*This blog post was started on September 14, 2021. The review was written in 2010.
House on Haunted Hill: When They Use To Do Double Features
Why should horror sequels work? There is no need for exposition, so you can cut right to the mayhem. Why do they not work? Because they want to introduce new characters when all you need are stereotypes and archetypes.
In a gimmicky genre like horror, we do not necessarily need to know the torrid affairs of the protagonist(s). All you really need to know is the motive of the antagonist. This is the focus of the original "House on Haunted Hill", a trip into a wicked character's mind portrayed by Vincent Price.
For the amusement of his fourth wife, the eccentric millionaire Frederick Loren allows her to host her birthday party at the house that is supposedly possessed by generation after generation of murder victims. Thanks to his jealous nature, his wife is short on friends, so to make the night interesting, he has invited five individuals who are in need of money. Each will be awarded $10,000 if they successfully spend the night there, cut off from the world. Of course, Loren makes it clear that it is not about spending the night. It is about surviving it.
"House on Haunted Hill" is a wise thriller. Wise in the sense that it skips out on presenting exposition as the story moves forward. It opens like a video game. You view the characters and their two-sentence description, and then the movie goes forward, never looking back.
The story turns out to be anticlimactic, but the devious nature of the characters allow that conclusion to be fitting. The director and performers do a great job of presenting the "haunted" environment, but the mere presence of Price makes the film a classic.
Who would dare think that Geoffry Rush could capture what Price did with the role? Rush may have been destined to be miscast when it came to the 1999 "remake", but that is another conversation.
"House on Haunted Hill" is a prime example of how stories should be quick and to the point. This is especially the case when all you have is a premise and a performer. It shows that a director does not need much to make a classic, as long as they remember not to drag out the material.
No comments:
Post a Comment