SummaryMike Flanagan's re-imagining of Shirley Jackson's novel focuses on the grown-up siblings who lived in Hill House including writer Steve Crane (Michiel Huisman) and his two sisters (Elizabeth Reaser and Kate Siegel) as they return to face their past.
SummaryMike Flanagan's re-imagining of Shirley Jackson's novel focuses on the grown-up siblings who lived in Hill House including writer Steve Crane (Michiel Huisman) and his two sisters (Elizabeth Reaser and Kate Siegel) as they return to face their past.
The Haunting of Hill House contains some of the most unforgettable horror imagery in film or television in years. The best horror film of the year also happens to be one of the best TV shows of 2018. Don’t miss it.
It's as though Flanagan has taken Jackson's original work, shattered it and then rearranged the pieces to create a completely original, but equally brilliant tale.
Just as fantastic as the first time I watched it. I do think that it pips Bly Manor a bit for me. I just adore the way the story is told. It's slow and methodical but oh boy does it make the emotional bits hit sooooo hard. I literally can't find a single fault in this show. I would highlight my favourite aspect though: the switching perspectives. It was such a stroke of genius to continually show the same events from different perspectives and it elevated this story even higher for me.
Peak television unironically.
It’s a monologue-heavy series, but the writing is rich and haltingly expressive. ... The family’s issues with mental illness are treated sensitively and believably, and Flanagan makes sure to counter every moment of supernatural terror with a reminder that psychological terror is real, that depression, addiction, and ideation are every bit as terrifying as anything lurking in Hill House.
A horror series that doesn’t immediately make a case for itself; like the best of the genre, it’s slowly insinuating, building in power as it tells a story of repressed trauma and family discord. It’s an effective scare-fest that is at its best when the tale does more than jolt the viewer.
The showrunner, Mike Flanagan, builds a dreadful atmosphere, which is crucial, because the creeping pace of his ten episodes would be intolerable if not for its ambient suspense. The show may work best as a binge watch, one where you don’t pay steady attention but instead let it haunt your own house.
Despite some notable flaws, The Haunting of Hill House deserves credit for doing what any good ghost story does: It conjures up the unthinkable and refuses to let us look away.
His Haunting is a two-hour movie spread over 10 hours. That doesn't mean there's eight hours of padding here, but it often feels that way (I saw the first three hours and the last. Sorry, but even TV critics have only so much patience.)
Absolutely stunning TV show. This show is the Breaking Bad/Infinity Wars of the horror genre. The suspense, the thrill, the unexpected, the emotions at certain points are all built upon well structured characters.
I honestly have no idea how the heck season 2 is going to top the ending - completely blown away. Some parts of the ending you can forecast, but most of the ending you cannot.
It's not scary. It jumps around way too much. And why use a different actor for the same adult character, the dad? It makes no sense.
Some of the acting was good, though, so it's watchable.
Disappointing! I wanted to like it, but there's not enough content and interest for 10 episodes. Reasonable quality acting performances, though I think Henry Thomas and Carla Gugino are NOT believable as a do-it-yourself house flipping couple capable of running a circular saw. Plus no chemistry. Also mismatched are Robert Longstreet and Annabeth Gish as the Dudleys. Most compelling stand-out performance was Elizabeth Reaser as Shirley. Shirley, with Anthony Ruivivar as husband Kevin, are the closest thing to relatable characters, which is notable since they're in the funeral industry. Other characters seem to suffer from trying to appear complex, but somehow end up less dimensional for their effort (example: child psychologist Theo). I understand from other reviews that this Netflix series does not match the Shirley Jackson novel (I haven't read it so don't know otherwise). I feel that this interpretation was intended to be an exploration of supernatural elements and their impact on human psychology and, in particular, family **** this does shine through for the most part. The first episodes showcase the children of the family, featuring each child's experience living in Hill House contrasted with present day adult issues. The idea being that "ghosts" of the past continue to haunt their adult relationships. The perfect highlight of family dysfunction is the unrelenting funeral home scene in E6 (Two Storms). Beyond that, the structure of the series falls apart and it's a scrambled mess, with more time spent on mold remediation, clock repair, and furniture refinishing, rather than meaningful character development and careful layering of relevant elements. The main action in E8 (Witness Marks) basically consists of 2 different sets of people driving to Hill House in different vehicles. You'll have to wait until E9 to find out what happens when the vehicles finally arrive. Sure, there's some interesting conversation taking place, but often it's too much. There are agonizing and excessively long monologs (examples: Dudley's 8 minute speech in E7-Eulogy and the longer than necessary conversations between Hugh and a law enforcement official). The importance of Hill House itself and it's spirit-world "residents" seems like an afterthought despite the series title. I think in the final episodes, the audience was *supposed* to start feeling empathy toward the departed souls rather than fear? Hard to tell, since this element was overshadowed by slowly dragging the family narrative to it's unsatisfying endpoint. It certainly feels like a missed opportunity not to give the spirit world equal billing to the living characters, since that interplay could have made the series more balanced, not to mention putting more meat on the bone. As is turns out, the discovery of a body on the premises only got about 1 minute of screen time and follow-up, so viewers were left wondering what exactly happened there? whose body was that? does that have anything to do with the haunting? A body might ordinarily be pivotal in a tale about a haunted house, but here it ends up being a total throw-away non-event. The final episodes suffer from similarly underdeveloped loose ends, unanswered questions, and irrelevant fillers. Also missing is more about the Dudleys connection to Hill House, a glaring omission since the couple is key to the story wrap-up (they are prominently featured in the last episode.) Other disappointments are the visual imagery of the Hill House exterior and interior. It's beyond a cliche - it might well have been inspired by a Scooby-Doo cartoon. The house is also improbable in scale: how could a contractor/carpenter with a family of 5 possibly afford this? I can easily suspend belief about ghosts, but not real estate. In fact, the most authentically spooky place in the entire series is the funeral home (and it's basement), simply because it's somewhat familiar and ordinary. Even the night-time city streets where a few scenes take place are threatening enough. No special effects needed. It is possible to build a spooky atmosphere with plot and tension alone (see Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining"). Overall, the successful scenes in the series had more to do with the ordinary torment we experience and endure as we navigate our human realm ... inner demons and interpersonal struggles are scary enough. No doubt, the series creators saw the dramatic potential in embedding a family in crisis among unfamiliar otherworldly circumstances. However, without better pacing and more meaningful connections between the human characters and the supernatural realm, the whole enterprise end ups being far less compelling than it could have been.