AverageJoesDriveInPodcast As far as remakes go, I thought this was a pretty solid update. It kept to the spirit of the original, but at the same time did its own thing. The acting worked well and I was actually surprised by the amount of gore it had. I didn't remember it being that gory when I first watched it. While it wasn't too gratuitous there was enough there to sate the gorehound in me. Overall, it was a good blend of jump scare moments, gore, and a fairly solid story. One of the few things I didn't like about it was the constant flashing imagery. At times, it made it hard to concentrate on what was going on and distracting. I adore the original. It's in my Top 3 favorite Vincent Price films. The fact I didn't feel like this was tarnishing the name of the original caught me a bit off guard. Looking back I wonder if maybe that's why I didn't enjoy it as much the first time I saw it. It was also around that time period when I was sick and tired of remake after remake coming out. I think I may have gone in with a bit of pre-conceived hatred before I even viewed it.I'm glad I threw it on and watched it. I really enjoyed it, way more than I was expecting. It's far from perfect, but it's a solid film that I'll watch again. With that being said, I still don't think it's as good as the original. There was a lasting fun creepiness about that one that still holds up, which I don't think this one quite delivers on the same level. My Rating: 7/10

classicsoncall I imagine we're all products of our upbringing and environment. When I was about ten years old, the original "House on Haunted Hill" scared the bejeezus out of me and set the bar for horror films I'd see in the future. If you watch that movie today, a lot of it comes across as campy or cheesy, but there are still those subtle touches that manage to evoke a response, like the first time a female character turns around and experiences the frightful face of the home's caretaker looking like some evil monster.The reaction I got from this picture was - why did they even bother? It seems like a colossal waste of time, in fact, this is the second time I tried watching it, the first time I dropped out when it just seemed pointless to me. There doesn't seem to be any real rationale as to what should be the logic of the story. Watson Pritchett (Chris Kattan) insists it's the house itself that's evil, whereas we see some guy Schecter running the operation from some crummy basement. Owner Stephen Price (Geoffrey Rush) seems to be in on some of the house's mechanical gadgets but not others. It's no secret that Price and his wife Evelyn (Famke Janssen) hate each other, but no sooner than it's revealed she's in cahoots with Blackburn (Peter Gallagher), she offs him unceremoniously. I just didn't get any of it.At least the picture paid some homage to the original movie. The principal character was named Price in deference to Vincent Price, the star of the 1959 film, and oddly enough, Rush had an eerie resemblance to the iconic actor. This story upped the ante on how much the surviving guests would receive if they made it in the house the entire night. Inflation must have taken the earlier ten thousand dollar award and raised it to a million. The coffin party favors with a gun inside was another connection, but after all that, it was pretty much a disaster to my thinking. If the idea was for the special effects to overwhelm the poor story line, I think that failed too. For all their simplicity, the effects in the original picture left a lot more to the imagination. With this one, I went right to sleep and not a single nightmare.

kai ringler First off let's get this out of the way,, of course folks the Original with Vincent Price was better.. that being said,, I like how this one doesn't entirely follow the original,, case in point,, in this "new" one the house used to be an old Asylum where hundreds , perhaps thousands were mistreated to cruel and unusual punishment, most of the film does follow the original,, same premise,, millionaire invites 10 people to spend the night and if they survive the money is theirs. what I liked about this film , is all of the special fx. all of the blood and gore that we wanted in the first one and couldn't get because it was just the dawn of color, and the technology obviously wasn't there yet,, all in all I think this one was pretty good,, so I apologize to Vincent Price,,, but still the ORIGINAL was better as far as plot and acting wise goes,,,

A_Different_Drummer Some of this reviewers need to take a chill pill. There is a huge difference between a remake (which statistically Hollywood tends to mess up more often than it succeeds) and a re-imagining, where the Rulebook is thrown out the window and, basically, its No Holds Barred. This is a re-imagining and as such it is really a lot of fun. It is one thing to make the jump from B&W to colour. It is an entirely different order of magnitude to pump up your re-do with hi tech special effects, magic glasses that enable the characters to see what should not be seen, and at the finale, some sort of giant clockwork that you would otherwise expect to find in Dr. Who. This film was released at Halloween, which means in effect that the studio was looking for a fast buck and not trying to produce THE MATRIX. I think they exceeded their own expectations. A great cast, recognizable names, and the wandering through the basement is very creepy and good scary fun.