The Haunting: 1963

Release date: September 18, 1963 (USA)

Director: Robert Wise

Adaptations: The Haunting (1999)

Adapted from: The Haunting of Hill House

MPAA rating: G

Let us all give a hand to one very talented man, by the name of Robert Wise. A man who is able to make one of the greatest musicals of all time, as well as some fantastic horror films. Ending his film making career after close to fifty years, he has come to be known as a true inspiration to us all. Honestly, the guy's a genius! You take the genre of musicals and define it, using one film as a precedent for all musicals to come after, and then you do it again, directing and producing one of the greatest (and in my opinion scariest) ghost stories of all time.  And now, without further ado...The Haunting!

The film follows one Eleanor Lance and her dangerous exploits to feel wanted by someone, anyone. She is invited by Dr. John Markway to take part in an experiment on fear at "Hill House", a residence with a very twisted past. The house is believed to be haunted, but as we continue to lower ourselves even further into the muck of Lane's mind, we are also plagued with the question "Is the house haunted, or is Eleanor?" It's a fantastic premise, and the perfect buildup to a ghost story done right. 

But how do you make a good ghost story? Well, in my opinion, it comes down to a few elements. First you have to have a developed background about the house that the haunting is taking place in. I won't give away the spooky background of the haunting of Hill House, so you'll just have to trust me when I say, "It's kind of a big deal". Next, you need compelling characters to frighten or be frightened by...The character of Eleanor Lance is exceptional for this part because as we get to know her better we are compassionate towards her and don't want her to get into any trouble, but there remains still a sense of lingering uncertainty regarding her actions and delusions of grandeur. There is a duality that I don't think any other character presents to her but herself, and therein lies the craft of her character! We as an audience do not know if she is a character to be trusted for we are introduced to her in a rather violent way. First we don't see her in a very positive light. She argues with her siblings who think she's crazy. We are invited into her inner monologues that tell a great deal about her inner psychosis and deep seeded issues. 

She is invited to Hill House and does not know who else will be there besides Markway, the man who invited her; she only knows that for once in her life she is expected. That someone (it didn't matter who) wanted her to be somewhere (it didn't matter where). Robert Wise deals with this urge to be wanted by someone. Lance is constantly remarking (sometimes silently) that even though she is afraid, she was still expected to be here. And it's actually her inner desires and flaws that haunt her, as opposed to the ghosts of Hill House. But I could talk about Eleanor and her role in the story for hours on end, so it's best that I leave you here in terms of character design and simply say that everything about her , from beginning to end is perfect. And this has a little to do with what I had mentioned earlier as well as the rest of the cast being sort of one sided and simpler than Eleanor's character.

The set design in "The Haunting" is truly frightening. And this brings up an important topic, about what it is that actually scares people. Most people think that "horror", at least in film terms, must be updated to stay fresh in the minds of the consumer. That if you've seen it once, you never want to see it again. Now, this is sort of true. Of course an idea that is used time and time again might seem a little cheap and shallow to general audiences. Like a jump scare, if it's used too many times in the same window it ceases to be scary because you expect it, and you can pick up on certain cues to prepare yourself. And I have no problem with jump scares...when they're done right, but if I start to talk about that, I'll just keep going, and this review will never end. The point is an idea done before can be scary if everything around the stale idea is fresh and, well, executed correctly.

Let's use this film as an example. As Iv'e explained earlier, this is a movie about "ghosts" in a haunted house scaring people. And on the surface, that's all it is. It's what's under the surface that makes this film work, and actually scary. First, there's the house itself. The set and location of "The Haunting" is amazing. I just love it, from the long, creepy, narrow hallways to the damp creepy garden with the creepy statues, and the creepy staircase, and the super scary nursery with the creepy double doors and the dude's all like, "don't go in there, it's the heart of the house," and his wife's all like, "I don't even care if I'm awakening this self aware haunted house that has the souls of hundreds of children trapped in the walls..." "Who careeees?" "I don't care." And then there are, like, all those parts where the camera gets really close to the walls of the house, and the intricate designs start to look like faces and then you start to hear children laughing, and crying faintly, and then you hear like, this one creepy dude that Markway was talking about before. Y'know, the guy who owned the house, and you start to hear the creepy dude making this super scary, far off, moaning noise, that gets louder and louder from the other side of the wall. And then you start to think to yourself, "Hey this house means business! This is scaring the pants off of me! And the worst part is that the only person I know well enough to hide behind...is Eleanor Lane. But how can I do that when all this might be in her head? What if she's the haunting of Hill House? How can I trust someone who might not be entirely sane to begin with? Why Robert Wise? Why would you direct a film where the only character we know well enough to consider our main protagonist, our hero, is possibly insane? There's no one to hold onto, is there? There's nowhere to hide, is there? Sweet Jesus someone let me out of this house!!!!!!!!!!!

Sufficed to say, "The Haunting" is ahead of its time. And part of the reason that it stands out among the rest of the sixties schlock that was coming out around the time like "Carnival of Souls",  and "The Brain That Wouldn't Die" was because of the serious tone, and the cinematography. The camera work in "The Haunting" is unlike anything I've seen during that age in film. Everything works to the film's advantage; The acting, set design, shots and angles and tracking, and the story! I'm happy that a film exists containing all these attributes. And I really can't think of anything more to say. I guess it's been awhile since I've written anything. And I think it's been awhile since I've written anything with a lot of substance. I do this for me. And I do it because I like to think about movies. I want to continue, but it's been hard. I turned 18 a few weeks ago. School's been laying it on pretty thick for awhile now. But I don't think I want to grow up. I just want to write.

8.9/10

Watch Trailer Here

Next Review: Misery - 1990

The Conjuring: 2013

Release date: July 19, 2013 (USA)

Director: James Wan

Running time: 112 minutes

MPAA rating: R

Cast: Mackenzie Foy

   James Wan, director of the acclaimed "Saw" series, has attempted to give the haunted house/possession genre of horror a new paint job with his latest (and not to mention greatest) film yet. This director had audiences saying, "ehhh, it was okay" with his previous film entitled, "Insidious." It dealt with a small child who fall into a comatose state of sorts, and becomes trapped in a place known as the further. His father is apparently the only one who can save him. I was really happy to find that I didn't hate "Insidious". In my experience, modern day horror films are more focused on torture porn than the situation or story. And it's quite ironic that the man behind the most beloved torture porn series of films is the very same man to direct one of the most impressive horror films to date. Yes, I said it. This is, "The Conjuring." 

   Our story follows a couple who specialize in ridding places and objects of those that possess them. They come across a very interesting case in the Warren household, where the mother of the family is has fallen prey to demonic possession, and the rest of the family is haunted by similar supernatural occurrences that plague their home. And...that's it. I'm surprised that such a recent release from a seemingly renowned horror film director is so simple. Granted this sort of thing has been done before, and the genre of horror that is demonic possession has recently become popular with general audiences. However, it's "The Conjuring" that takes this idea (or actually "Insidious") and does everything mostly well. The key word here is mostly.   

  James Wan is very good at making very effective horror films (for the most part). However, it's the third and final act that falls short. Throughout "The Conjuring" there are many subtly moments that are very effective and VERY scary. He's very good at making a house seem claustrophobic, and inescapable (even though the character probably could have left the house at any time...) However, the main problem that arises during the film is...well...let me explain something first. In a horror movie...or at least in any GOOD horror movie you have the horror aspect of the film which can be implemented at virtually any point as long as it is done well, and the characters that interact with the situation at hand. Sometimes the characters in the story can be the cause or BE the horror aspect and we not only learn more from each character but also the horror related plot device. Long story short the characters in the movie need to bounce off of the plot in a clear, and concise way. That is how it works. And to be perfectly frank, the dialogue in "The Conjuring" is abysmal. I just. I can't! Why in almost every single James Wan movie is the dialogue so...JUST OH MY GOD! I just can't! It's so hard to focus on the good aspects in his movies when I'm constantly being taken away by realllllyyyy badddd writing! But I'm just a stupid critic. What do I know?

   Despite the film's lack of engaging dialogue, I did actually find this film very scary. There were many moments where I saw great use in set design and ambiance. "The Conjuring" is in no way a perfect movie. I thought that James Wan had missed an opportunity when casting so many Warren children, but not really using that number to make an excessive body count. But I suppose that isn't necessarily what the movie wanted to have accomplished at the end. "The Conjuring" is no body count film, like "Friday The 13th" or "Halloween" and I'm thankful for that. I encourage a deviation from trendiness from time to time, and I know that soon every genre and type of horror film will be done to death and I'll have to find something new to waste my time with. It's just nice to see that, for the most part, someone did something right.

7.0/10

Watch the Trailer

Next Review: Carrie 1976

   

The Monster Walks: 1932

   Welcome to the last review from the Gorilla based movie marathon.  Remember, if you liked this marathon, let me know if you want me to do something similar in the comments section below.  Thank you, and enjoy.

   Residents as well as guests residing in an old dark house are terrorized by a, "killer ape".

   "The Monster Walks" is merely nothing more, than the product of a lazy production.  This is a very slow film even for a mystery/thriller flick.  If you'd like some proof of laziness, look at the poster above!  It says it right there.  Don't get me wrong, because I like it allot.  But that is the twist ending!  It's right in front of everyone!  I know that you could say, "well, that's their technique.  Putting the twist right out in the open like that shows how edgy this film will be."  Well here's what I have to say to you...,"you're wrong".  This poster is way too obvious for that to be an intentional way of advertising.

   However there is one thing that this film has that none of the other films have, and that's a monkey.  A real monkey.  Though it adds nothing to the story whatsoever, other that the culprits scapegoat.  The characters in the film talk of the monkey as a powerful, strong creature when it in no way resembles that of.  It's ridiculous that any character would even assume that the monkey murdered the people in the house.  It's not even as if any lines are said like they actually mean it.  It makes me feel as though this film is severely scripted.  And that's saying allot, considering that the exposition of the film is extremely slow.  In fact, the whole movie could have been cut in half, and the entire story could still be told. 

 To add on, "The Monster Walks" is annoyingly un-scary.  There are no jump scares, or anything remotely fascinating of any kind.  The film gets to the point where everything about it is just ridiculous.  The whole movie is on auto pilot.  Nothing coveys any feeling or emotion.  What really frustrates me, is the fact that I'm reviewing this for the gorilla in the film.  The only problem with this is that there is no gorilla!  Fortunately the monkey is real.  Unfortunately the monkey adds no threat to the characters at all (besides strangling one victim).  I don't know why this movie was made, because it doesn't feel like anyone wanted to make it in the first place.  Maybe I'm overreacting, but that aside I did not like this movie.

   In Conclusion:  For a movie called, "The Monster Walks", there wasn't much of anything regarding a monster.  It was simply a story of jealous rage which results in murder.  Out of all the gorilla based movies to watch, I would still prefer the Lugosi version over all of them, and the Karloff version over this one.  Although those two have nothing in common to begin with.  I suppose you may like it if you liked, "And Then There Were None", but even then, this film is not one I would want to see again.  I hope you have enjoyed this gorilla-based movie marathon, and remember to follow this blog if you want more!  Thank you!

Verdict:

I give this film 2 1/2 monkey arms out of 10

 Next Review: Creature from the Haunted Sea 1961

            

The House On Haunted Hill: 1959

 
   The review you are about to read is of the first horror movie that I've actually already seen.  This was awhile ago, and might have been before I even started reviewing horror films.  If you are new to my blog, then it might be helpful to tell you that I never usually re-watch a movie, I only see it once.  So, the fact that this review is for a movie I've already seen before hand, make this quite a rarity.  And for today's review we have something very special, "The House on Haunted Hill".  Thank you, and enjoy.

   Although horror is a genre of film, literature, and generally any other form of entertainment, among film, horror can be a very versatile subject.  There are libraries of horror footage that go from Expressionist to Psychological, Slasher, Supernatural, and the list goes on and on and on!  What I would classify this film to be is one of the more fun one's.  This was because of one man, William Castle.  He had many roles in the film business, but the job he was most known for was turning the movie theater into a haunted house.  In the movie, "The Tingler", the theater seats were rigged with back vibrators.  The plot followed a scientist that figures out about a creature living inside our spines called, "The Tingler".  Apparently the creature grows when someone is scared.  Fortunately, there is a represent to keep the tingler from growing, which is screaming.  

William Castle's introduction for, "The Tingler"

  But you’re not reading this because of, "The Tingler" (But to those of you who are, don't worry, that review isn't far away), your here to read my review of, "The House on haunted Hill".  I just wanted to give you an idea of the impact William Castle made on people everywhere which revolutionized the theater business as we know it.  Anyway I'm so glad that I'm still reviewing and haven't given up, and the reason for that is because of you.  I'm so happy for those of you who enjoy reading my blog, thank you.

   Eccentric millionaire Frederick Loren and his fourth wife, Annabelle, have invited five people to the house on haunted hill for a "Haunted House" party.  Whoever will stay in the house for on night will earn ten thousand dollars each.  As the night progresses, all the guests are trapped inside the house with ghosts, murderers, and other terrors.

  Alright, the premise seems fitting for a horror film, but is that all a horror film needs?  Of course not!  In a sense it has everything one could want, a haunted house accompanied by Vincent Price, where all things scary known to man reside.  But the problem within this equation is the fact that the characters that are guests in the house seem level headed and it wouldn't seem that the supernatural goings on in the house would frighten them so easily(with the exception of one scene:  25:25).  Onto the effects, which are okay considering the time period.  However where the effects usually enhance the atmosphere, this film's effects make it seem less credible that such a haunted house exists.  Speaking of the actual property, look at the house!

                    

   

   This looks more like a warehouse than an actual haunted house!  I know that you could call this, "mixing things up" because of the new design, but everything else in the movie people have already seen in any other haunted house flick.  At least they managed to stay far away from the outside of the house and focus on the inside.  As for The acting, it was good, but stereotypical.  Even Vincent Price is played off as a side character at most times.  Most of the time the story focuses on the survival of the two most attractive people in the story, Lance and Nora.  It’s really sad when the object of love is only shown when two attractive characters stand close to each other and talk.  It’s very clear that the director wanted us to feel this way about them, even though there is no intimacy whatsoever.  

   The rest of the cast is somewhat forgettable and even one character, Ruth Bridges only has around five lines in the entire movie, and she doesn't even die!  I don't know what the audience is supposed to think of this.  As for me, I know that the film is probably one to be taken seriously, but some parts are very confusing towards what your reaction is supposed to be.  Two of the guests, Lance and Nora, travel down to the cellar to go exploring.  They come across a hollow opening and one of them leaves the other alone.  The guest left behind turns around to find an old lady making a face behind her.  The sequence of actions went as follows:  you jump out of your seat; you laugh hysterically, and then remain perplexed as to the event that had just occurred.  It’s probably the only jump scene you'll have to worry about, the only problem with that is that there are a whole bunch of other jump scenes that you don't jump to, so this scene is the only one that I'm counting.  

   Even the events that occur are confusing because you suddenly realize through the movie, that everything that happens that's scary is just filler until another clue shows itself to unravel the mystery a little further.  It doesn't even seem like a party!  From the look of things there's nothing to do given the amount of guests, and it’s pulled off as amusing to the guest of honor, Vincent Price's wife.  Speaking of Vincent and his wife, their relationship is very confusing.  They seem to be happy with each other judging by the tones of their voices but it becomes clear that they have tried to kill each other before, and that's just...creepy. There's a little bit of foreshadowing when Vincent Price is doing the role call for each guest, as if you can already tell the unsatisfying feeling he gets when mentioning his wife's name.  What I would have liked to see is the tension that would keep rising until you couldn't trust any of the residents.  Scratch that...What I would have liked to see is the tension that would keep rising until you couldn't trust any of the residents done correctly. 

To conclude this review, upon the second viewing of this film my thoughts from the beginning have changed entirely.  If your into horror for the enjoyment and don't take things too seriously, you'll like this allot.  The twist at the end was okay but it very well could have been better.  In my opinion it would have worked allot better without the twist, and just stuck with mind numbing spooks.  Instead it tried to input an intelligent plot twist to, "mix things up", but I really thought that the film could have done better without it.  I hope that you enjoyed my review of, "The House on Haunted Hill".

   I give this film 3 gliding witches out of 5 

  P.S  

   Just a little notification.  My first review was of Nosferatu on June 22 2011.  Because of the quantity of time that has passed since this review, and because of my heightening ability to analyze films, I must admit something.  My first review was a great injustice to Nosferatu.  I now know that I could have said so much more because of what I know now.  But I have to keep this review, and never change it because it will always remain a starting place to a wonderful hobby.  I want to do something about this for my 100th review, but I have a long way to go before I get there.  However the main reason I am writing again today is because this is a very special day.  Today marks the one hundred and first day that I started reviewing horror films.  Truth be told I never actually though that I would get this far.  Don't hesitate to expect more reviews after this to come.  Thank you.

  Next Review:  Little Shop of Horrors  1960                    

                           

The Terror: 1963

   
  Rodger Corman was, and still is known as, “The B-Movie King”.  He was the director of many horror flicks, most of which were made fast and inexpensive.  Around the time this movie came out, Corman was working on, "The Raven", an adaptation of the book by Edgar Allen Poe.  He must have been fond of Poe's work, because he made many more film adaptations like it, including, "The Pit and the Pendulum", and, "The Black Cat".  Anyway Rodger Corman finished, "The Raven" two days before its expected release, so instead of just making an audience wait two days to see a movie, he decided to make another film entitled, "The Terror", the film I will be reviewing today.  "The Terror", was filmed in the two days left over from the early release of, "The Raven", and it used the same props, sets, cast, and crew left over from, "The Raven".  Why not?  

   If you know the cast from the raven, then it won't be a surprise when I tell you the cast of this film are Boris Carloft and Jack Nicholson.  I bet you never would have thought these people would have crossed paths ever in the history of cinema, but there it is!  Wow!  You've got the famous older Boris Carloft with younger-soon-to-be-star, Jack Nicholson, while directed by the B-Movie master, Rodger Corman!  How could this movie possibly go wrong?  Francis Coppola worked on the film a little bit after Rodger Corman gave up the production.  Okay, you might think that this is the time that I go into the movie review like I normally do, but today we're going to do something different.  I'll be moving on right into my conclusion, but instead of labeling it, "In Conclusion", I'm not going to be making any separation from the back story and the actual review of the movie.

   This was a sad film, but not for the acting or the story or the characters.  It wasn't any of those things.  It was simply the fact that it was a clash of actors in the same year.  Boris Carloft and Jack Nicholson both have had their share of horror films, only, for one it was the beginning of a career, and for another the end of one.  But as for the story, it went everywhere with its twists and turns and changing of roles.  It never stopped!  My guess is that Rodger Corman made it this way, because of the lack of time.  He may not have known that his idea for, "The Terror” needed more separation between each possible explanation to a mystery.  To space out the twists until it was appropriate to use them.  There were some confusing parts too, like the very first scene, where you watch Boris Carloft travel down into the castle to open a door to find a skeleton.  This had no purpose to the story whatsoever.  It’s even in the beginning of the movie, so it seems as though it was meant to be paid attention to.  

   Ronald Stein composed the music for the film, and I'm sure that it was meant to be a powerful piece, but it ends up being redundant and forgetful.  Not only was this rushed, but the dialog and timing are sub-par, making for mediocre conversations, and since there is a twist every three scenes, you end up becoming unattached to the plot.  The performances were standard; however, Nicholson   interacting with Carloft was very interesting.  If you'd like to see what Jack Nicholson's career was like before he became famous, you should check this out.  However, it comes with a price.  In the climax its shown clearly, That Boris Carloft cannot do hand to hand combat at all, and you reflect upon the time that has gone by with his career, you now know his former way of life has come to a close.  The turning point of film has arrived with Nicholson, and ended with Carloft.  Out with the old and in with the new, I suppose.  Out with the old and in with the new... 

Verdict:  I give this film 3 unexplained skeletons out of 5

  

         Next Review:  The Vampire Bat 1933