![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
The Haunting of Hill House Full Review
Having now finished The Haunting of Hill House - Director Mike Flanagan's adaptation of Shirley Jackson's classic novel of the same name, I can fully recommend it. The series is compelling, creepy, scary, with some excellent character moments. It builds fully on Jackson's masterpiece, at the same time commenting on/paying homage to both Robert Wise's original film version and Stephen King and Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, without going overboard or being too overt about it. There's a few subtle touches here and there, which you may not notice if you haven't watched either -- such as "the red room", twins, psychic abilities or sensitive, Russ Tamblyn who appeared in the original Wise film as a psychologist, the locked room at the top of a spiral stair case that isn't what you think. (Nice twist on that one by the way.)
< a HREF="https://io9.gizmodo.com/netflixs-the-haunting-of-hill-house-is-a-deeply-disturb-1829601290">Here's a rather good review of it -- which I agree with.
This version has a far happier ending than Jackson's book or Wise's film. It also borrows heavily from King in regards to its themes and character development, which is a good thing. Jackson's original novel was rather bleak.
It provides more answers than Jackson did. And while it definitely is haunting, scary and creepy beyond compare...it is not bleak. Sometimes horror goes too far in the bleak direction. (See Kubrick's take on the Shining, and Jackson's original novel.)
Performance wise...the only weak link may be Henry Thomas, who seems rather bewildered throughout. Everyone else is spot on, particularly the actors who play the children old and young. Carla Guigino does a good turn as the mother, and Annabeth Gish holds her own as Mrs. Dudley. Timothy Hutton seems largely wasted as the older version of Thomas' father, Hugh Craine. But the direction is restrained as are the effects -- a good thing. The director wisely realizes what is most scary is what we don't quite see. The ghosts are creepy, and done well. Again with the less is more approach or the use of suggestion. My favorites are the tall man with the bowler and the walking stick who haunts Luke and the bent-necked lady who haunts Nell (and is an interesting twist). Both are really scary.
Oh and the 6th episode, among the creepiest, is almost one long extended shot, possibly two. The cinematography and camera work, along with overall direction is rather brilliant in places. I recommend it on that alone.
There are some long monologues that get rather...well, redundant. And it has moments in which I wanted to smack various characters upside the head. Cheryl and Steven in particular, because both are so deep in denial they aren't willing to listen to anyone. So from a character perspective and plot perspective -- it worked, but it was hard to watch at times.
The switch from Jackson's novel to the television adaptation is the Crains didn't build the house, the Hill's did. The Crains buy the house in order to restore it and then flip it within eight to ten weeks for a lot of money. [This is admittedly an interesting modern twist, but also not quite believable, considering...it's a huge house and there's no way it would have been cheap or easy to restore.] They've been jumping from house to house, restoring old houses, selling everything inside, and flipping them for a new wealthy owner. Always dreaming of someday getting enough money together to build their own. They never stay in a house longer than a couple of months, if that. That is until they end up with Hill House.
The story is told non-linear fashion or via flashback, but more in the way Lost was, if that makes sense? It starts in present day. Steven Crain is interviewing a woman about her haunting. He's a best-selling writer of non-fictional ghost stories, starting with his own semi-autiobiographical memoir entitled "The Haunting of Hill House". He receives a call from his mentally disturbed youngest sister Nell Crain, who allegedly calls him to ask about her brother's well-being. As the episode rolls forward, we get flashes back to Steven's time at Hill House as a small child during the eight months his family lived there, along with what is happening in the present time line. The next episode focuses on his sister Shirley, and so on down the family. Along the way we get clues as to what happened to drive the family out of the house, what happened to their mother, and what events ripped them apart as a family, and are still haunting them to this day. The narrative jumps around a bit, starts in the present, goes back two years, then back to the present, then back twenty years to their stay in Hill House.
It's a highly character driven narrative structure which aids in building the creep factor and the suspense. I would not call it a gory horror series, so much as an incredibly "creepy" one. The sort in which something pops out and you scream. And I did by the seventh episode. It gets creepier as it goes. There's a particularly creepy bit towards the sixth or seventh episode that had me jumping in my seat and yelling aloud. But not gross. There's not a lot of blood in this film. Minimal amount. Mostly whites and black colors used -- similar to how Robert Wise conveyed horror. No spiders. Only two or three bugs, and they are used effectively.
Will state it played with my head quite a bit towards the end, and kept me awake last night. So I don't recommend watching it late at night in your house alone. Just saying. I'm tempted to go into more detail for a spoilery review, but I don't want to keep these images in my head. OTOH, it plays with unreliable narrator a lot, and there are various bits here and there that aren't what they seem. The series really plays some interesting head games with the viewer. It's a bit like watching a chinese puzzle box or walking through a maze.
Overall rating? A-
In other news? Artremis by Andy Weir -- isn't worth it. I'm bored. Eighty-Four percent of the way through, everyone is about to die, and I don't really care. And the heroine is irritating me. Thankfully, I only spent $1.99 on it as a Kindle Daily Deal.
< a HREF="https://io9.gizmodo.com/netflixs-the-haunting-of-hill-house-is-a-deeply-disturb-1829601290">Here's a rather good review of it -- which I agree with.
This version has a far happier ending than Jackson's book or Wise's film. It also borrows heavily from King in regards to its themes and character development, which is a good thing. Jackson's original novel was rather bleak.
It provides more answers than Jackson did. And while it definitely is haunting, scary and creepy beyond compare...it is not bleak. Sometimes horror goes too far in the bleak direction. (See Kubrick's take on the Shining, and Jackson's original novel.)
Performance wise...the only weak link may be Henry Thomas, who seems rather bewildered throughout. Everyone else is spot on, particularly the actors who play the children old and young. Carla Guigino does a good turn as the mother, and Annabeth Gish holds her own as Mrs. Dudley. Timothy Hutton seems largely wasted as the older version of Thomas' father, Hugh Craine. But the direction is restrained as are the effects -- a good thing. The director wisely realizes what is most scary is what we don't quite see. The ghosts are creepy, and done well. Again with the less is more approach or the use of suggestion. My favorites are the tall man with the bowler and the walking stick who haunts Luke and the bent-necked lady who haunts Nell (and is an interesting twist). Both are really scary.
Oh and the 6th episode, among the creepiest, is almost one long extended shot, possibly two. The cinematography and camera work, along with overall direction is rather brilliant in places. I recommend it on that alone.
There are some long monologues that get rather...well, redundant. And it has moments in which I wanted to smack various characters upside the head. Cheryl and Steven in particular, because both are so deep in denial they aren't willing to listen to anyone. So from a character perspective and plot perspective -- it worked, but it was hard to watch at times.
The switch from Jackson's novel to the television adaptation is the Crains didn't build the house, the Hill's did. The Crains buy the house in order to restore it and then flip it within eight to ten weeks for a lot of money. [This is admittedly an interesting modern twist, but also not quite believable, considering...it's a huge house and there's no way it would have been cheap or easy to restore.] They've been jumping from house to house, restoring old houses, selling everything inside, and flipping them for a new wealthy owner. Always dreaming of someday getting enough money together to build their own. They never stay in a house longer than a couple of months, if that. That is until they end up with Hill House.
The story is told non-linear fashion or via flashback, but more in the way Lost was, if that makes sense? It starts in present day. Steven Crain is interviewing a woman about her haunting. He's a best-selling writer of non-fictional ghost stories, starting with his own semi-autiobiographical memoir entitled "The Haunting of Hill House". He receives a call from his mentally disturbed youngest sister Nell Crain, who allegedly calls him to ask about her brother's well-being. As the episode rolls forward, we get flashes back to Steven's time at Hill House as a small child during the eight months his family lived there, along with what is happening in the present time line. The next episode focuses on his sister Shirley, and so on down the family. Along the way we get clues as to what happened to drive the family out of the house, what happened to their mother, and what events ripped them apart as a family, and are still haunting them to this day. The narrative jumps around a bit, starts in the present, goes back two years, then back to the present, then back twenty years to their stay in Hill House.
It's a highly character driven narrative structure which aids in building the creep factor and the suspense. I would not call it a gory horror series, so much as an incredibly "creepy" one. The sort in which something pops out and you scream. And I did by the seventh episode. It gets creepier as it goes. There's a particularly creepy bit towards the sixth or seventh episode that had me jumping in my seat and yelling aloud. But not gross. There's not a lot of blood in this film. Minimal amount. Mostly whites and black colors used -- similar to how Robert Wise conveyed horror. No spiders. Only two or three bugs, and they are used effectively.
Will state it played with my head quite a bit towards the end, and kept me awake last night. So I don't recommend watching it late at night in your house alone. Just saying. I'm tempted to go into more detail for a spoilery review, but I don't want to keep these images in my head. OTOH, it plays with unreliable narrator a lot, and there are various bits here and there that aren't what they seem. The series really plays some interesting head games with the viewer. It's a bit like watching a chinese puzzle box or walking through a maze.
Overall rating? A-
In other news? Artremis by Andy Weir -- isn't worth it. I'm bored. Eighty-Four percent of the way through, everyone is about to die, and I don't really care. And the heroine is irritating me. Thankfully, I only spent $1.99 on it as a Kindle Daily Deal.