UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

HotToastyRag Catherine Zeta-Jones, Owen Wilson, and Lili Taylor all decide to take part in an insomnia study, run by Liam Neeson, in a dark, gloomy castle. As in all horror stories, the characters never see it coming. Catherine thinks the atmosphere is wild and exciting, Owen thinks it's creepy but he's too busy making jokes and hitting on Catherine to really take his worries seriously, and Lili is preoccupied with keeping her own secrets hidden. But when the house starts to come to life, the four of them have to band together.Everyone knows I'm a total lightweight when it comes to scary movies, and this one was just scary enough to make me wary of going to sleep that night, but it didn't give me nightmares. The first part of the movie is really fun, because Owen's character is written to be hilarious and his delivery makes him more so. Catherine is beautiful, but she's not really given much to do, and Lili is sufficiently intriguing to keep audiences wondering what her real problems are. Once things started getting spooky, I knew it was time to grab my pillow, lest hiding became necessary. I'll watch almost anything with Owen Wilson or Catherine Zeta-Jones, so I was glad that I didn't need to hide behind my pillow. Lightweights like me will be very happy, but hardcore horror fans will probably be left wanting.Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to some scary scenes, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.

Sub Rock This adaptation bears little resemblance to the original. This one is one "special effects" presentation after another. Some of it is actually pretty embarrassingly bad; the carved children's faces, for example.It's overacted and plays almost like a parody. Give it a shot if you're bored on a cold Autumn night. But it will probably disappoint you.

mad hatter What made the original so haunting and unsettling is its atmosphere, and its psychological effect on the main protagonist. This film, however, takes the whole psychological and atmospheric concept and replaces it with crappy CGI and a horribly written story. Since this was during the time when CGI was being exploited, I see what they were trying to do with this. However, its tacky that they should rely on new technological features on a remake of a film that was purely affective for its subtly. In terms of writing quality, if your expecting a film that dives into questioning the parallels between the paranormal and the human psyche like the original, be prepared to be disappointed. There is no mystery behind anything- this purely a light vs. dark movie. It's not smartly written what-so-ever. This being said, I surprisingly do have a couple of pros. (1) the mansion is unbelievably and gothically beautiful, and even more than the one from the first movie. The house they used is called Harlaxton Manor, which is owned by the University of Evansille for students studying abroad. It is the PERFECT setting for a Gothic horror movie. (2) casting is actually decent (minus Owen Wilson. Sorry bud, not your movie). Lily Taylor is actually a pretty good replacement, bringing a gentleness and gravity to the role. These two pros are what really makes me sad. With such an incredible setting and actors who can actually act (once again excluding Owen Wilson), and if they had just lost the CGi and stuck to the psychological story- this could have been a decent movie. Really disappointed!

jessegehrig This movie upon first impression leaves this reviewer asking, " Did I do something to mess this up? Was it me?" Only after a second viewing does it becomes apparent that it's the movie's fault. This is a remake of a 1963 movie that was itself a poor poor adaptation of the Shirley Jackson masterpiece The Haunting Of Hill House- if you haven't read it, the book is like a modern day epic poem as a tale of horror. Certainly the 1963 film adaptation fell short, and this version manages to fall short of the '63, that's a big empty space of a difference between The Haunting (1999) and the book. The book is classic, the movie is lowest common denominator over-the-top Hollywood psychopathy on display. You would have made more money if you just did a film version of the book- good stories are eternal, special effects are forgotten.