough. The story is just too weak, too many of the one-liners fall flat, too often cast members who might have given great comic performances are neglected. I'll give it three stars... one each for Wilder, Radner, and DeLuise. But I'm erring on the generous side. Incidentally, this film is not to be confused with a Robert Young-Constance Cummings effort of the 1930s, also entitled HAUNTED HONEYMOON and based on the play and novel by mystery author Dorothy Sayers--a very good film, by the way, which sad to say has never been released to the home market.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Nothing But Trouble !

Author: ahmed elshikh (ahmed_abd_elreheem@yahoo.com) from Egypt
21 July 2011

Gene Wilder is a bit quirky. For sometimes, some far times, he's funny. But for most of the times he's not. And when he supposes whatever he does as comedic, then it is pretty annoying and nasty. Goggling by his eyes, among other trademark stuff, can't be considered a reason for Ha Ha in my book, rather Boo Hoo ! So when I read that he managed to be one of the most lovable comedians, then naturally it means "In America", and when he's chosen as one of the most important 50 actors in history, by Empire Magazine, then it's not a favorite issue !

His work as a director tried to be different. Great or laughable are things to argue about achieving them there. Now, I don't want to weigh him as a director by this movie, because – obviously – it's nobody's feat.

It has ambition which couldn't hold a candle to. The movie is possibly a parody of some themes in the horror genre, mostly related to the hunted house. Yet nothing is interesting further than its first scene !

There is an assured emptiness. While it doesn't want to build itself on borrowing certain scenes from older movies to imitate ironically it doesn't find something to show. Even the characters are less than catchy. And the whole cast was wasted, doing nothing memorable at best.

So Wilder, as a writer and director, didn't find a lot to be made. In any genre that's disappointing, however in comedy; it's ultra disappointing !

In that era, the horror spoof was in fashion. Saturday the 14th (1981), National Lampoon's Class Reunion (1982), Pandemonium (1982), Dead End (1985) and Saturday the 14th Strikes Back (1988). Well, Haunted Honeymoon (1986) falls in the end of the list. It's poor, freakily usual, long TV sketch. It makes bad movie like Nothing But Trouble (1991) more vital, surprising, and full !

P.S : I still remember this due to the fact that I watched it through a try to set a record in watching many movies in just couple of days. So in 13 and 14 / 7 / 2000 I watched : Forrest Gump, Jungle Fever, Ghosts of Mississippi, Haunted Honeymoon, The Trigger Effect, and Sherlock Holmes Returns. How Haunted was I !

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 4 of 5: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Parents Guide Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history