Customer Reviews
Ghost Busters meets Scooby Doo - By: Baz, 04 Dec 2008 
Need I say more? Buy the excellent Robert Wise 1963 version & don't waste your money on this rubbish. Oh....and what's more, Claire Bloom is far sexier than Catherine Zeta Jones.
A great movie - but an awful re-make... - By: FAMOUS NAME, 19 Nov 2007 
I refused to watch this film for some time after it was made - this was because I do not like re-makes of any picture, & I was soin love with the original, I did not want to see another version of it. However, I suppose mere curiosity got the better of me! There are two sides of approaching this film; one very critical, & the other, well, let's not say exactly acclaim, but 'different' would be a better word. I will begin with the criticisms;
Firstly, this movie relies totally upon special effects, & without these, you have absolutely nothing... Any viewer expecting more will most certainly be disappointed - whether you've seen the original or not! The second thing is, the story; Shirley Jackson would be spinningin her grave if she knew for one moment that it had been claimed that this film wasin any way based upon her novel! Even the first picture was only 'loosely based' upon it (for anyone who may not have read the book)
This story for the re-make could not be more far removed from her novel - or the original movie for that matter. Also, this re-make of the 60s classic is way, way too far out & over the top... It's too fantastical altogether! If one just looks at the aerial view of the house usedin some shots for instance, & then compares it to the interior scenes, there is just no way that house can be so big & so high inside; the scaling is all wrong... A house that size is just too unrealistic. The special effects - though entertaining are just too much like, just that; 'special effects'! Nothing is left to the imagination... Even the portrait of Hugh Crain looks like a caricature from a pack of 'Happy Families' cards! It is certainly no work of art! To believein ghosts & hauntings, one has to have them at least 'believable' - this was just too extreme by far... I guess that this is what producers & directors have to rely upon to compensate for the enormous lack of talentin the acting world of today.
There's also some pretty big blundersin this too, & some of the dialogue is incredulous, & I cannot think how some of this got past the final 'OK' - for instance; in one scene, Luke is found wandering the passageways because he cannot sleep - the doctor (played by Liam Neeson) who is supposed to have sent for them all because he knows they are insomniacs says; 'what are you doing - you should get some sleep'!!??? Is that a dumb line or what!?? But the biggest booby is when the secretary who gets her eye injured by the wire from the musical instrument actually gets to leave! Hang on here, & rewind a little & take a continuity check; aren't the Dudley's the only ones who have a key to the gates - & they left for the night hours ago!?? The doctor is clearly seen minutes later unlocking & locking the gates seeing the injured party off!!!?? Worse still; several times laterin the film when life-threatening things are happening & EVERYONE wishes to leave (he included) he once again reminds everybody that they have to wait until the morning for the Dudley's to come & open up the gates...? This is very bad script writing & bad continuity at its worst, & is what comes from not sticking to an original story... But you would have thought anyone present - even down to the most uneducated hired-hand when filming would have spotted these?
There is also a tremendous lack of chemistry between any of the characters - good or adverse, when compared to the original cast. For an example; this can be observed during the scene over the writing appearing upon the wall, & Theo is seen snapping at Nell (almost word for word asin the original movie) but there had been no friction between the characters Theo & Nell previously up until that moment - as there had been between the two original charactersin the original movie! It simply did not follow... Also, in one scene when Nell runs against a door to burst through it & finds it locked, the whole wall moves from the force of her weight - if that had been noticedin a movie that had been made years ago, then everybody would have ridiculed it for using shaky sets... (re Crossroads etc.)
Finally, from the trailers used, one can see from this that very little of the special effects are shown - & this clearly confirms my criticisms, & is due to the fact that this is all that held the film together...
Now to the positive side - & yes, there is one!
Leaving aside the continuity errors & the comparisons with the original, this is a good movie, if you completely, & I mean totally accept it as a different movie altogether. This is the only way I can enjoy this film - I view it as a filmin its own right independently. This way you get a whole new perspective! Actually, the acting isn't all that bad, but I do think that Catherine Zeta-Jones is by far the best one here; she's every bit Claire Bloom's equal when it came to portraying an Americium at least. Her accent is good, natural, & she isn't 'clumsy' which most English people tend to be when attempting an American role. It was a pity that Ms. Zeta-Jones did not have the same scope with her character as Ms. Bloom did (she having far more dialoguein the original film) The special effects as already stated, are way out, but they are good & entertaining, & for a 'modern' film, come across acceptable.
Another positive point is the mini documentary included as a bonus on the DVD; I found this not only interesting, but all the actors talked & spoke 'sensibly', & not giggly or showing off as most modern actors tend to do nowadays, & so from that perspective, I was very impressed with the cast's professionalism - & it takes a great deal to impress me! For these reasons, I have still given this movie five stars - but only when totally disassociated with the original 1963 British classic!
A SPOOKY GOOD HAUNTED HOUSE FILM - WELL WORTH A WATCH - By: stuart, 03 Nov 2007 
After her mother's death, Eleanor (Lili Taylor) is desperate to get over her feelings of despair. Research Scientist Dr. Marrow (Liam Neeson) is searching for subjects to participatein a study on sleep disorder, & Eleanor is a perfect candidate. Accepted, she travels to Hill House, the site of an infamous massacre years ago, & meets up with the other subjects of the experiment Theo (Catherine Zeta-Jones) & Luke (Owen Wilson). After the usual introductions are done, Dr. Marrow briefs everyone about what they are doing & the purpose of the experiment. After an accident nearly ruins the experiment, Dr. Marrow decides to carry on. That night, strange banging noises haunt Eleanor & Theo as they try to sleep. The next day, she begins to see & experience strange eventsin the house. Trying to convince Theo & Luke that Dr. Marrow isn't interestedin sleep deprivation doesn't work, but it brings Eleanor close to a secret that even Dr. Marrow didn't know about & that could bring the house down around them.
The Good News: OHMYGOD! This has one of the creepiest houses everin a horror film I've ever seen. It has the perfect blend of Gothic atmosphere & modern touches. It has an overall feeling of dread & suspense. With it's long, winding corridors, creature-busts for decorations, & artwork that is just as creepy as spending an eternityin hell itself, this house is just as creepy as the original. It is big & cavernous, & yet confining. These two ingredients are essentialin creating the perfect haunted house movie, & the third ingredient is one of my favorite rules for haunted house is the "things that shouldn't be doing that/that shouldn't be there" philosophy. I love when haunted house films do that. If it's done right, it is an effective scene that really brings out the suspense of a movie. This movie does it right by keeping the first part of the film as a mystery as to why it's haunted, & the second half as a series of clues to lead us to a terrifying secret about the house. For the first half, though, we don't know the secret, & therefore we are left with a very spooky haunted house film. By making it just a spooky film, the paintings looking at us, the walls moving, it adds to create an atmosphere that very few haunted house films have created. There is one standout scene that really goes to prove this: as Eleanor is lying bed, she sees a black shadow enter the room on the ceiling & go over to her doorway. As the shadow gets to the doorway, it causes the archwaysin the door to raise, & it lights up these two red crystals. When it finishes, it appears that the door is looking at Eleanor with this demonic impression, & it is a very creepy scene. The ghosts are sometimes pretty creepy, & the way they interact with the cast is some great shocks. The one deathin the film is one of the highlights. After attacking a picture of the owner of the house, the ghosts strike the personin the back & knock them onto a carpet. The carpet is dragged over to the fireplace, where it has a lion's head for a swing. The lion then opens its mouth & decapitates them, rightin front of the rest of the group. There are many more different scenes that give some good chills, but would take up too much space to describein detail. I even enjoyed the two different tones to the film. The mysterious first half is very well done, but the puzzle paintedin the second half is very well thought out & is a bit out into left field, but it does make the movie seem a lot smarter than it probably is to some people.
The Bad News: Despite one of the classic scenes from the original being cleverly homagein a scene that really sticks out since it doesn't follow the tone of the rest of the movie, this has one very classic mistake: the ghosts are shown. There are several scenes where we see the ghosts up close, & that really irritates me. This is the only real complaint: the ghosts are far too visible far too often.
The Final Verdict: This is a better film than most admit to, but it really isn't all that bad. It has loads of suspense, a chilling house, & standout performances, all combining into a film that is a bit underrated. Watch this late at night with the lights out, & this might give you a few chills.
A remake that has the cgi as the star - By: M. A. Ramos, 05 Oct 2007 
If you saw the original, beware... The plot bears no resemblance to Shirley Jackson's psychological horror story. The sub-plots make no sense & dead-ends. There's lots of CGI & special effects, which are well done & are the star of the movie.
The sets for the house were the best part & are worth seeing. Liam Neeson must be sorry he made this film, & Owen Wilson, seems to be the comic relief, Zeta-Jones certainly looks good but isn't given anything to do except wander around looking colorfully tarty. Bruce Dern & Marian Seldes were probably just happy they had such small parts. This doesn't make it as a "good" bad movie, & it wouldn't really worth the trouble hating, except that it butchered a book that was both scary & intelligent.
Such a disappointment... - By: Ms. L. West, 22 Sep 2007 Having read, watched & loved the book & original film, I was really excited at the prospect of a remake. Also, I thought the choice of actresses for Eleanor & Theo were spot on- great actresses, experienced, adaptable & fitting the picturein my head perfectly. So what a disappointment when I watched the remake & there was little left of the originalin terms of plot, suspense & atmosphere.
The CGI was unnecessary & slightly ridiculous, & supported my theory that film makers think americans are too dense to appreciate subtlety & must have lots of bangs & whizzes to keep them entertained. A project that, initially, looked so promising turned into a real let down, & has made me wary of watching remakes of films I have loved. Too many, (The Fog, The Wicker Man, The Ring etc) have been spoilt by "CGI at all costs!" & "let's put a few monstersin because our audience has no imagination" or, worst of all, "let's make a quick profit by exploiting a classic to bringin original fans, but change the plot entirely so idiots will get it".
As with so many films, the only thing this remake hasin common with its original is the title. Shirley Clarke would be furious.
