IMDb > House on Haunted Hill (1999) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
House on Haunted Hill
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 guide
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
House on Haunted Hill More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 9 of 54: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [Next]
Index 535 reviews in total 

A good,but violent movie!

Author: Austin (Mothman2118)
27 November 2002

This movie is a good movie to see if you have seen the 1958 original version.The 1999 one was not as good as the 1958 one.It was very violent and strange.It happens in an old insane asylum.Some terrible things have happened there in the past.Six strangers have been invited to attend a party there.There is only one thing.They have to survive the night.If they do,they get $1,000,000.Things get strange and then deadly when the evil is released.Anyway,it was a good movie.***1/2out of 5.

Was the above review useful to you?

Absolutely Awful!!!

Author: Michelle from Iowa, U.S.A.
24 November 2002

I was expecting a fun, scary Halloween movie. Instead, after the first 10 minutes, I walked out of the theater. This movie is *that* bad! Not only is it comprised as demented as plots can come, it gave me creepy nightmares for two weeks! Don't waste your time on this flick...especially if you're faint hearted. Totally gruesome.

Was the above review useful to you?

The Old Folks Saturation Chamber

Author: Mr Parker (spookyscribe@yahoo.com) from New York City
14 August 2002

I dig this movie, for a number of reasons. While the acting isn't always top notch and the overall story is kinda goofy, this movie delivers in the one area it was meant to: chills. There are certain scenes in this movie that leave you feeling abused. One scene in particular has one of the main characters left in a "saturation chamber", a huge tank that is used to make the sane insane and vice versa by bombarding them with sounds and images. That scene alone beats out The Haunting remake in it's entirety. A lot of the images stay with you, my personal favorite being the strange ghost/spirit/monster/shadow thing. It is hands down one of the creepiest looking things I have ever seen in a movie. This movie has more than a couple of flaws but I think they're pretty easy to overlook. The plot demands serious suspension of disbelief. The ending is kinda blah. Then again, this movie wasn't going for Oscars and it's pretty obvious. There's really not enough jump-out-of your seat scares but there might be a couple depending on how much of a priss you are. There's a good amount of gore, so if that's your thing you might appreciate what's offered here. A couple of great death scenes, above average special effects, make-up and otherwise and you have yourself a decent flick to watch on a Saturday night. For DVD collectors, the DVD is near reference quality, boasting an awesome picture and great surround sound. I recommend this movie only if you're looking for an entertaining hour and a half, not an AFI Top 100 film. Rating: *** out of *****.

Was the above review useful to you?

Good, although more twisted then the other one.

6/10
Author: sageaqua from United States
7 August 2002

I like the effects better in this version. I like the characters better

in the version with Vincent Price. I also found this version more

graphic. The Vincent Price version is more tongue and cheek. Both hove

value. If your in a dark mood, and want blood and guts theater, this

isn't a bad choice. But if you want fun with your horror, pick up the

version with Vincent Price.

Was the above review useful to you?

Scared the crud outta me!

Author: mmmspike from AZ
20 July 2002

This movie is really scary (to me, anyway) and very, very gory. I thought the acting was good, but it was obvious from the start which two characters were going to get out alive. Oh, and the best part of the movie is the beginning, with that darn sexy cameraman, played by James Marsters. Overall, I would recommend seeing this flick....but only for a mindless day of fun.

Was the above review useful to you?

I can think of worse....

Author: he312 from Wales
8 July 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

After watching the terrible, modern, attempt at re-making "The Haunting", I was surprised to find I enjoyed this film. The pace is quite fast and you don't have to wait too long for the inevitable killings. One thing that struck me (not really a spoiler) is that the characters quickly learn something is very wrong inside the house, as opposed to other "stranded in a haunted house" movies where the last person alive still insists there's nothing wrong.

SO yeah, I can think of worse movies to waste my life watching.

Was the above review useful to you?

So-So

5/10
Author: Jacob Rosen (bix171@comcast.net) from United States
4 July 2002

Though it's ostensibly directed (within an inch of its life) by William Malone, the real sensibilities behind this remake of William Castle's 1958 horror film seem to be those of producers Robert Zemeckis and Joel Silver, essentially reprising for the big screen the gore and shock value of their HBO series `Takes From The Crypt'. While there's plenty of gore and some mild shocks, it's not really scary but it probably wasn't intended to be--there's too much of an effort to mimic (or pay homage to--you decide) the horror genre while trying to update it for today's young, inured audiences. There's also a conscious attempt at camp in Dick Beebe's script which falls flat thanks to a cast which apparently isn't in on the joke. Geoffrey Rush, as an amusement park magnate, is the star (apparently James Woods wasn't available because Rush turns in an excellent impersonation); he lures five people to a `haunted' house with the promise of one million dollars apiece if they can survive the night. Naturally, the house turns out to be really haunted. Though there's some nice deco production design by David F. Klassen, the special effects are hit-or-miss, the cheesier ones probably not intentional. With some pretty good performances by Famke Janssen, Chris Kattan and Jeffrey Combs (from' Re-Animator') and some not so good ones by Bridgette Wilson, Peter Gallagher (that hair!), Taye Diggs and Ali Larter.

Was the above review useful to you?

Cinema goers have the chance to spend $$$ EACH. All they have to do is make it through this banal horror movie awake.

Author: Aidan McGuinness from Dublin, Ireland
14 June 2002

There's not much to say about `The House on Haunted Hill'. It's one of those pointless remakes Hollywood likes to indulge itself in. The plot's ridiculously simple – six strangers are invited to spend a night in a haunted house, with the last one left gaining $1,000,000. It's originally set up as a trick party by an eccentric billionaire, but soon it turns out the house – a former mental asylum where patients were tortured – is gasp, really haunted!

So what we have is the usual fare – stock character types, zany deaths and lashings of SFX. The plot's too thin to be of any note and the script isn't substantial enough to flesh it out. This is one of the film's big flaws – there's a sense of meandering about from death to death with little in the way of any bridging material. This leads to a lack of tension, with the few surprises relegated to mere shrugs of `I don't really care'. The characters themselves are mere sketches, which is what you tend to expect in movies where you anticipate most of the cast to end up too dead to return for a sequel. The fact is though they're not even particularly likable so that their deaths leave the viewer untouched. This isn't helped by the fact that you're left somewhat bored by the uneven pacing of the whole thing.

The direction here, by William Malone, is okay. The look is typically dark, the SFX are adequate, and the camera work unmemorable. There is at least a certain tongue-in-cheek nature to the proceedings, acknowledging the sheer campness of the piece with its implausible plots and hammy acting, but that can't save the movie from just leaving you bored, and subsequently forgetting about it the moment the credits appear. Avoid? Just don't bother instead. 3/10.

Was the above review useful to you?

Great!

Author: analog8-1 from Seattle
8 June 2002

Enjoyable remake of the 50's fright classic, with a contemporary update. Director Malone gives this horror film a stylish look, and he really can't go wrong with actors like Rush, Janssen and Coombs onboard. Add to that great FX, sets, sound and lighting and it is definitely worth seeing if you are a horror fan. It's good to see a real 'haunted house' picture given the current crop of below average teen slasher flicks.

I think this film got a bad rap, but I can't see why. A lot of reviewers seem to have missed several plot points which perhaps detracted from their enjoyment of the film. Also, the comments re poor quality CGI are misguided. 95% of the FX in this film are optical composites, not CGI.

Was the above review useful to you?

Not one of the best horror movies I've ever seen...

Author: nanna_peg from East Yorkshire, England
31 May 2002

I was bored. Spotting 'House on Haunted Hill' underneath my brother's video player, I decided to pop it in and see what it was like.

Unfortunately it didn't live up to my expectations.

One of the main reasons for this being that it is only something like 85 minutes long, and I found that it is a bit too slow to start and then suddenly picks up the pace about 3 quarters of the way through the film when it should have been like that all along. The film is set in a haunted house and 6 strangers are invited to spend the night with the chance to win $1,000,000 each...in cash. They have been invited there by a Steven Price who is a rich guy who owns some theme parks. But wait, it turns out that he didn't invite them, the house did, because, yes you've guessed it, it's haunted!..yeah, right. Anyway, when it was over I was very disappointed and plan to rid myself of the said video tape at the next car boot sale I attend.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 9 of 54: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

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