Ghosts of Hanley House (1968)

The folks who make "The Ghosts of Hanley House" obviously had little idea of what they were doing. The acting, at times, is abominable. The direction and camera-work are not a lot better than a home movie. And, the sound is really, really bad--with goofy music and sound effects as well as voices that seem to have been stuck on haphazardly after the fact--and they are often out of synchronization. Plus the sound quality is just awful--making it tough, at times, to understand the actors. All this is readily apparent--which makes me wonder why I bothered sticking with this film. In hindsight, I am still not 100% sure--I must have assumed it could only get better.The film plays like a long version of an urban legend. Some rich guy promises to give another guy a brand-new Ferrari if he'll just stay overnight in the Hanley House and prove that there are no ghosts. It's obvious why he's going to the house--he'll get a great new car. But why four others agree to go as well confused me a bit--what's in it for them? And, when folks started dying, you aren't exactly surprised.So what's the verdict? Well, the movie is very badly made. But, if you are crazy enough to stick with it, you'll see that for a crappy film it's not all that bad. It does offer a few frights and they seemed to make the most of their $74 budget. However, it's not bad enough to make it a must-see for bad film fanatics--it's just somewhat bad! By the way, pay attention at about 33 minutes into the film. Be sure to look for the strings pulling the picture off the wall!

At its best, 'The Ghosts of Hanley House' has the feel of a poor man's 'The Haunting.' At its worst, it has the feel of the forgettable Ferlin Huskey (old-time country singer for those who don't know) vehicle, 'Hillbillies in a Haunted House.' Part of this feeling was due to the guy who took the bet to stay overnight in the house (don't know the actor's name since even IMDb doesn't know who played whom!) sounds JUST like old Ferlin … which is to say a Hillbilly country singer stuck in a haunted house! Overall, I was pleasantly surprised. As others have said, the production values, at least as far as sound goes, are terrible! It sounds like a very, very early "talkie" from about 1929! I think the ghost was standing outside the house, holding the microphone in many scenes! The camera work, though, is quite good. The film almost seems to have a blue tint, as in silent film days…except of course the handful of somewhat overdone scenes of a man's silhouette standing outside the house with the picture in a gaudy blood-red tint. The house itself is wonderful. I suspect the availability of the house may have led to the movie. I can almost see Louise Sherrill visiting the house and going 'Dang! I've GOT to make a haunted house movie about this place!' Sometimes Ms. Sherrill gets a little heavy-handed on making sure we understand what we're supposed to see. We hear and see cars trying to start for 30 seconds to show that the cars won't start. We have at least two looks out the front door, each 20-30 seconds of panning every inch of terrain just to show that no one was REALLY knocking on the front door. A few other things that don't add up would be the painting of Mrs. Hanley looking NOTHING like the flashback image of her, the haunted house scenes at the opening bearing little or no relation to the crime that had been committed there, etc.Don't expect 'The Haunting' or 'The Shining.' If you like B horror, though, this one should be well worth viewing.

This mediocre ghost story is made viable and creepy by a few subtle touches. The special effects are a mix of dry ice and what appears to be more dry ice, but the lighting is at times interesting. The cast members have stark and/or dark features, and the B&W medium in combination with dramatic lighting for scenes within the haunted mansion make for a very good effect. You usually come to 'like' a character in a movie, and in this movie there isn't anyone to like. It seems that everyone is a dumb creep with some kind of motive. Just how much that works to the film's advantage, however, is difficult to say because it might be lost on a more casual viewer, but I think that it makes the story interesting. There are a few sidelines to the plot which were either never developed or lost to editing, but they are minor enough to not affect the continuity of the film. The screams are great. Hollywood just doesn't have screamers like it used to. I would recommend this movie, if you can find it.

I make it a point to be kind to films such as this one, but truth be told Ghosts of Hanley House is really not very good. Poor production values and at times downright bad acting make it so. Still, the quality of this film is not what makes it interesting to film buffs such as myself. I purchased my video copy from Sinister Cinema and one wonders where (Sinister's owner) Greg Luce obtained a print. Ghosts of Hanley House is perhaps the most obscure film I have ever been able to add to my library and I have many. It is not catalogued in any of my reference books. Sinister Cinema says this film was shot in Texas but does not say where.Shot in 1968 with unknown players, Ghosts of Hanley House intrigues in it's own way. I tried in vain to recognize the town where the beginning scenes were filmed and I would love to know where the house was/is located and it's history. Were it not for the capable Mr. Luce this may have become one of the truly lost films. The plot is standard enough but does have an interesting twist and it is sad this could not have been produced on a bigger budget. Mood music is totally inappropriate in many places and the use of lingering, isolated head shots are overdone, to where it is obvious they are what they are: fill to pad out the running time. Several people spend the night in Hanley House, said to be haunted. We have the usual standard chills and unexplained noises until we are about 3/4 the way into the story, then the story turns to whatever uniqueness it possesses. We learn that the ghosts are murdered victims of one of the persons who are spending the night in Hanley House and have been trying all along to lure him there. Of course, he meets with the stock bad ending and the ghosts depart the house, supposedly never to return. As I said, production values were not good. Lighting was poor, camera angles seemed cramped, and the day for night shots were painfully obvious. Still, one has to view a film such as this within it's own context and by those standards, this flick is interesting. If you, as I, are interested in the obscure, particularly the obscure ghost story, then this is for you. (In fairness I've commented before that it is hard for anybody to do a good ghost story). This is exactly the kind of film that persons such as we spend many happy hours searching for. This would not be a good film to recommend to the general viewer. So . . . having said all this, what are you waiting for? Order your copy today and watch it late after everyone else is asleep. If you are interested enough to do that after reading this review, you won't be disappointed