Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

mraculeated The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

AverageJoesDriveInPodcast As far as remakes go, I thought this was a pretty solid update. It kept to the spirit of the original, but at the same time did its own thing. The acting worked well and I was actually surprised by the amount of gore it had. I didn't remember it being that gory when I first watched it. While it wasn't too gratuitous there was enough there to sate the gorehound in me. Overall, it was a good blend of jump scare moments, gore, and a fairly solid story. One of the few things I didn't like about it was the constant flashing imagery. At times, it made it hard to concentrate on what was going on and distracting. I adore the original. It's in my Top 3 favorite Vincent Price films. The fact I didn't feel like this was tarnishing the name of the original caught me a bit off guard. Looking back I wonder if maybe that's why I didn't enjoy it as much the first time I saw it. It was also around that time period when I was sick and tired of remake after remake coming out. I think I may have gone in with a bit of pre-conceived hatred before I even viewed it.I'm glad I threw it on and watched it. I really enjoyed it, way more than I was expecting. It's far from perfect, but it's a solid film that I'll watch again. With that being said, I still don't think it's as good as the original. There was a lasting fun creepiness about that one that still holds up, which I don't think this one quite delivers on the same level. My Rating: 7/10

classicsoncall I imagine we're all products of our upbringing and environment. When I was about ten years old, the original "House on Haunted Hill" scared the bejeezus out of me and set the bar for horror films I'd see in the future. If you watch that movie today, a lot of it comes across as campy or cheesy, but there are still those subtle touches that manage to evoke a response, like the first time a female character turns around and experiences the frightful face of the home's caretaker looking like some evil monster.The reaction I got from this picture was - why did they even bother? It seems like a colossal waste of time, in fact, this is the second time I tried watching it, the first time I dropped out when it just seemed pointless to me. There doesn't seem to be any real rationale as to what should be the logic of the story. Watson Pritchett (Chris Kattan) insists it's the house itself that's evil, whereas we see some guy Schecter running the operation from some crummy basement. Owner Stephen Price (Geoffrey Rush) seems to be in on some of the house's mechanical gadgets but not others. It's no secret that Price and his wife Evelyn (Famke Janssen) hate each other, but no sooner than it's revealed she's in cahoots with Blackburn (Peter Gallagher), she offs him unceremoniously. I just didn't get any of it.At least the picture paid some homage to the original movie. The principal character was named Price in deference to Vincent Price, the star of the 1959 film, and oddly enough, Rush had an eerie resemblance to the iconic actor. This story upped the ante on how much the surviving guests would receive if they made it in the house the entire night. Inflation must have taken the earlier ten thousand dollar award and raised it to a million. The coffin party favors with a gun inside was another connection, but after all that, it was pretty much a disaster to my thinking. If the idea was for the special effects to overwhelm the poor story line, I think that failed too. For all their simplicity, the effects in the original picture left a lot more to the imagination. With this one, I went right to sleep and not a single nightmare.

areatw 'House on Haunted Hill' is a cheap, trashy horror film with some dreadful acting, a weak plot and a pathetic ending, but it somehow still manages to be entertaining and creepy as hell.The film does a good job at building up tension and suspense, especially towards the end, which makes the disappointing ending even more of an anticlimax. Forget the plot though, the best part of this film is the incredibly creepy individual scenes. In particular, the scene involving Mr. Price in the chamber seeing all sorts of disturbing and creepy things freaked me out. The ghost scene where Melissa disappears is also very creepy, and there are plenty of others.Overall, I was pleasantly surprised - 'House on Haunted Hill' was better than I expected. It's a very cheap, low quality movie, but it does serve a purpose if you're looking for something creepy that will freak you out.

Scott LeBrun The big budget, slick Hollywood remake of William Castles' fondly remembered 1959 spook show may be able to boast all the special effects that money can buy, but it lacks the playful tone of Castle. Its characters, by and large, are not worth really caring about. It's grim, oppressive, and does live up to the word "horror". It's made in the modern style with a hip, attractive cast and an accent on gore and sadism. Fortunately, one good thing is that if there's one thing that director William Malone ("Parasomnia", "FeardotCom") is good at, it's creating a visual style. The movie *does* look great.Five people are invited to the birthday bash for Evelyn Stockard-Price (Famke Janssen), which conveniently is located in your standard issue cliffside mansion that naturally used to be an insane asylum. They're provided with loaded guns as party favours, and informed that if they can survive the night, they stand to become $1 million richer. Soon horrible things begin to happen to them.This does get a reasonable boost from talented Geoffrey Rush's delicious Vincent Price imitation, and the delightful bitchiness delivered by Janssen. In addition to the lovely Ms. Janssen, other ladies providing eye candy include Ali Larter and Bridgette Wilson-Sampras. Taye Diggs is good as a hero type, but Chris Kattan is a little too much as whiny building owner Watson Pritchett. It's nice as it always is to see Jeffrey Combs, as he plays demented surgeon Dr. Vannacutt. Singer Lisa Loeb is a reporter. And recognize that nurse? It's Gozer from "Ghost Busters", a.k.a. model / actress Slavitza Jovan.Eventually, the movie does go overboard in the special effects department, giving us a generous dose of digitally created and very unscary ghosts. The ending is somewhat amusing if not that satisfying.Six out of 10.