| House on Haunted Hill | | Cast : | Geoffrey Rush, Famke Janssen | | Director : | William Malone | | Studio : | Warner Home Video | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, Widescreen | | Released Date : | October 29, 1999 | | DVD Released Date : | February 03, 2004 | | Language : | French (Subtitled), English (Dubbed), English (Subtitled), English (Original Language) | | Audience Rating : | R (Restricted) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | August 03, 2005 | | Summary | Scares and fun in one movie... | Content
 | This was the movie that did it to me. Until i saw this i wasn't really into horror, but after seeing this movie i was hooked. Not usualy my thing, with young beutiful people in it (not including Rush). I found this movie very watchable but, for some reason, uneasy too. It wasn't a comedy horror, but it was fun and actually scared me at some points. All in all, very easy to watch and enjoyable. But i can see it dating poorly. 4 stars is fair i think. Check it out. Enjoy! |
| Rating | | | Date | June 19, 2005 | | Summary | The Genius of it! | Content
| This is honestly one of the most brilliant movies ever made. It was very much different then the original one, but it carried its on.
In the beginning is takes place in some kind of asylum and the doctors are taking their daily check when the patients run loose and mutilate all of the workers many many years later a rich man (Vincent Price) decides to throw his young wife a party in the asylum for a little fun. (They despise each other by the way). when Vincent makes the list on the computer it suspicously changes do random people that they have never met before. The guests come to the party and are offered a large amount of money if they survive the night. What the people don't know is that the house is angry and the guests have some sort of connection with this building in some way, but you have to watch it to find out.
This movie dazzles you with gore and suspense and the Glory of the insane!
It is definitely worth buying |
| Rating | | | Date | June 11, 2005 | | Summary | What the hell happened at the end?? | Content
| At the time of this movie's release, I was jaded by the dozens of horror movies I watched. The problem with watching increasingly gory movies starting at age 7 is that you quickly get used to the gore and need to depend upon more subtle methods of horror movies. Needless to say, I quickly became bored with horror movies because directors rarely ever used subtlety in their movies.
However, also at the time, I got a chance to watch The Haunting and I was disgusted by it, so I became even more wary of horror movies at the time. However, I then hear of House On Haunted Hill. The motivation for me watching this was because I watched the previous version with Vincent Price, which I loved and was scared by. Of course, that was when I just started getting addicted to horror movies and it's been years since. Similar to the situation with The Exorcist and modern teens, I would most likely laugh at the movie today rather than be scared of it.
Despite that, though, I took the chance to see it. I was 100% surprised. I was TERRIFIED.
Well, that may be an overstatement, but parts of the movie literally scared the hell out of me. What made this movie so effective was that, unlike many other horror movies, it used the power of suggestion to create the scares. Most of the time, the killings were done in darkness and you never get a clear idea of what is doing it all. Pritchett continuously says "the house", but the house is, of course, not moving so viewers needed a clearer image, which we never get. That's what made this movie so effective and it was beautiful.
Aside from that, Stephen Price and his wife were GREAT! The host and his wife seems to be updated versions from the original movie, but the rest of the cast are original. When I first saw Geoffrey Rush, I immediately thought "Goddamn, is that Vincent Price??". I couldn't say the same of his wife, but they both seems to have been updated the same way. They're both much more venomous than their 1959 counterparts. Other than that, Stephen Price seems less intelligent and Evelyn Price seems less inconspicuous in her intentions than the 1959 version, which makes the two characters less effective, but not enough to ruin their respective characters.
The movie was EXCELLENT, except it has two problems. The other characters and the ending.
My problem with the other characters is similar to my problem with most other horror movie characters. They're idiots and they're annoying. The worst of this bunch is, as usual, the female lead. I'm not trying to derail actresses, but it is usually the female lead that is the most annoying in virtually any horror movie I watch. I'm not sure why this is. Maybe directors are just naturally stupid when they attempt to direct the female lead?
She's the worst simply because her commitment to getting the money for her respective reasons seems....unconvincing, especially since she gives away her reasons with a less-than-serious attitude. But what the hell am I going on about? Anyone with a brain who watches a few modern horror movies would know. Her foremost problem is that she thinks more with her emotions rather than with her brain. This is especially obvious in her handling of Stephen Price. Overall, Sarah (that's the female lead) certainly annoyed me the most, but be assured, the others annoyed as well.
Pritchett? Well, he keeps whining too much. I admit that his sarcastic comments sometimes makes me chuckle, but for the most part, he annoys me. He whines more often than he attempts to find a way out, which any sane person would do, especially if they have as much knowledge about the house as he does. Carl, he seems to be the missing half of Sarah. If not, he might as well be because he seems to attach himself to her and her actions. It seems to me he either accepts the majority whim or the whim of the more prevalent characters without thinking much himself. As for Melissa and Blackburn, well, they're plot movers. If they have any other major significance, I don't see it.
The other problem is, of course, the ending. Now, like I said, I enjoyed the movie's subtlety immensely. So I was thinking that maybe the director took around four hits of acid on the day he directed the ending. I don't see otherwise how he could have went for such a major change. Did he have money burning a hole in his budget? Why did he got for that type of ending? To be honest, the characters were not enough for me to move the rating from a 5, but the combination of them and the ending really did it. Basically, Geoffrey Rush and Famke Jannsen saved it from being a 3.
Overall, the movie is good enough for me to recommend seeing it. Don't let the smaller (alright, not so small) pitfalls of the movie distract you from the better parts. |
| Rating | | | Date | May 24, 2005 | | Summary | I love the music. | Content
| Judging by the title, I thought it was going to be one of these crappy low-budget flicks. But as the credits rolled, the bit in the asylum, then the rollercoaster, I could see I was going to love it. The Annie Lennox remake rocks! I love the bit where Steven is in the chamber thinghy, then the bit with the camcorder. If you love really good chills, and really good rock songs, then this is for you.
Its Dark, Its Sexy and It Rocks. |
| Rating | | | Date | May 15, 2005 | | Summary | Much Better Than The Original! | Content
| As far as scary movies go this is one of my favorites! Don't waste your time on the original - watch this one! |
|
|
|
|
