Haunting Not So Good.
Seldon/AMAZING HEROES
top-notch...Acting, well, bottom drawer. Dialogue..embarassing. The lady
who played Eleanor must have taken lessons from Anya in Children
Shouldn't Play With Dead Things.
please Hollywood.....Can you not scare us anymore?? Where are the true,
blue HORROR FILMS!?!?!?
Wait for the Tape.
my Opinion Only. Not to be taken with other opinions. May cause
drowsiness. Avoid operation of heavy machinery.
Robert Canipe
JPo6531128
>top-notch...
Seems that's all producers think counts these days. Too bad.
>Acting, well, bottom drawer.
Havent' seen it, but I'd expect more than bottom drawer from Lily Talylor and
Liam Neeson.
>The lady
>who played Eleanor must have taken lessons from Anya in Children
>Shouldn't Play With Dead Things.
Loved Children shouldn't play with dead things!!! Wonderful cheese!
As far as whoever played Eleanor - I don't know who that would be as I've never
seen The Haunting, but if it was Lily Taylor, keep in mind that Lily Taylor is
a total genius - if her role was bad, it certainly wasn't her fault.
>please Hollywood.....Can you not scare us anymore?? Where are the true,
>blue HORROR FILMS!?!?!?
Seem to have gone the way of the dinosaur. I've heard, though, that the Blair
Witch Project will scare you if you'll let it - keeping in mind that there WAS
a real Blair Witch, and people HAVE disappeared in that area from time to time,
etc.
Expect it to be someone's home video, during which something goes terribly
wrong for real, and you should enjoy it.
However if you go there expecting some flashy, exorcist or Dusk-til-Dawn type
film, you may label this film a peice of crap simply because you expected it to
be a professional horror film, instead of something more like COPS.
I've heard some people post how BWP sucked because the camera shook when they
were running through the woods - well, seeing that it's from a camcorder, what
the hell did they expect- smooth motion like Evil Dead 2?
Take the film for what it is, and immerse yourself in it, knowing the Blair
Witch really existed, and you will like it.
bloodline
Mandelbrot
>bottom drawer. Dialogue..embarassing.
<snip>
I disagree about the effects. I thought they were lousy. They were the
typical shiny obvious computer graphics that infect most big budget
films these days. When I saw the ceiling turn into a face, I never for
a second believed it was anything but a fancy computerized cartoon which
spoiled any feeeling of intensity or fear that was supposed to have been
achieved. When will Hollywood jearn that computer effects are not, nor
have they ever been, scary?
>please Hollywood.....Can you not scare us
>anymore??
are too busy worrying about what they CAN do rather than what would make
a better film.
>Where are the true, blue HORROR >FILMS!?!?!?
>Wait for the Tape.
Nah. Don't even bother renting this trash. See The Haunting of Hill
House instead.
>my Opinion Only. Not to be taken with other
>opinions. May cause drowsiness. Avoid
>operation of heavy machinery.
>Robert Canipe
Mandelbrot
"The star that is extinguished before it burns its brightest is the
greatest tragedy of all."
-J Apsley
Arnold Layne
Seldon/AMAZING HEROES <sel...@twave.net> wrote in message
news:379A7CEC...@twave.net...
> Went and saw this today. Special Effects and production design
> top-notch...Acting, well, bottom drawer. Dialogue..embarassing. The lady
> who played Eleanor must have taken lessons from Anya in Children
> Shouldn't Play With Dead Things.
>
> please Hollywood.....Can you not scare us anymore?? Where are the true,
> blue HORROR FILMS!?!?!?
>
> Wait for the Tape.
the oozing brain
brn2...@webtv.net (Mandelbrot) wrote:
>>Wait for the Tape.
> Nah. Don't even bother renting this trash. See The Haunting of Hill
> House instead.
Assuming you mean the Robert Wise adaption with Clarie Bloom, it too was
called The Haunting. I don't think there's ever been a film called "The
Haunting of Hill House".
Incidently, the only possibly redeeming thing about this nauseating film
(the 99 version) is the hope that whomever holds the rights to the Wise
version will release it as a SE on DVD when this new travesty is released.
That way, like the Mummy, we can compare how a movie SHOULD be made.
And I LIKED The Mummy (99)
S!
http://members.home.net/oozingbrain
Books, Horror, Films and The Big F (diehards unite!)
** remove .SPAM from address to reply **
Frank
special effects were good, but the acting, as somebody else already said was
not so good. What I really like about it was the sound. All the creaking and
cracking and the bass was really well done.
Adam
Remove "biteme" to reply
EPOMS
'Twister'" I new this movie was going to be shite.
Brian Scanlon
by a movie??? That just doesn't happen. However, the FX were worth the
price of admission. At least they used CG on real objects, producing very
realistic effects, compared to Star Wars.
Then again, movies aren't allowed to be seen unless they meet ALL the
criteria of movie elitists... :( No such thing as sitting back and being
entertained by movies anymore, everything must be analyzed under a fine comb
and have ground breaking contributions. But, knowing it pisses off the
elitists when these things do well at the box office makes me feel good.
Go Gadget, Go!
Mandelbrot
Special effects are only successful when they blend in effectively with
the other visuals of the film. The ones in The Haunting (at least the
CGI ones) obviously stood out from real objects. For example: the
curtains with the baby faces poking through them looked very different
from the actual curtains. It's becasue they were poor quality computer
graphics. They looked like cartoons. >You were expecting to actually be
frightened
>by a movie??? That just doesn't happen.
rarely happens because few take the effort to make a high quality horror
film. De Bont certainly didn't. Depending on computer graphics to
scare people is lazy filmmaking. Cartoons aren't scary.
>admission.
games? Do story and acting not matter anymore?
>producing very realistic effects, compared to
>Star Wars.
exception of Jar-Jar of course) And I mean much more realistic. In The
Haunting, as soon as a solid object became animated it no longer blended
in with its surroundings. It lost its three dimensional qualities and
looked like a cartoon. This happened over and over and over, killing
any sort of suspense they were trying to build.
The most effective use of computer FX to date was, I believe, done in
Titanic. Most people don't realize that most of the effects in the film
were virtually invisible. For example, almost every single shot of the
sea was digitally created. Knowing this, I looked for flaws and could
find very few. I was visually fooled into believing I was looking at
the ocean and I could focus on the important parts of the film, which do
not include special effects. They are a tool to tell a story.
When painting a realistic painting, you do all you can do to remove the
evidence of brush strokes because they stop the eye from peering into
the depth of the canvas. The same is true with FX and film. When they
are obvious, they are distracting and cause the viewer to look at them
instead of at the story. That is how we get people using the term
"special effects movie". This comes from misuse of technology and it's
sad.
CBusch6651
>called The Haunting. I don't think there's ever been a film called "The
>Haunting of Hill House".
The original Wise film is called The Haunting. Some people sometimes get it
confused with a film called House on Haunted Hill which is unrelated to the
Shirley Jackson story.
Joe Russo
Brian Scanlon wrote in message
<7nglog$8tk$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>It's a special effects movie! You were expecting to actually be frightened
>by a movie??? That just doesn't happen. However, the FX were worth the
>price of admission. At least they used CG on real objects, producing very
>realistic effects, compared to Star Wars.
>
>criteria of movie elitists... :( No such thing as sitting back and being
>entertained by movies anymore, everything must be analyzed under a fine
comb
>and have ground breaking contributions. But, knowing it pisses off the
>elitists when these things do well at the box office makes me feel good.
>
>Go Gadget, Go!
Joe R.
Dan Day
wrote:
>
>please Hollywood.....Can you not scare us anymore?? Where are the true,
>blue HORROR FILMS!?!?!?
...Somewhere other than Hollywood. Check out "The Blair Witch Project".
Not a single special-effect in the movie, anywhere, and it's far creepier
than a dozen effects-laden Hollywood "horror" movies. It's a great
example of what a film can be when they have no budget for special
effects (or practically anything else), and are forced to rely
on such old-fashioned notions as plot and acting.
It's currently in limited release (I saw it opening night at a sold-out
showing in the River Oaks theater here in Houston), but it's due to
go into wide release this coming Friday, I believe.
--
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the
plain Meaning of Words!"
--Samuel Adams (1722-1803), letter to John Pitts, January 21, 1776
Seldon/AMAZING HEROES
I do not feel as though I am an "elitist" because of my disdain for the horrid
acting and misguided storytelling of the remake of THE HAUNTING. This is simply
the fault of the filmmakers, it is certainly not mine. Being 37 years old and
having seen some of the greatest films of all time (some are my opinion, others
held up by mainstream critics), I feel I do not have to be an "elitist" to
recognize a bad film. And Jan De Bont's version IS a bad film. A very bad film.
Moreover, the complete lack of originality of the work coming out of Hollywood
these days speaks for itself. Granted, De Bont and his fellow filmmakers had
great shoes to fill with the original HAUNTING, however with such great source
material one would believe it to be a "no-brainer".
In conclusion, these films may make money, but the largest amount of the
dollars are brought in by first attendance audiences of the younger age,
especially a PG-13 film as this one. My fifteen year old daughter loved the
film. At her age she does not mind the lurid dialogue, the over-the -top
histrionics and the complete "dumbing-down" of the concept of a haunted house
film. Moreover, she was frightened by it.
However she was TERRIFIED of CANDYMAN. Night of the Living Dead gave her
nightmares. PSYCHO wigged her out. Funny, but these three films are examples of
the same kind of shivers-down-the -spine entertainment I was hoping for in
seeing THE HAUNTING (1999).
Unfortunately, elitist I am, I merely sat there and shook my head at what
could have been.
Robert Canipe
Mike
(something to the effect of): "the only screaming you'll hear about this
movie is Shirley Jackson screaming from her grave."
I wish I would have written it down -- it was hilarious. . .
Mike
----------
In article <12891-37...@newsd-121.bryant.webtv.net>,
brn2...@webtv.net (Mandelbrot) wrote:
>>It's a special effects movie!
> There is no such genre. Nearly every single film uses special effects.
> Special effects are only successful when they blend in effectively with
> the other visuals of the film. The ones in The Haunting (at least the
> CGI ones) obviously stood out from real objects. For example: the
> curtains with the baby faces poking through them looked very different
> from the actual curtains. It's becasue they were poor quality computer
> graphics. They looked like cartoons. >You were expecting to actually be
> frightened
Perry Noyd
> Seem to have gone the way of the dinosaur. I've heard, though, that the
> Blair Witch Project will scare you if you'll let it - keeping in mind that
> there WAS a real Blair Witch, and people HAVE disappeared in that area
> from time to time, etc. Expect it to be someone's home video, during which
> something goes terribly wrong for real, and you should enjoy it. However
> if you go there expecting some flashy, exorcist or Dusk-til-Dawn type
> film, you may label this film a peice of crap simply because you expected
> it to be a professional horror film, instead of something more like COPS.
> I've heard some people post how BWP sucked because the camera shook when
> they were running through the woods - well, seeing that it's from a
> camcorder, what the hell did they expect- smooth motion like Evil Dead 2?
> Take the film for what it is, and immerse yourself in it, knowing the
> Blair Witch really existed, and you will like it.
I did just as you said. The movie is okay and the concept is excellent
but it didn't give me a scare. I guess it's difficult pretending you're
lost in the woods with them and being all alone when you're surrounded
by hundreds of movie goers. I expected the film to have a camcorder and
16mm look but when projected on the big screen the quality suffered...
it became too soft focused. I found the commercials to be sharper and
more camcorder like displayed at true resolution. I suspect I'll enjoy
the film more when I eventually watch it at home alone with the lights
off. I was disappointed coming out of the theatre. Great ending
though... and chilling... though the movie has been overhyped by the
media.
Perry
Sam Lowrey
> The most effective use of computer FX to date was, I believe, done in
> Titanic. Most people don't realize that most of the effects in the
film
> were virtually invisible. For example, almost every single shot of
the
> sea was digitally created. Knowing this, I looked for flaws and could
> find very few. I was visually fooled into believing I was looking at
> the ocean and I could focus on the important parts of the film, which
Are you kidding? Granted, Titanic had some pretty neat effects, but
none of the caliber of the type contained in your previous dissertation.
The best effects done in Titanic were probably the engine room scenes.
These were absolutely wonderful - the machinery looked and "acted" very
realistically. I thought the ship fly-by scenes were total cheese.
The ocean shots were not totally impressive either. And that idiotic CG
"cold weather breath puffs" - somebody shoot me please. Hey - those
were the same ones as in "The Haunting" too. Hmmm...
If I had to vote for a best special effects movie based on what actually
looked "realistic", it would have to be "Forrest Gump". The digital
removal of Lt. Dan's legs were absolutely phenomenal.
--
Engineer's Law:
Good, Fast, Cheap - Pick any two.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.