MovieChat Forums > House on Haunted Hill (1959) Discussion > how is this a classic?

how is this a classic?

posted 14 years ago by tommyboy-16
75 replies | jump to latest

I bought this for five bucks. It was grouped with other old movies that were billed as horror clasics

To me this movie was so bad that it was nearly a comedy. So far I have only watched three movies off this DVD, this movie is a joke. The other two blow it away, Night of the Living Dead, Carnival of Souls. I see the two that I have watched being a classic, but this one - give me a break.

Its hard for me to imagine that adults thought this was a good movie back when they made it.

1 even how it starts out is corny, the floating heads
2 the over acting, the over screaming that did not fit the scene
3 the fact that this house only had one door out and none of them could get out.
4 they were only there for so many hours, why not all just stay in one room, collect the money and go home.
5. the well of acid in the cellar - why was that there, thats a little strange
6, so who was scaring who, the falling chandelier in the beginning, who did that
7, the woman outside the bars, just how did they pull off the rope coming in, incircling the woman and then going back out, that was some trick they pulled off just to scare her, how did they do it since it was not a ghost? Why would the woman not step out of the way from the rope?
8. Now how is the husband going to explain two people in the acid and he said he will allow justice to prevail
9. The one guy had stayed there before and people were murdered, who did those murders, was the police involved, and why would he come back. That guy was one serious over-actor. In the end he finds out it was just people, so what is his theory now
10, the hands reaching from behind the doors in the end, that was corny. They were trying to convince her that it was him and not a ghost or a monster, so why would they use a monster hand
11 the ridiculous skeleton and you couldn't see any strings, then he comes out with his puppet contraption and you see ropes controlling the skeleton. They could have at least made the skeleton the right size. Its like this movie was put on by a high school drama club and used their special effects and kids wrote the story. The story has so many holes

[–] ItchyGirl 14 years ago

It's a William Castle film. If you are not already a fan Castle--please don't over analyze. He's William Castle. Take him or leave him.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HoferPM-1 14 years ago

I saw this movie when it first came out in a theatre on 42nd Street. The end was weird but that is all I will say.

[–] MydnightRose 14 years ago

I just finished the movie and I am disappointed. I first heard about it on 100 Scary Movie Moments, but the movie itself isn't even scary or creepy. The Haunting(1963) was much better and still gives me the creeps. Even the remake of HoHH was scarier and made more sense and that movie was awful! And I don't buy, it was made a long time ago so give it a break, excuse. As I said the 1963 movie was far superior in story and the scares and it came out only a few years later. There are other movies before and after House on Haunted Hill that were better.

RingRing hooka RingRing

[–] barryfleckmann 13 years ago

Oh, tommyboy-16, ALL of your complaints have merit. Yes, they do. Look, William Castle was the poor man's equivalent of Alfred Hitchcock. Low movie budgets. Low production values. Lackluster acting. However, THIS movie DID feature Vincent Price, and he "hams" it up. Did the movie have scares? My younger brother, Freddy, jumped up out of his seat when Nora spotted the old hag caretaker down in the basement, and he ran up the movie theatre aisle crying!! Oh, well, Fred ALWAYS WAS a wuss!! I guess, in order to enjoy this movie, fully, you HAVE to see it in a crowded movie theatre. I saw it in the early sixties. It was part of a fright-fest. Halloween, you know? We enjoyed a seven foot tall Frankenstein monster (an actor, really). Yeah, he scared Fred, too!! Look, movies (horror) have changed. Today, they're bloody and gory. Back in MY day, they were gothic. Classic horror movies!! Sorry you didn't enjoy the film. Me? I'd like to go back in time to re-live some happier memories. Namely scaring the hell out of my brother Fred!

"You can't HANDLE the truth!" Jack Nicholson, "A Few Good Men."

[–] cartoonfan29 13 years ago

To the guy who started this forum house on haunted hill is a classic horror film look at all the old horror film they are all funny or have a campy retro feeling to them even friday the 13th movies and child's play they all have something other funny or a retro feeling to them. Atlest you got classic movies in your collection my classic collection had chain of souls at first I thought the whole collection was classic movies becouse it said vintage movies. And they had chain of souls witch came out in 2001 witch does not make it a real classic collection I got ripped off.

[–] tbennett20 13 years ago

I guess it's a classic. Remember it was 1959. I'll never forget it. I was about 10 when I saw it in the theatre. I remember I went to get a coke and popcorn and coming back down the isle right at the time the old lady with the ugly face popped out at one of the actresses. I dropped my coke and popcorn and fell to the floor it shocked me so much.I was only a kid though. I see that scene now and it's funny. Another thing about that movie is that it was a big deal at the theatres at that time and many of them strung a wire above the audience and when the skeleton appeared in the movie the theatre would pull a skeleton hanging on the wire over the audience. Classic or not I will always remember it and Vincent Price IS a classic. BTW the original "The Fly" was a very good horror movie close to that time I think.Vincent Price is in that too.

[–] preppy-3 12 years ago

I notice everybody who loved this saw it as a kid in a movie theatre. Well I wasn't even alive when this movie came out! I caught it on TV when I was in my 20s and found it boring, stupid, had HUGE ploholes, lousy acting (except for Price) and, worst of all, wasn't even remotely scary. The old lady in the basement came across as laughable, not scary. Also if it was the caretakers wife WHAT was she doing in a dark room, why does she have that expression and HOW does she glide out instead of walking? That's just a few of the many unexplained occurrences here. The remake was 100 times better than this. At least that was scary!

[–] tennvolsgirl 11 years ago

I was not alive when this came out either but I thought it was an awesome movie! I like horror movies of today but you cannot beat the classics!

[–] Jakealope 12 years ago

I have the same set of movies too, Carnival of Souls is much better, so is "I bury the Living"

[–] Listerlnx 12 years ago

I agree man. This movie sucked. I went to watch it because I liked the newer version and thought maybe the original would be worth the watch. WRONG! It was completely stupid and I honestly can't believe it was scary even for it's time.

[–] crispnz 12 years ago

Of course it's a CLASSIC! after all these years we still talk about it, you must be a kid and not appreciate the times when it came out. They've already stopped talking about the new version.,

[–] irishtom99 12 years ago

on 2 different posts novastar claimed that this film created the opportunity for psycho...hitchcock did not need another film to give him opportunity..he was already an icon..and his film was based on a real life killer..where is this connection he's talking about?

[–] Jake-219 11 years ago

I believe what he means (and I've no idea whether it's true or not) isn't that it gave Hitchcock the "opportunity" to make "Psycho" as much as the inspiration, the urge to make a low-budget horror film.

But I suppose, realistically, that if there IS any truth to it, "opportunity" would also have something to do with it. It isn't like Hitch was just reaching into his own pockets and financing "North By Northwest" all by himself, he had to get the studios to fork over, regardless of his reputation. (And his films, although very popular at the time, can hardly be compared with today's multi-million dollar James Cameron blockbusters--back then, none could--so it's rather naive and anachronistic to think that Hitch, even then, was in a position to just call his own shots and write his own checks. (Though, granted, he was probably closer to being in that position than just about any other director at the time.) In fact, had he been able to do that, why would he have been making pictures for different studios?

So in that sense it probably wouldn't have hurt that he could have asked money from Universal (or Paramount; the genesis of that picture gets very confusing, as has been its history since, having been released by Paramount but now owned by Universal) and been able to point to HoHH as an example of the potential money to be made.

Still, I'll admit that this (over on these boards) is the first I've heard of the connection, and I have my doubts. Even though I DO consider HoHH to be a classic of sorts, did it really make THAT much dough? Yeah, it no doubt was pretty popular, and probably netted Castle a tidy sum...but there would have been plenty of other examples over the years of low-budget horror films that tripled or more their initial investments. So why single out HoHH?

The only answer to that, assuming there's any truth to the story, is timing: Bloch had just written "Psycho," Hitch was interested in filming it (and the time was just right, given that the noir cycle was about over and "Psycho" would prove to be its death-knell, and also having the genius of Joseph Stefano available to do the screenplay, though perhaps he came on board later), and the most immediate example he could point to as an example of its potential profitability, the one freshest in the suits' minds, was "House on Haunted Hill."

Of course, the fact that it was available to be used as an example to get "Psycho" made hardly qualifies it, in itself, for classic status. You can't even point to it in this case as having been influential, since there are really no similarities, plot or otherwise, between the two. In that sense, however, I could easily point to other films that HoHH did influence more directly; in fact, without it, would "The Innocents" or "The Haunting" have been made?

So who knows?

Losing your virginity, burying your pet and killing your sister...can take a lot out of a girl!