While all horror films pretty much have the same goal, in essence they go about that in one of two ways. One group goes for the visceral scares where the sight of "monsters" and/or other supernatural elements are used to frighten the audience. While that's radically changed over the decades from the days of Frankenstein (that now seems incredibly tame) to Freddy Krueger and any assortment of other more recent bogeymen, the problem with such an approach is that such sights and recurring "jump scenes" lose their impact as the audience becomes more accustomed and/or numb to their effect.
It's the other approach, however, that creates the more memorable and longer lasting scares. That's because such stories, their characters and the overall plot manage to get under the viewer's skin and creep them out, often days, weeks or even years later. One only has to think of certain scenes from films such as "The Exorcist," "The Omen," "The Shining" and now this summer's "The Blair Witch Project" to get the goose bumps rising.
Another film that did the same more than three decades ago was 1963's "The Haunting," directed by Robert Wise of "West Side Story" and "The Sound of Music" fame. While those pictures don't exactly fit the mold of one who normally makes horror films, Wise used Shirley Jackson's classic horror novel, "The Haunting of Hill House" as the basis for his film and delivered a truly creepy affair. While it's been a long time since I last saw the picture (that starred Julie Harris & Claire Bloom), I do recall key scenes being quite unnerving.
Of course, much like the best films taking this approach, they utilize the most potent cinematic tool available and that's the viewer's imagination. What the audience can conjure up in their heads is usually far scarier than what any makeup or special effects artists can produce, and the original "The Haunting" certainly took advantage of that fact.
As such, I had my concerns about the remake of this film, especially since the never very subtle Jan De Bont would helm it. While I've enjoyed most of his pictures -- including "Twister" and the first of the two "Speed" films -- their over-the-top extravaganza style didn't seem to bode well for a retelling of this story. With a budget reportedly nearing $90 million, one wouldn't have to guess very hard that such bucks were probably spent on special effects and not the screenwriter's salary.
Unfortunately, that's the case in this film that looks great, but suffers from poor writing, underdeveloped characters and an unsuccessful reliance on special effects and an elaborate production design to elicit the awaited spooky thrills and chills. From the forced exposition at the beginning to the occasionally stilted and/or ludicrous dialogue, the film has a few creepy moments, but they're few and far in between and all but dry up as the story becomes ever more preposterous as it enters its final act.
Featuring what's essentially a standard haunted house story, freshman screenwriter David Self's script doesn't take full advantage of the genre's trappings. While some elements of Nell's character possibly going crazy are present and some other early explanations for the supposed supernatural events are introduced, they're clearly not taken far enough to make the film as much nebulous fun as it should have been.
Granted, those who attend this sort of movie obviously know that the house will ultimately be haunted and will want to see such material. Nevertheless, a little "teasing" of such activity is good for tempting one's horror taste buds and always makes for a better horror flick.
The film's biggest problem, however, is that it just isn't that scary despite the traditional setup, the special effects and making the haunted house a character in its own right. It's there that the filmmakers make their gravest error. Trying so hard to make the house look spooky, it's over- Gothicized approach -- courtesy of Oscar winning production designer Eugenio Zanetti ("Restoration," "What Dreams May Come") -- may look impressive, but is far too numbing in its overkill approach.
While the press kit states that the filmmakers wished to have the house elicit a similar feel to what the Overlook Hotel did in "The Shining," the fact that it's so obviously and purposefully constructed to look spooky ultimately defeats its purpose.
In Stanley Kubrick's underrated adaption of Stephen King's novel, the hotel that ultimately overcame Jack Nicholson's character never looked that spooky, or at least not until the very end. It was the creepy events that unfolded inside its massive structure and the completely believable isolation of its location that made it seem so foreboding. Here, De Bont might as well have put placards on the doors and walls stating "Scary Set Piece Number One" or simply "Boo!"
Other than a few mildly creepy moments, the film just isn't that scary in its first half, and gets too abysmal and special effects-laden during the latter parts to be frightening. While you can admire the visuals -- courtesy of Oscar winners Phil Tippett ("Jurassic Park," "Return of the Jedi") and Craig Hayes -- and the constantly whirling sounds -- from seven-time Oscar winner for sound design, Gary Rydstrom ("Saving Private Ryan," "Titanic") -- they come off as nothing more than grandiose effects (with some of them even being recycled such as the ghostly and echoey children's voices that are straight from "Poltergeist").
To make matters worse, the mildly creepy score from composer Jerry Goldsmith (who also did the music for "The Omen" and "Poltergeist" and plenty of other Oscar nominated films) may be somewhat effective, but clearly isn't as chilling or memorable as that found in other horror films.
The performances don't help matters much -- as the characters are pretty much relegated to wearing just a wide-eyed expression -- and the script has left them high and dry without anything nearing character development. The only partial exception to that is the role inhabited by Lili Taylor ("The Impostors," "Ransom"). Although she's given some depth early on and the most screen time, that all but dries up as the special effects take over.
Meanwhile, the other three characters, played by Liam Neeson ("Star Wars: Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace," "Schindler's List"), Catherine Zeta-Jones ("Entrapment," "The Mask of Zorro") and Owen Wilson ("Armageddon," "Anaconda") are so shallowly written that the performers could have been replaced by anyone, and with probably no effect -- for good or bad -- on the film's outcome.
Simply put, the script is the weak link here. Beyond the lack of character depth, various events are curiously introduced and then abandoned (Theo's bisexuality), characters promise to return but never do (Marrow's assistants) and the plot all but disappears under the final act's barrage of special effects.
Perhaps such visual theatrics may have scared audiences decades ago when such spectacles were unheard of, but today's audience simply sees them for what they are. Had the film swept us away with its story or characters, such effects would have been fun icing on the cake. As they stand, however, they simply prove that too much money and not enough imagination can spoil a film. Our advice -- go see "The Blair Witch Project" or rent this title's original incarnation. We give "The Haunting" a 3 out of 10.
![[Screen It]](https://www.screenit.com/images/screenit_subscriber_logo.jpg){kind=logo}
![[Around the World in 80 Days]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/around_the_world_in_80_days_2022_small.jpg)
![[Family Camp]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/family_camp_small.jpg)
![[Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/doctor_strange_in_the_multiverse_of_madness_small.jpg)