The Haunting | 
| Director: Jan De Bont
Actors: Liam Neeson, Catherine Zeta-jones, Owen Wilson, Lili Taylor, Bruce Dern
Studio: Dreamworks Video
Category: DVD
List Price: $12.99
Buy Used: $1.61
You Save: $11.38 (88%)
New (5) Used (17) from $1.61
Rating:  369 reviews
Sales Rank: 95952
Format: Anamorphic, Closed-captioned, Color, Dts Surround Sound, Dvd, Widescreen, Ntsc
Language: English (Original Language)
Rating: PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Region: 1
Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Picture Format: Anamorphic Widescreen
Number Of Discs: 1
Running Time: 113 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.1 x 5.4 x 0.6
ISBN: 0783246692
UPC: 667068482126
EAN: 9780783246697
ASIN: 0783246692
Theatrical Release Date: July 23, 1999
Release Date: August 29, 2000
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.com
Suffering from the extreme bad luck of being released at the same time as the low-budget The Blair Witch Project, this adaptation of The Haunting of Hill House attempts to update Shirley Jackson's psychologically terrifying ghost story to the era of big-budget, computerized special effects. Does it work? Well, let's just say that showing isn't exactly the same as telling. A prime example of bloated studio filmmaking, The Haunting telegraphs all its frights so blatantly that it forsakes any of Jackson's subtle horrors for the remedial scares of a clunky carnival ride. The story remains basically the same, with four people called to an old mansion for experiments in the supernatural, but instead of getting inside the heads of its main characters (as the 1963 adaptation by Robert Wise did so well), Jan DeBont's film deserts character development for the huge, glorious set design provided by Eugenio Zanetti (Restoration). Thus, instead of a well-drawn story you get... a well-drawn house, one that four very talented and underutilized actors--Lili Taylor, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Liam Neeson, and Owen Wilson--wander around in endlessly (as Zeta-Jones puts it, the house is "sort of Charles Foster Kane meets the Munsters"). Taylor, as the hypersensitive Nell, is the unknowing lynchpin in the battle between good and bad ghosts and gets saddled with most of the expository dialogue of the mansion's gothic backstory. Zeta-Jones (showing some spark) and Neeson (showing none) are sadly reduced to providing reactionary shots of the film's disastrous climax, which mixes hapless new-age affirmations with computer-generated effects of ghosts and exploding windows, walls, doors, etc. For this haunted-house story, take a quick tour of the breathtaking rooms, but definitely don't stay the night. --Mark Englehart
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 364 more reviews...
 GREAT MOVIE April 25, 2009
Francis Hope Lindemann (HOUSTON, TEXAS)
THIS MOVIE WAS AWESOME ALOT OF THE ACTORS ARE YOUNG, I LOVED THE EFFECTS, FOR A OLDER MOVIE IT HAD SOME AWESOME UPGRADES. I AM SO GLAD I OWN IT.
 NOT a fan of the original! March 8, 2009
E. OMalley (Las Vegas, NV USA)
I must say I've always enjoyed this movie, but I've also heard how it in no way measures up to the original 1960's version; all I can say is I prefer this version!
Since so many people seem to trash this movie in favor of the original, I decided to rent the original and was unimpressed. My mother left half way through the movie due to boredom and I ended up fast-forwarding through the second half for the same reason. When you start off with a totally unstable "Eleanor" (and the actress was way over the top from the get-go) there is nowhere for the performance to go. But Taylor's "Eleanor" in this update started off fragile and just gradually broke down.
The effects are good throughout and I actually find this version creepier than the original. The set pieces are huge and gorgeous, and the little wooden cherubs throughout Eleanor's bedroom just kind of freak me out. I like the interaction between the actors. Wilson plays his normal cocky character and Zeta-Jones is a little over the top, but fun. The caretakers are a kick. The ending really makes no sense, and plot holes abound, but I just find this a fun movie.
Is it a great movie...no. Is it fun every once in a while...yes.
 Why re-make a great classic as a horrible expensive "b" movie?? February 21, 2009
J. Harris (OH)
OK, I have to say that the original movie made in the early 60s is one of my favorites of all time. With very little in the way of special effect and all the crap now available to Hollywood, it manages to be a truly engaging and frightening film.
So I had hopes for at least a reasonably good movie, I mean why re-make a great film if you're not going try to at least make one that is at least half as good?? Especially with the promise of the great talents of Liam Neeson and Lili Taylor, I expected a lot.
What I got was crap. CGI assisted crap. Liam Neeson was sort of not there, and Lili Taylor was NOT good. In fact she was really horrible which was quite disappointing. Her work in other films is wonderful, but it may just be that Sci-fi/Fantasy is really REALLY not where she belongs.
All around disappointing. Seriously, DO NOT remake great movies if you cannot do any even better job of telling the story! Its a waste and an annoyance!
 Weak.... February 3, 2009
Broken_Harlequin (Australia)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
I must say that I was enchanted by the original 1963 'The Haunting'. It was a simply brilliant movie with subtle undertones, wonderful characters, and a rare 'less is more' mentality to its thrills and chills. But, alas, like with so many old classics, Hollywood feels it has to remake them with big-name actors, over-the-top special effects, etc, etc.
This movie replaces all of the spooky charm of the original with in-your-face characters, bad lines... and, for all its grandiose set-peices it is, frankly, boring.
Of course, that's not to say 'The Haunting' is the worst movie ever made --far from it-- but simply that it really has no raison-d'etre. The huanted house concept isn't exactly original; but, if this film was at all entertaining, I'd be more than willing to overlook that. Nothing in the horror genre is really all that original anymore, it seems.
It is not impossible to enjoy this movie on its own terms. Honestly, if I didn't consider it a blasphomy to the origional version, I probably would have given it 3 stars on its own merits. The cast displays better acting abilities than you're likely to find in most horror movies, but the special effects are the real star of the show here--and they are, at times, pretty awful. The ghost had me in stitches.
I don't recommend this movie--I recommend the old version, for it is a really unique, very pleasing entry in the whole horror genre. Watch the remake if you want to, but don't be expecting anything fantastic.
Get Out of the Way, Stupid! November 25, 2008
jrscribbler
This movie has a promising start; I liked the re-working of the scene between Eleanore, her sister, and brother-in-law in the beginning because it was the only scene I hated in the original 1963 version. Actually for about the first hour, it was tolerable. But then the special effects kick in and the movie goes downhill. Furthermore, I can think of two scenes where "get out of the way, stupid!" would have applied quite well. I could have done without the effects. I found it particularly confusing that the ghosts of the children were made to resemble the caramelized wood carvings that decorate the mansion. Considering the amount of money spent, the computer effects look cheesy. There was a Disney quality about the ghostly children, sort of like the automations on the "It's a Small World" ride at Disney World. It was just plain silly. This movie was eternal. Hugh Crane's ghost reached a comical cartoon level as his face sails toward the viewer--we get a good view of his big bloodshot eyeball. So is this worth seeing? No. See the original 1963 version instead.
|
|
|
