IMDb > The Haunting (1999) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Haunting
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
The Haunting More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 80:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 794 reviews in total 

97 out of 133 people found the following review useful:

Subtle chills....what's that???

4/10
Author: Shawn Hobbs (shobbs@kcentv.com)
21 July 1999

Well, my goodness, am I disappointed. When I first heard news of a remake of Robert Wise's 1963 film, "The Haunting", I had a fear that it would be ruined by an abundance of summer-movie sized visual effects. But, deep down, I had faith. Surely, with such a talented cast intact...De Bont and company will not ruin a film, who's original was a fantastic and frightening movie that understood the delicate art of subtlety. Well, subtlety, where are you now!!?? My fears have manifested...a promising movie has gone wrong. Yes, Eugenio Zannetti's production design is jaw-dropping; the movie is wonderfully photographed; and composer Jerry Goldsmith can never EVER do wrong. But, the script puts it's fine actors to the test..asking them to deliver the kind of stilted dialogue that is only spoken in movies. In the end, the always wonderful Lili Taylor is the only performer to escape with some dignity...and that's just barely. But, the crime of all crimes is that the horror is shown to us. We can no longer use our imaginations, feel that horrible dread of fear of the unknown. No, we get some visual effects to SHOW US what we're supposed to be afraid of...and you know what? As wonderfully realized as they are...the visual effects come off as sort of silly. And the climax is a phantasmogoric mess...but things had gone terribly wrong long before that.

Everything in The Haunting is overdone and overblown. I'm afraid there are no real thrills or creaks in this old haunted house monstrosity...only groans. Check out the original instead.

Was the above review useful to you?

88 out of 145 people found the following review useful:

Pretty Darn Bad

1/10
Author: movieman-166 from Florida
19 November 2002

For movie fans who have never heard of the book (Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting of Hill House") and have never seen the 1963 Robert Wise production with Julie Harris, this remake will seem pretty darn bad.

For those of us who have, it is just plain awful.

Bad acting (what was Neeson thinking?), goofy computer enhancements, and a further move away from Jackson's story doom this remake.

Do yourself a favor and rent the original movie. It still effectively scares without hokey special effects. The acting is professional and believable.

For readers of the book, the from 1963 follows the it much closer.

Was the above review useful to you?

41 out of 56 people found the following review useful:

Nothing could have saved The Haunting

1/10
Author: Kristine (kristinedrama14@msn.com) from Chicago, Illinois
24 November 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The Haunting, if you have seen the original, you know a great ghost story, it's perfection on film. It's a haunting tale of 4 people who go into a haunted house and with the simple trick of sound and movements, it terrified people. It still remains effective to this day if you appreciate film. So when The Haunting was remade in 1999, a lot of people pretty much had the same reaction "WHAT? WHY? WHAT THE…" But in my opinion if a remake is respectful enough and just wants to reinvent the story for the newer generation, I'm pretty cool with it. This is definitely not the case, this is just a disrespectful boring shame that will waste your time and I guarantee will deliver no scares… pfft! PG-13, what where they thinking? Not much apparently.

When her mother dies and her sister evicts her, Nell receives a phone call, telling her about an ad for an insomnia study run by Doctor David Marrow at Hill House, a secluded manor. Upon arrival, Nell meets Mr. and Mrs. Dudley, a strange pair of caretakers who do not stay on the property after dark. Shortly thereafter, two other participants in the study arrive, wild Theo and "bad sleeper" Luke Sanderson along with Doctor Marrow. Unknown to the participants, Doctor Marrow's true purpose is to study the psychological response to fear. Each night, the caretakers chain the gate outside Hill House, preventing anyone from getting in or out until morning, when the caretakers open the lock. There are no working telephones inside Hill House and the nearest town is several miles away. Doctor Marrow revels the story of Hill House. The house was built by Hugh Crain, Crain built the house for his wife, hoping to fill it with a large family full of children, however all of Crain's children died during birth. Crain's wife killed herself before the house was finished, and Crain became a recluse. The first night, Theo and Nell begin to experience strange phenomenon within the house, including odd noises and inexplicable temperature changes. Nell is confronted after the main hallway is vandalized with the words "Welcome Home, Eleanor", and becomes extremely distraught, setting out to prove that the house is haunted by the souls of those victimized by Crain's cruelty. She learns that Crain built his fortune by exploiting kidnapped children for slave labor and murdering them when they were of no more use to him. He then burned the bodies in the house's fireplace to hide any evidence. She also learns that Crain had a second wife named Carolyn, of whom Nell is descended. Everyone thinks she's crazy while Nell is convinced this is where she belongs.

Seriously, I suggest you stay away from this film, it's really stupid and pointless. Not to mention the actress the played Nell, Lili Taylor completely annoyed me, her performance, her look, just everything about her, don't get me started on things I would do just to not see her in film again. Catherine Zeta Jones just didn't fit in her role as well and Liam Neeson, a wonderful actor wasted talent once again. The effects are way over the top and too computerized, I just can't believe that they would trash a wonderful classic with this crud. Believe me, if you are going to be afraid of something, be afraid of seeing how you can turn a great ghost story into an annoying piece of overblown stupid…. Oh, this film is already hurting me, just don't see it, it's bad.

1/10

Was the above review useful to you?

22 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

A lackluster supernatural thriller.

Author: jiangliqings
18 November 2000

* and 1/2 stars out of ****

The Haunting is actually a relatively decent film for the first 45 or so minutes. The setup is promising, the production design of the mansion is a sight to behold, and the cast seems to be enjoying themselves. It's unfortunate, however, because after that the film begins to fall apart, leading all the way to the ridiculously bad finale.

Dr. David Marrow (Liam Neeson) is conducting a test on fear, using the bait-and-switch method. By doing so, he's pretending to do a study on insomnia at the Crain estate, a manor 9 miles from the closest town. The "test subjects" that arrive include Eleanor (Lili Taylor), a hard-working woman who has had little success in life, Theo (Catherine Zeta-Jones), an adventuress and proclaimed bi-sexual, and Luke (Owen Wilson), an all-around jokester.

On the first night in the mansion, Eleanor and Theo hear thundering sounds in the walls, but pass it off as a problem in the plumbing. But events get even more bizarre, as Eleanor sees some sort of a figure inside the fireplace, that just as soon disappears. Slowly, Eleanor begins to believe that there are ghosts in the house, ghosts of dead children and the owner of the mansion himself, the evil Hugh Crain. She also makes a discover about her connection with the mansion that could help free the children's spirits.

The Haunting never features one scary moment. Rather than going for subtle chills or all-out shocks like in House on Haunted Hill, Jan De Bont prefers to rely everything on the special effects, which really are rather unconvincing, particularly the statues that come to life and the CGI ghosts.

It even manages to get worse. Now, to be fair, the film was getting dull by the 90-minute mark so I was initially entertained by the effects-filled finale. But everything gets positively ridiculous in the last ten minutes, as we find out evil ghosts like to play hide-and-seek and smash things up real good.

The blame should fall on director Jan De Bont and writer David Self. De Bont seems to care more about what special effect to use next to "wow" the audience rather than actually trying anything innovative. Self really can't seem to write a good story or truly interesting characters. The dialogue is perhaps the worse of his writing skills.

The only thing that keeps this film from a lower rating is the cast, and they do their best to keep the film respectable. Liam Neeson probably delivers the best performance, being neither as dull or unemotional as critics thought. Catherine Zeta-Jones shows a lot of life as Theo, as does Owen Wilson. It's a pity that Lili Taylor's performance, which was decent at first, turned to borderline camp by the finale.

With nary a true scare in sight, The Haunting should best be seen by those who are scared easily or special effects fans. For everybody else, this is probably a house not to spend the night at.

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

A REAL Stinker!!

Author: JThomas-2 from Atlanta, GA
11 May 2000

This movie is a remake of a truly horrifying and nightmare inducing 1963 film of the same name. Why Hollywood thinks that digital effects and campy acting is better than the imagination is beyond me. This film is so full of digital effects (none of which look real) and overacting that it cannot compare to the original film which starred Julie Harris and Claire Bloom. This film is just plain stupid. The original (in black and white) is still the scariest film I've ever seen (and I've seen them all). The original makes you use your imagination to fear the unseen - this remake doesn't allow you to do that and that is its biggest mistake.

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

Beware...

1/10
Author: kolaboy from United States
4 September 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The Haunting. A remake, of course. The original was a creepy psychological thriller, and one that has improved with time. Compared to this 1999 remake, it's a classic. There is no character development here, only caricatures (the slut, the authoritative brain, the "I'm gonna get us outta here" fellow, the oh so sensitive bookworm). But, seeing as how the were banking on the special effects being the "star", I guess characters that you can empathize with are a secondary concern. Unfortunately, the effects are laughable. Mewing cherubs, stretchy doors, irritating dead children that can't speak plainly ... and an idiotically sappy ending that does it's darnedest to give you a new age enema of butterflies and rainbows. Ill take my Skittles orally, thank you. Bruce Dern, I've liked you since "The Cowboys". Stop it.

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 35 people found the following review useful:

Not a touch on the Robert Wise classic!

1/10
Author: joeboulter from United Kingdom
3 June 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Considering the original film version of 'The Haunting" is in my top ten films of all time' I approached this adaption with trepidation. I was right to be cautious as this film is a poorly written and badly executed load of old tosh, all those involved should be ashamed. the original was terrifying to me as a child for one reason! you see nothing. Robert Wise used innovative camera-work and superb lighting to generate fear and this is why it work's. The shame of the new version is that it relies on clever special effects and pyrotechnics to get from A to B, sadder still is that the ingredients were there (actors such as Liam Neeson, Catherine Zeta Jones) to do something different. This film should only watched as an example of studio butchery!

Was the above review useful to you?

34 out of 61 people found the following review useful:

More Like Hammer Films

10/10
Author: (curatorfilm@webtv.net) from Chicago
1 June 2001

I know it is fashionable now to hate this movie. I have seen hundreds of spook films including he original 1963 Haunting as well as most of the Hammer films. This film is not restrained and does not hold back at all which is probably why so many modern viewers seemed not to like it. Yet many viewers can accept out of control films like Scream because knife killers are more easy to believe for most people than demons or ghosts. Actually this film had many great scenes and the acting and special effects were great. I have seen it 15 times now and it gets better every time. The director of this film has made a number of interesting and stylish films and was not trying for the type of realism of the 6th sense. The Haunting lets go and is certainly not boring. Perhaps this film might appeal more to John Carpenter fans but more of an traditional plot structure. The old Haunting was also a fine film from 1963. It was even more scary. See both and also The Innocents and The Legend of Hell House with Pamela Franklin.

Was the above review useful to you?

45 out of 84 people found the following review useful:

Creepy, but could've been creepier.

7/10
Author: Jeff (spoonjef@aol.com) from L.A. CA
25 July 1999

The Haunting is a film that boasts a really creepy house, good effects work and sound work, a cast that seems to believe that everything around them is real and that house. There are scenes that make you jump, and the sinister aspects of what went on at Hill House in the past, I found interesting. There are genuinely creepy moments in the film and I liked the way the ghosts manifested themselves in sheets, curtains and the house itself. Jerry Goldsmith's score gave it the right atmosphere and the sound design had voices popping up around you. What I wish could've happened is for something a little more intense. Jan De Bont had a PG-13 rating to contend with and I think that he held back a little too much. Poltergeist scared me silly when I saw it many years ago, and it still holds up. The Haunting could've used a few more scenes of pure terror. The ending was for me, a little anticlimactic. Overall, I enjoyed it. The acting is good and there are moments that make you jump. I just wish it scared me more.

Was the above review useful to you?

28 out of 51 people found the following review useful:

Poor remake of a classic chiller.

1/10
Author: Sylvester from Surrey, England
10 May 2001

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This poor remake of the 1963 classic starts reasonably well, then replaces suspense with muddled and pointless special effects. For example, in the original, one of the most chilling moments occurs when Nell and Theo are lying side by side in twin beds, listening in terror to the noises outside their room. Nell tells Theo to let go of her hand because she is hurting her. Nell then looks across at Theo, who is several feet away and realises that it was not Theo holding her hand. In the latest version, Nell is lying alone in bed, when suddenly she dives out and slides across the floor. It is only when she tells the unseen force to stop pulling her that we realise what has happened. And can anybody explain what Nell's final words mean - "It's about family. It's always been about family"?

The one redeeming feature is Lili Taylor's performance, but even this cannot save the film. Catherine Zeta-Jones demonstrates once again that, beneath her pretty exterior, there is little depth. In the original, Claire Bloom subtly suggested her lesbian persuasion. Zeta-Jones, however has to spell it out, for example, by asking Nell if she has a boyfriend - or girlfriend.

Definitely one which should be consigned to the pointless remakes graveyard.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 80:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

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