empathielabs/imbd_dataset_v0 huggingface dataset:
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I saw the original "Chorus Line" on Broadway God knows how many times and felt the passion, despair and joy come from this live experience in the theater. Michael Bennett knew he would have to re-imagine "Chorus" for the screen but could never figure out how to do it. If the man who came up with the show is stumped - that should answer your question. There are some shows that are simply made to be seen live - with an audience. However, Richard Attenborough fresh of the musical work of "Ghandi" and dancing with animals in "Doctor Doolittle" ended up directing this film which bore little to no resemblance to the stage show. Horrible songs were added (Surprise! Surprise!), great songs were dropped or given to other characters (which didn't make sense). Michael Douglas was mis-cast. People that couldn't dance tried to act and there was the sexy "Landers" woman who couldn't sing, act, or dance - I guess she had just finished being Ghandi's wife. The dances by Jeffrey Hornaday look like nothing more than schlock from "Flashdance" rejects and nothing works. I sat there stunned at how something so riveting and emotional could be drained to nothing. If you truly love this show and it is coming back to Broadway in 2006 - see it but don't think that the long running musical event that was "A Chorus Line" has any thing at all to do with this film.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I admit to having been a fan of the original stage production. I never saw the movie version until very lately on cable, and watched it with anticipation, to see my memories brought alive again, because I adored the original show. Imagine my dismay.
This has to be the worst translation of a Broadway show to film ever made. They changed the story, they changed the songs, they lost the soul. I was expecting a trip down memory lane, singing to the extraordinarily touching Music and the Mirror, At the Ballet, and Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen. Not! Not only did they adulterate the music to an almost unrecognizable point, but they messed up the storyline, adding songs and exterior plotlines (hello Cassie and Michael Douglas) not present in the original, and injecting "drama" where it wasn't necessary. The original had enough pathos on its own. If you were a fan of the original Broadway show, don't bother. I'm sorry I wasted my time, and diluted my memories, watching this tripe.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
On Broadway, A Chorus Line was pure magic. From the second the show opened with a spectacular burst of energy to the truly grand finale, a joyous curtain call of all those chorus members who we grew to love during the course of the show, we were totally engaged - captivated by the intensely personal stories, some funny, some clever, some stirring, of this chorus line. The movie is another matter entirely. The focus is now on the director - and WHAT an ogre he is! Every time the film switches to Michael Douglas, there he is with a bitter, sour expression, barking out questions and orders, screaming and yelling whenever he gets the chance. Yikes!! That changes the dynamics of the story. On Broadway, the director was indeed an imperious offstage presence, but he was also sort of a theatrical device to allow the stories of these amazing strong/fragile/intriguing/hilarious chorus line members to be told with insight and clarity. There is a reason this work won the Pulitzer Prize! And actually in one of the only moments the director appears, he is there to comfort the young Puerto Rican Dancer after we hear that dancer's heart-breaking story. He appears again to ultimately express his genuine affection/ concern for Cassie. But in the movie, from the second Douglas' director starts bitterly barking orders, the chorus line members' stories become secondary. It's like they are in a lousy profession, where a jaded director instead of showing the joy at creating a new exciting theatrical show, is jaded, exhausted, furious at having to audition these chorus members. On stage, there was ALWAYS the excitement of the show. Here in the movie practically from the word go, you feel sorry for everyone involved. During the course of the musical, we desperately wished every single one of those chorus members well, and how happy we would have been if they had all gotten the job! But of course that couldn't happen. But in the Finale when they all came back in glorious costume with those amazing spinning mirrors on stage, sometimes reflecting us in the audience, in our hearts, and we know, also in the hearts of all those chorus members both accepted and rejected, they were on stage forever dancing in a profession they loved so much, bringing magic to the theatre. In the movie, after all the misplaced story lines and emphasis, that magic becomes totally diluted. All we feel (even with the exact same curtain call), is that some of the members got a job with a mean-spirited director. So they all come on the screen and are dancing again. Big deal.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Yes, I was lucky enough to see the long-running original production of Michael Bennett's hit musical. It was an amazing experience and I paid to see the movie when it hit theatres back in 1985. It is awful. Almost everything fails. First off, Attenborough (a fine actor, a good director with the right material) is a sorry choice - almost as bad as when John Huston was hired to mangle ANNIE. The camera is always in the wrong place - they chop up the songs and the CASTING!!! They are awful - the power of the play was these dancers - these hungry, talented performers just wanted a chance to show what they could do and when they got their chance - you couldn't take your eyes off of them. But this cast just gets by dancing, does a "nice" job singing but none of them spark one bit. In fact, look up the cast on IMDb - none of them really went on to do anything much. (OK, OK, Janet Jones married Gretzky - sheesh). So this cinema trainwreck does not capture for one second the magic, the desperation, the passion of the stage musical. A total strike-out! (But even though they try to smother the music - the great music still rises up at times and reminds people how great the score was).


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
If you were to judge based on the movie alone, the committee that gave the stage musical "A Chorus Line" a Pulitzer Prize, and Broadway audiences that kept the war horse running for 15 years, were all on heavy narcotics, because one singular sensation this film certainly is NOT.
What possessed anyone to think that Richard Attenborough was the right fit for this material utterly mystifies me, but he makes a musical that is almost entirely about movement just sit on the screen like a lump of clay.
Not content with the original score the way it was originally written, someone decided that what the film really needed was a brand new song to give the movie some zip. Thus we are assaulted with the Oscar-nominated(!) "Surprise, Surprise." Well surprise, surprise, the song stinks, and so does the movie.
Grade: D


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I first saw the live musical at the Denver Center For The Performing Arts and it was absolutely mind-blowing, Stunning and had such fantastic continuity of plot and dialogue that I liked it much more than most musicals that I have seen on the stage. The interesting thing is that you NEVER got to see Zach's face. He was always in the dark but his presence was powerful and guided the direction of entire production. Whe I heard they were making a movie from it, I waited with bated breath, but when I watched the movie version I was so bummed-out disappointed that I felt I was cheated. The movie lacks the captivating mood set in the live production and it never allows you to be completely in close touch with every character. Personally, I would like to see the live version again and if that should ever be revived, I would wholeheartedly recommend that you go out of your way to see it. It will be one of the most memorable experiences you will enjoy.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This is one of the worst film adaptations of a musical ever made. The stage version of A Chorus Line is wonderful. This movie misses the mark in almost every way. Even the casting is baffling. Take Audrey Landers as Val. "Dance 10 Looks 3" is Val's song. Val's story is that she is a great dancer but a 3 in the looks department. Yes, she finds a solution, but ultimately she's a great dancer. What do the brilliant filmmakers do? They hire an actress who can't dance and is famous for looking great. Way to miss the boat.
Then there's the choreography. I'm sure Michael Bennett was turning over in his grave. Why didn't they use his choreography? It really can't be improved upon.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This may be the worst film adaptation of a Broadway musical ever. Even the music has been destroyed. Attenborough knows nothing about theater - almost every shot and moment ring false. I will say, though, that it is almost bad enough to be funny.
The hairstyles are remarkably dated. I can not for the life of me understand what is meant (conceptually) by opening the film with an exterior of the theater where "A Chorus Line" is playing. Are we to think that these people are auditioning for "A Chorus Line," which contains the stories about the people who are auditioning? Oh no, the show is collapsing on itself.
I saw the original production, and have listened to the album hundreds of times. Why, oh, why, did they do this?


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Michael Bennett and Nicholas Dante's Broadway show ran for years, but evidence of its power and charisma is lost in this movie adaptation, which most likely stems from the choice of director (Richard Attenborough, as far from B-way as you could get) and lead actor (Michael Douglas, who plays a director-choreographer like a slimy corporate lawyer). The slim story, about a grueling audition for a Broadway show which turns into a therapy session for the actor-dancer-singers, is pushed right up on us, with loud, brassy talents playing to the rafters. Nothing is modulated or subtle, particularly a laughable subplot about a ex-dancer returning to the theater and butting heads with old-flame Douglas. The over-eager hopefuls are filled with promise and heartache, but their personal stories of angst are a little embarrassing; this, matched with Attenborough's sluggish pacing, spells disaster, and even the now-famous songs fail to break through the artificial wrapping. *1/2 from ****


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I recently bought the DVD, forgetting just how much I hated the movie version of "A Chorus Line." Every change the director Attenborough made to the story failed.
By making the Director-Cassie relationship so prominent, the entire ensemble-premise of the musical sails out the window.
Some of the musical numbers are sped up and rushed. The show's hit song gets the entire meaning shattered when it is given to Cassie's character.
The overall staging is very self-conscious.
The only reason I give it a 2, is because a few of the great numbers are still able to be enjoyed despite the film's attempt to squeeze every bit of joy and spontaneity out of it.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
By the time this film was released I had seen Chorus Line on stage 4 times, and had been anticipating most eagerly the long-rumored production of a film of the story. My wife and I were in line hours before the box office opened on the day the film was released. It was not just a disappointment, it was a kick in the abdomen.
First, the story was "moved outside," so to speak, by including scenes not in the confines of the theater. Those confines are a large portion of the meaning and impact of the story.
Second & Third together (assign your own order): one of the original songs, with very dynamic dance number, was removed; a song which was NOT in the stage production was added. Say what ?? I'm confused!
The only reason I gave this film 2 stars instead of 1 is my admiration for the talent and hard work of the performers. I've now seen Chorus Line on stage 6 times, and wouldn't mind seeing it 6 more times before I die. It is superbly written, with wonderful music, and heart- wrenchingly true stories. If you want to see a musical which includes a great "cattle call" audition, I recommend All That Jazz. If you want to see the story of A Chorus Line, see it on stage.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
The Broadway musical, "A Chorus Line" is arguably the best musical in theatre. It's about the experiences of people who live for dance; the joys they experience, and the sacrifices they make. Each dancer is auditioning for parts in a Broadway chorus line, yet what comes out of each of them are stories of how their lives led them find dance as a respite.
The film version, though, captures none of the passion or beauty of the stage show, and is arguably the worst film adaptation of a Broadway musical, as it is lifeless and devoid of any affection for dance, whatsoever.
The biggest mistake was made in giving the director's job to Sir Richard Attenborough, whose direction offered just the right touch and pacing for "Gandhi." Why would anyone in his or her right mind ask an epic director to direct a musical that takes place in a fairly constricted place?
Which brings us to the next problem. "A Chorus Line" takes place on stage in a theatre with no real sets and limited costume changes. It's the least flashy of Broadway musicals, and its simplicity was its glory. However, that doesn't translate well to film, and no one really thought that it would. For that reason, the movie should have taken us in the lives of these dancers, and should have left the theatre and audition process. The singers could have offered their songs in other environments and even have offered flashbacks to their first ballet, jazz or tap class. Heck, they could have danced down Broadway in their lively imaginations. Yet, not one shred of imagination went into the making of this film, as Attenborough's complete indifference for dance and the show itself is evident in his lackadaisical direction.
Many scenes are downright awkward as the dancers tell their story to the director (Michael Douglas) whether he wants to hear them or not. Douglas' character is capricious about choosing to whom he extends a sympathetic ear, and to whom he has no patience.
While the filmmakers pretended to be true to the nature of the play, some heretical changes were made. The very beautiful "Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen, Hello Love"--a smashing stage number which took the dancers back to their adolescence--was removed and replaced with the dreadful, "Surprise," a song so bad that it was nominated for an Oscar. Adding insult to injury, "Surprise" simply retold the same story as "Hello, Love" but without the wit or pathos.
There is no reason to see this film unless you want a lesson in what NOT to do when transferring a Broadway show to film. If you want to see a film version of this show, the next closest thing is Bob Fosse's brilliant "All That Jazz." While Fosse's daughter is in "A Chorus Line," HE is the Fosse who should have been involved, as director. He would have known what to do with this material, which deserved far greater respect than this sad effort.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
For anyone who has seen and fallen in love with the stage musical A CHORUS LINE, the movie is a shoddy substitute. Not only are songs cut, but unnecessary plot twists added, new dance sequences choreographed, and, let's face it, Richard Attenborough just doesn't know how to film dancers.
Onstage, Michael Bennett's A CHORUS LINE was just that: Michael Bennett. His idea, his choreography, his direction, his gift to Broadway and the rest of the world. It was two hours of hard-hitting, in-your-face realism that really made you feel for these "boys" and "girls." The movie, however, lacks empathy and depth: the actors look like they are auditioning for A CHORUS LINE rather than actually auditioning. Every move, every line of dialogue seems so weighted and planned; Michael Douglas, especially, as Zach is too in control for us to believe that he is this extraordinarily bitchy choreographer. Even when he throws his temper tantrums, you never quite believe him because every gesture, every accented word, every nuance is so obviously rehearsed. And as for him not dancing: Kevin Kline auditioned for the role of Zach on Broadway. Michael Bennett loved his reading, but Kline couldn't dance and ultimately lost the part. How I wish they had done the same for Douglas! A CHORUS LINE is supposed to be a show about nobodies, and aside from a few recognizable faces (Vicki Frederick, who played Cassie on Broadway, as Sheila and Khandi Alexander, of TV's NewsRadio, as one of the many auditioning dancers) you're not supposed to KNOW any of these people. Because you DO know these people. Having a star in any of the roles is a terrible decision: when you focus on Michael Douglas and his ranting instead of on the girls and boys on the line and their stories, you lose something.
It is truly unfortunate that the best sequence in the show (Montage: Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen, Hello Love) is cut drastically to make way for a terrible new song entitled "Surprise, Surprise" that surprisingly received a nomination at the Oscars. Cassie's "mirror dance" has a new song and tragically boring choreography -- one wonders why they bothered to shoot a movie version at all if they were going to mess with a working formula this much.
For fans of musical theatre and those who enjoyed the stage version, this movie is a sad mockery of everything they cherished and loved. For those who never got to see the original production, either on Broadway or on tour, this movie is the only reference they will have to go by. And they'll have to wonder just how it got to be the longest-running musical in Broadway history -- until a little show called CATS overtook it in the late 1990's. But THAT is a different story, and don't even get me started there.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Hi, Everyone, If you saw "Singing in the Rain," you remember the scene of Gene Kelly dancing in the rain. You also remember the dance number of Donald O'Connor, "Make 'em Laugh." If you saw "Royal Wedding," you will remember Fred Astaire dancing on the ceiling. If you saw "Jailhouse Rock," you will even remember the title dance number choreographed by The King himself.
That is what is missing here. There could have been some blockbuster dance numbers in this presentation. The closest was Chuck McGowan's "I Can Do That." the mere fact that you have some talented people on stage moving together does not make a great dance film. Richard Attenborough was to blame for this failure. He pointed the camera at the stage and thought that would be a good thing.
Yelling at people auditioning for a part in a Broadway production is not entertainment. Michael Douglas would be just as badly cast if he were in a Western or a comedy. He is OK when he is in a Michael Douglas movie where we see him yelling at someone we would like to yell at. It does not work here.
The cast was good except for Michael, of course. A good movie could have been made even using the songs that were in the stage production, but someone should have thought about how to film it.
Next time they do one of these I hope they call me first.
Tom Willett


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This film is regarded by some as a classic - I've no idea why. It is terrible to the point of being laughable. The only saving grace with this movie are the delivery of cheesy lines that are so toe curlingly embarrassing that you have no choice but to laugh at them.
There are a couple of good songs and good choreography in this film, but SO WHAT! There is no plot, it is set in a theatre with no change of scenery, and Michael Douglas is as depressing as ever. My brother once forced me to watch this film, because he said I wouldn't believe how bad a film can get! He was right.
Normally with a film this dreadful I would recommend that people shouldn't watch it, but in this case I think people should, as it will put every other bad film you've seen in perspective.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
i was lucky enough to see A Chorus Line when it came to my city.. i was younger then.. but it was an Excellent play.. so would someone please tell me why in heavens name did they have to make a movie out of it.. and why Michael Douglas ??? He didnt suit the role.. this movie really sucked BIG time !!!
my advise is NOT to rent this movie.. save your money for something better like "Cats" ....


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
A pale shadow of a great musical, this movie suffers from the fact that the director, Richard Attenborough, completely misses the point of the musical, needlessly "opens" it up, and muddies the thrust of the play. The show is about a group of dancers auditioning for a job in a B'way musical and examines their drive & desire to work in this demanding and not-always-rewarding line of work. Attenborough gives us a fresh-faced cast of hopefuls, assuming that they are trying to get their "big break" in show business, rather than presenting the grittier mix of characters created on stage as a group of working "gypsies" living show to show, along with a couple of newcomers. The film has one advantage over the play and that is the opening scene, showing the size of the original audition and the true scale of shrinkage down to the 16/17 on the line (depending on how you count Cassie, who is stupidly kept out of the line in the movie). Anyone who can catch a local civic light opera production of the play will have a much richer experience than seeing this poorly-conceived film.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Awesomely improbable and foolish potboiler that at least has some redeeming, crisp location photography, but it's too unbelievable to generate much in the way of tension. I was kinda hoping that Stanwyck wouldn't make it back in time because, really, she was saddled with the wet, in more ways than one, husband,and she had an idiot child as well..why NOT run off with Meeker? But the nagging question remains..what sort of wood was that pier support made of if a rotten piece of it pulled off didn't float? Stanwyck, always impeccably professional, does the best she could with the material but it's threadbare.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Just a dumb old movie. First Stanwyck's son gets his foot trapped in a really dumb way, and then her husband gets his foot trapped in another really dumb way. In an effort to save him, Stanwyck gets unlucky, yet again, and comes across an escaped convict. She has a chance to kill him but fails in a very dumb way. In the end her husband is saved, and Stanwyck tells us through narration what the dumb message of the movie is. All's well than ends dumb.
I could never figure out how an unattractive woman like Stanwyck ever made it as a leading lady in Hollywood's glamour-oriented Golden Era; that nose is so beautiful So photogenic The film is mercifully short, running a little over an hour. It's as though the director sensed that he was making crap, so he thought it best to keep the crap short.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Well, my goodness, am I disappointed. When I first heard news of a remake of Robert Wise's 1963 film, "The Haunting", I had a fear that it would be ruined by an abundance of summer-movie sized visual effects. But, deep down, I had faith. Surely, with such a talented cast intact...De Bont and company will not ruin a film, who's original was a fantastic and frightening movie that understood the delicate art of subtlety. Well, subtlety, where are you now!!?? My fears have manifested...a promising movie has gone wrong. Yes, Eugenio Zannetti's production design is jaw-dropping; the movie is wonderfully photographed; and composer Jerry Goldsmith can never EVER do wrong. But, the script puts it's fine actors to the test..asking them to deliver the kind of stilted dialogue that is only spoken in movies. In the end, the always wonderful Lili Taylor is the only performer to escape with some dignity...and that's just barely. But, the crime of all crimes is that the horror is shown to us. We can no longer use our imaginations, feel that horrible dread of fear of the unknown. No, we get some visual effects to SHOW US what we're supposed to be afraid of...and you know what? As wonderfully realized as they are...the visual effects come off as sort of silly. And the climax is a phantasmogoric mess...but things had gone terribly wrong long before that.
Everything in The Haunting is overdone and overblown. I'm afraid there are no real thrills or creaks in this old haunted house monstrosity...only groans. Check out the original instead.



assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
For movie fans who have never heard of the book (Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting of Hill House") and have never seen the 1963 Robert Wise production with Julie Harris, this remake will seem pretty darn bad.
For those of us who have, it is just plain awful.
Bad acting (what was Neeson thinking?), goofy computer enhancements, and a further move away from Jackson's story doom this remake.
Do yourself a favor and rent the original movie. It still effectively scares without hokey special effects. The acting is professional and believable.
For readers of the book, the from 1963 follows the it much closer.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Considering the original film version of 'The Haunting" is in my top ten films of all time' I approached this adaption with trepidation. I was right to be cautious as this film is a poorly written and badly executed load of old tosh, all those involved should be ashamed. the original was terrifying to me as a child for one reason! you see nothing. Robert Wise used innovative camera-work and superb lighting to generate fear and this is why it work's. The shame of the new version is that it relies on clever special effects and pyrotechnics to get from A to B, sadder still is that the ingredients were there (actors such as Liam Neeson, Catherine Zeta Jones) to do something different. This film should only watched as an example of studio butchery!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This poor remake of the 1963 classic starts reasonably well, then replaces suspense with muddled and pointless special effects. For example, in the original, one of the most chilling moments occurs when Nell and Theo are lying side by side in twin beds, listening in terror to the noises outside their room. Nell tells Theo to let go of her hand because she is hurting her. Nell then looks across at Theo, who is several feet away and realises that it was not Theo holding her hand. In the latest version, Nell is lying alone in bed, when suddenly she dives out and slides across the floor. It is only when she tells the unseen force to stop pulling her that we realise what has happened. And can anybody explain what Nell's final words mean - "It's about family. It's always been about family"?
The one redeeming feature is Lili Taylor's performance, but even this cannot save the film. Catherine Zeta-Jones demonstrates once again that, beneath her pretty exterior, there is little depth. In the original, Claire Bloom subtly suggested her lesbian persuasion. Zeta-Jones, however has to spell it out, for example, by asking Nell if she has a boyfriend - or girlfriend.
Definitely one which should be consigned to the pointless remakes graveyard.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
So it starts with a beautiful old house in the country. You have a group of people who get asked to come to this house and (not surprisingly) the caretakers always lock the gates at night for no apparent reason. Anywhoo, the people laugh, joke etc. This Dr tells them a spooky story of this woman and some kids. They get scared, they start to feel stuff. Oh no, a girl see's s ghost. Some more talking then this huge ghost comes and etc etc. This girl finds out that this ghost killed little kids and that she must free their souls, yeah yeah, blah blah. She does but, oh no, she dies as she does. And goes to heaven whilst this evil ghost goes to hell. Two people survive and escape the house. The script is terrible because a guy gets his head chopped off and Elanor (the one who dies saving the kids) says "oh no". The acting is wooden, the effects are crap and the set is a couple off rooms used over and over again. Basically if you like laughing at badly made films watch it, but if your looking for a scare then definitely give this film a miss. I was extremely disappointed when I watched this. A very big let down. My sister (who gets sacred very easily) got bored in this film it is appalling.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
The original movie ( dated 19??)did not show any "monster" , it just SUGGESTED scary "things" , .
This version however shows every aspect of a "sick minded ghost" , including unnecessary special effects .
The "mystery " ,as presented in the original movie , was the most scary part : one simply did not know what was causing the weird things that happened. By showing the face of the "old man" , this Mister has completely disappeared. Even worse : the special effects ( crying wooden children faces) is ridiculous. This is a stupid remake , too obviously spectacular to even be close as scary as the original


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
The Haunting is yet another bad horror remake with phony overdone special effects and a big cast of on screen favorites and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever except maybe for the cinematography.Yes remakes aren't all bad but remakes directed by Jion Da Bont definitely are.I suppose that the A-List actors (Liam Neeson,Catherine Zeta Jones,Owen Wilson)are there to distract us from the boring plot,ridiculous special effects, and terrible attempts at scaring it's audience however this is a movie not a tabloid magazine we don't care whose in it we care about the characters and story two things this film missed.The storyline is like taking the classic novel The Haunting Of Hill House and ripping out four chapters and then using whatever's left for the film it is so boring and a lot of it is unexplained.The characters are pretty thin and while the acting is good you don't really care about any of the characters at all.Lily Taylor gives a horrendous performance and sounds like she's 8 years old when delivering her lines not to mention what a horrible screamer she is.Lily Taylor isn't made for the horror genre at all.The ghosts are stupid and cheesy, they look like a bunch of Casper The Friendly Ghost's and the ghost of Hugh Cain looks like a fat guy dressed as the grim reaper for Halloween with a smoke machine.There is this creature on the roof of one of the rooms that is a giant purple mouth and it's not even funny unintentionally just plain sad.The house is pretty and well designed that is probably the only positive thing about this movie it looks nice but that doesn't save it from it's brutal everything else.I can honestly say i felt like i was wasting my time watching The Haunting on TV for no price so I would've been even more pi$$ed if I had paid to see it but luckily it was on Scream Channel.Overall The Haunting is a boring remake that tries to overwhelm you with bad special effects, a poor attempt at horror.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This movie was one of the greatest movies ever made,,,, it had everything to make a movie great. Incredible acting, awesome special effects...... oh wait I must be thinking of a good movie. Well this wasn't one of them, it just plain sucked.
What I want to know is, what kind of bone head would think that this movie was a 10. When I casted my vote there were 206 out there, god knows what goes on in their head. Now as for any other vote, a 8 or 9 was even too high, but a 10??? Come on, what made this movie sooooo good to give it a 10? I know these are the same 206 that thought that Jean Claude Van Damme is a great dramatic actor.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Somewhere in his non-fiction book DANSE MACABRE, Stephen King suggests that one secret of writing scary stories is to avoid showing your readers exactly what horrible thing is waiting behind the door to get them. If at last the door bursts open and a bug ten feet tall lurches through, the reader may be a little scared, but he'll also think, "Well, I can deal with that. At least it wasn't a HUNDRED feet tall." There's nothing more frightening than what lurks, unseen and unknown, just on the other side of that tightly closed door, waiting to get you.
THE HAUNTING is so completely misconceived that director Jan De Bont more or less starts off his movie by metaphorically throwing open that door himself and yelling: "Look, everybody, look! It's a ten-foot-tall bug! Isn't that SCARY?!" The law of diminishing returns immediately kicks in. By the end of the movie, the director is, so to speak, jumping up and down, banging his CGI pots and pans madly, and hoarsely screaming: "Look, everyone, look! Here come ten HUNDRED-foot-tall bugs! ... And now, here come a hundred THOUSAND-foot-tall bugs!"
The filmmakers apparently believed that special effects alone could compensate for all the other shortcomings in this endeavor (and there are many). They can't and don't. In fact, impressive as they are, the special effects are so insistent and obtrusive that the distracted viewer winds up staring at them -- whether in admiration or annoyance -- instead of being immersed in a story.
For me, the nadir of this film's sheer stupidity comes when a statue, with "blood" gushing from its mouth, tries to drown Liam Neeson (as Dr. Marrow) in a fountain. The filmmakers clearly didn't know what to do with this alleged idea once they had it, so they just have Neeson thrash around in the water a bit, flailing his arms and going glug-glug. By the next scene, the good doctor has apparently dried himself off and, ho hum, forgotten all about the annoying incident.
Shirley Jackson's novel seems to have been dumbed-down into this ridiculous screenplay by a committee of low-IQ teenage stoners who thought the way to frighten people was to make every effect bigger and louder: "Okay, next, let's, uh, make the ceiling, you know, look like a creepy face, and, uh, come down on her ... and all these spiky things, like, trap her in the bed."
The sole saving grace of THE HAUNTING is that it at last becomes so awful that it's actually funny. By the time Owen Wilson (as Luke Sanderson) fell on the floor and then went on his Magic-Carpet Ride O' Death, I just about fell on the floor myself, laughing.
Badly constructed, witless, grotesquely heavy-handed, utterly unbelievable, and filled with clunky dialogue and pointless scenes, this vacuous HAUNTING is a textbook example of how NOT to make a horror movie.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
They screwed up this story! In the end Nell is all heroic and taking on for the team to save all their asses from Hill House and a bunch of nonsense like that! They added heads getting chopped, wires cutting peoples faces, and the ceiling turning into a giant hand! What the hell is that about??? I own and love the original movie, I read the book and I love it! The reason why the original movie and the book are so great is because it scares you so much without even showing the ghost. There is no gore. There is no ceiling hand. It is only the ghost ad how ghosts can truly kill a person. They cannot kill us, they cannot throw us about the room or fly a knife into our head. No. They can only drive us mad. Taking away all our senses of security. Nell was a selfish woman. She only wanted good things for herself. Yes, she cared a little for the others, but not too much. David Self and Jan de Bont have taken a crap on this great story! I hate this damn remake!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
The Haunting. A remake, of course. The original was a creepy psychological thriller, and one that has improved with time. Compared to this 1999 remake, it's a classic. There is no character development here, only caricatures (the slut, the authoritative brain, the "I'm gonna get us outta here" fellow, the oh so sensitive bookworm). But, seeing as how the were banking on the special effects being the "star", I guess characters that you can empathize with are a secondary concern. Unfortunately, the effects are laughable. Mewing cherubs, stretchy doors, irritating dead children that can't speak plainly ... and an idiotically sappy ending that does it's darnedest to give you a new age enema of butterflies and rainbows. Ill take my Skittles orally, thank you. Bruce Dern, I've liked you since "The Cowboys". Stop it.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
The Shirley Jackson novel 'The Haunting of Hill House' is an atmospheric tale of terror, which conveys supernatural phenomena in an old mansion. The atmosphere is well set out, and the chills are staged well. A haunting masterpiece.
The 1963 chiller 'The Haunting' stays closely to the book, but also adds its own details to the plot. Fortunately, these are very few, and so the terror of the book and the chills are executed even better on the screen. The black and white photography only adds to the creepiness of the movie. Excellent!
And then, Jan de Bont made this. In 1999, the remake of The Haunting hit the cinemas - if you could call this a remake. Why they had to make a remake of the 1963 movie is a mystery in itself, but for the moment, lets look at the film itself.
It starts off averagely, as most horror movies do. The set used for Hill House is beautiful, and oddly mysterious, and for a few minutes, it seems as if the film is actually going to be quite a fair re-telling. And then, the first scare comes: a loose harpsichord wire slashes a woman's face (Dr. Marrow's assistant). This is hilarious, and truth be told, it nearly had me in tears.
From then on, the film just spirals downwards. The acting seems to become somewhat wooden as the film goes on, with Owen Wilson's character being particularly irritating (so it's such a relief when he's decapitated by the flue).
The special effects practically make this movie,, which is a shame, because most of them are incredibly cheesy and look very dated. Examples of these are many, so I won't bother listing them.
So, all in all, I, along with hundreds of others, strongly recommend that you watch the original chiller, or, as an alternative, buy the novel by Shirley Jackson. But please, stay away from this. And, if you do decide to watch this, watch it on the TV (as a lot of the channels love to screen this film, and not the original) or rent it cheap, but please don't buy it, whatever you do. Don't waste your money!
Final rating: 4/10


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
There were only two things that kept me interested in this film: I was waiting for Owen Wilson to die, and Catherine Zeta Jones.
This was basically a one woman show. Catherine Zeta Jones was just there to provide eye-candy. Liam Neeson was totally wasted in this film. Like Jones, he had no role at all. The film was all Lily Taylor (Ransom, Ready to Wear). She was the only one that had any real part in this crappy script by David Self. OK, it was his first one and he did redeem himself with Road to Perdition.
I don't know what director Jan de Bont's problem was. he did a great job with Speed and Twister. he really fell down on the job here. Maybe he was still recovering from the disaster Speed 2: Cruise Control. He should thank his lucky stars for The Wild Wild West, else this would be the worst picture of 1999.
Avoid at all costs.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
It's my opinion that when you decide to re-make a very good film, you should strive to do better than the original; or at least give it a fresh point of view. Now the 1963 Robert Wise telling of Shirley Jackson's remarkable novel "The Haunting of Hill House" is worth the price of admission even today. Now fast forward to 1999 and the re-make. I was left shaking my head and asking, why? The acting is wooden, the story unrecognizable and the whole point seems to be to replace the subtle horror of the original with as many special effects computers can generate. I had heard that this update was bad; but couldn't believe it was that bad, considering the source material. I was wrong. After watching this and saying to my wife how awful it was, she said; "Well they got your money!" She's right, don't let them get yours. If there's no profit in making lousy re-makes, maybe they'll stop making them or come up to a higher standard that doesn't insult their audience


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Pretty bad movie offers nothing new. The usual creaks and moans attempt to make-up for a muddled, but thin story. Acting is barely above pathetic. Why Liam Neeson signed on for this is anyone's guess. Owen Wilson truly turns in one of the worst performances in recent horror-movie history. Catherine Zeta Jones is fun to look at and not much else although Lili Tayor did an above-average job. The special effects were fairly memorable and the house itself was breathtaking and hauntingly gorgeous. However they can't makeup for the poor acting and the storyline which appears to have been thrown together at the last minute. Don't bother.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I don't even know where to begin on this one. "It's all about the family." That has to be the worst line of dialogue ever heard in a "horror" movie, although this couldn't be a horror movie even if it tried!!! Ugh!!! And I know that Owen Wilson is a better actor. He needs to stop playing the token guy who dies in every action movie (Anaconda, Armageddon). After all, the man did co-write "Bottle Rocket" and "Rushmore." He does have some talent. Also, Lily Taylor should stick to indie films. She has no place here. Finally, Catherine Zeta-Jones should become a porn star. There's no room in legitimate acting for her. I'm serious. One of the worst movies I've ever seen, EVER.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Effect(s) without cause is generally not possible in the real world but in the world of Hollywood remakes, not only is it possible, it's required. The Haunting has been given the computer treatment courtesy of a 1st-class cinematographer-turner-director who once showed promise (Jan de Bont- Speed) but has since produced a string of big budget garbage (Twister, Speed 2).
Actor are superfluous in a movie of this type and they seem to realize it. Liam Neeson and Cathrine Zeta-Jones act like they wish they were anywhere but in this film. Lili Taylor makes an attempt to add something to the proceedings but whatever that something might be is unknown since the script feels like half of it is missing. Events just happen, good and bad ghosts show up with no rhyme or reason and then the story just ends with a most unsatisfying non-event meant to wrap up the previous 90 minutes of inanity.
There really isn't even reason to see this for the effects since we all know that anything can be put on screen now. Why not watch effects in the service of a good story instead of just for their own sake?


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
The script for this movie was probably found in a hair-ball recently coughed up by a really old dog. Mostly an amateur film with lame FX. For you Zeta-Jones fanatics: she has the credibility of one Mr. Binks.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I have yet to read Shirley Jackson's novel, something of which I've been meaning to do for quite sometime. I am sure it has got to be scarier than this film. I remember jumping once when I watched it the other day, although I cannot recall the scene.
The special effects are great and I watched this on DVD, but I am sure in the theatre it must have been an awesome sight. After the first few special effects are done with I was waiting for a story to develop.
I figured this movie at the least has to be loosely based on the classic novel, so a good story should be there, but it wasn't. I was relegated to staring at the gorgeous Catherine Zeta-Jones character throughout the movie basically because there was nothing much else to watch. Lili Talor was such a suck character. I did not like her one bit, something about whiny people. Also, the guy in this film reminded me of the cartoonish Dudley DoRight with his voice and face. I could not relate to the characters at all. Quigon, ahem Liam Neeson did an admirable job trying to get through this movie with some type of acting.
Half to three quarters of the way I was just dying to go see a campy Friday the 13th or a Scream Queenish film! At least there is some type of entertainment value. If there is no story there at least they fill it up with gory deaths or attractive females. This had nothing.



assistant
0