 |
The Haunting by Robert Wise
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
DVD detailsActor: Claire Bloom, Fay Compton, Julie Harris, Richard Johnson, Russ Tamblyn Director: Robert Wise Brand: Warner Brothers Cinematographer: Davis Boulton Producer: Robert Wise Editor: Ernest Walter Producer: Denis Johnson Writer: Nelson Gidding Writer: Shirley Jackson DVD: Region Code 1 Audio: English (Unknown), Dolby Digital 1.0; English (Subtitled); Spanish (Subtitled); French (Subtitled); English (Original Language), Dolby Digital 1.0; French (Original Language), Dolby Digital 1.0; French (Dubbed), Dolby Digital 1.0 Format: Anamorphic, Black & White, Closed-captioned, Dubbed, DVD, NTSC, Subtitled, Widescreen Picture Format: 2.35:1 Running Time: 112 minutes DVD Release Date: 2003-08-05 Audience Rating: G (General Audience) Studio: Warner Home Video
DVD Reviews of The HauntingDVD Review: All tell, no show Summary: 1 Stars
As the numerous 5 star reviews attest, many people equate the "lack of show" in this movie with intelligent sophistication. I love the remake, but I thought I would see the original because of these claims. Let me start by saying that I have never been a fan of gore or "gross" imagery in horror. I prefer artistic effects, a good story, quiet building suspense and credible character reaction. But I think a good horror movie absolutely needs some disturbing auditory and visual effects, as well, or else it wouldn't be what it is. There is a distinction between the sensory imagery required for a strong horror movie and all-out CGI and gore. The remake of the Haunting had a good amount of the former and only a slight to moderate amount of the latter, a mix that I thought worked well.
This original version doesn't have any gore or blatant imagery, which is usually promising for my tastes, and naturally I thought it would focus on subtle effects. But I was wrong. It doesn't utilize many effects... at all. There is too much time spent with bland scenes with nothing to offer, and too little with suspenseful ones. In the remake, you are always aware of the house, whether through music, lighting, subtle shifts in the dialogue, or the distinctive artistic and beautiful creepiness of the house itself. In this movie, there are times when you actually forget the house altogether and feel like you might not even be watching a horror movie at all. I feel that the house should be the biggest symbol, but most of the time it does not feel ominous or unique.
It doesn't help that the characters are not very dimensional or complex, either. Nor do they seem to truly develop. Theo with her barbs and often bizarre composure is not easy to relate to at all, and her responses to what happens in the house inconsistently range from terrified to underwhelmed. Luke and John are fairly one note, and seem to be ciphers more than anything else. Pointless, drawn out or inane arguing between the characters adds nothing to the fear or suspense -- or their development: "The world is full of unnatural things - nature's mistakes, they're called - like you, for instance!" Eleanor says to Theo. (Oh, no, she didn't...)
Which brings us to Eleanor, who is immature, annoying and says almost everything in a childish whine. I know her character is supposed to be unhinged, but she is so over the top, she takes "unstable" to an unbelievable level. The Eleanor of the remake is much more sophisticated and quiet, often too calm and caring given what she'd been through, making her not only more likable, but lending a believable gravity and depth to her sensitivity.
Eleanor's inner monologue was also grating and succeeded in killing suspense. Her reactions to what was happening around her should have been powerful enough to tell us what she was thinking. Instead, we are treated to "Now I know why people scream because I think I'm going to!" and "The house is coming down around me; the house is destroying itself!" and "I want to stay here" for the fifth time. No, really? Either she was repeating what the audience could already see, which was irritating and detracted from what could have been wordless, more mysterious intensity reliant on expressions and surrounding alone (which almost always make more of an impact), or she had to think aloud those things because they weren't shown clearly enough to the audience, which is a serious flaw in film making.
In general, things were too often stated rather than shown. How many times did someone say the equivalent of "This is an evil house"? How subtle. Or lines like, "It wants you, Nell. The house is calling you"? There is a disconnect between occurrences in the house and what the characters feel, because we either don't see enough of their reactions in response to what is supposed to be going around them, or we don't see/sense enough of what caused them to feel that way in the first place (there are only a couple of modest exceptions). We are often told, instead. For example, Eleanor exits a parlor alone, suddenly cries out, and then tells everyone why. Why couldn't we see this? Why couldn't we see her reaction while this happened to her? Why couldn't we get a feel for what made her react this way -- no, probably not by seeing the "evil" itself, but a subtle visual cue or sound? We don't even get that. So even when we see the characters' reactions, they are too sudden and fleeting to be believable, and thus not frightening. I don't blame the actors. I think they did the best they could with the material, but ultimately they couldn't help the script or the filming.
One more thing: The whole premise of the remake makes it so the characters seem more vulnerable. They are tricked into thinking their stay in the house is a study on sleep, when really it is a study on fear; there is no assumption that the house is actually haunted. It adds a dynamic that contributes to the tension and the development of the relationships between the characters. Not to mention, it is more believable and intense. And there is suspense in that there is good reason why the house wants Eleanor, as certain spirits need her to discover their story and help them at risk to herself (not simply run around and whine), and there is a much deeper history that explains why the house is evil (not simply because "it was evil from the beginning" like in this version -- pretty shallow.)
There were a few things I thought were quite well-done and intriguing in this movie. Mrs. Dudley was fantastic and chilling. The actress who played her did a great job. One of the few actual effects, the chime-like child's laughter, was also hair-raising. (It's a shame the majority of the music wasn't as impressive and fell into cheesy melodrama.) And I thought the scene where Nell hears the laughter, then screaming and crying on the other side of the engraved wall was genuinely frightening, as was Grace popping out of the attic. And the use of lighting in a few scenes was interesting and beautiful.
But aside from those few positive components, the film offered little in the way of fear, intensity or intelligence, alternating between the mundane and silliness. It became difficult to sit through it. It is always good that a movie brings enjoyment to so many people -- but in this case, I am not one of them and I don't understand it. I'll leave it to others and stick with the remake.
More The Haunting reviews: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Description of The HauntingDR. MARKWAY, DOING RESEARCH TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GHOSTS, INVESTIGATES HILL HOUSE, A LARGE, EERIE MANSION WITH A LURIDHISTORY OF VIOLENT DEATH AND INSANITY.
|
 |