Isn't it supposed to be one of the best horror movies ever made?
Should I spend $4 to order this movie?
Isn't it supposed to be one of the best horror movies ever made?
Should I spend $4 to order this movie?
|by Anonymous||reply 104||05/18/2014|
Very, very good, but don't expect any gore.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||12/03/2010|
Great psychological horror. Great flick.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||12/03/2010|
I've seen it about a dozen times and I still get scared. No big budget, no blood & guts no CGI special effects - just fine acting, screenplay, and great directing by Robert Wise. It will scare the hell out of you.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||12/03/2010|
I love this movie. Yes, you must see it.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||12/03/2010|
It's a classic, and it still scares me to death. The house itself is the greatest character in the story.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||12/03/2010|
Great psychological and psycho[italic]social[/italic] horror.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||12/03/2010|
I was scared shitless when I saw it in the sixties when I was ten years old.
Now I love classy lesbian Claire Bloom teasing backward Julie Harris.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||12/03/2010|
Love this movie! A question for fans: Do you think the house really is haunted - or is Julie Harris going "Carrie" with her latent telekinetic powers?
|by Anonymous||reply 8||12/03/2010|
The movie is overcooked, but I believe the house was haunted and crazy Julie wanted to MARRY IT!
|by Anonymous||reply 9||12/03/2010|
That's a good question, r8.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||12/03/2010|
[quote]Now I love classy lesbian Claire Bloom teasing backward Julie Harris.%0D %0D I do too. I'd guess a lot of us were so young the first time we saw it that it was years before we realized Theo was gay.%0D %0D [quote]Love this movie! A question for fans: Do you think the house really is haunted - or is Julie Harris going "Carrie" with her latent telekinetic powers?%0D %0D I think the house was evil and haunted - after all, people won't live there and the creepy housekeeper keeps saying cheerful things about being alone in the dark when nobody can hear you scream. I also think, however, that Eleanor's powers almost instantly summon up the ghosts because they recognize a kindred, lonely, disturbed spirit. %0D %0D Martine Scorsese's favorite horror film, by the way. %0D %0D Some interesting trivia at IMDB:%0D %0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 11||12/03/2010|
My favorite horror movie. I love the morphing doorknob scene - at least I think that was what was going on - something about the door, with the girls hugging each other on the bed. Sexy too.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||12/03/2010|
scared little kid me.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||12/03/2010|
The fact that there's no gore is one of the best things about it. Pure psychological horror. The best. The acting is terrific - some of the scenes - where Nell's in bed with Theo and she says she's holding her hand too tight - and Theo replies that she isn't holding her hand - are terrifying.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||12/03/2010|
Fuck you R15. It's a classic.%0D %0D Julie Harris is fantastic as the repressed Eleanor. The movie was shot at a famous house in England, not New England where the story is set. Shirley Jackson had a lot of tragedy in her life. The book is a classic too.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||12/04/2010|
It is one of the most faithful book-to-film adaptations I can think of.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||12/04/2010|
Incredible film. It can give me gosebumps just thinking about it.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||12/04/2010|
R15 = 15 years old
|by Anonymous||reply 19||12/04/2010|
Wonderful film. Another great film from Robert Wise. Shirley Jackson also wrote "We Have Always Lived in the Castle". She also wrote lighthearted memoirs based on her family. "Life Among the Savages" and "Raising Demons". Interesting lady.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||12/04/2010|
It will scare the shit out of you.%0D %0D "Who was holding my hand?"%0D %0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 21||12/04/2010|
There was a rumored film version of "We Have Always Lived In The Castle" to be produced by Michael Douglas' production company. IMDB simply has it as "in development." I hope they do it, Jackson is one of my favorite authors.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||12/04/2010|
Incredible camera work - the camera following that twisty staircase gives me the shivers.
In the right hands "We have always lived in the castle" could be great. Hope they don't mess it up.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||12/04/2010|
It's a good film, but certainly not scary, not even a little. Creepy, well-shot, good acting, cool house...but NOT scary.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||12/04/2010|
"Maybe something great in its time, but absolutely overrated. Stick with the stellar remake starring Catherine Zeta Jones and Owen Wilson-perfection!"%0D %0D Are you being sarcastic or joking? If not, you are a pathetic retard. The "stellar remake" of The Haunting was universally panned as a pitiful, shitty disaster. It SUCKS bigtime. %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 26||12/04/2010|
What makes it a film worth seeing are the actors -- Julie Harris and Claire Bloom.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||12/04/2010|
Yes, if you don't need a lot of blood and gore to enjoy a good scare movie, this is for you. I especially love Claire Bloom and Russ Tamblyn in this and of course Julie Harris is fantastic.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||12/04/2010|
Creepy, but ultimately frustrating.
A big tease.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||12/04/2010|
Kids today. Feh!
If there isn't an explosion every 10 minutes, and a car chase, and naked sex, and gunshots, and gushing blood, it's just not considered worth watching.
My brothers and I grew up on horror films. This has always been one of our favorites - and it was the first film that scared us without there being a "monster" to make it a "monster movie."
When we recommended it to our nieces and nephews, they were severely disappointed, and they actually laughed at it.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||12/04/2010|
Not everyone appreciates fine wine. Some prefer wine coolers or alcoholic whipped cream.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||12/04/2010|
I wouldn't mislead people with the idea that it is a horror film. It is a disturbing psychological drama, but like "The Innocents" I wouldn't say it was horrifying, just disturbing. And of course incredibly well-made.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||12/04/2010|
Since the film is called, "The Haunting," and the main character is a big, scary, haunted mansion, anyone who is foolish enough to be frightened by anything on the screen rather than fasten on the psychological profiles of the human (and previously human) characters must, by definition, be a "moron."
|by Anonymous||reply 35||12/05/2010|
Frightening, creepy, well-made, but ultimately unsatisfying. Had nothing to do with lack of gore or effects (all of which have nothing to do with a satisfying "horror" movie).
|by Anonymous||reply 36||12/05/2010|
OP can't even stay away from the internet while watching, don't expect him to appreciate this atmospheric and spooky masterpiece.
Not only 15 but probably texts throug whole movies in theaters.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||12/05/2010|
|by Anonymous||reply 38||12/05/2010|
[quote]The acting is terrific - some of the scenes - where Nell's in bed with Theo and she says she's holding her hand too tight - and Theo replies that she isn't holding her hand - are terrifying.
That scene is probably the most terrifying thing I've ever seen in a movie. The cinematography and sound are outstanding in every way.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||12/05/2010|
The 1963 version is one of the most frightening horror movies ever IMO. The 1998 remake is a pathetic piece of slop.
The 1963 movie had a $1.5 million budget. The 1998 remake had an $80 million budget. Further proof that today's filmmakers are for the most part talentless hacks.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||12/05/2010|
[quote]The 1963 movie had a $1.5 million budget. The 1998 remake had an $80 million budget.
Which using the, nominal GDP per capita calculation, are similar amounts.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||12/05/2010|
Actually, according to IMDB, the original film had a $1.1MM budget.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||12/05/2010|
The remake was a pile of crap with big-budget special effects that did nothing to improve on the original. The story was also changed and not for the better; the changes were just plain stupid.%0D %0D Remakes more often than not are terrible and the remake of TH was no exception.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||12/05/2010|
It's overrated, and I wasn't scared!
|by Anonymous||reply 45||12/05/2010|
Very good movie.%0D %0D The remake with Catherine Zeta Jones and Liam Neeson was AWFUL.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||12/05/2010|
The book [italic]The Encyclopedia of Horror Movies[/italic] had a problem with this movie. Warning: In case you haven't seen the movie yet, there's spoiler in the analysis . . .%0D %0D "The script presents [Bloom's] lesbianism as somehow equally unnatural as Harris's susceptibility to ghosts. It's a small wonder that a script which conceives lesbianism in such bigoted terms also designates the nursery as the wellspring of horror and the married, maternal figure as the woman-in-white who causes the sensitive Harris's death. In the end, what haunts the movie is precisely the notion that lesbianism is somehow unnatural and horrifying."
|by Anonymous||reply 47||12/05/2010|
The ONLY good thing about the remake was the set - the house and the stage sets were amazing, although of course far from the original description of the house in the novel, and its appearance in the original film.%0D %0D And one more good thing about the remake - Owen Wilson gets beheaded. I would gladly pay money to watch that anytime.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||12/05/2010|
How did Eleanor know that Theo was a lesbian? It's not like she came on to her -- or came out to her.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||12/05/2010|
Theo was cruising Julie Andrews from the first frame.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||12/05/2010|
The remake has the worst dialogue ever committed to film that wasn't bad on purpose.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||12/05/2010|
Anyone who is not smart enough and sensitive enough to thoroughly enjoy this film....is a retard. Hands down. %0D %0D Universally understood as one of the greatest horror films ever made. But it requires an ability to appreciate the psychological aspects, the creepiness of never actually SEEING "monsters" or ghosts that some idiots can't abide.%0D %0D The remake was awful. Anyone who prefers the remake is also a retard. You people come from inferior genetic stock. Sorry.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||12/05/2010|
Being young and culturally ignorant with plebian tastes! YAY! Black and white movies suck! Justin Bieber rules! YAY!
|by Anonymous||reply 54||12/05/2010|
Certainly one of the best acted. Harris and Bloom - still with us! (Bloom is currently playing the queen mother in The KIng's Speech) - are two of the greats.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||12/05/2010|
Really good use of black and white photography. Worth a look OP. The Catherine Zeta-Jones remake was cheap in comparison.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||12/05/2010|
The house is calling you, Nell....
|by Anonymous||reply 57||12/05/2010|
Loved it but...%0D %0D I always felt the part when Eleanor is driving to Hill House and we hear her thoughts was a rip off of Psycho, with Marion doing pretty much the same thing before she reaches the Bates.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||12/05/2010|
Some of you don't get it. The movie had *great* promise, but never delivered. There was no ending; it petered out. Now if any of those who consider themselves superior because you like the film can speak to this, please do.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||12/05/2010|
Sort of in love with R60.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||12/05/2010|
I know, R60; the sheeple.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||12/05/2010|
Don't watch it alone.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||12/05/2010|
How about you just telling us why you don't like it R15/60 and stop being such as asshole? Obviously, the majority LOVE it.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||12/05/2010|
There was no excuse for the ending, R64. None.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||12/05/2010|
I don't feel that the ending peters out at all. I found it very satisfying. Eleanor becomes part of the house, another tragic lost soul sucked into its evil heart. Pretty great if you ask me (which of course you didn't.)
|by Anonymous||reply 66||12/05/2010|
What the hell did you expect the ending to be, r65?
|by Anonymous||reply 67||12/05/2010|
[quote]What the hell did you expect the ending to be, [R65]?%0D %0D %0D %0D %0D %0D Nell and Luke get married with Theo in attendance as maid of honor. That would have been a nice ending and would have tied everything together.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||12/05/2010|
Director Robert Wise got his start working on the Val Lewton horror film unit at RKO in the 40's. The Haunting certainly shows the Lewton influence as the "horror" is conveyed in atmosphere, not gore and action. It's a very good film of an excellently written novel.%0D %0D The remake was an overproduced travesty, especially the "twist" in which the man who built Hill House was revealed to be Nell's grandfather.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||12/05/2010|
Anything but the non-ending that was.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||12/05/2010|
Non-ending... WTF? You're nuts.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||12/05/2010|
R15/R60, why don't you actually say something about the film, little Mr Film Buff? I suppose a juvenile pissing match on the Internet is more your intellectual style.
Others here may kind of love you, but nothing you said in R15 was even close to critique, unless "using a lot of overstuffed hyperbole while calling others liars" is a definition of critique I'm unfamiliar with. Perhaps I should dig out the OED.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||12/05/2010|
Something always haunted me, until I realized that Robert Wise was the cause.
The evil wallpaper in "The Haunting" is the same pattern as the curtain fabric in "The Sound of Music."
Now the curse is on you all.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||12/06/2010|
Which curtain fabric? The play clothes?
|by Anonymous||reply 77||12/06/2010|
r76, it is not. You made that up, cunt.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||12/06/2010|
Maria Von Trapp = frigid loner who marries solemn prig
Nell = frigid loner who yearns for solemn prig
Baroness = sophisticated lesbian
Theo = sophisticated lesbian
|by Anonymous||reply 79||12/06/2010|
|by Anonymous||reply 80||12/06/2010|
R15/R60 wow...you are one nasty bitch who has too much time on her hands. You want an argument? Julie Harris is fan-tas-tic. The movie is g-r-e-a-t. Or do you think Morgan Fairchild as Jennifer Pace on Search for Tomorrow is great acting? %0D %0D The Shirley Jackson book left an incredible impression on me. It spooked me silly. %0D %0D You are miserable prick. %0D %0D I don't take meds. Obviously you need some. So I send you My Happiness - I can share it with someone as miserable as you and I pray that you are better. I am blessed.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||12/06/2010|
This is a popular movie with older gay men like those rhapsodizing about it in this topic because on many levels they identify with Julie Harris's celebrate old spinster twirling around barefoot in an old nightgown on the edge of madness. Not since Blanche DuBois have gay movie fans been enthralled by this type of character.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||12/06/2010|
she was hate-raped!
|by Anonymous||reply 83||12/06/2010|
r82 is an idiot.%0D %0D r39, Theo never says she isn't holding Nell's hand. Watch the movie again.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||12/06/2010|
Count me in as someone who was disappointed by this movie. I am exactly the sort of Old Movie Queen who usually loves this sort of camp-ola.
But I thought THE HAUNTING was all set-up with very little follow through. There are a few genuine chills along the way but you keep expecting something major to develop and nothing really does. Apart from Harris everyone turns out to be set dressing. It seems like they tacked on the final whammy because, well, something has to happen to allow a plot to resolve so we'll just do it this way and then everyone will know the movie's over.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||12/06/2010|
The book's ending--which is a literary flourish of two or three lines, really--is much more satisfying than the movie even if it's not more revealing.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||12/07/2010|
I just watched it.
While I love old films, and love atmosphere, this film was not scary in the slightest.
I don't get why people are saying it's frightening..
...really? Why?? Please explain!
|by Anonymous||reply 88||05/04/2013|
I think it's a great movie, but Lois Maxwell and/or her character didn't work for me. Maybe it was a lack of chemistry with Bloom, Harris, Richard Johnson and Russ Tamblyn who were so perfect together. I felt Maxwell's character was presented too broadly, and it diminished the ending a bit for me.
OTOH, it's still the best haunted house movie i can think of.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||05/04/2013|
On TCM NOW.... the knocking sounds are beginning!!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 90||05/17/2014|
Tonight was haunted house night on TCM -- The Haunting, The Legend of Hell House and Poltergeist.
|by Anonymous||reply 91||05/17/2014|
Gayle Hunnicutt--in Legend of Hell House--has the most phenomenal hair, especially considering that she's trapped in a haunted house.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||05/17/2014|
In today's world, it's interesting that The Haunting and The Legend of Hell House both hold up so well and are still very frightening, despite the fact that there is no blood or gore in either. Everything scary is psychological.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||05/18/2014|
[R15] [R24] [R25] NO TASTE IN FILM
A REAL CLASSIC SCARY AS ALL HELL Julie Harris one of the finest American actresses of all time Claire Bloom great, Mrs. Dudley the housekeeper priceless I found the professor kind of sexy too
The remake was lame and too sfx ridden
The novel is the best horror novel I have ever read
The scene of Julie/Claire in the bedroom truly horrifying--and you have toi use your imagination.
If you have no imagination, you cannot appreciate this film.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||05/18/2014|
[quote]Gayle Hunnicutt--in Legend of Hell House--has the most phenomenal hair, especially considering that she's trapped in a haunted house.
I noticed that too -- she could've done a Pantene commercial. Also: Pamela Franklin's titties. ¡[italic]Escándalo![/italic]
[quote]In today's world, it's interesting that The Haunting and The Legend of Hell House both hold up so well and are still very frightening, despite the fact that there is no blood or gore in either.
[italic]The Legend of Hell House[/italic] gets bloody in a couple of scenes, but otherwise it's very restrained.
[quote]It seems like they tacked on the final whammy because, well, something has to happen to allow a plot to resolve so we'll just do it this way and then everyone will know the movie's over.
Well, it beats the lame way the remake ended.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||05/18/2014|
After reading through this old thread, I'm amazed to see that there are people dumb enough to prefer the laughably bad remake to the original. I guess some people have such short attention spans they need to have every bit of screen space filled with bad CGI.
|by Anonymous||reply 96||05/18/2014|
How did the remake end, R95?
|by Anonymous||reply 97||05/18/2014|
I read the book several times as a child - it was in a Reader's Digest condensed book that my parents had. It always scared the shit out of me. When I was in high school I read the whole novel, which included weird stuff the condensed version left. I didn't see the movie until many years later, but I thought it was well done and perfectly cast.
The remake was a ludicrous travesty that destroyed the whole concept of the book.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||05/18/2014|
What R85 said.
It will leave you wanting more.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||05/18/2014|
|by Anonymous||reply 100||05/18/2014|
Thanks R Now that was truly horrifying.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||05/18/2014|
That was dreadful
|by Anonymous||reply 102||05/18/2014|
Good films are timeless, and the 1963 version of "The Haunting" is a good film. Go ahead and watch "The Conjuring" for me, r103. I'll be watching "The Haunting" instead, the next time TCM airs it again.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||05/18/2014|