The Haunting of Hell House (1999)

The greatest movie ever made..!

Good start, but then it gets ruined

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

A mysterious, morbid professor (Michael York) who has suffered a number of horrid events in his life tries to help a young troubled man (Andrew Bowen), whose girl friend was killed during an illegal abortion.I had some issues with this, particularly that the age looks all wrong, despite the costumes and mustaches. The time period is unclear, but it strikes me as 1990s people dressed up as people fro ma century ago. An that just takes the magic out of it, makes it more like a theater production. That would not be bad in itself, but I am sure this was not the intent.The film was directed by Mitch Marcus and based on "The Ghostly Rental" by Henry James. I have not read the James story (unfortunately -- I should) and this was Marcus' first time out as director, so he can be excused. Just such a shame that producer Roger Corman had Michael York to work with (who does excellently) and pairs him with a cast and crew that is not on his level.

Great idea, fascinating plot line but the end was such a let down.SPOILER/ USER RANTright near the end Ghost was saying drink the wine, actual lady don't drink the wine. Then he drinks the drinks the wine and suffers a horrible death. HEY STUPID SLAP THE WINE OUT OF HIS HANDWhat is wrong with the writers. They make a character who is smart enough and determined enough to fake her own death, then haunt her own father, and then to slowly poison him. Not have enough "balls (metaphorically speaking)" when James is about to drink the poison wine, which was meant for her father. Does she not stop him.BAD WRITING.I would have loved for the dirty doctor to get charged with miss Sarah's murder, because it was his incompetence which killed her not James's fault. James might have been guilty of getting her pregnant and not taking responsibility and owning up to it being his. But not Sarah's death.

Upon reading other viewers' comments, I have to wonder if we saw the same film! Despite the awful, B-movie title, this was far and beyond the most visually beautiful film I've ever watched. The cinematography was stunning, and the atmosphere was appropriately dark and brooding. The entire town seemed "haunted," with fear and evil oozing from every stone, every tree, nearly every character. I could almost feel the dank air in my own living room!Having read "Turn of the Screw," and found it particularly unsatisfying (imagine the most overacted, melodramatic soap opera you've ever seen . ..then put it in novella form), and seen previous comments placing this film on a LOWER level than Screw's supposed glorious pinnacle, I admit my expectations weren't too high. Instead, I found the story much more intriguing than Screw, with a couple of little plot twists in rapid succession toward the end. (Saw the first coming, but not the second.) Some may find it depressing because it lacks the Happy Hollywood Ending so typical of American films; however, the screenwriter's refusal to pander to Disneyfication only serves to further raise the level of my esteem for this production.If you like your movies event-based (like slasher flicks, all about the scary moment, with lots of filler in between and actresses doing bizarre things to get from one event to the next) rather than story-based, you probably won't enjoy this film. If, instead, you like a good story in which nasty ghosties play a role, this is the film for you.

I expected more from a story by the author of "Turn of the Screw," but didn't get it here. Unrelieved by any humor whatever the narrative unrolls at a lugubrious pace with interspersed quick cuts of blood dripping from tables, walls, portraits, wherever -- and even more blood rolling in rippling overly crimson waves down a hallway (thank you, Stanley Kubrick). Peter York is okay, given his character, a tormented professor who does everything but shriek, "True, I am very very nervous, but why WILL you call me mad!" The other actors do what they can. The most depressing aspect of the film is in many ways its overall eidos -- the material artifacts and the natural backdrop against which the action takes place. Few movies have so many bare blackish twisted tree limbs dripping with cold rain, so many pale bodies wrapped uncomfortably in wet woolen capes and unbecoming gowns that seem to have been built around internal struts made of wire coat hangers. The interiors are just about as dreary, dim candles and fireplaces that seem to throw little heat or light. Given all of this, I still didn't find the movie so bad as to be unwatchable. It's just that it left me so gloomy, like watching the evening news on a particularly bad day.