In a Dracula-like opening, a young lawyer goes to a far-off English village to manage the sale of a mansion, where numerous child deaths have occurred. This is a textbook for horror movie cliches, from the once-you-see-'em-once-you-don't ghostly characters, to the "it's just a cat" sequences, to the obligatory shock shots. But wait. This movie also has appropriately beautiful sepia-colored cinematography, an actor who successfully escapes his own Harry Potter shadow, but most importantly, a story that takes itself seriously, with a memorable ending. So don't just blame the Mojo rating on my soft spot for old-fashioned haunted house movies.
Mo says:
I watched this last week and have to agree totally with your review. I was a bit worried that Daniel Radcliffe would not be able to pull it off but he did. It was also nice to see a great horror film that didn't rely on gore(which I generally love) and the saw type torture that seems almost obligatory now. I want to track down the original now but at the moment I can only find used VHS copies at ridiculous prices(£75).
ReplyDeleteI look forward to more Hammer productions in the future.
Wow! I didn't know this was a remake. I just checked on imdb.com, and apparently it was a TV movie made in 1989, which makes it a very tough find. But I'll be on the lookout for it.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you agreed with the review ... although I believe you'll be disappointed with my "Battle Royale" opinions!
I didn't know it was a remake either, until I looked for the DVD on Amazon. Reviews suggest the original is much better but I doubt that!
ReplyDeleteBattle Royale? I didn't really think it would be your cup of tea.