The Haunting of Hell House (1999)

I've watched this movie five times since I got it on DVD, and I still don't know what it's about. Now, you'd think a horror movie called "The Haunting of Hell House" would center on a haunted house, but this movie doesn't focus on any one person or location like a good haunted house movie would. Based on a story by playwright Henry James, the movie stars actor Andrew Bowen as New England college student James Farrow whose wife, maybe girlfriend, dies due to a botched abortion, and he begins to see her in dreams and hallucinations. He is soon drawn to the empty house they once explored in their youth, but now, it turns out that it belongs to a Professor Ambrose, played by the talented Michael York from the British stage. Farrow pursues York's help to rid himself of the ghost he believes is haunting him and scratching him up, but whether it's in his mind or just his guilt is never explained. Meanwhile, Ambrose is similarly being haunted by the ghost of his dead wife who refuses to let him sell the house. Neither man believes the ghost of the other one exists. Meanwhile, Farrow is being hunted by the police for his dead girlfriend found in his apartment. He escapes to Ambrose for protection, but the old man is dying and can't help him. Farrow flees to the house to ask for forgiveness from his girlfriend's ghost, but discovers Ambrose's ghost isn't real after all. It turns out he's being systemically poisoned by his angry daughter and Farrow drinks the poisoned wine from her for her father to be with his bride. In the end, Farrow dies in jail next to the phony doctor who botched his girlfriend's abortion. Is this a good movie? Uh, no. It's long, it drags on, it's confusing and the name of the movie is misleading. This is not a haunted house movie. This isn't even a horror movie, and trying to make it look like one may be its worse trait. However, it does have some beautiful scenery for what I speculate is supposed to be Turn-of-the-Century New England. Overall, it's not exactly a movie that can live up to the hype of its name.

Great idea, fascinating plot line but the end was such a let down.SPOILER/ USER RANTright near the end Ghost was saying drink the wine, actual lady don't drink the wine. Then he drinks the drinks the wine and suffers a horrible death. HEY STUPID SLAP THE WINE OUT OF HIS HANDWhat is wrong with the writers. They make a character who is smart enough and determined enough to fake her own death, then haunt her own father, and then to slowly poison him. Not have enough "balls (metaphorically speaking)" when James is about to drink the poison wine, which was meant for her father. Does she not stop him.BAD WRITING.I would have loved for the dirty doctor to get charged with miss Sarah's murder, because it was his incompetence which killed her not James's fault. James might have been guilty of getting her pregnant and not taking responsibility and owning up to it being his. But not Sarah's death.

This movie had a message: Do not allow the past to destroy your future. It delivers that message under no uncertain terms. But the point is, that it entertains while so doing. The story is rather graphic and the execution was, sadly, mediocre.Was I scared? Was my adrenaline piqued? No. But I was entertained. The story is dark, but fun, and moves along with a decent pace. There are some serious slow spots, and the version I viewed at least, had an editing problem. Some people should not be allowed near a roll of shot film, with sharp objects, you know? This movie felt edited. Heavily edited. And in all the wrong spots. Perhaps your copy will not have suffered the same fate as mine.I would recommend its viewing on a rainy Sunday afternoon, as it is a good story, and renders a decent telling of said story, but as it is not riveting, it does not belong on the Friday/Saturday night line-up.It is a nice suspense/psychological thriller with a good twist or two.It rates a 4.6/10 from...the Fiend :.

I expected more from a story by the author of "Turn of the Screw," but didn't get it here. Unrelieved by any humor whatever the narrative unrolls at a lugubrious pace with interspersed quick cuts of blood dripping from tables, walls, portraits, wherever -- and even more blood rolling in rippling overly crimson waves down a hallway (thank you, Stanley Kubrick). Peter York is okay, given his character, a tormented professor who does everything but shriek, "True, I am very very nervous, but why WILL you call me mad!" The other actors do what they can. The most depressing aspect of the film is in many ways its overall eidos -- the material artifacts and the natural backdrop against which the action takes place. Few movies have so many bare blackish twisted tree limbs dripping with cold rain, so many pale bodies wrapped uncomfortably in wet woolen capes and unbecoming gowns that seem to have been built around internal struts made of wire coat hangers. The interiors are just about as dreary, dim candles and fireplaces that seem to throw little heat or light. Given all of this, I still didn't find the movie so bad as to be unwatchable. It's just that it left me so gloomy, like watching the evening news on a particularly bad day.