Area53 banner which is a collection of lots of scattered pictures of things the blogger likes, from music artists and films to TV shows.


From the Past

Films on the to-do list

  • Armageddon Time
  • Black Widow
  • Chimes at Midnight
  • The Killing of a Sacred Deer
  • Last Christmas
  • Remember Sunday
  • Shazam! 2
  • Thor: Love and Thunder
  • Spy Guys

The Haunting (1963)

Film review: The Haunting (1963), directed by Robert Wise

Eleanor “Nell” Lance (Julie Harris) has been her mother’s carer for a number of years, but now she’s forced out of her home by her greedy siblings. Fortunately, she’s been invited to Hill House so she has somewhere to go.

There, she’s met by the grim and creepy caretakers, the Dudleys (Rosalie Crutchley and Valentine Dyall), who make sure she realises that no one’s around to hear them scream “in the night, in the dark”. Luckily, the more positive-spirited Theodora/Theo (Claire Bloom) shows up to take Nell’s mind off things.

Spooky old Hill House will be inherited by Luke Sanderson (Russ Tamblyn), and he has joined Dr John Markway (Richard Johnson) to oversee the “experiment”. Hill House, you see, is haunted – or so they say. Dr Markway wants to investigate if this is true, and has invited Nell and Theo to attract the spirits’ attention. Theo has very strong ESP and Nell has a history of psychokinesis. What could possibly go wrong?

The Haunting is based on the book The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson, which is a book I very much enjoyed. Unlike The Haunting (1999), which is very loosely based on the novel (in fact, you might call it “inspired by” rather than “based on”), this version actually bears a resemblance to the novel. It, sadly, doesn’t feature the planchette-wielding comic relief either, but it does make a point about the house being built to unsettle people, with angles that are ever so slightly off, rather than, oh, the house being possessed by a child-murderer wanting his secrets kept buried with loads of CGI.

Did I mention I like this film a lot better than the 1999 remake? Because I do, I do, I do.

This is spooky stuff at its best, no CGI needed. All you need is a creepy-looking wall full of stucco that makes a frowny face, slightly off camera angles, and tantalisingly vague ghosts. It’s really more about the complete psychological breakdown of a mentally frail, grieving woman than it is about the spirits in the house. But there are spirits, and oh boy are they creeping you out!

See, the thing is, if you keep the scary thing from being shown, it remains mysterious – and with that, it remains scary. It’s the dreaded “unknown”. If we were to see it, it wouldn’t be scary anymore, because then we’d know what it is. That’s why the remake completely fails, and this film completely works. It’s fabulous. And absolutely perfect for Halloween night.

Even if you’re into parapsychology, you can enjoy this film, which is more than you can say about a lot of horror films. If you enjoy actors that are good, you can also enjoy this film, which is more than you can say about a lot of films too.

4 out of 5 rickety staircases, and I need to get hold of the book and re-read it. It’s been far too long!


An easily distracted and over-excited introvert who never learns to go to bed at a reasonable time. Enjoys traveling (when there's not a plague on), and taking photos of European architecture. Cares for cats, good coffee and Boardwalk Empire. A child of her time, she did media studies in school and still can't decide what she wants to be when she grows up.

Let us know what you think!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.