3 Houses: A Comparison
With the end of August comes the end of the House on Haunted Hill Trilogy Month here on A Slice of Horror. This small collection of movies isn't, in reality, much of a trilogy. They weren't meant to be in sequence one with another. The original was a dark foreboding Gothic tale, the remake a bloodied version of the original, and the sequel a fountain of over the top thrills and kills. In many ways I see this series' development as a meter for the horror genre in cinema as it has changed over the years.
The horror genre, in film as well as in literature, has its roots in the Gothic genre of the romantic period. The original 1959 House on Haunted Hill is one of my favorite, if not my absolute favorite, horror film of all time. It set a standard for me as a child that has continued into adulthood. What I loved most about House on Haunted Hill was that it was a true and authentic Gothic Chiller. It borrowed dark elements of atmosphere, setting, and plot from the Gothic. The house itself being a character and a reflection of ideas and themes is very reminiscent to some of Edgar Allan Poe's work. Even the characters themselves have dark and sinister intentions that leave us wondering if the true evil is the house or the people within it.
I won't deny the complete cheese effect that this movie has going on. The fact that the organ plays on its own, the hairy claw-like hand reaches around the corner, the doors close by themselves with a slow and ominous creek. These are all laughable moments but at the same time they are chilling. That is what makes this movie, and movies similar to it, so great.
In 1999 Dark Castle Films remade the House on Haunted Hill and updated it to fit a modern audience. This remake took the core idea of the original and added a little splatter and grotesquery to it. In many ways it lost the chill the original had, yet somehow it gave a new tingle that the original didn't. I was completely satisfied with Geoffrey Rush and his rendition of the Vincent Price Character from the original. He had the same laid back asshole attitude that Price did in the original. He also seemed more eccentric and wild which was fitting for the feel of the new film.
The remake managed to keep some of the silliness of the original while also trying to update the scares. A modern horror audience demands more blood and gore but I also think that some of the modern horror audience is often out of the loop on what actual horror is. Horror is corruption of something innocent or good. It's about the dread and dismay we feel in the face of fear as human beings. Old Chiller films capture this rather well with their structure of fear and anticipation. Modern horror usually tries to go for the jugular, spilling blood on contact.
The remake of House on Haunted Hill balances between the two worlds, trying to please the masses but also stick to the heart of the original material. I feel they did a good job in making this film what it was. It wasn't as good as the original but it was good as a new vision.
The 2007 sequel, Return to House on Haunted Hill, steps completely out of the realm of the Chiller and completely into the modern thrill fest. It was nothing but pure mindless entertainment. It received mostly negative reviews and fans generally hated it. Modern horror fans may call for action and blood but we also know, instinctively somehow, that there is something missing from a movie like this. If we don't feel chilled or frightened a Horror movie has missed it's mark. Return to House on Haunted Hill misses its mark by a long shot. It may be somewhat entertaining but it is by far not a good movie. It removes all the elements of foreboding, claustrophobia, and atmosphere that the other two established.
I go to a horror movie not only to be entertained but to feel fear. Dario Argento, Italian horror director of Suspiria, said that audiences desire "horror for the same reason they enjoy laughing . . . or crying, because these are feelings, they need to be expressed."
The House on Haunted Hill collection shows the importance of this expression of fear and of the downfall of most modern horror films. Modern horror movies are in the stage of special effects and gross out moments. This isn't horror, this isn't art, it's exploitation pure and simple. There is still enjoyment for many audience members but we miss the mark of being truly scared or chilled. We can tell something is missing in our beloved genre.
However, we are not completely far gone. There are many movies that still manage to capture the essence of the true horror story as the original House on Haunted Hill and it's remake have done. (Not surprisingly, many of them are low budget independent films.) We just have to learn to wade through the muck of film companies streamlining movies just to make another buck to find the good horror movies.
This brings us to a close on the House on Haunted Hill Trilogy Month. It was fun to re-watch each of these films and to compare them side by side. Hopefully you've enjoyed the reviews and commentary as well. Stay tuned for more events and marathons here on A Slice of Horror.
The horror genre, in film as well as in literature, has its roots in the Gothic genre of the romantic period. The original 1959 House on Haunted Hill is one of my favorite, if not my absolute favorite, horror film of all time. It set a standard for me as a child that has continued into adulthood. What I loved most about House on Haunted Hill was that it was a true and authentic Gothic Chiller. It borrowed dark elements of atmosphere, setting, and plot from the Gothic. The house itself being a character and a reflection of ideas and themes is very reminiscent to some of Edgar Allan Poe's work. Even the characters themselves have dark and sinister intentions that leave us wondering if the true evil is the house or the people within it.
I won't deny the complete cheese effect that this movie has going on. The fact that the organ plays on its own, the hairy claw-like hand reaches around the corner, the doors close by themselves with a slow and ominous creek. These are all laughable moments but at the same time they are chilling. That is what makes this movie, and movies similar to it, so great.
In 1999 Dark Castle Films remade the House on Haunted Hill and updated it to fit a modern audience. This remake took the core idea of the original and added a little splatter and grotesquery to it. In many ways it lost the chill the original had, yet somehow it gave a new tingle that the original didn't. I was completely satisfied with Geoffrey Rush and his rendition of the Vincent Price Character from the original. He had the same laid back asshole attitude that Price did in the original. He also seemed more eccentric and wild which was fitting for the feel of the new film.
The remake managed to keep some of the silliness of the original while also trying to update the scares. A modern horror audience demands more blood and gore but I also think that some of the modern horror audience is often out of the loop on what actual horror is. Horror is corruption of something innocent or good. It's about the dread and dismay we feel in the face of fear as human beings. Old Chiller films capture this rather well with their structure of fear and anticipation. Modern horror usually tries to go for the jugular, spilling blood on contact.
The remake of House on Haunted Hill balances between the two worlds, trying to please the masses but also stick to the heart of the original material. I feel they did a good job in making this film what it was. It wasn't as good as the original but it was good as a new vision.
The 2007 sequel, Return to House on Haunted Hill, steps completely out of the realm of the Chiller and completely into the modern thrill fest. It was nothing but pure mindless entertainment. It received mostly negative reviews and fans generally hated it. Modern horror fans may call for action and blood but we also know, instinctively somehow, that there is something missing from a movie like this. If we don't feel chilled or frightened a Horror movie has missed it's mark. Return to House on Haunted Hill misses its mark by a long shot. It may be somewhat entertaining but it is by far not a good movie. It removes all the elements of foreboding, claustrophobia, and atmosphere that the other two established.
I go to a horror movie not only to be entertained but to feel fear. Dario Argento, Italian horror director of Suspiria, said that audiences desire "horror for the same reason they enjoy laughing . . . or crying, because these are feelings, they need to be expressed."
The House on Haunted Hill collection shows the importance of this expression of fear and of the downfall of most modern horror films. Modern horror movies are in the stage of special effects and gross out moments. This isn't horror, this isn't art, it's exploitation pure and simple. There is still enjoyment for many audience members but we miss the mark of being truly scared or chilled. We can tell something is missing in our beloved genre.
However, we are not completely far gone. There are many movies that still manage to capture the essence of the true horror story as the original House on Haunted Hill and it's remake have done. (Not surprisingly, many of them are low budget independent films.) We just have to learn to wade through the muck of film companies streamlining movies just to make another buck to find the good horror movies.
This brings us to a close on the House on Haunted Hill Trilogy Month. It was fun to re-watch each of these films and to compare them side by side. Hopefully you've enjoyed the reviews and commentary as well. Stay tuned for more events and marathons here on A Slice of Horror.