THE HAUNTING {1999}

 A HALLOWEEN ADVENTURE IN A REWATCH! 

At the end of July 1999, I entered the Marlton AMC theatre to watch the new remake of the classic 1963 THE HAUNTING.  Now, the original is one of my favourite films. . . . . .period.  Not only horror films, but of all films.  So I consciously went into the remake with the intention of not comparing it to the original movie at all; this was just a new haunted house movie and that's how I would look at it.  There was no way ANYTHING could compare to the original so I would not compare them either.  So I didn't.  I watched the remake with all the objectivity I could muster.  And I hated it.  It was absolutely terrible.  A steaming turd of a movie.  Jan de Bont  (the director of TWISTER and SPEED as it says up there on the poster) is not the kind of director suited to a haunted house movie.  He is utterly suited to those kind of rollercoaster rides but not to a haunted house movie which requires atmosphere and a buildup of suspense.  Lili Tayler, an actor whom I usually like quite a lot, was (in my humble) absolutely atrocious in the role of Nell; giving some absolutely terrible line readings.  Granted, most of the lines she was given to say were terrible and I don't know if ANY actor could've spoken them with conviction.  The late nineties CGI was, admittedly, laughably bad; even for the time.  It was laughably bad in 1999.  The entire movie was so dumbed down and obvious that it was also laughable.  More like a comedy.  No one could possibly take this movie seriously.  And I was quite sure that I would never EVER watch it again.

Then came a conversation I had a few weeks ago with my co-worker Zippy who likes the remake.  Naw, I said, it's a steaming turd.  Just awful!  And then, about a week ago, I saw a review of the remake by someone I follow on Letterboxd.  She told how when she saw THE HAUNTING back in 1999 she hated it; basically had the same reaction as I did.  But rewatching it recently, she enjoyed it.  It was still terrible but it was a fun ride.  Now, when 2 people randomly bring up the same film from 1999 within a week or two of each other, it seems like the universe is trying to tell me something.  So I scored myself a cheapo used DVD of the remake and sat myself down for a rewatch.

Pray for me.

AFTER THE REWATCH:  So here I sit.  Having rewatched THE HAUNTING (1999).  Have I changed my mind about all my conclusions about the remake I originally had back in 1999?  Well, no.  Of course not.  This is a stupid movie.  Badly written and badly acted (with Lili Taylor and Owen Wilson taking the ultimate thespic raspberries).  Liam Neeson looks kinda confused throughout the movie (kinda like he did in STAR WARS: THE PHANTOM SCREENPLAY the same year) while Catherine Zeta-Jones actually gives the best acting performance here; she actually gives a performance like she's in a real, serious movie.  The direction by Jan de Bont is lacks any kind of scary atmosphere at all and most of the "scares" elicit laughter.  And while low-budget movies with dodgy special effects I can forgive and ignore, I have much less tolerance for big budget Hollywood blockbusters with such laughably bad CGI effects as we have on display here!  There is probably 5% of the actual original Shirley Jackson novel in this remake; most of the story and events have been drastically changed.  And not for the better.  All in all, this is one dopey Hollywood product.  

But having said all that (and I stand by it), I did find myself enjoying the rewatch.  This IS dopey Hollywood product with absolutely no nutritional value; cinematic junk food.  Of course, it's laughable.  In 1999, I could not laugh but in 2022 I can let myself chuckle at the trashy junkiness of the thing.  And . . . I mean . . . . the set decoration looks really good.  It's true there is absolutely no comparison between this movie and the original Robert Wise film OR the Shirley Jackson story.  THE HAUNTING (1999) is not at all a haunted house movie like THE HAUNTING (1963) or THE INNOCENTS or THE UNINVITED or THE CHANGELING etc. etc. etc.  It's more like a haunted house movie like HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL (1959) although, of course, nowhere near as good.  It IS a rollercoaster ride by Jan de Bont with all the subtlety of an actual amusement park rollercoaster i.e. zero subtlety at all.  That's not the goal here.  The script is full of terrible dialogue and the story is full of dopey ideas.  So we might as well get a director who specializes in runaway buses and rampaging tornadoes to pump some life into this remake since it's not gonna succeed on the usual haunted house tropes and atmosphere.  I think the real giveaway with this movie is when the end credits begin; the soundtrack music by Jerry Goldsmith is stereotypical circus music.  This is an amusement park ride not a horror movie.  So yeah, I could enjoy the rewatch as a dopey, silly movie that's more akin to cotton candy than anything else.  I think the major misstep at the time of the remake's release can be seen in the "making of" mini-documentary found in the DVD's special features.  At the time, the movie was marketed as a serious i.e. scary horror movie and took itself completely seriously.  Which is not the movie we have here.  This mini-doc (which would've been seen on HBO or whatever other pay channel that was going to show it at the time) has Liam Neeson quoting Fitzgerald's "deep dark night of the soul" while Catherine Zeta-Jones strolls out and says how "it was such a privilege to work with these wonderful actors"; like she's just made a film version of HAMLET or summit.  No, the film the studio had was silly and not scary at all and should've been marketed that way.  Not as a comedy, no, but as an amusement park thrill ride.  Maybe then, the remake wouldn't have pissed off so many people at the time.  So yeah, as Melissa on Letterboxd quite accurately says:  her (and my) original opinion of the movie and our revised opinions after a rewatch are BOTH correct.  It IS garbage . . . . but it was kinda fun after a rewatch.