Skip to main content

It's sort of Charles Foster Kane meets The Munsters or something.

The Haunting
(1999)

(SPOILERS) I somehow expected time wasn’t going to improve The Haunting miraculously, but returning to it rather underlines the idea that Jan De Bont somehow just got lucky with his first foray into directing – and, to an extent second – while everything subsequently proved him rather tragically incompetent. To such an extent, he effectively retired from the business after his fifth film. The Haunting suggests not only that he didn’t have the faintest clue how to make a scary movie, but that he wasn’t even trying. Or about as much as the makers of Scary Movie.

That said, it isn’t just that De Bont seems to have zero affinity for establishing atmosphere or eliciting tension and fear. Pretty much every aspect of The Haunting is misconceived, from David Self’s screenplay, to the ridiculously expensive sets – ridiculously expensive sets that only ever look like ridiculously expensive sets – to the appalling CGI that’s fatally relied on at every turn as a means to “terrify” the audience. Obviously, De Bont was a go-to cinematographer before he became a director (for the likes of Paul Verhoeven and John McTiernan), so you’d at least expect his movies to look good. They don’t tend to though. There’s a kind of spartan, empty quality that comes from not really knowing how to realise the core material. Caleb Deschanel was pencilled in to lens the picture, but left a week into the shoot – probably wisely – to be replaced by Roland Emmerich’s cinematographer Karl Walter Lindenlaub. You’d be hard pressed to note any kind of stylistic acumen here, aside from the occasional deep focus shot.

Despite the title, DreamWorks wasn’t remaking the MGM film but rather re-adapting Shirley Jackson’s novel (The Haunting of Hill House), at the behest of studio co-founder Steven Spielberg. Obviously, the Berg had a good track record with spooky goings on, having at very least ghost – ahem – directed Tobe Hooper’s Poltergeist. He roped Stephen King in to write the adaptation, but they had differences of opinion. Instead, David Self did as was asked of him, which involved some frankly baffling decisions that come across as change for the sake of change. Reportedly, King and Spielberg disagreed on the latter’s wish to make the characters heroic. So… how does one assess Liam Neeson’s hilariously named Dr David Marrow being utterly clueless about the supernatural, enacting an experiment in which his subjects believe they’re part of an insomnia study but whereby he’s actually testing their fear response (while simultaneously not believing in the house’s spook-tastic properties).

It makes the movie a mess from the first, since the focus is blandly confused. Add to that Neeson at his most plank-tastic, and one of the leads just seems like a dick. Catherine Zeta-Jones, as the movie’s version of lesbian Theo is also pretty nondescript, dressed to impress and announcing herself as bisexual (what was intrinsic to the psychological conflict first time round now just seems cynical). Lili Taylor’s brief flirtation with big-budget fare initially seems like it may pay off, with an effective if overcooked early scene where a cameoing Virginia Madsen establishes Nell’s isolation from the world, but Taylor’s soon submerged by the abysmal on-the-nose writing as she responds to CG cherubs and variously being scared silly (“I like this house”), an unnecessary connection to the house (she’s the daughter of its builder Hugh Crain’s second wife), and a hilariously half-assed response to Owen Wilson being decapitated (“Oh no” – oh yes, Lili). Wilson at least seems to permitted to improv a few decent lines (“There’s some good hallways that way”), but there’s no way he can singlehandedly wrestle the proceedings into watchable order.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of The Haunting is that it’s a Steven Spielberg production yet he elected not to retain his executive producer credit. IMDB’s trivia section would have you believe both that he was so disgusted by the finished film that he had his name taken off it and that he was rumoured to have directed some scenes and been heavily involved in post-production. It seems unlikely that both are true. There’s certainly little sign that anyone with an eye for scares has attempted to salvage the picture. And with regard to his name not being on it, well, he went uncredited on Small Soldiers too. You can certainly believe he’d not want to be associated with this dreck, though. Particularly since he appears to have been instrumental in approving its divergent – and hopeless – content compared to the book/ previous version. Get this: it appears that Hugh Crain tortured and killed a number of orphans, burning their bodies in the super-size fireplace (for Eleanor to find) so providing him with a spook family-in-residence.

It’s a particularly grisly backstory, and one wonders just what possessed Spielberg, so to speak, that he thought it was appropriate for a family horror flick? As it turns out, it has almost zero impact, because the picture fails to offer any level of unsettling elements. Still, though: “Steven felt we needed to deliver the goods for modern audiencescommented Self, explaining that he’s the kind of dad who’ll be inspired by the disturbing connotations of the impression his daughter’s face makes on a silk sheet (“We need a scene where there’s a spirit of the child in the sheets!”). Nice.

It appears the Berg hasn’t got the spook element out of his system, as he ditched a Turn of the Screw inspired project called Haunted three years ago that had Juan Carlos Fresnadillo attached (Mike Flanagan’s second season of The Haunting of Hill House, notably, is based on the Henry James novel), and has since enlisted Alexandre Aja to make an interactive haunted house movie. Which sounds exactly the kind of out-of-touch idea a once zeitgeist filmmaker would come up with to prove he’s relevant. The kind of guy who’d make Ready Player One. It’ll probably turn out to be every bit as good as De Bont’s The Haunting.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

Archimedes would split himself with envy.

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977) (SPOILERS) Generally, this seems to be the Ray Harryhausen Sinbad outing that gets the short straw in the appreciation stakes. Which is rather unfair. True, Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger lacks Tom Baker and his rich brown voice personifying evil incarnate – although Margaret Whiting more than holds her own in the wickedness stakes – and the structure follows the Harryhausen template perhaps over scrupulously (Beverly Cross previously collaborated with the stop-motion auteur on Jason and the Argonauts , and would again subsequently with Clash of the Titans ). But the storytelling is swift and sprightly, and the animation itself scores, achieving a degree of interaction frequently more proficient than its more lavishly praised peer group.