House on Haunted Hill (1999)

Okay - but not as good as the original, 6 March 2005

Usually, my first impression of a movie holds true upon repeat viewings. Unless the story is particularly deep or the plot difficult to follow, subsequent viewings generally do not change my initial reaction to a movie to any great degree. So, as I sat to watch The House on Haunted Hill, I wasn't expecting much. The film is not without some major faults, but overall, I enjoyed my second experience. Scenes such as the operating room flashback or touches like the hall of embalmed bodies are the stuff of nightmares as far as I'm concerned.

The house itself is major bonus to the movie. The interior is presented, lit, and shot in a manner that creates almost immediate atmosphere. The seemingly endless corridors, the surgical/medical rooms with their devices of "torture", and the blood present almost everywhere added to my feeling that the house is the real star of the film.

But, as I said, the movie does have its faults. I'll just mention two: First - paper thin characters. It's really difficult to care about many of the character in this movie because we know nothing about them. Other than Geoffrey Rush's character, the others are there merely for the slaughter. They aren't real.

Second - the ending. This appears to be everyone's major complaint, and with good reason. All of the atmosphere and creepiness the movie had built is destroyed the moment the CGI "darkness" makes an appearance. It is so out of place with everything that had gone on before. It's too bad that the writers couldn't come up with a good ending - I would have much preferred an ending involving the doctor or former patients. The movie had been heading in that direction all along.

When I initially saw this in the theater, I would have rated it a 4/10. My opinion has now, however, changed. I may never consider it a masterpiece, but there are some moments that are very effective and make it worth watching.

6/10