Dissecting The Haunting, 1999 | Love It or Hate It?

Hello, horrorphiles. In this episode, we dissect the 1999 film, The Haunting directed by Jan de Bont and based on the Shirley Jackson novel, The Haunting of Hill House. Starring Liam Neeson, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Owen Wilson and Lily Taylor.

"A study in fear escalates into a heart-stopping nightmare for a professor and three subjects trapped in a mysterious mansion."

This is Dissecting Horror: Examining the anatomy of fear in film, television and literature with Kelsey Zukowski and Steven Aguilera.

We hope you find it in your cold, black, withered hearts to join our Society of Grotesquery and Loathing and keep our podcast suffering onward:

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/dissectinghorror
PayPal one-time donation of any amount: https://paypal.me/dissectinghorror
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@dissectinghorror
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dissectinghorror
Kelsey Zukowski: http://kelseyzukowski.com
Steven Aguilera: https://www.stevenaguilera.com

Photo credit: Slevin Mors

Transcript

0:10

Hello, Horrorphiles. You're listening to Dissecting Horror, examining the anatomy of fear and film, television and literature. I'm writer and performer Kelsey Zukowski. I’m filmmaker Steven Aguilera. In this episode, we'll examine the 1999 film, The Haunting, with comparisons to the 1963 version and the Shirley Jackson novel both covered in previous podcasts. This dissection will contain minor spoilers, Though these subjects aren't especially prone to spoilage. We are the horror whisperers, your champions of horror and keepers of the fearscape, on this podcast of frightsome delights, if you will. I will. And we hope you will join us too, won't you? A scientist and his three test subjects are menaced by phantoms in an old mansion in this remake of the 1963 classic. According to HBO, Max, it should be noted, however, that the studio DreamWorks Pictures did not actually have the rights to produce a remake of the 1963 film. So that's actually wrong. Instead, they drew upon the novel The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson, which both films were based. they were going to actually call it by the book's original full name, but didn't want people to confuse it with House on Haunted Hill, which was to be released later that year. In 1999. This film began as a collaboration between Stephen Spielberg and Stephen King in adapting Shirley Jackson's novel. But due to creative differences, things eventually dissolved, with King converting his script into the 2002 miniseries Rose Red. So dissatisfied with the finished films, Spielberg reportedly ensured no mention of his name was made in the credits. Wes Craven was also developing a remake of the 1963 film, but opted to instead direct Scream. I've had so much I want to get off my chest since first seeing this film on home video back in 2002. Did you actually see the Rose Red mini series? I've never heard of it. I've heard of it. If I did watch it, it was so long ago. But now I want to watch that. And I mean, I'm very glad Wes Craven did scream, but I would have loved to see what he did with this. Yeah, I think if I were to have been charged with rewriting that book, I would come up with something really different and I could see how I would make it just my own miniseries or something later. So I'm curious what Stephen King would have done with it. I probably first watch this film, maybe a few years after it came out was kind of like right around the time I was getting into horror. Maybe like 2000 to 2003 ish. anything that was horror or it caught my eye. I would just get. So I, I remember owning this one and watching it a few times. But of course, that was without the perspective of the source material, because at that time I hadn't experience the book or the 63 film. So I definitely enjoyed it at the time. And this was probably my first time revisiting it and, I don't know, close to 20 years probably, or something like that. And definitely the floors show a lot more, but I actually did enjoy aspects of it as well. So I think the main thing is really it was the setting which I can see in some ways how they made it too big and theatrical, where it is maybe more like stage play and less realistic. But I am also very much will swoon at castles and dark macabre little settings. So in a way it kind of did sweep me away and I'm like, I get it, I get it. Eleanor I be under this house spell to just spell the the Gothic beauty and the grand details. And it was almost like a gothic castle. So I kind of could connect with Eleanor and be enamored a little bit more on that aspect. again, it's it's definitely more cheesy over the top. It loses all of the subtlety and the craftily interweaving foreboding exploration of the supernatural and psychological. This version is really not psychological at all and doesn't tap into the human condition really at all. I think one big one big issue is Eleanor as a character is not really the same character in many ways. Her situation, while, you know, somewhat desperate, she's just lost her or her place where she lives. She's not really treated with fairness, empathy or respect from her sister, but she's not really in that same demeaning, desperate situation. She's a little lost, but kind of to the point where, you know, we have all kind of been there. She'll figure it out. Like, it doesn't really go into this erratic, offbeat mindset of someone lost in and desperate. Like you get little touches of it. But she's also a fairly inconsistent character at some times. She is a strong heroine who is, you know, empathetic and standing up for ourselves. And it's and at times is she is very sheltered and withdrawn and just doesn't have many social experiences. So I think a big again, there are major issues with the writing. It is very overt to the point where it's almost comical and over-the-top top. You take a lot of things less seriously. I think for me it really the first hour I had had me more, whereas like I would say, guilty pleasure, except for I feel no shame, Yeah, safe. yes, say for sure it lost any character examination or this focus on loneliness and the human condition and really any poetic cism to it. So I think that's the biggest flaw is yeah it was everything was so overt and yeah went a very safe route where there are a lot of times where horror films will end on this twist that kind of changes everything. And there is some there is power to ending on that stinger, but there's also been so many times where I'm like, I wish you would have just had this happen a little earlier and explored this. Marks There's something really interesting here. And if there if they were going to end at that hour point and go a different direction, there's so many more interesting things that they could have done. there are a handful of aspects that not only I liked what I loved about this film, and that would include the cinematography, the cast, the set design, sound design and the score. Now, I think the cinematography in certain points they didn't really need to do a dramatic push in that many times during this conversation, even when she wasn't saying anything too profound. There's a little bit over the top, almost Michael Bay ish in that regard. But John DuPont, the director who had also directed Speed Speed two Twister and Laura Croft, Tomb Raider, the cradle of Life, that was actually is his last director credit, I believe. But he is first and foremost a cinematographer. He has, I believe, 66 credits, including such films as Cujo, Die Hard, The Hunt for Red October, Flatliners and Basic Instinct. So he's definitely a very visually oriented chap and I really appreciated that. The the movie just looks absolutely gorgeous, but I don't want to be offensive. But he is from Europe and Europeans are kind of weird sometimes, especially when you get into the Netherlands where he's from. He's like Mentos commercials. If you remember this or five minute crafts, it's like there's something a little off about this. I don't know if it's a language thing, but I felt like he missed the mark a bit and maybe he just didn't feel grounded as a director to hold his own. But there were instances where things were unnecessary, like a statue would come to life and attack them. And he says in the Blu ray special features that points like this were done at the insistence of the studio who felt like, Oh, we need more scares, so we'll just throw some random thing in there with CG. And I respected him more after hearing that because it wasn't really his fault. But still he could have stood his ground a little bit more and done something a bit better. I think he's he's gotten a lot backlash on that. on Rotten Tomatoes the film has a dismal 17% critic score and a 28% audience score so it was not well-received It made 173,000,003 and $11,151 worldwide against an $80 million budget plus you get the whole video and whatever merchandizing soundtracks and all that kind of stuff. So it did okay. It made its money back even after marketing costs. If I understand how all that stuff works and I'm still confused to this day, but yeah, I think it was a little bit too, too epic cinematography wise, but it was still so gorgeous. the cast I felt was top notch. I really loved the cast. Lili Taylor, who was also well-known for successful horror franchise The Conjuring, Liam Neeson, who also starred as Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn in Star Wars, The Phantom Menace that same year, Catherine Zeta Jones and Owen Wilson. Now, I don't know how you feel that Owen Wilson, but he's one of those. Love him or hate him, kind of. Guys, I. I love Owen to death, and he was my favorite character in this film. And he brought such a breath of fresh air and levity to it all. I just loved every scene he was in. I had this weird glitch in my matrix ever since that movie because his character's name is Luke. But in real life, his brother's name is Luke Wilson. He's a famous guy. So to this day, I keep wanting to call Owen, Luke and I. It just does something that crosses my wires. I was writing in my notes. I actually had written some about the cast too, and I am meant to write Owen Wilson, but his name was Luke in the film. So I did pull Luke Wilson and had to go back and correct it. Yeah. What can you do? The character's name in the book was Even Luke, so it's set in stone. Yeah. From there, the set design, there's this Academy Award winning set design guy that just did this amazing job. They even rented the hangar where the Spruce Goose, what's his name? The eccentric Kajillionaire name is not Norman Rockwell. It's the movie The Aviator with Leo DiCaprio. That guy. Well, he had this huge space for this huge aircraft. They had to rent that because the sets were that big and they really went out of their way do that. And I think it was unnecessary, actually. But it was still nice to see. the lighting and all that, of course, was really great. It was it was a much different style from the 63 film in a way that part of me thinks the 63 film, with its intimacy, was better. I like that overall for the story, but at the same time it was just so gorgeous. I can't help but to feel some admiration for what they put out here. Now, the sound design was also an award winning guy that just did a kajillion films. And I think if you don't have a good sound designer for a horror film, then you're fucked because you know, that's like half of it right there. But the score by Jerry Goldsmith, I'm a huge Jerry Goldsmith fan, and that score was it was eerie, It was mysterious, threatening, beautiful. It was just masterful. And I've listened to the soundtrack many times over the years, so yeah, I think it's about it. It was it was paced well, even at an hour and 53 minutes. I was never bored. I was questioning half of what I was watching, but I wasn't bored, if nothing else. yeah, definitely. Yeah. The visual design was really great. And again, like, I think I was just sort of enamored with the whole atmosphere that kind of pulled me away. And there were, there were some definitely some additions, some things you could say and do they really need this or some things that were a little too over-the-top? And even with some of the different rooms, the flooded library and the sort of carousel thing they created, but that kind of added to the whole, you know, macabre funhouse sort of a thing to me. your earlier note about the director didn't really want all these jump scares and statues coming to life that that kind of checks that the studio wanted it more of a traditional jumps jump scare sort of a movie which is a shame because I'd suggest that they didn't really understand the source material because that's really not the point at all. time kind of lost the appeal. So I'm always a little bit of I don't show too much or at least show something different, you know, to sort of switch it up. I really overall did enjoy the cast as well. I love Lili Taylor and pretty much everything, and I love how much horror she's done. So and I think she really often, while it's a bit inconsistent and not the most true version of this character, again, that's more of the writing and direction that they went a different route with the character. But she definitely she is a little, I guess, less whiny. She is a little bit more grounded. It does take some away from her character that she is. She doesn't seem to be as much on the edge of this mental instability and this desperation. So she kind of comes across a little bit, maybe a little introverted, a little misunderstood. She hasn't lived the most exciting life, but a fairly normal person, which does take a little bit away from what her story and the power of Hill House as a whole, that it plays just more a little bit more like your average haunting with evil spirits preying on her and you know things escalate from there, but she still plays the role very well. She's likable, empathetic in moments. She knows when to slowly push herself out of her self doubt and timid ness and stand her ground and then, of course, ends up having a little bit more of a hero turn. I really liked Catherine Zeta Jones as well as a bold and confident, free spirited Theo. I do think in the both of 63 version and even more so the novel, she's definitely a more fleshed out character and has more the chances to show that mix of compassion and pushback in equal measure. But what for what the material she was given. She was a fun and likable character. I typically like Owen Wilson. I'm kind of mixed on him in this film. I think it's not it wasn't really on him like he played the character material well. He's definitely used as the comedic relief, and I don't think this film needed it. I guess that's a matter of, you know, opinion and personal taste that there is. Granted, this film goes a different direction, but the original material is loneliness and desperation and how everything is futile, essentially. So I can see why they're like, okay, let's let's throw in some, you know, fun one liners and whatnot. And again, he does well with that and he does offer a little bit of the skeptical view of kind of being the first one to feel like, okay, I feel like we're not really being told the whole truth here. But again, I didn't hate his character, but I he felt like a lesser character and offered less to the story than other versions of the character of Luke. Then Liam Neeson was pretty good as Doctor Mero again, I think it's the writing kind of limited him. There is a mix of well-intentioned deception and ambition mixed with some compassion as things escalate and he kind of realizes that things have gotten under control and more than what he intended. Much of his screen time in Hill House is a bit of an act, and not very authentic. But again, that's that's the character and what he's trying to trick these people into feeling. So he is limited in what he can offer because by the time he kind of comes out of not trying to deceive them anymore, it's he's really just mostly there to try to save. Now. So I think, again, they just don't really focus on his intentions and depth as a character. But to be fair, Eleanor is the focus. I think everyone did their job exceptionally well, except for the screenwriter, director and producers. I have so much admiration for the professionalism and expertise employed by those other departments in selling to the best of their ability, something which on paper sucked pretty hard. And I think it was only those departments efforts that made this film work for me at all. Despite the really bad storytelling. Still, all those terrible script choices did reflect badly on those other departments, and they did their jobs right. And it was, yeah, the script just brought the whole thing down. the two going back to a point you brought up earlier about the cherubs, there's actually only maybe two or three moments in the film that were actually legitimately creepy to me, and one was her laying in bed looking over and seeing all of these carved cherubs which are like little, little children, angel kind of whatever characters there carved into the fireplace. And she glances away and she glances back. And now they're all facing her. And that's a thing where no CG was used at all. They just simply swapped out those cherubs for ones that were more turned in her direction. And that was just so chilling. And you kind of question, Wait, was I remembering it wrong? Did I notice it weird or whatever? But it was inexplicable and creepy. So that was one point. And the other point towards the the climax of the film, she's running hysterically through the house and stops at a mirror and she sees herself grinning back at herself. And then she runs from that mirror to another one. And that reflection is looking more freakishly at her. Those two, again, no CGI required. It was just a very simple, basic effect were just so chilling to me and I would have love for them to make the whole movie like that. I notice something just last night. I think when I watched it again that I'd never noticed before, and I've seen this movie many times because it is one of my guilty pleasures, but it was a shot where they're walking through a hallway, past a statue of Hugh Crane. And you can see at the very end of the shot, Hugh Crane's head slowly turns to follow them for like four frames or something like that. I don't know if it was meant to continue to be a more obvious thing, and they just cut it there. But that suddenness, it was like, Oh, did that statue just move? It was like really creepy. If they just kept everything that subtle, it would have been so much more effective as a film. But now they they didn't do that at all. yeah, I agree. There's kind of those moments of the house and in this version the lingering spirits kind of slowly coming alive or just watching or planning and praying I think were were powerful. But yeah, of course not quite enough subtlety to make that really last. Less is more. You spoke of the characters, particularly of Liam Neeson. Was he supposed to have an accent? He's Irish. Did you notice that he was disguising it or it just sounded like Liam Neeson to me, and I wasn't sure if he was trying to do an American accent or not. I think it was. I think he was supposed to be American, but I kind of just sounded like him. I figure that he was probably from Ireland, and he's Americanized now, and so he still has a little bit of lingering on. And I tried to make it work in my head, but for some reason, his character is the most difference between each movie and the book. In the book, he was named Doctor Montague and was portrayed as an old, plump scientist type in the 63 film. His name was changed to Doctor Mark Way for some reason, and he is painted as more of a romantic interest to Eleanor. That created tension and additional motivation to play against her loneliness and fantasy world in that film. But in this 1999 film, his name was changed to Dr. Moreau. All three versions of his name, starting with an M At any rate, in the book, Eleanor, his potential romantic interest was for Luc. Actually. Instead, this film, she holds a fascination with no one. Although I understand there was a cut scene of her and Theodora fooling around, which would have been nice, but yeah, I think there was. Especially with some of the themes, there is a number of things that are potentially really interesting and might have done better. And in a different film there is a lot of sort of half baked, interesting ideas. They one of the things they did change is, you know, it being a insomnia study of why or at least what the participants were told of why they were there rather than them. All being susceptible and having an experience with the preternatural, which is not a bad initial coax to get them there. I guess it adds a little bit of realism of why all these people, again, Eleanor, was in a more desperate situation, but seemingly the others weren't. So it does offer a decent reason that they would come here, but really doesn't explore that. The true reason they're here is essentially so the doctor can sort of examine how fear is manifested and how if you're people are just given that initial tipping point or clue that the imagination will kind of run wild and create these fear responses. So I feel like that was sort of presented. But then of course, when, you know, as things escalate and they, you know, soon believe, okay, there is actually this evil entity or spirit here that's all thrown away, which makes sense to a degree. But that could have been something really interesting in just focusing on how fear is ignited and how we respond to it. And one of his intent was to find better ways for the body to have responses that actually help us work through fear rather than let it overcome us, which again, something's not really, really gone into, I would say, as well as a crane, getting the little bit more of his story adds something to it. And you know, with him, it kind of starts off as this, you know, especially with Eleanor, as sort of flight of fancy and wanting to believe both in this house and, you know, any any fictional outside world that she can kind of accept is something freeing and powerful to her. So she at first adapts the sort of fairy tale idea of, oh, so romantic. He built this whole palace and these were, you know, these must be his children that he hoped to have, that he built it for. And peeling back those layers a little bit to reveal a more cruel and controlling man in the end took away that allure and futility of attempting to stand against hellhounds, which does add something. But in creating him as this vicious master role in these trapping child workers, even in death, it offers this cruel and haunting sort of interesting discussion, which almost like the the ultimate fear of anyone who's trapped in something in life. It actually kind of taps into something that was sort of the basis of a lot of Haitian zombie lore. It was a lot of it came from the people who were enslaved to their their biggest, deepest fear was not being able to move on to their afterlife of being trapped in in life as this sort of eventual tortured slave, essentially. And there's sort of moments of that that these these, you know, children were taking advantage of and sort of tormented and used for Crane's benefit in life and are still trapped there in death. But it's kind of something that's like scene presented. And then, I don't know, it's still like the save the day. I'll save them. But it there was just a lot of things like that that could have been really dark. Interesting discussions on on human nature. And what were the most sort of horrifying scenarios could be even beyond death that are kind of presented and thrown away. And maybe this wasn't the right avenue for them. So I kind of understand why they didn't go into the more. But it is kind of frustrating that there's a lot of really interesting, like the beginning of interesting potential that it kind of throws at you and then just lets peter out. I can see how having this direction of having them there to scare them and then study that aligns with the whole theme of horror and a haunted house. And you can make that work as unethical as that study is. Or would it be? But I wonder if that's necessary. The original story in the book of them just being psychic investigators, maybe that was just too done at that point where they felt they need to take a new direction. But I felt like having Hugh Crain was portrayed as somebody who wanted to have his house filled with the sound of children. Didn't make sense. He didn't seem like the kiddy type or the jolly Santa Claus type or anything. He seems like a miserable old rich guy, and I couldn't quite connect. Why children had anything to do with anything. You could imply things from that, but the kids are are dead at some point. Did they. Did he kill them? Did they just die from overwork? There's so many questions there that were more confusing than anything. And I was wondering, why don't the ghosts of the kids just leave? What's keeping them there? Eleanor says that he's still hunting them and the children seem very afraid of his ghost. But just leave like what's there's there's no explanation or reason for them to stick around. So that's one of many plot holes that I have questions about. Yeah. Something they could explain. I mean typically usually when ghost especially in hauntings it's usually because unfinished business or they died in a you know tormented or tragic way and so they're usually stuck there until they can reconcile or, you know, be ready to move on. So I think I can mostly accept that. But it is something that they kind of gone into more because it's also if they were all just people who just died in this house, what gives him more power than than them? You know, there's a lot of things that they could have gotten into more is is the house. It seems like in this version they're not going with the house is this evil entity that just captures all it seems like they're going with Crain is is the villain. But then what made him so powerful even in death that he can still have this hold on them in this film? It is true Hugh Crane is made out to be the primary force of evil, But when the House attacks them in like, let's say, the collapsing bedroom in the hallway or the front gate or I mean, is that is it all Hugh Crain, or it seems like there's still an essence of the original idea where it's just the house that's evil, too. And then we have all the the kids that are there and then at least one of the wives killed themselves before. So it's a bit scattered for me as to what the source of the evil is. It's like they had different drafts and each one had a different direction. But the most confusing thing to me is the question of how are all these phenomena being manifested? You have ghost hunters shows where season after season they might see a picture fall off the wall or a door close or something. And that's that's about it. But in this film, there's so much happening that's just off the charts in terms of what you can see, what the ghosts are able to manipulate and throwing people across the room, smashing things against walls, crushing the rooms inward and so forth. There's nothing to explain how Hugh Crain, if he is the heart of the the evil, how he could do this. He was not like a spiritual guy. He wasn't cursed. He hadn't developed some sort of power. He's just this rich guy who was kind of a jerk who killed kids or something. So what gives him this ability to manipulate reality and the ghost side of things to the degree that he does, and beyond that, ghosts aside, how is it that a solid statue of stone or wood able to bend or twist or move, whether possessed by ghosts or not? Practically speaking, that sort of material just isn't capable of flexing. Right? Yet his ghost has this mastery of manipulating ghostly and physical matter beyond anything ever witnessed in reality, or perhaps even in film. And okay, so here's here's another weird point you have this odd concept where let's say there are two stone lions above the fireplace and when they come alive, they roar as if they're inhabited by the spirits of actual lions. Or if there is a griffin, which is a mixture of a giant eagle. And what's the other thing? It's not a goat. It's a mine lion. Yes. that comes to life and it starts screeching and flapping its wings and acting like it's an animal. So why is it that just because something is sculpted like that shape when it comes to life, it actually is that animal alive spiritually or haunted by it? There's no logic there. there are these huge double doors with carvings of the gates of hell or purgatory or something with these half skeleton men guarding it, who then come to life and actually restrain Hugh Crane's ghost at the end, as if these carvings actually became the gate Guardians of Hell. For some reason, they're doors. They're just carved doors. And remember, Hugh Crane built the house. Why would he put things in it that would somehow counter any of his goals or intentions or be able to stop him now or later? And beyond that, why does he populate the house with these ominous statues of himself, paintings well, there's even one When she first walks into the mansion, she runs into where there's a statue of of Ukraine wearing this cloak. This is black robes gripping a screaming child trying to get away who makes a sculpture of that and puts it in their mansion Yeah, I think some like some of the like, would this really happen? Some of it I could excuse of this house is almost like in a place of fantastical allusions and has this the spirit and almost, you know, halfway between reality and this unreality but I think it works better if it's just like the house is this evil, powerful force in itself. And since that was last, the focus here, like we're were more thought to think this is Crain and or these are the people that died here in these spirits. If it's just the spirits of what died in this house, then even if they had quick a quick like one minute, you know, sort of, you know, ashes looking in and finding out all about the house and what happened there before, it wouldn't be that hard for her to stumble upon something of, you know, he, I don't know, had a demonic hero. He was into the occult or, you know, something that would give him this power. Like it wouldn't be that hard to take a minute to explain some of his power or that it is just the power of the house and it's the power of the house. You're almost like, don't have to explain that. But it just like heavily hints that, you know, that that could make a lot of this make more sense. Yeah, some throwaway line somewhere would have gone a long way. the book nerd with the now, which I speculated when we talked about the original novel comes out more here you see her fascination with other worlds, especially those heavy on fantasy and how she is at the point where she is at a more complete escape from this world, which is both tantalizing for fiction of fictional dolls and lovers of the macabre, which really isn't touched on. There's a stark human loneliness and desperation at the core of Hill House that is suggested but not really explored here. Mental illness as a whole really isn't represented as much as it is in both the 63 version and the original novel On Now seeing things others can't. There isn't the representation of an already teetering mind on the brink of loneliness, with now herself questioning what she is seeing and hearing before the house even gets its claws in her, the house signals her out and begins taunting and showing her things that isolate her, which is creepy but doesn't have the same questioning. What is real psychological mystery to it? While the other characters worry for and are disbelieving of now, the group doesn't turn on her in the same way as in the other versions, which also takes away from some of the human relationship complexities and loses its core theme of wanting to belong and doesn't make it so that humanity will often let you down. Reaching for a hand in the dark and only finding an evil and trapping presence there to take it. Let me comment on the CGI. Yeah. this was 1999 and it's still pretty early on in the whole CGI game of things. But those children, ghosts were just the most dated looking effects. I was marveling at how bad you've got this beautiful set, beautifully lit, everything. The music is gorgeous. And then there's the cheesiest looking little girl slips under the blankets or something, and there's this one shot in particular where Eleanor is in bed, and she opens her eyes and there's a ghost under the sheets laying next to her, looking at her. And that face. It's odd because in order for the level of detail to show up, down to the eyelids, the upper and lower eyelids, the mouth, everything was showing up through. Like the ghost is under the blankets forming it. Like, how do you do that? You have to vacuum form the sheets against the face to get it pressed up against the eyeballs enough to see that level of detail. It looked weird. there's a case where you could have literally put a kid under the blanket and nobody would have known the difference because it's a kid under the blanket. It would have looked the same thing. the CG was just so over the top. And I think because Star Wars came out that year, they had all the the best animation people working on that or something. That's that's my theory. But good people were taken. Yeah, I agree. The CGI was pretty horrible. Again, I like a little bit more subtlety and anything that can be done practically is always great. I don't mind some CGI when it's well done and I prefer a mixture, but yeah, it was. They definitely went for the cheesy and over-the-top in many ways and the CGI ghosts were definitely a part of that, which kind of escalated and it kind of felt like it just got worse. Like the by the last act, you're like, Okay, this is just silly. Now they were just getting desperate. Oldest Just do morals make it bigger and bigger? But it was having the opposite effect. Now there are a couple of characters we see in the beginning his assistant Mary and Todd, who is another original test subject. We're just the most useless two characters. They show up briefly in the beginning. Mary leaves when a clavius cord, which is a small piano like instrument, snaps a string and almost takes out her eye. Something ridiculous to me happens here. When Eleanor takes this small stemmed a liquor glass of some kind. I don't know what it was, a shot glass of some kind, and instructs Mary to hold it against her eye, to keep the blood out of it. Like she knows exactly what to do in situations like this. You take a glass and you press it against your eye. And the ridiculousness of them holding this glass against her eye and every shot or some other actor having to press it against her eye when Liam has literally a white handkerchief in his other hand, wouldn't it just make more sense to press that against the wound, to create pressure and keep it out of her eye than to hold the stupid glass for the rest of the entire scene? That was just like, I don't know what the fuck they were thinking there, but it gives me great mirth in seeing that while also shaking my head at the same time. to that point, there's a plot hole I think it's towards the climactic part of the film where they're all desperate to escape. But the dudleys locked the gate, Dang it. So they can't get out and they try to crash the gate and other desperate measures. But isn't it weird? That was it the night before when Mary hurt her eyes and had to go to the hospital? They just let her out through the gate Then was the gate open at night? I mean, there was no. Didn't they have a key or something? It was just like, okay, well, I guess I guess whatever they did the night before they can't do now to escape. And it's those stupid things like that. They figure they should have ironed out those sorts of kinks in the in the writing stage, but maybe there was too much of a rush to get it out. Yeah, there are a lot of things like there a lot of inconsistencies. And you see it with Eleanor's character too. Like when they want her to be timid. She is when they want her to be strong, confident, she is all of a sudden without a real evolution or showing where that growth comes from. And that's even more of a sort of nonsensical little detail because, yeah, they're why they can easily leave when they want to, but not when they don't. Which again, coming back to just giving the House this power of being this powerful dark entity. If it's the house, the house is like, okay, I don't really care about this one. Let her go, but I want these people. I'm praying on them. I'm not going to let them go. I think there's something way more chilling about the house locking you in and deciding if it will let you go or not. That's a point. That's confusing to me as well. What is the goal of Hugh Crane? Because Eleanor says he means to keep her now at the end and says, no, it's too late, he won't let you go. she already indicates that she wants to have their say on a life for herself so that she can go and protect the children as a ghost. So her intention is to stay basically forever in defense of the children. So you would think that Hugh Crane's goal should be to have her not die and just leave as soon as possible because she is a threat. If she stays yet, he locks her in. There's a point where he traps her on the bed, pins her down with various parts of the bed frame and bedpost and so forth, like why did you even do that? What if you're going to kill her just to stab her with one of those little pokey things? I don't understand the point of that scene at all or what they're. What? What he's trying to do with the people without a clear goal of opposition. It's just confusion, like what's going on? What is everybody trying to do? I assume he just kind of just wants her as his next eternal undead bride or what have you. But yeah, to your point, I guess there is something to me, you know, maybe he's getting a kick out of this, this cruelty and slowly pushing her more and more on edge. But yeah, if he if you wanted whatever he wants to do, he probably could have done it Well, And I don't think that the writers knew what was going on, it was probably just a frenzy to get the damn thing out at the end. Those half skeleton in the door do restrain the crane. However, the fact they did that, or whatever it means, but in doing so, they, they or I should say Hugh Crane, on his way to being slammed behind the door, pushes Eleanor against it. And then the skeleton people gently set her down on the ground. And it's a very crucifix esque looking imagery, symbolism, which I thought was a little on the nose. But she sits up, apparently completely unharmed, perfectly healthy, without a scratch on her or even upset, really, while watching all the little ghost children finally set free. So great job done. Mission accomplished. Yet she then lies back, satisfied, closes her eyes and dies. For some reason, we see her smiling ghost float out of her body and join the swirling children's ghosts. Everything was already fixed to that point and she didn't need to die to protect them as a ghost. But she just croaks at the end for no apparent reason with a big dumb smile on her face. Really confusing, but her dying was inevitable in some way because she dies in all of the other iterations. They shouldn't have killed Luke. I don't know why they kill Luke. That's what I'm upset about. yeah, I was probably away with them. Totally changing the ending and last acts an entire focus. Really. I was probably more aware of them trying to be like, Oh, whoa, whoa. We just connect it to how the original ending was because she dies at the end and she's part of the house, which, again, could have it could have been something if she was going to be ejected from the house. And she felt like this was the only place she belonged and this was her purpose, then okay, then, yes, I just want to die here. I think they could have just altered it slightly and it would have worked a little bit more of why she would want to die. There so she could stay there. That's what you're talking about. Before, if they would have established her character as being more damaged or helpless in life or in need of the house itself as being a solution to her life's problems, then her dying would have made more sense. But at one point, all she says is, I won't let you harm a child. And I don't know why. She thought throwing a jewelry box at the glass window, which had Ukraine's picture on it, would somehow harms Ukraine. But I want to do a commentary track where I'm literally nit picking every single shot like that one through and explaining, why would she do that? Come on, this makes no sense. And there are so many I mean, literally hundreds of points that are ridiculous. So stay tuned for that. I don't know when I'll do it. It's definitely coming your way. This is really a genre where less is more, where a pitch black room is much more frightening than one overly ornate and lit, where we just see a suggestion that something has changed. Or here sounds. The more they did here, the less effective it was and the fact that they went so over the top with everything only made it worse. It was not scary. And I can't comprehend how anyone could think it would be outside of someone below the age of ten. And I can see how like a producer will say, we need to do more. I know scary stuff. Like, okay, like what? Just. Just make it scary. And they don't have any sense. There's a there's a weird cooperation that goes on between actual artists and people who just they're more business people. They're numbers people and trying to make one understand the other. They both have a job and they're both important. But oh my God, how frustrating it is as an artist to try to explain story structure or character development or something like that to somebody who just wants to make sure that their script has, the same kind of scene that was in this other horror film that everybody liked. And it just so arbitrary and frustrating as hell. But you got to learn to navigate those sorts of things as a filmmaker. Yeah, it's definitely very hard and frustrating, but yeah, that is I think, I guess it depends whether you how much you care or not or if you're like, okay, I'll just do what they want and take the paycheck. But if, if you want to put out work that you can be somewhat proud of, that your name is on it. It is difficult, but it is sort of that that challenge to give the producers or people greenlit writing this and making this film possible, give them what they want, but also do it with so it makes sense. And it still, whether you have to build story reasons around that, that is part of the challenge and your responsibility. And it seems that yeah, they let a lot of that kind of just go, okay, they want this with brothers and they're sure okay that no, we don't really need to explain. It's fine. And if there would have been a little bit more focus on the why, like we said, in certain cases it's just one or two lines could have sufficed a lot. But it got the money locked in that. So a lot falls flat and just seems very misplaced and generic and kind of just doesn't work. I am fascinated by the fact that immense resources went into this, yet they didn't have the sense to come up with a good story, to set it to I feel a sense of what a missed opportunity this was. I mean, if I could have had the resources they had to construct that much stuff for the cast, whoever they wanted, or to have Jerry Goldsmith score my film. My God, what a dream. There is such abundance of writing talent out there clamoring for an opportunity that for some inexplicable reason, the writing aspect of filmmaking largely goes unacknowledged or unutilized over visual effects or star power. You would think it would be understood by now that you need a fucking script that's rock solid and bullet proof before you start to film, or at least have the ability to generate that while filming. I don't get it. It's. It's common sense. Yeah, I know. If you it's true. If you don't have a good story or everything else can come together, if it's just style over substance or you have the beginning of a compelling story, but you don't explain things, then everything falls apart. No, no one's going to like that movie. if you would like to join our society of Grotesquerie and Loathing, please subscribe and give this podcast a like. Comment your wretched thoughts below along with what you would like us to expose in future episodes. Keep our podcast suffering on by finding it in your cold, black withered hearts to support us on Patreon. A link to our PayPal is also below for one time donations of any amount. It was nice knowing you.