original was better
who elsee agrees? this is just my opinion, but i don't really think it follows up with the original story well and had too much gore.
shareI like both versions, but the remake was pretty good though.
R.I.P. Uncle Steve
MovieChat Forums > House on Haunted Hill (1999) Discussion > original was better
[deleted]
I love this movie. I hate the original and old horror movies they stupid and so fake. I agree with sickscary new horror movies are either gorry (sp?) or need to have a good writer that can scare the audince.
shareI love both versions. However, I have to say that the original is more mystery/thriller than horror. I do love Malone's take on the story though as he is, in my opinion, the master of horror and atmosphere. But nonetheless, both remain excellent movies. I seriously need both movies on my DVD collection.
http://www.myspace.com/soul_wounder
Ah, I fully agree mate! LOVE Mallone! If you haven't seen his 'PARASOMNIA' yet, you absolutely MUST see it!!! Some of the best art direction I've ever seen in a low budget Horror film (of course the art director was one of my very favourite Surrealists )
I have over 4000 films, many of them very rare and OOP. I LOVE to trade. PLEASE ASK!
I love how people like you undermine your own stupid opinions with your lousy grasp of English.
In an alternate universe, I'm Heather Langenkamp's husband.
While I like the storyline to the original, I think they way they portrayed the women, (especially Nora, I believe it was Nora) was annoying. And it may have been scary at the time, it's sadly outdated, not even raising the pulse for a second.
The sequel, while not having the most mind boggling plot, was at least fun to watch. I have to say I enjoyed it more that the original.
LM
Excuse me, on a list of 100 scariest movie moments you will find 1959 House on Haunted Hill's blind lady floating past Nora. NOWHERE on the list for 100 scariest movie moments will you find ANYTHING from this piece of crap.
shareNot on that list, but there are on others. All comes down to opinion I guess. I found parts of the original interesting, and some things a little off putting - more so the ending. [Too open for my tastes, but that's just me].
Personally I will always be a House on Haunted Hill remake fan.`I know the original is somewhat of a classic, and I respect it as that, but certain plot and character points make the remake more to my tastes.
[deleted]
Novastar_6... Actually the remake of HHH (1999) IS on the list of Top 100 Scariest Moments. I believe its number 77 or 78. The moment cited is where Melissa Marr sees the ghosts on the video camera but she can't see them with her eyes. Then she holds the camera back up and the ghosts turn and look at her.
After years of deliberation, I've finally decided that I prefer the remake, though not by much. Honestly, they have little in common save for the title and the most bare-bones (no pun intended) plot elements, so comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.
I've heard many people say that the remake "ruined the original." That's odd; I have the original in my collection and it hasn't changed...
The remake is awful. an annoying cast, (why the hell is Chris Kattan in this movie? he sucks) a shi!tty script, horrible CGI, no real scares just nudity and gore. I love the original. it actually has class to it. unlike this dreck. "The Haunting" remake sucks ass too.
"Life is good I can't compain... I mean I could but no one's listening."
how the *beep* can any1 be serious!? old horror's are not watchable, the 1959 film had a skeleton on a string that took about 10 min just to move a few inches infront of itself lol! and a few plastic heads, i could buy more real looking heads from a toy shop, and the rest just has women screaming at the top of there lungs, old horror's like that suck so much, the worst horror movie's in this era, are better than anything from really old movie days like the 1959 film.
sharehow the *beep* can any1 be serious!? old horror's are not watchable, the 1959 film had a skeleton on a string that took about 10 min just to move a few inches infront of itself lol! and a few plastic heads, i could buy more real looking heads from a toy shop, and the rest just has women screaming at the top of there lungs, old horror's like that suck so much, the worst horror movie's in this era, are better than anything from really old movie days like the 1959 film.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I loved the original, but I agree with leebaker69, the original is dated now, very much so. The remake was better because it was scarier, come on the girl that Price tried to save underwater, that face wasn't creepy, or when Price finds Schecter without his whole face, that wasn't disturbing or when Sara was looking for "Eddie". I think most people now would find that MUCH scarier or disturbing than the skeleton moving toward the woman in the original. I loved the original and I still do but it's not scary to me anymore, still watch it though, 1959 & 1999 are two very different pictures. I didn't see anything wrong with Chris Kattan in here, his acting and his character was way better than Paris Hilton in The House of Wax remake. The Haunting remake was good though IMO, same as this remake, different from the original, I think we can all agree that both the Haunting and 1999 Haunted Hill remakes were better, way better than Return to House on Haunted Hill, that was GOD-AWFUL!
"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna `*beep*` wit' me!" Hudson in Aliens.
Yes, I think you explained it really well
I too really love this film and although I DO very much like many of the Classics, even way older ones like the original Silent 'NOSFERATU' (1922 I think) and 'THE MUMMY' (1932) and a lot of the HAMMER Classics (1959-1975) and some of the Price / Corman films of the 1960's. BUT... the original film here and say for example 'THE TINGLER' were just SO damn corny, creaky and fully unbelievable, not to mention that the acting and writing were particularly bad (I was about ready to frigg'n THROTTLE Price for that DAMN phony calm voice in 'THE TINLGER', GEEZ...) that I'm afraid I just couldn't get into them...
I also REALLY liked the remake of 'THE HAUNTING' which had a nice, Classic feel to it. BUT... it THAT case the original was indeed a VERY powerful film that was quite scary and effective, particularly with the way it depicted the unseen presences.
I have over 4000 films, many of them very rare and OOP. I LOVE to trade. PLEASE ASK!
I've never seen the original "House on Haunted Hill," but I could say a few things critically about this movie nonetheless.
I think the people who made this movie tried too hard to modernize it, and because of that it came across as kind of bland.
I get that the point of a remake IS to modernize the material, but modern doesn't have to be so dumb and boring, and just because a film is in the horror genre doesn't mean that the writing has to be weak for all but one character (PRICE).
I guess I'm always more into a film if there are a few characters who are super distinct, well developed, possessing a bit of depth..
But get real-- this movie wasn't supposed to be a great film.. It was a quick cash in, made to appeal to the masses, and those who would be brought in expecting something like the first.
Don't get me wrong, there are things that I do like about this movie.. As far as my morbid curiosities go, I like anything having to do with insane asylums, experiements, ghosts, and buildings with history, so this movie certainly does the job when it comes to being scary IMO.
Would I call it art though? Hell no.
- LK
[deleted]
[deleted]
I judge the quality of a horror movie by how much it scared me. Because of that, i sometimes give movies with mediocre acting or average writing high marks if they deliver the scares.
So as a horror movie, I think the remake is better.
There are not many movies i find scary that were made before the 70s