It occurred to me that I hadn't see this in yonks so I though I'd give it another look. It's a bit crap, innit? Hough tries hard with the wacky angles and the brooding misty shots of the exterior, but he can't seem to generate much of an atmosphere, and these things live or die by their atmospherics, it seems to me. It's quite fascinating to compare this with 'The Haunting', which manages somehow to be far more effective by showing a great deal more restraint and by sprinkling a fair few witticisms through the script. Mathieson's script is well below his usual standard, and much of the dialogue is preposterous. The performances are sort of good, but far too po-faced and I get the sense that Revill and McDowall and struggling to keep a straight face. I also get a strong whiff of 'House on Haunted Hill', with McDowall's character reminding me heavily of Elisha Cook Jr's. But even that film, for all its William Castleness, is more atmospheric and more fun than Hell House. I think that an effective haunted house film is a very tricky thing to pull off and although several of the right elements are in place here, it just feels like the whole thing is overcooked. I remain unimpressed with this film!
top of page
bottom of page
Hey, don't apologise - your review made me laugh!
Your entitled to your opinion. Perhaps the film might have been better if the author wasn't the screenwriter. A bit of critical distance might have been achieved, and it might have been more to your taste.
I think we all have a film we are baffled why people like it. I sure if I mentioned some I mind this thread would be filled with 'but Sinister, that's a classic!' and trying to persuade me out of my wrong thing.