"The Haunting" DTS ES (WOW!) (Merged thread) (1 Viewer)

[Michael Reuben]

Do you really think they remade The Haunting "to capitalize on the name recognition"? Since 99% of the current movie-going public never heard of the original, I don't see how that's possible.

I'm not going to debate imaginary statistics with you. Besides, you're arguing with the wrong guy. Mike Eckman was the one who argued that negative reactions to this film were based on comparisons to the original. If you're right and the majority of the audience didn't know the original, then the film's generally poor reception (critically and at the box office) can be attributed to its simply being a bad film.

M.

 

[Bob_L]

The movie is an embarrassingly bad remake of a Robert Wise classic.

I just saw the Wise version again this weekend after not seeing it for 20 years or so. I think it is a film better REMEMBERED. Frankly, it just doesn't hold up. The Julie Harris voiceovers are tedious (as is her relentlessly whining performance.) It's way too talky. And it shoots its wad with a well directed introductory (backstory) segment up front (which is so different from the rest of the film that I wonder if Wise even shot it.)

The remake is not a good film. But -- in the cruel light of modern day -- I also don't think the original lives up to its reputation. It certainly didn't live up to my 20-year-old positive memory of it.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

I got it for the sheer demo-quality material, nothing else.

I actually liked this crap-fest better than TPM and AOTC because it knows it's bad and doesn't hide it with sappy histrionics. Also, it has some of the best bass ever.

The DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 re-mix is S-U-P-E-R-B. One of the most powerful mixes (maybe not the most subtle with grand phantom imaging and minute sonic detail like in the Casper LD in DTS, which was jaw-droppingly good) LucasFilm and Gary Rydstrom have come out with. DTS purposefully re-hired Skywalker Ranch sound technicians and used the best Skywalker sound facilities so they could use the master 24 bit PCM sound stems designed by Gary Rydstrom to create this new fully 6.1 discrete track that was in no way dumbed down for home theater playback (I read the WSR article on this mix). In fact, I remember that they even beefed up the resolution further than the original theater sound mix.

I'd would have loved to have heard it in FULL bitrate DTS-ES, personally.

Yes, it is a dumb movie however.

Dan

 

[Aaryn Chan]

I saw both.

The original is just too old. And it's way different. Oh btw, I am talking about House on Hauntel Hill. Nevermind.

The Haunting was boring. FX-Ghost aint scary. Watch it with your eyes closed and the sound to the MAX.

 

[Brian]

I finally got around to watching the new version (DTS) this past week. Compared to the old one, I'd say they were on equal ground. I watched the original about a month ago, and it was very dry and boring at times, plus the effects were laughable. I didn't find it nearly as creepy as I've heard people say it was. However, I thought it did do a good job of establishing a certain dark mood.

The new version went to the other extreme and moved to quickly, which tended to ruin the mood. On the other hand, the sound and visual effects were impressive and invoked a visceral feeling which the original lacked. Also, I had zero problems with the performances.

-Brian

 

[Andy_MT]

i read a review somewhere that gave a perfect alternative title to this film. "Things Move". That pretty much describes what happens throughout most of it. If you're into that kinda thing, things moving, in the night, in the dark, then this is for you

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I watched the original about a month ago, and it was very dry and boring at times, plus the effects were laughable.

What effects? As far as I remember, there are no special visual/optical effects in the Robert Wise version of THE HAUNTING.

The ten minutes I forced myself to watch of DeBont's version were painful; it's an awful, horrible, moronic mess that should be disposed of properly - flushed down the nearest sewer...

 

[BarryR]

I'm a bit biased because THE HAUNTING (1963) is my all time favorite film. It creates a compellingly eerie, acridly disturbing atmosphere (with an extremely effective music score) that is absolutely brilliant. The crisp photography is a great example why b & w can sometimes be far superior to color in evoking atmosphere. The acting ensemble is first rate, and it deserves all the accolades it now gets. As for the remake, I think the set design and art direction was tremendous, otherwise it really cheapened the whole thing with out of control CGI effects.

 

[RobertR]

For a film such as this, I'm thinking the best way to experience its much-touted audio aspects is to simply buy the DTS demo disc that contains "showy" bass from the film. The demo disc also has nice bassy scenes from other not-so-well-regarded films such as U573 and Titan AE. Since the feeling seems to be that all these films really have going for them are their impressive audio qualities, getting this disc sounds like the way to go.

 

[cafink]

Robert, where can I buy this demo disc from? I don't think I've seen it for sale anywhere.

 

[RobertR]

Good question, Carl. I know guys who have it, but I don't know where they got it.

 

[Nick_Scott]

Unfortunetly, DTS-Online sold the DEMOS last December on clearance, and nearly all were purchased by EBAY sellers.

For some reason, the DEMOS are selling for more then the movies themselves, but that EBAY for you.

I think Haunting-DTS was on DTS-Sampler #4.

Anyway, the DVD really is a great DEMO. I got the whole movie off EBAY for $5

nick

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I'm not going to debate imaginary statistics with you. Besides, you're arguing with the wrong guy. Mike Eckman was the one who argued that negative reactions to this film were based on comparisons to the original. If you're right and the majority of the audience didn't know the original, then the film's generally poor reception (critically and at the box office) can be attributed to its simply being a bad film.

I'm also not looking to debate statistics. I'm not looking for an argument of any kind, really. That 99% wasn't meant to be taken LITERALLY; I should have said "the vast majority of viewers never heard of the original" or something like that.

But my comment didn't actually relate to Mike Eckman's statement. He pointed out that a lot of the criticisms the 1999 version received came from fans of the old flick, while you discussed the possible name recognition of the 1999 edition. These are two different issues, for as I said, it seems very likely that not many modern moviegoers were aware of the older movie. Maybe "99%" is steep, but it's probably not far off-base. Your second statement is likely the correct one: people didn't go to see it because it wasn't a very good movie...

 

[Jack Briggs]

Colin, then next time reword your argument as stated in your most recent post!

Ghost aint scary.

Guess what! The original film does not even want to confirm for you that there really is a ghost. All one has are the words of Dr. Markway at the end: "Hill House is haunted."
Thing is, the viewer may not know what to think. And herein lies the key ingredient of The Haunting's extraordinary success: You don't know. What is going on? Ultimately, as Martin Scorsese points out, it's what you don't see that is truly scary.
And The Haunting works on one's nerves. Add to that the photography (note the angles and note the lighting and the long shots that aren't really long shots at times), the story itself, and, ultimately, Robert Wise's expert direction, and one ends up with the perfect horror film.
The Haunting proves once and for all that what scares us is inside us.
There is no more effective a horror film I can think of off the bat.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Another horror film that I think is scary because it doesn't show everything is The Blair Witch Project. It uses atmosphere and mood as it's primary scare tools, and works quite effectivly I think.
As for Debont's version of The Haunting, I like it. Again, the film uses it's set's and dark cavernous hallways to evoke it's scares.
As for the DTS dvd, I don't subscribe to the beliefe that EVERY DTS dvd is auomatically superior to their DD counterpart simply because it's DTS, I like to (GASP) HEAR the DD mix first before I form an opinion on it, i'm a nut that way. But this DTS mix SLAMS the DD mix into the ground!
The walls shake, the floors buckle and open up, the paint and plaster falls. No, i'm not talking about some scene from the film, this is what happens in YOUR house if you play this mix at a high enough volume!

 

[Jack Briggs]

I prefer a good story told over a campfire.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Jack,
you set campfires in your living room!? Isn't that dangerous?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Colin, then next time reword your argument as stated in your most recent post!

Geez, dude makes up one statistic and gets pounced on by multiple administrators!!!
(And honestly, I think that 99% I made up in the first place might be correct - I seriously doubt many people ever saw (or heard of) the original Haunting...)

 

[Bob_L]

1. I agree with a previous poster. Humphrey Searle's score is remarkable. Searle was primarily a "serious" concert commposer and his music in this film has a contemporary complexity (and authority) you don't often hear in film scores -- particularly of that period.
2. I respect Jack's admiration for this film, just as I respect those who perceive Robert Wise as a great director. I happen to see both things VERY differently. IMHO, Wise is capable, not great. His "The Haunting" is extremely dated. On the recent viewing, I was personally disappointed that the movie did nothing for my nerves, but merely tried my patience. Nonetheless, it always is fascinating how two serious movie viewers can see a film so differently.
3. The Wise version of "The Haunting" wasn't an easy film to see. Unlike some films that seemed almost to play in rotation on late night TV, I don't recall "The Haunting" showing up much AT ALL. I know in the late sixties I very much wanted to see the film but it was RARELY shown on TV.
4. But the DTS DVD of deBont's messy remake is an absolute sonic orgy. Sound genius Gary Rydstrom really goes the limit (as does Zanetto's art direction.) If you can just distance your brain from the storyline (something director deBont appears to have done, as well ) you can marvel at the supreme audio and graphic design craftsmanship that went into this big budget loser.

 

[Andy Olivera]

As someone who has never seen the original(where's the DVD?), I can say from a fairly unbiased standpoint that the remake sucks. From what I've heard, it doesn't even deserve to be called a remake. Shortly after viewing the new version I read the novel. The film retained a few scenes(the big ones being when Nell and Theo are awakened[the bass sequence] and Nell on the staircase), but the vast majority of the film is completely new. Writer David Self took the character names(one of which is changed), the setting, and a few very brief sequences and wrote a routine ghost story. The original follows the novel more closely(or so I've heard).

As for the DVD, buy the DTS version and play chapter ten(I think). When you hear Nell say "Coming, mother." brace yourself. That'll be your new demo scene for a very long time...