257: The Haunting (1963 vs 1999)

SPEAKER_05 0:04

Oh no! Oh no! Look at you is stepping in what I'm putting down. Greetings and salutations, and welcome to Hack or Slash. If you're joining us again, welcome back! You don't get this from the Mondo Stewart catalog. If this is your first time listening, welcome to the party. We are a horror movie review podcast dedicated to telling you whether a movie is a hack.

SPEAKER_01 0:27

A total joke, a waste of time, or a slash.

SPEAKER_05 0:30

Totally killer, pun intended. We believe horror is for everyone, and as such, we're rating these movies with the perspective we've gained from our varying walks of life and the flavors of here we fancy most. My name is Chris, I'm your friendly neighborhood slasher enthusiast. This week I'm joined by the classic horror connoisseur Sean.

SPEAKER_01 0:45

I know the supernatural is something that isn't supposed to happen, but it does happen.

SPEAKER_05 0:49

And the paranormal paramour Banks in the night in the dark. This week we're traveling back in time to compare two adaptations of a Shirley Jackson novel made 36 years apart. Before we get down to business, though, we have some follow-up.

SPEAKER_01 1:01

Let's follow up on a movie. This week we are following up on Bubba Hotep from 2002. Uh we recently reviewed this one, and to no surprise for me, the poll results are pretty split up. I feel like there's 53% was a hack and 47% was a slash.

SPEAKER_05 1:22

Yeah, I think that's almost like a close representation of what the scoring was on that episode because it was three hacks to two slashes, and this is almost a 50-50 break. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 1:31

Yeah, absolutely. It definitely definitely feels like a divided kind of film. You gotta be in the mood for it.

SPEAKER_05 1:37

Still shocked that wasn't a universal hack, but okay. I lose sleep over it, actually.

SPEAKER_01 1:42

Oh no. It's the Bruce Campbell. It's the Bruce Campbell of it all. All right. Well, we do have some comments. Some of our followers on Instagram, we have a comment from Cobain who says, Your soul sucking days are over, amigo.

SPEAKER_05 1:55

The real gag is I don't know which way Cobain voted. I want to think, on the one hand, that Cobain is saying this movie's soul sucking days are over, but also maybe Cobain's like really into it.

SPEAKER_01 2:05

We also have a comment from From Dusk Till Dawn podcast who says, Nothing with Bruce Campbell can ever be a hack. Period. He's the king, period. Again.

SPEAKER_05 2:15

That's a lot of conviction and finality. I respect it.

SPEAKER_01 2:18

Listen, there's some Bruce fans out there, I'm telling you.

SPEAKER_05 2:21

Listen, Bruce Campbell, incredibly handsome guy, hilarious actor. I adore Bruce Campbell. I do not adore this movie.

SPEAKER_01 2:27

I gotta agree. I love everything in the Evil Dead franchise that he's done. Wasn't 100% on this one. Then we have Alex, who says, blah, wouldn't categorize this as a horror film.

SPEAKER_03 2:39

I mean, that was technically your take when we rated this or when we scored this.

SPEAKER_01 2:44

Not too far off, huh?

SPEAKER_05 2:45

You know, you're seen and heard, Sean.

SPEAKER_01 2:47

I feel validated. All right, we have some comments from our Discord members. Rob says a couple of things. Did Ryan just tell us she was leaving so we would all say nice things about her? Oh man. Does she finally understand Camp?

SPEAKER_05 3:03

Oh, she does. That's the beautiful character arc, Rob. Listen, yeah. We said it earlier. I was surprised this movie wasn't a universal hack, but the real gag of the episode is that this is a movie that Ryan slashed because it was her final episode and the one in which she understands Camp. It's mind-blowing. Honestly, I think it's a historic episode of the podcast just because of that.

SPEAKER_01 3:25

Oh, yeah.

SPEAKER_05 3:26

It's a character arc.

SPEAKER_01 3:27

Absolutely. Truthfully. But you know what? He also says unfortunately, Sean, Binx, and Chris are all dead to me now. How could you possibly get this one wrong? It's a layup. This movie is an easy slash.

SPEAKER_03 3:40

So essentially the three of us that are speaking today.

SPEAKER_05 3:44

Yes.

SPEAKER_03 3:45

Great.

SPEAKER_05 3:45

As of right now, we're ghosts to Rob, and we've come back from the from beyond the grave to haunt him one last time. And we'll see if we're right or wrong on these movies tonight.

SPEAKER_01 3:55

Yeah, hopefully. Hopefully we'll get resurrected. Nathan says, Binx, you had me dying when the when the anal soul sucking came up, and you said it needs more human centipede action.

SPEAKER_03 4:06

But was I wrong?

SPEAKER_05 4:08

But was I wrong? The conviction you had for the anal soul sucking unparalleled.

SPEAKER_01 4:12

Oh yeah.

SPEAKER_03 4:13

I'm just saying I don't think I was wrong, and I still stand by that statement.

SPEAKER_01 4:18

You gotta stand by it. Ashley says, A, hearing Chris empathetically say what the fuck at least twice is my new favorite sound.

SPEAKER_05 4:27

Hey, listen, I'm I was flattered. This movie had me going what the fuck several times. I think it also just came out so many different ways because of all the feelings this movie inspired.

SPEAKER_01 4:39

That's awesome. And B, she says, the most I've heard the word butthole said so strongly in such a short time, and it's sending me.

SPEAKER_05 4:47

Listen, we've talked about butts a lot on this podcast, but it this this episode also had the historical marks of not only being the episode in which Ryan understands camp, but also the amount of times that we said butt was the highest it it had ever been. It's wild.

SPEAKER_01 5:00

Incredible. Incredible. We're going for a record. We also have a new patron. So we wanted to welcome Ben. Thank you for joining the family. And Ben, now that you've arrived, please stay a while. Because we promise we won't keep you long, we'll keep you forever.

SPEAKER_05 5:16

Ooh, and ever, and ever.

SPEAKER_01 5:18

And ever. And that's our follow-up.

SPEAKER_05 5:20

Well, in 1959, the literary world was introduced to a gothic horror novel by Shirley Jackson, which told the tale of a malevolent house, marginalized women, and the effects of isolation. The novel is now considered to be one of the best literary ghost stories of the 20th century and has expanded its legacy to include two film adaptations of play and a large inspiration for a Netflix series. After reading a review of Shirley Jackson's novel, which was featured in Time magazine shortly after the book was published, director Robert Wise decided to obtain the rights to adapt it to film and consulted Jackson on her thoughts for an alternate title. Now the 1963 film he crafted from Jackson's story was ultimately regarded as a masterpiece in supernatural horror and has become an overwhelming favorite for Wise himself, Martin Scorsese, and even Stephen King. In fact, 33 years after Wise's film released, King, who is admittedly a huge fan of Shirley Jackson, was approached by Steven Spielberg with the idea of making a haunted house film. And the two icons agreed that Wise's film was a benchmark in cinematic horror, but after several creative differences, the project was abandoned and went through a revolving door of screenwriters and directors. Ultimately, Jackson's novel was adapted once more in the form of a 1999 film featuring a star-studded cast, but its reputation is a far cry from its sterling predecessor. Both films feature a doctor conducting research in the form of a human study. A study which brings three people together within the walls of Hill House, and they all get more than they bargained for. This week, we're talking about both versions of the haunting. Who's seen either of these before?

SPEAKER_01 6:49

I've seen both of them before. The original I've seen a good handful of times, but it had been it had been years since I've watched it. And yeah, I gotta say, the I remember the original being a classic ghost story. I think it's widely known as one of the best ghost stories of all time. Uh, and so that really sets the bar, right? And if you're gonna remake a film like that, it gets dicey. But I have seen the 1999 film. The the thing is, is that when I when I think of the 1999 film, and I think I told you this, Chris, I always for some reason get it convoluted in my mind with The House on Haunted Hill.

SPEAKER_05 7:29

Yeah, how because how could you not? They came out the same fucking year in his two-star-studied cast in a spooky haunted house with some rich people. It's wild.

SPEAKER_04 7:37

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 7:38

Yeah, so I actually had never seen the original one, 1963, but the book is one of my favorite books of all time. And the 1999 movie is actually one of the first horror movies I ever remember watching. There's a particular scene that has been forever engraved in my head. And so whenever I think of horror movies, that's that's the movie that comes up, that's the scene that comes up. So I'm very surprised that I never got to see the original, or I just it never happened for me. The show is also one of my favorite shows of all time. So it was extremely excited to finally watch this movie. I have no excuses as to why I haven't seen the original. It's very bizarre that I hadn't, considering how much I love Hill House, but was very pumped about it.

SPEAKER_05 8:23

Ooh. Okay, so I think what's really thrilling for me is that we are both, well, actually, all of us are coming at this from very different experience levels. So I've seen this movie in terms of like the the 1999 version several times, and I've seen The Haunting from 1963 a few times, and I've seen the Haunting of Hill House series, but I've never read the original book by Shirley Jackson. When I saw the the Hill House series, I was like, oh man, is this what this is supposed to be? This is fucking wild. It felt like a very different experience. Why I didn't care to read more into it, I I don't know. Now the original movie for me though holds a very soft spot in my heart because it's groundbreaking for its treatment of Theo. And she's a woman who's attracted to women simply because she can be and she isn't like vilified and she doesn't endure additional hardship because of it. And that was significant, and this is what I I what really drew me to the movie in the first place. It was significant because it was the first of its kind, and it came 13 years after the beginning of the Lavender Scare. So people were losing their jobs and being persecuted in the country just for being gay.

SPEAKER_00 9:27

Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 9:27

And then this movie happened. And this was only five years before the Haze Code was even replaced by the rating system we know today. So we talked about this movie actually originally in our first Pride special, which I've linked down in the show notes. But this movie, this movie is special to me. Now I haven't seen it in a couple years, but earlier in the pandemic, I did watch the 1999 version back to back with The House on Haunted Hill, Sean.

SPEAKER_00 9:51

Oh my gosh.

SPEAKER_05 9:51

I used to be really high on the 99 version, but this was gonna be my first watch since seeing the Haunting of Hill House. So I was actually nervous about whether or not both of these would hold up.

SPEAKER_01 10:02

Dang, yeah. And you see, like, I feel like I'm missing out because I I still haven't finished the Haunting of Hill House series. And surprisingly, I've never read the fucking book. And I need to read the book. One, I need I think I was telling you this too, Chris. I need to read more. I really need to read more. I was telling somebody this. I needed to get that back into my cycle. Like, I've read a lot of the novels that have inspired some some of these classic horror films, but I never got around to reading that one. And I feel like I need to read that. I feel like I need to watch the series. I feel like I need I have a lot of a lot of time I need to dedicate to this overall house.

SPEAKER_05 10:38

I'm I'm smelling a little uh book club moment coming up.

SPEAKER_01 10:41

Oh yeah. Nice.

SPEAKER_03 10:43

You do not need to twist my arm. My book is annotated. I am ready to go. You say the word, I'm doing it.

SPEAKER_01 10:50

Sweet.

SPEAKER_05 10:50

For as nervous as I was going into these movies, I will say that I was able to separate my experience from the Hill House series, even though I felt like that series did such a masterful job of building tension and genuine scares and a lot of emotional heartstrings. One thing that I really felt watching the 1963 version in particular is obviously like the appreciation for just how cinematically stunning it is, uh, for the atmosphere that it creates. But it also did a really funny thing for me this time. And I feel like I should just be showing up to places saying, I'm expected way more. That's a great way to make an entrance.

SPEAKER_01 11:27

That is a great way to make an entrance. Uh, but I have to agree, I think when we look at the 1963 version, cinematically it is amazing, it's stunning, it's beautiful, the house looks great. Uh what I what I really the feeling that I really loved about the beginning or the the where it really set the tone. It really set the tone for that film. Um, whatever the narration was going into that film and just setting the bar for like what this house was and what you were in for and like all the spooky stuff, like it just really set the tone for the film and got you in that haunted house mood.

SPEAKER_03 12:05

Yeah, absolutely. I would say for the 1963 version, I was just so intrigued and entranced because it did such a remarkable job of capturing you in a way that I was not ready for. And you really just enter the mind of these characters, especially Eleanor. Again, in a way that I know from the book is exactly how it is. So I was feeling just so much excitement because I just wasn't expecting the accuracy. I wasn't ready for us to really have that experience in an adaptation. We never really do, right? There's always that element of like, okay, in the book, obviously you're gonna explore the character's mind a little bit, right? That first person moment uh in the films, sometimes they choose not to have that inner dialogue. You don't get to really see their thoughts or hear their thoughts or be that character fully. And in 1963, you definitely are. So I loved it.

SPEAKER_05 12:57

Oh man, the the exploration of that, and and I remember being said, I was texting you around the time that I was watching these, and when you told me about how much more accurate the movies are and how much truer it is to Shirley Jackson's novel, it really made me interested in the emotion of reading that book. And let me tell you, for as much as I was drawn in and like, yeah, I felt a couple funny things watching the 1963 version, I think the pitfall for me was watching them so close together. Because while I've never disliked the 1999 version, there were some things that just felt a little goofy this time around. Let me just say first, Katherine Zana Jones as Theo. I love the look that she gives Nell as Mrs. Dudley is walking away from the room. There's like a slight bedroom eyes there, and I'm like, oh, be still my beating heart, ma'am. But you know, there's a moment where we get some circus music in a carousel room, there are some footsteps that get ignored. Uh it it's just a little bit weird. And I think for me, it's maybe because of the CGI. Like I never thought poorly of the CGI in this movie, but I think when you watch it back to back with something that was so compelling with practical effects and things of that nature, and really letting your imagination wander a little bit more, I felt like I was it was slightly diminished for me.

SPEAKER_01 14:14

So when was the last time you watched the 1999 version, aside from just now?

SPEAKER_05 14:19

It was like within the pandemic.

SPEAKER_01 14:21

Oh, okay. So it wasn't that long ago. For me, it's probably been closer to the time that it came out, and the 1999 version, obviously. I wasn't born in the 60s. But I think the whole CGI thing, that feeling of the goofiness and whatnot, I feel like is it goofy now, or was it goofy in 1999, or was it actually cool in 1999? I don't know. Uh, because when I watch some of these movies back from this era, I do get a completely different feeling than I did when I watched them back then. You know, the 1999 version, it looks pretty cool. Like the the house looks pretty awesome. Like it looks really cool. It's really amazing the exterior and all, but especially the interior, it just looks wild, almost unrealistic compared to the original. Uh, I will say that, but it was visually pretty stunning. What a a wild house that was. But let me ask you like, were was anyone getting some major Ghostbuster vibes from the painting?

SPEAKER_05 15:20

Yes. Yes, 100%. But may I also just slip in real quick? This movie came out the same fucking year as Star Wars Episode I, the Phantom Menace. So the CGI, and it famously The Phantom Menace doesn't have the best kind of graphic work in it in its in its franchise. Yeah. But this movie pales in comparison even to that. So I just want to throw that out there for the perspective of like, was it cool or was it not?

SPEAKER_01 15:43

It's a fair point.

SPEAKER_03 15:44

I didn't realize that. And so I'm just thinking of like, Sheesh, the 90s, huh? The thing with 1999 is that I just feel like I I, since I've seen it pretty often, but again, still has had I've had a gap of a few years for sure. A handful, if not more, in terms of seeing this movie. I already kind of knew that it was gonna be a little goofy, but I didn't know what to come out of 1963, right? So I think in re-watching both in a short amount of time, it's that definitely the difference between the two. It's very dark. And so with 1999, I just think that's the essence of the 90s, clearly, with the example you just gave. It's it's gonna be like extra CGI, it's gonna be dramatic. And so I felt like this movie was dramatic, therefore I felt goofy, silly, like in awe of the cast. Like I didn't take it as serious as 1963, which is interesting when we're talking about Hill House, a concept, a story that is so dark, menacing, like twisted, and you're just kind of like, oh, this is a little bit of a circus movie in and of itself. So it's interesting.

SPEAKER_05 16:47

Really, the circus was felt no stronger than like even the moment we're introduced to Owen Wilson's character.

SPEAKER_04 16:52

Oh, yeah.

SPEAKER_05 16:53

Let me say this. I know I have a collection of actors that I despise and I don't watch movies that they're in. He is not that far up on that list. You know what I mean? Like, he's not someone who I will completely avoid. But when I first saw him in this movie, I felt my stomach turn, thinking, fuck, I forgot he's in this movie. Because again, Sean, the lines blurt. I was thinking about Tay Diggs and The House on Haunted Hills. You know what I mean?

SPEAKER_00 17:18

Yeah, for sure.

SPEAKER_05 17:20

Much different cast, equally star-studded. And but I will say, one thing that surprised me about the 1999 version was how pleasantly I turned around on him by the end of the movie. Because it's almost like he got he got just a little bit better along the way, even though his character isn't particularly likable to me. It's like I've said this before, J-Lo in a movie. You can rarely look at a movie that J Lo is in, except for Selena, and not see J Lo. I cannot look at a movie that Owen Wilson is in and not see Owen Wilson. But I he started to disappear into his character a little bit more the more it went on.

SPEAKER_01 17:56

Do you think so? I mean, I feel like Owen Wilson is always just Owen Wilson doing Owen Wilson things.

SPEAKER_05 18:02

Listen, uh, we'll talk about one of some of my favorite moments later in in the episode that involve him.

SPEAKER_04 18:08

Okay.

SPEAKER_05 18:08

Not for great reasons, but uh, you know, he didn't outstay his welcome. I'll say that.

SPEAKER_00 18:14

Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 18:14

Uh oh, I can't wait.

SPEAKER_03 18:16

I cannot wait. You know, the funny part about him is that he's playing a character with his brother's name. He's Luke and his brother's Luke Wilson.

SPEAKER_01 18:25

Yes.

SPEAKER_03 18:26

That's that's really the gag. So, in terms of like the 1999 movie, I think that's it. The cast is really what was most surprising because every time I watch it, it's like a renewed like realization of like, look at all of these Oscar nominated slash one winner in this movie. It's kind of a little like whoa to uh a bit. So to see their performances at such a young age and the trajectory of their careers now is kind of just like a little bit strange. It's a it's a weird, I don't know, watch in that when you think of that. The only thing that I'll say for the 1999 version is that it definitely shifts in plot. This is like the movie that definitely takes its liberties on the book and really just turns it. So giving that preface. But in terms of 1963, it's the opposite. Now, 1963, I think, is to, in my opinion, really the best adaptation to the book. Even though it does take some liberties, there are some things that have changed. It really does capture the essence of the house, Eleanor's character and what happens to her. The tension that's in the book is also fantastic in this movie. So we're seeing two movies that are based on the same book, but definitely go in different directions. And so the surprises and the disappointments are reflected in that for me.

SPEAKER_01 19:45

Yeah, it's interesting that you say that because the 1963 version was an adaptation of the novel, and the 1999 version, uh, what their excuse was was that they couldn't get the rights to be a remake, so that was just an adaptation of the adaptation, and so maybe that's their excuse, but I don't know.

SPEAKER_05 20:04

Bro, that is, yeah, you can look at my homework, but changed a little bit, so it's not obvious you copied it. That's what that shit is.

SPEAKER_03 20:10

That's exactly what that that's exactly what that is for sure. And it and it shows, it definitely shows.

SPEAKER_01 20:16

Yeah, but you know what? So, like the the thing that was surprising and maybe also disappointing, I think, with the 1999 version, I was surprised uh by you know how little the visual effects really did to add to the actual film, to add to any kind of anything. Uh, whereas I think it was also at the same time really surprising at how effective the 1963 version was without needing to rely on pretty much any visual effects, really, of any kind. I mean, there were some effects, but very little effects, right? And and it was more of a play on the lighting and the camera angles and the actors really showcasing emotion and fear and all these things, right? And the sound. Uh, and I it was just it's just when you compare them side by side, it's just really surprising to see uh how one can do so much with so little and how one can do so little with so much.

SPEAKER_05 21:16

Oh wow, what a fucking poignant way to describe that, Sean. That was amazing. That was Chef's Kiss. Because it really is the time of excess. Because even Theo's character, and mind you, I adore Catherine Zeta Jones. I have some thoughts on like those two characters in particular, uh, later on in the second half of the episode. But she is very much an evolution of the original Theo, but in ways that she is often seen and interpreted as excessive and too much and just a little bit too out there, a little bit too in your face. And it's it's wild to think I guess you know. What no, it's not it's not even wild to think because this is a tale as old as time. It's so often that we see these classics that try to get a remake and then it ends up just kind of shitting the bed one way or another. Now, again, because I think I saw the 1999 version first, I I didn't have that emotional connection to the 1963 yet. And so I think I've given a lot of pardon and grace and and whole held space for the 1999 version, but you're absolutely right. It it really does just try to swish things up a bit and again like tries to add a little bit of salt and then pours the whole salt shaker into the pot.

SPEAKER_01 22:37

So here's the thing, right? Like I feel like to me, the original is way more frightening than the remake. I talked about it just a moment ago, right? Like I feel that what really worked for the original here is that it really stimulated the mind. It got your imagination going, uh, and you can get your own interpretations out of the film. Uh, it didn't rely on effects as much. It had a lot to do with the visuals that you know get from just the lighting and and the ambiance and the sound and the actors' faces and the and the and the emotions and fear they were showcasing, whereas the 1999 remake did not have the same effect. The remake really relies on what they can show you or like how much CGI they can throw at you on screen with ghosts and whatnot. So to me, the original is more frightening because it scares you with implications and seeing the fright or terror on the actual faces, it's just better acting.

SPEAKER_03 23:36

I have to agree. I think that ultimately the way that they evoke fear is so starkly different. In the 1999 one, I think you're so caught up in the story and these characters and the fanfare and the CGI to really be actually scared and creeped out by anything. And although I can imagine that perhaps in 1999 it was scarier, I'm trying to think of like me as a child. Yeah, I was scared, but I was also seven years old. So, you know, it's very different. In 1963, I'm watching this, I know what's gonna happen, and it's the small moments that really stood out to me and creeped me out. And I think that's the most shocking thing. That's what it that's the moment that makes you think, all right, this is different, it hits different. How often do we say that about black and white films, you know, of this era, of this time and of and and its predecessors, right? Not very often. So I think that's impressive.

SPEAKER_05 24:32

I would agree it's impressive. I think the 1963 certainly has more room to let you let your imagination do some of the work. And I really think that's where it shines. I think this is like you know, pulled right out of this era of film that I loved watching on a rainy day, cuddled up on the couch with my sisters in our living room. When I think about just like the the feelings that this kind of movie gives me, I wouldn't say that it scares me, but it just allows you the opportunity for you to scare yourself. It's it's like the idea of like show versus tell, but then the 1999 version goes so hard with the show that it just cheapens the value of it. But I will say that one of the things that I find frightening about both of these movies is Eleanor's relationship with her mother and the outcome of that and the pitfalls of that. Leave it to me to be sentimental about this. I know.

SPEAKER_00 25:23

Yep, yep.

SPEAKER_05 25:24

Here I am for it. Both of these movies take Nell's character and show just these slight differences in the scene before she gets to Hill House when she's talking to her family and they're bickering about things, and you see such emotional weight and you see her push into a moment of desperation. And I think that is a terrifying thing. I've seen that in people, in this moment where you feel like you're like a ticking time bomb and you just have so much stress on your shoulders that you know your decision quality isn't great. So I I I think the potential of that is frightening to me.

SPEAKER_03 26:00

Can I just say really quickly though, what you were saying a little bit earlier, and I just need to say it out loud because it's I it's what came to my mind, and I feel like this is the perfect group to say it. Why is 1963 why is it giving skin a rink like done correctly?

SPEAKER_02 26:16

Because everything that you said, and in terms of the subtle moments, just like you know, seeping in, just taking, letting the imagination run, letting the fear the how I'm like, Yeah. So skin em a rink in 1963, essentially.

SPEAKER_00 26:31

Listen, don't don't drag that movie into here, okay?

SPEAKER_02 26:34

No, no, no. I look, it's just for us. If it's just for us, it's just for us.

SPEAKER_00 26:37

But I no, you're good.

SPEAKER_02 26:38

I'm gonna am I gonna rewatch it? I said that I will, but I'm just saying, you said it. That's where my mind went.

SPEAKER_05 26:45

Binks, I don't think you should feel bad about that at all because it's fucking true. It's called being able to build atmosphere, is what it is.

SPEAKER_01 26:53

Yeah. Well, I mean, look, the movie was groundbreaking. It really, it really did some amazing things uh for for the horror genre, really. I don't know. I think you know, you see not very much, but you get just enough. You get, I think one of the bigger impacts, right, is even something that I said about Skinner Marink is like, wouldn't it have been cool to see some of the faces and the fear on the characters and just see a little bit more of the characters? But uh I think I think that really like the horror on those characters' faces really sold it in the 1963 version.

SPEAKER_05 27:28

You know, it it really did, but let me also say that there was something about those characters' faces in that in this movie for some reason on this watch where they just looked different than I remember. And maybe it's because this is the best TV I've ever watched this movie on, but they all looked way older than I remember.

SPEAKER_00 27:44

Oh, really?

SPEAKER_05 27:45

It's bizarre. It's it is it's not important. It's not important at all.

SPEAKER_01 27:48

4K really ages you.

SPEAKER_03 27:50

It really does.

SPEAKER_05 27:50

Yeah, no kidding. I've been a victim of it myself. But but I will say something that I have appreciated, and this is where being because I really have to read the book to get down to the root source material here. I really enjoyed comparing and contrasting the differences in these movies from each other. We've said a little bit how the 1999 version can do so little with so much, but there's even moments where we see key elements that are tied to Nell's relationship with her mom that are actually included at the very beginning of the story and the origin story of Hill House in a very different way uh in the original version. So it's almost like plucking these little elements out. Uh, and you had to think like for me, having no experience with the novel, is this a not an adaptation of that adaptation as Sean said earlier, or is this an homage, or is this something that's actually in the novel? You know what I mean? So I have questions that I can't wait to get to the bottom of.

SPEAKER_03 28:46

Yeah. So in terms of originality and both of the films, I mean, we kind of already touched on it just briefly, and I know that I've said my piece, but in 1963, there are definitely some edits, right? And so what makes it original for me is it keeps the fear centralized inside the house versus out. Um, and that's something that the book that kind of changes and shifts from the book a little bit. The movie creates this sense of claustrophobia, and that's what makes Hill House what it is. So I think that that was really brilliant. When it comes to 1999, we said it, it's really just the adaptation of the adaptation, not so much the book, you know, and it's an extreme dramatization of it. However, it takes CGI to the next level. It takes CGI to the point of like introducing it into horror and in such a capacity that sure, it's overdone, certainly, but it takes a bold step in trying to change this whole Hill House storyline. And ultimately, what happens years later, fast forward, all the way to Haunting of Hill House and Netflix, that also has taken a very steep turn from the book as well. So, what did it really become a catalyst of, right? That's what I think about.

SPEAKER_01 29:58

Yeah, I think those are fair points. I obviously, like I said, I haven't read the book, but I I think the originality of both films come from just two for me, they get points for two separate things, right? I feel like in the 1963 or the original film, I think you get some originality points for just the way that they really innovated the way they filmed the movie and and just the overall cinematography of the film. I think in that sense, it gets some originality points, maybe not necessarily for the story, but for the way that they filmed that film. Uh, but in the 1999 version, I would give it originality points uh for being able to, you know, be able to freshen up the story a little bit and give you some different uh aspects of the film and switch up some of the characters and switch up the story just a little bit and make it kind of refreshing in a way. It's not the same, it's same, same, but different, but it's kind of intriguing. So uh and it didn't really like kill the story by any means. So I feel like it gets originality points for that at least.

SPEAKER_05 31:07

It does, and and I think you can actually look at even in this same era, you have another 90s remake of a 60s film in Psycho. Yeah, and Psycho opted to go the shot-for-shot remake wet route, and this did something a little bit a little bit different. So I can respect it, and that's what I was talking about earlier. Like there are things that are done and and twisted in the 1999 version that make me question is this more true to the novel or is this a reference to the prior film? So I think there's originality on both sides of things, but for all the swings that the 1999 version took, I did not enjoy its ending as much as I enjoyed the 1963 version.

SPEAKER_01 31:49

Oh, for sure. The 1963 version just resonates differently because of the lore behind everything and what it kind of leaves for interpretation and and just the I don't know, it just it's just that whole psychological aspect of the film. Whereas the 1999 ending, I don't know, I wouldn't say it it may not have been like played out or anything like that, but it just felt like all right, cool. Like I'm sure we'll we'll dive into it a little bit more in the second half when we can talk really more about specifics that don't spoil the movie, but uh it just it just felt a little bit bland, almost like it maybe gave again, maybe gave you too much, too much of the story, whereas the original gave you just enough.

SPEAKER_03 32:37

In terms of the original, I couldn't agree more. It for me it was fantastic. I it was a great way to wrap up the movie, the essence of the house. It's it was faithful to the adaptation in its own way. I think it was a great finale, and I can't wait for us to kind of dive deeper. I definitely agree. But man, the 1999 one. The thing is that I feel like the ending kind of cheapens a movie that was already on the fringe, and it just doesn't do the rest of the movie as much justice as it should. And so, like, even as you kind of get closer to the end, it's the dialogue, the acting, everything just kind of starts to give up. Aside from like one big moment, the rest of the movie just like simmers until it's real flat, and you just kind of feel like ugh, another one of those movies that you're like, all right, I guess this is the ending. Here's the resolution. It's not an ending that you hope coming out of a whole movie.

SPEAKER_05 33:28

Well, you know, it sounds when you put it that way, that it kind of gives like this this lackluster taste in your mouth, you know, that to really let you sit on after a while. So we'll see how those feelings end up, you know, shaking out into our ratings. But before we get there, Sean, how would you rate the gore score for both of these films?

SPEAKER_01 33:45

Well, there's literally like no gore in the 1963 original uh that that I can recall. So it I would have to be, I mean, for that one, it have to be, I don't know, is there a non-existent gore score? Not applicable. The the the little bits of blood that we see in the 1999 remake is actually not bad to look at compared to the rest of the CGI, but overall we see some pretty basic amounts of blood, nothing really too crazy there. I would rate the the 1999 maybe a low Gore score. I mean, you could borderline maybe medium, low Gore score just due to one scene, literally, but I think it's low. I think it's in the low territory.

SPEAKER_05 34:27

All right, and what about the animal report for both movies?

SPEAKER_03 34:29

I am happy to report in both movies we are safe.

SPEAKER_05 34:33

Well, let's go ahead and get into our ratings then, beginning with the original 1963 version of the haunting. Was it a hacker or slash?

SPEAKER_01 34:39

So I love the original. I think it's one of the best ghost stories, to be honest. The original is such an effective haunted house uh film where, you know, I I don't know, there's just no denying it. It gives you so much, like I said, with using so little, and it just plays, it's like a psychological horror film and really just innovative for its time. Less really is more. And so the original 1963, The Haunting, for me, is one of the best ghost stories ever put on film. And what they were able to do to really bring that novel to life with what little effects it really used, the acting, the set design, the practical effects, the lighting, it's an absolute slash.

SPEAKER_03 35:19

If I haven't made it abundantly clear yet, I love Haunting of Hell House. The book, the show, and also the movies. The 1963 movie impressed me beyond belief and honestly made me fall in love with this book even more. The journey we go on, right? The madness, the depths of this house, the character, especially Eleanor, it's not what I expected whatsoever. I really feel like I was just watching this movie as if it was of a more recent time, not that it was made in 1963. Look, it's clear, it's a slash.

SPEAKER_05 35:51

Well, look, far be it from me to derail a train when it's currently on the tracks. The 1963 version I've already shared has such a special place in my heart for not only the effectiveness of its atmosphere, not only because of its quality as a ghost story, not only because of how beautiful its cinematography is, not only because it does so much or so little, but because of the treatment of its characters, especially at a time where it wasn't common. This movie is iconic, it's groundbreaking, it's pioneer it's a pioneering film, and it holds up over time. Like, you know, we think about how well does something age throughout the decades. And this is a film that is just as entertaining today as it was when I first watched it, if not more so, because I'm then digging deeper and finding these things with other versions of this property and the source material that I'm I find myself falling in love with. I have some some feelings on the 1999 version, which I'll get to in just a moment, but what this movie does is redeem the negative parts in the 1999 version for me. And it's a slash. Now that 1999 version of The Haunting, it's imperfect. It's a movie that has a star-studded cast. It really tries to go a lot of places, it tries to do a lot of things, it tries to show you so much, and it really just says, hey, look at this advancement of technology that we've had in the 30 plus years since that last film, and let's try to do something a little bit different. But let me tell you this, friends. There's a reason why Stephen King and Steven Spielberg are no longer associated with this film. There is a reason why when they see the final product, they disown it in some ways. Now, there are a lot of things that you can complain about this movie for, but I will say, somehow, some way, at the end of the day, I still had fun with it. And maybe it's the 1963 version that has me appreciating some details more. But for me, the 1999 version is still a slash. It's just not a film that I take as seriously. Like this is a good, you know, get some pizza, have it on the background, put it in a lineup full of haunted house films. Like that that's what this movie's vibe is for me.

SPEAKER_01 38:05

You know, I could I can see that, but you know, the problem for me is I think I love the original so much, and I don't necessarily love the 1999 version. I think the original is such an effective haunted house film, whereas the remake is definitely a haunted house movie, there's no denying that. However, it just wasn't effective when you compare it to the original. Uh, I I think I said it before, I think that while the visuals were really cool in the remake, they didn't really do anything to make the film better. The sound was well done, but sometimes even overbearing at the same time. I just think that it's a tough one because had the 1999 version not been a remake of a film that I really enjoy, it might have had a better go. Uh, it had it been its own thing, not trying to be the haunting of Hill House, it may have been a different vibe. I don't know. But, you know, it's not that I think the 1999 remake is a total joke or a waste of time, but if you put it next to the original, there isn't really any scenario where I'm picking this one over the original. And for that, I think I have to hack the film.

SPEAKER_03 39:14

Oof, oof, okay. All right. Well, I respect that. I do. And I think for me, it's it's the fact that this movie holds a strong place in my heart because it is one of the first movies I've ever seen, right? In horror as a child, it's resonated with me for so many years. So at the end of the day, the ending aside, it's extremely nostalgic for me. Um, the cast is incredible, the set design is incredible. Like I said earlier, ultimately, this is a story that you've heard before, but with a different twist than its counterparts, right? The movie was entertaining. I agree, Chris. It was entertaining. And as a fan of the franchise, it's just not what you're hoping and expecting. But damn it, I have to say, this movie ultimately is a guilty pleasure for me. And I think that as a guilty pleasure, it just can't be a slash. Not fully. I know, I know. I'm shocking even myself, but I have to say it, I have to go with my gut, I have to admit it. And I agree that seeing 1963, I think it definitely did shift this a little bit more into the hack category. It's a guilty pleasure. And I agree, Chris. It is a movie that you put on, you watch, you you know, you eat some pizza, you vibe with. Clearly, that it's what it is for me. But does that make it a full-on slash? I don't know. So I'm maybe this is another one of those that I'm gonna think about at the end of the year. But for right now, I'm putting it as a hack. Nice.

SPEAKER_05 40:37

What a shocking turn of events. Here I am, define defending Catherine Zeta Jones' honor. That's fine. I am up to the task.

SPEAKER_03 40:45

Nothing against Catherine Zeta Jones. Look, we're gonna get into it soon. I have to be honest with myself and in my core. Yeah. The house is speaking to me.

SPEAKER_05 40:52

No, I I respect it. And again, like the movie is imperfect. It's not the best ghost story, it's not the best haunted house movie, but it does just enough to still be fun and to be something that I would opt in to watching. So, look, folks, for now, the original 1963 The Haunting has earned a universal slash, while its counterpart from 1999 has earned two hacks and one slash. Now you can find both of these movies available online. We have links in the show notes to both, so go check them out and then join us in the second half so we can compare and contrast together. We'll see you in a bit.

SPEAKER_03 41:48

Welcome home the haunted housekeepers and let them take care of it for you. We specialize in cleaning up homes that are already inhabited by the undead. We'll get rid of all the bodies and bloodstains without getting rid of any of the dust or cobwebs. Plus, we know all of the best secret rooms and trapdoors for extra hauntings. Use promo code Hackerslash for one free ghost graffiti cleaning from your walls.

SPEAKER_05 42:19

Welcome back, folks. You are now entering the spoiler zone for both versions of the haunting. Now, the original 1963 film has earned a universal slash while its successor earned two hacks and one slash. We have a lot to unpack here, but before we get into the specifics of our ratings, let's go through the kills.

SPEAKER_01 42:35

Alright, so when we're looking at the 1963 version of the haunting, we get uh, I believe a total of three deaths throughout the film that we see, right? You know what's really interesting is you get both uh Hugh Crane's wife and Eleanor crashing into the same tree 90 years apart from each other.

SPEAKER_05 42:53

Bro, that tree's gotta go. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 42:55

Call landscaping company. Absolutely.

SPEAKER_05 42:57

Cut it out.

SPEAKER_01 42:59

And correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the uh tree right at the house kills every 90 years. That's the lore, right? So the date of Eleanor's death is October 21st, 1963, as confirmed by the book from the library that Luke reads aloud. But then it's pointed out that her car crashed against the same tree as Hugh Crane's wife, Mrs. Crane. So I don't know, that's kind of interesting. Which I thought was kind of also really cool, the just the lore of it all and and what it kind of did for the effectiveness at the ending that we were kind of talking to, but not really to dive into specifics, right? Of just what it was able to do with the character of Eleanor and how it really did a really effective job at like trapping her and sucking her back into the house.

SPEAKER_03 43:46

No, definitely. Just to get it a little bit into Kills That Stand Out, especially into night 1963, it is that one because ultimately it was the perfect way, and it really is like a full circle moment and And when you think about it, a lot of it was witnessing these paranormal things, you know, like Luke kind of makes fun of her a little bit in the movie about, oh, is she really seeing these things or is it really just like a, you know, a hoax or just like fake, right? And what I what really stands out to me in that death is she is really the only one to truly witness the hold that the house has on her. And no one will ever be able to see that. No one was there in the car to see that the car was really just like maneuvering, right? And even Eleanor herself, she knew and was like, okay, you see, the house doesn't want me to go, but she wasn't necessarily ready to full-on die, you know, to some extent. It was that moment, that quick moment of madness. But I would agree, it is very interesting and especially cool that it's like that 90-year mark for sure in that same tree.

SPEAKER_05 44:49

The death is cool. We love uh a good bookend where something ends just the way it began. It's a great cinematic tool, a great narrative tool. But for me, the death that stands out was the one that was actually pretty quick in the 1963, and that is the companion, who just in one moment walks up the stairs, same shot, uninterrupted, and then is suspended, hanging.

SPEAKER_04 45:14

Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 45:14

So sudden. It's like blinking, you miss it. Yeah. So chilling, so haunting.

SPEAKER_03 45:19

That that is also what a great moment. For me, that was a moment that excited me the most because the spiral staircase is like the spine of the house to me. Yeah. To me personally. It is the spine of the house and the and the evil of the house. Every time that it is introduced in one of these adaptations, I'm just like, oh my god, I love it so much. It was just so great to see the original adaptation of that that was portrayed in the book, right?

SPEAKER_05 45:43

And let me tell you how this movie had me fiending for years to find a a house that has a spiral staircase. I don't blame you.

SPEAKER_01 45:51

It would be really cool to see a staircase kind of like that. So let's talk about the 1999 version. As far as deaths go, we we only really see, I think, two deaths in this one, if I'm not mistaken. Three if you count the vision of the mom hanging. You know, I'll let you guys talk about what you feel your favorite kills are.

SPEAKER_03 46:11

Easy.

SPEAKER_01 46:12

Yeah, very easy. Because I can I think I know what it is.

SPEAKER_03 46:15

I mean, I've been waiting for this moment since we decided to do this. Okay, I'm gonna paint you a picture. I was seven years old, and I promise you that the only thing that I remembered about horror movies for a good frickin' while, like I would tell my mom this particular scene of a movie to try to remember what it was when I was a kid. It is Luke's death. That is like a piece of cinematic history for me that has been engraved in my brain. And I have like, I think I have like memory issues sometimes because I some things are just like blurs, but I have remembered that particular scene for the longest time. It's so defining, it's so shocking. And imagine seeing a whole freaking head be decapitated at seven years old. I was like, what in the hell? I don't think I should have been seeing that movie, truthfully. But you know, it was that, it was it, it was a lot of things I probably shouldn't have seen. But that is my favorite kill, probably of all time, because it just means a lot to me. You know, it's very a lot of nostalgia. And it's Owen Wilson getting his head cut off.

SPEAKER_05 47:16

Like, come on. For real. That is also my favorite kill. We have the same one because again, he did not outstay his welcome. I was really ready for him to go at this point, and I think the reason why I was so much more okay with him as time went on was because I knew we were getting closer and closer and closer to his expiration, particularly when he almost ate it in the fireplace previously. There are so many things that lined up for this man needing to expire. He narrowly missed the the the rod gate, the the iron gate coming into the car. It should have been failed him on the top of his head for sure. So the closer that we get, the more satisfying it is. And to see just that fireplace flute swinging back and forth and for his head to just suddenly not be there, chef's kiss.

SPEAKER_01 48:06

Yeah, it was it was good. And you know what the thing was is that it was such a I mean, I guess in the moment you kind of saw it playing out seconds before it happens, but it still was so sudden and so impactful that you know, because the rest of the film, you know, I mean you're not seeing like a ton of kills. So like to see something that crazy happen was kind of shocking in the middle of the film.

SPEAKER_03 48:31

Definitely, definitely. You don't expect it. Yeah. Because at this rate, you know, let's face it, even when we think of the original, you're really only expecting, if anyone, Eleanor, right? You're not expecting one of the characters.

SPEAKER_01 48:43

Right. Twisted turn. I loved it. You know what is interesting though is that the two kills that we get in this movie are also the two guests who are the only ones to close the main hall doors in the film.

SPEAKER_05 48:56

It sounds like Catherine Zeta Jones just knew better. I will not call her Theo very long. Well, actually, when we start actually getting into like Theo versus Theo, I'll call her Theo. But Catherine Zeta Jones is a fucking queen, and I've loved her since I saw her in Zoro Zorro. Sounds like she just didn't want to fuck around and find out. She had she had a healthy respect. Let me say though, while Luke's death was an outstanding and iconic moment in this movie, something that really just shakes you, doesn't really stir you. There's so much to love visually from both of these. Again, we talk about the CGI being a problem, but for me, especially specifically in the 1963, there's so much to love, but I adore the opening graphic. And it really just sets things off so nicely. And to achieve that kind of effect, this the letters themselves being like a ghostly apparition, it just seems so well executed for its time.

SPEAKER_01 49:52

Yeah, you know, there's so many great parts of the 1963 version. I think one, the set design was super great, but it's really for me, it's really the cinematography. It was just so perfect. It's the way it chose to show you the horrors of the house, and just the way that it depicted kind of the eeriness of the house and the way that it was able to give you those those close-up shots, the actors and the horrific faces that they portrayed. And I know this is probably like the third, fourth, or fifth time that I've brought this up, but it really that cinematography and what they chose to do with those shots and what they chose to focus on really did so much for the film, and I think that's the my favorite visual element. And to be honest, I don't think it would be the same had it not have been a black and white film. And I think if I remember correctly, it was fought to be a black and white film. The the director wanted it to be a black and white film because in 1963, a lot of films were already in color, like it was it was pretty norm for the films to be shot in color, and I and I believe that he felt that uh it just wouldn't have it just wouldn't have been the same, and that this type of movie had to be in black and white, and I cannot imagine seeing it any other way. I don't know if they put a color version out there. I would watch it to experiment, but I can't imagine it's it holds up to this version.

SPEAKER_05 51:18

Yeah, there's also like some something where allegedly the studio also had it in a contract that it had to be black and white. Because I remember hearing those two separate stories, and it was like, on the one hand, wow, what a masterful choice, a decision. And then you're like, oh, he had to do it all along. So maybe it's true, maybe it's not true. 100% I agree with you. This movie would not hit the same had it not been in black and white. And let me tell you, the other element that I absolutely love was the fact that they even chose lenses that warped the walls and made the walls curve visually. Because again, it it just adds this element of mysteriousness, of ghostliness. Obviously, the house in itself is a character, but it made the house feel alive. And we think about, you know, especially like I spent quite a bit of time in my life uh having to use specific lenses that show a space accurately, right? Or even like in real estate, things like that. You have to be very, very careful in preserving the integrity of what the house or the home or the space looks like. So to see the manipulation of this set of this house through even just the curvature of the lens is phenomenal.

SPEAKER_03 52:28

Yeah, I think for me it's you know, you touched both of you touched up on my favorite things about this film. It just sticks out in such an incredible way. I couldn't agree more that I don't know if I would have felt the same way if this movie was not in black and white. So whichever tale it is, they did it right. They did it correct. Because I just think that the story itself is black and white in some way. It is that darkness, and you need to kind of see that very stark difference between dark and light to capture madness as it unfolds, especially in the way that they did it. A scene that that sticks out to me in terms of cinematography is when you stare into the eyes of the second wife, like the wife that he re-marries afterwards when she falls down the stairs, and you're just staring at her in such a I was not surprised, and we're talking that's early on into the movie. I'm like, whoa. And then we get the phasing of Abigail was giving very much the mummy, so I loved that. As she's getting older in the bed, like the choices that they made in in terms of just standing in one spot or you know, or you know, seeing just one thing unfold, letting it simmer. God, how creepy. And then again, the light choices in those scenes, right? Just chef's kiss, I can't say it enough. A hundred out of a hundred.

SPEAKER_05 53:42

I wish there were more chef's kisses to give to the 1999 version, but let me say I did appreciate the sweeping shot over the trees and onto the grounds of Hill House to really set the mood in the beginning of the film.

SPEAKER_03 53:55

Yes. Okay, hold on, hold on. Because I have a few others, all right? I know that I hacked it. We've already we've discussed this. I know that I hacked it, but hold on a second, because the sweeping shot is incredible, but we need to talk about that house because that house was remarkable. I could talk about it for days. Like, there's a specific scene that stands out to me again in terms of like the set design of that house. It's incredible, but Eleanor, she's combing her hair, and the mantelpiece with the children are just staring at her. I know that the movie didn't have much creepy factor, that's for sure, and the CGI was a lot, but that scene in particular, again, it kind of gives me the 1963 where you're just staring at this mantelpiece. It actually you actually start to fear that eeriness that I think should have been throughout the movie, you know, the whole time, but whatever. That house was incredible. They really did it justice for sure.

SPEAKER_05 54:48

For sure. No, the the house absolutely is stunning, and the house itself is actually located in England. And one of the things that I loved, there's a feature of like the making of the 1999 haunting. And Catherine Detta Jones like do gives an introduction for it, and they talk about how scary it was to be in that house after dark, and how shooting everything in the daylight is totally fine, but it becomes a little bit sinister the more the day goes on.

SPEAKER_03 55:13

Yeah, I can see that for sure. And I think that's kind of what I was hoping in the movie throughout to see the sinisterness of the design, because the house already is set it, it sets it up for success. If there wasn't so much CGI and so much of the dramatics, I think it would could have been really, really done and played off of that. Or in some ways, what if this 1963 movie was filmed in that house, right? Now that would be wild.

SPEAKER_05 55:43

Ooh, I can't even imagine.

SPEAKER_01 55:45

That would be wild. So are you saying that the house in this 1999 version exists, like the interior and everything, or did they do more to the interior for this film?

SPEAKER_05 55:56

They had to build sets for a lot of the interior.

SPEAKER_01 55:59

Okay.

SPEAKER_05 56:00

But there are a lot of elements of the house that actually does exist.

SPEAKER_01 56:03

Okay. Because really my favorite visual from this film, and I think it aligns with you, Binks, is the is the set design specifically in this house. I think it was overall really visually stunning and amazing. It was really the design was really incredible, to be honest. I I I was gonna say, like, I don't know how realistic it is that a house like this would actually exist, but I guess it does structurally, however much they changed inside, I guess is up for debate unless anyone knows. But you know, the the decor throughout the house, it's so gothic, it's so cool, but certain things just seemed so like insane. Like, how cool would it be to actually have a flooded library like that? But I don't know who the fuck would actually build a room like that. I don't know.

SPEAKER_05 56:46

It's problematic. Nobody wants a flooded library. It looks cool on camera, but the practicality of that, no thanks.

SPEAKER_03 56:52

But you know, talking so much about the set design in this house, in terms of one of my favorite scenes, in especially in 1963, it does have to do with the house. It does have to do with a particular room, and it's the scene with Theo and Eleanor in their room and the knocking happening from all over. And this is a big part of the book. And in the movie, I felt like this is the fear that I should be feeling that I wasn't getting from that same scene in 1999's version. To me, it's that it's the first scene that you get to experience the house and how sinister it can be, how it's starting to mess with you, starting to mess with your mind and in with these people in a more extreme way, in a very obvious way. And again, it's these shots, right? There's a particular moment where you're just staring at the doorknob and it's kind of moving ever so slightly. And she asks, like, is the door locked? And it's not. And so now you're just staring at the door, like, okay, is this thing about to open? What's gonna happen? I don't even know. Now the knockings from the top of the door, like it just continues and continues. It doesn't stop, it doesn't let go. It's menacing. It's menacing, yeah.

SPEAKER_05 58:00

Let me just throw it back to a couple B sides ago when we're talking about spooky ghost stories, and I'm telling you how many times the doorknobs in my house have jiggled. That shit was such a great moment in the 1963 version. You know, it really does not hit the same at all in the 1999. So you took you took my favorite scene, Binks, but there's a lot to go around in this movie. I'm gonna throw it over in terms of my favorite to the opening history of Hill House because I love getting it right from the bat, right from the jump, particularly the moment where the old woman dies and she's banging her cane on the wall. And it makes me appreciate Eleanor and her mother's cane in the 1999 version so much more. So, Binks, this is the one of the questions that I had: which way is it in the novel? And and and which way did this adaptation for the 1999 version go? Because I found that like I always knew that I appreciated these notes in the original, but seeing them back to back like this and getting to appreciate those small details really made this even more significant.

SPEAKER_03 59:03

I would say that the the the deaths and the the history of the house is uh definitely the 1963 version versus the 1999. The 1999 one, just no. It's just a big, it's an N and it's a no. Unfortunately, because I I go back to the fact that like in essence, really the house that's the creepiest is the one from 1999, not necessarily the one from 1963, but the way that they filmed it, yeah, right, is the difference.

SPEAKER_01 59:35

I I think those are those are really great scenes, and I I think and I thought you were gonna go hear Binks, but you didn't, and I think my favorite scene is the scene where Eleanor's in the bedroom, and we get the opening to the scene, we get this this shot of the house at night, and then it goes into her room and it's gets a shot of the wallpaper, and then it goes down to her in the bed, and she's like her face is poking out of the covers and looking like, ooh, like what's what's going on? Like, she's got that kind of lurking dread feeling, right? And she's looking at the wallpaper, and the wallpaper is you start to see a face, you see the eye, there's some there's some dialogue happening there. She thinks she's holding Theo's hand. Uh, she's talking to Theo like she's right there, like there's this whole thing, and it's just so eerie. And when she finally sits up and realizes that Theo's on the other side of the room, not holding her hand, that's some scary fucking shit. Well, I think that that scene in 1963 in the bedroom is so creepy and so scary, and gotta be my favorite scene in the film for sure. I can't say that for the 1999 version, where we get that same kind of bedroom scene where the room is kind of coming alive, but now it's not the wallpaper, it's like the little windows above the paintings that turn into eyes. Like, I don't know, kind of cool, but kind of over the top and didn't really hit the same. Um, the sound was just like overbearing, like my soundbar was rattling, it was crazy. Um, but my favorite scene in the 1999 version follows that bedroom scene, and it's it's where Eleanor is running from the entity in the house, and she's running and she keeps looking in mirrors, and her face is changing, and it's like that right there gets those like chills on the back of your spine.

SPEAKER_03 1:01:35

That's a good one. Yeah, uh that was that was a good scene, I will say, and it does stand out the fact that her face is changing. Oof.

SPEAKER_05 1:01:42

Man, okay, so that's super good. I'm glad you brought up Eleanor because I think one of my favorite scenes is actually in retrospect a favorite scene after rewatching the 1963 yet again, and it's the opening scene of the movie, and we see now in the aftermath of her mom having passed, she's there with our girl Helen from Candyman. We were there with Virginia Madsen, and you see this desperation, you see this struggle, and I think it's something that I can not exactly relate to, but I think about like what my mom is dealing with right now, caring for my grandma, and how like just with circumstances, things aren't always evenly distributed. I I think about like, man, I would never want my mom to feel this way. And we have the parallels in those characters where, you know, in the 1963 version, we have Nell begging to be able to use a car that she helped pay for, but then that car is just a a pity consolation prize in the 1999 version. And the emotional heartstrings that that scene pulls on me to see that Nell has sacrificed and just done so much in her life, and she hasn't been able to live her own life because she's been taking care of someone else her entire life. To see her go from that, it's like it it makes it all the more understandable that she would want to go to Hill House. You know what I mean? Like I bought that journey for her more in the 1999 version because of the emotion that the actress put into that scene to me.

SPEAKER_03 1:03:13

And a phenomenal actress, by the way. The cast has not let up in that movie. Down to the sister, it just has not let up. Um but I think you're gonna really get a kick out of this one because you've mentioned her name several times in this recording already. My favorite scene of 1999 is Theo's introduction. Look, Catherine Zedar Jones, she commands that room like none other. She struts into that room like a boss ass bitch. It's just the way that it is. It's the fact. I think we can all agree. And what I love most about it is that it sets the clear dichotomy between these two characters. Because in the book, that's the point, right? You know, very starkly different. What's interesting is really Eleanor is supposed to be this outsider. She's supposed to be this outcast. In this scene, it almost feels like Eleanor's kind of holding her own a little bit, especially when Miss when Mrs. Dudley is trying to say, you know, we are we are in the middle of nowhere, like no one goes. In this town, no one is nearer than that. And my favorite, I mean, I opened this episode with it, right? Like my favorite uh line from this entire franchise is in the dark in the night. And I think it's because it just tells you what the house is, what it what it really is. In the dark in the night, when it is your imagination, when your biggest fears tend to come out the most, that is when the house will take a hold of you and it will eat you, right? And and consume you, your mind, everything else. I think that's kind of what the story is, what the purpose of that phrase is. And then something so sinister, a warning that is so clear, is kind of like mocked, right? Like kind of like, oh, that's nothing. And they kind of see have this banter together, this opportunity where they just kind of like, all right, we have this in common. We can be funny, we can be chatty together. And eventually, as we know, in terms of the movie, especially 1963, I think it plays it a lot better. The house destroys that. It says, you won't even have this, you won't have each other, you won't be friends, even though you're very different from one another. I'm still going to use that against you and definitely creates that rivalry. So I think it there was a lot in a funny moment in a quick little bit, right? But someone as a big fan, someone that knows what's gonna happen, someone that really understands this house sees that and is like, oh, it's devastating almost. Because you think that they're gonna be cute besties, and they are definitely not.

SPEAKER_05 1:05:40

They're gonna be more than besties. Look at you falling in love with potential. Uh I think I'm rubbing off on you.

SPEAKER_03 1:05:45

Oh goodness. Oh no.

SPEAKER_05 1:05:48

Oh no. Look at you stepping in when I'm putting down. So again, you know, I take it back to the bedroom eyes that Theo gives Eleanor when Mrs. Dudley is walking out after they have this. banter this back and forth, this joking around. And the chemistry between them is so palpable in that moment, even though they seem so mismatched. I absolutely loved that moment for now. What I think is really interesting is really how both of these movies approach the character of Theo. We already talked about how the original film is is iconic for what it did with Theo's portrayal. And, you know, I haven't read the book, but I've heard that the film makes it more explicit than the novel does. I don't know if that's true, Binks.

SPEAKER_03 1:06:30

I mean, here's the thing Charlie Jackson is the queen of leaving everything as ambiguous and mysterious as possible, from the house to the origins to Theodora. But I will say that it is, yes, I mean it's kind of implied that energy about her, that, I don't know, that essence, that sass, you know, that makes you think, is she flirting? Is she not? Yeah, that's that's in the book. That's in the book for sure.

SPEAKER_05 1:06:54

The will they or won't they? But here's the thing lesbian pining is famously all in subtext. So I feel like it's Shirley Jackson knew what she was doing. In the 1963 version, it is one of few that is able to depict a lesbian as feminine and not predatory. You know what I mean? Like she's not this cursed predator who's hunting Nell. Thinking about like just the impact that this movie had on horror, how the the impact that this movie had on cinema, this is a movie that actually puts her attraction to other women as as a means to help create conflict in the movie itself because had she been completely heterosexual, Eleanor being attracted to the doctor wouldn't have been a threat.

SPEAKER_04 1:07:37

Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 1:07:38

But you see this added tension there between them. And it's something that like pits Theo and the doctor against each other. And listen it was relatable I looked at Theo and her dynamic with that man. I was like fuck I've been there like 90 times at least in the past. But I think it's also interesting that the script for that movie had a scene in which Theo was going to be in her apartment. So we're going to see her pre-Hill house and it was going to be basically her breaking up with a woman and having I hate you written in lipstick in the mirror. And they decided to pull that back because they didn't want to make it too implicit. They wanted to make sure that there's something left there in subtext because they didn't feel like the rest of the movie was so obvious. You know, we talk about not doing too much in this movie. And I think that was a of such a fucking great choice because I think had we gotten that I don't think Theo would have been quite as charming because then we're starting off with a strike against her. You know what I mean? Like we're then we're starting off with with her being someone who's hateable by another human.

SPEAKER_04 1:08:38

Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 1:08:39

I I don't know what your thoughts are but Theo is such a big deal for me. Fucking iconic and then what I absolutely love is that the censors we talked about how this movie fa landed in proximity to the lavender scare in the Haze Code censors demanded that she'd never be able to touch Eleanor because they wanted to keep the lesbianism less obvious. But here we are they're holding each other in bed the gay is one.

SPEAKER_03 1:09:02

I'm here for it. Look at that. Which is interesting I mean they're in the book they're definitely I mean the scene I said it earlier the scene of them scared with a knocking like that's a prominent part of the book. That is a scene that's like throughout all of the franchise I mean obviously in the show we don't have like Eleanor is different in the show because we have the older sister. So there's that and it's the cranes all around so that's very different but Theo is the same. So I think that that's kind of like speaks a lot to her character and what she means in terms of horror and history but I just I love that you love her. That's awesome.

SPEAKER_05 1:09:34

Obviously there's so much to say about all the other characters but just like for the pendulum to swing in the other direction and for Theo in the nine in 1999 to be so brash so out there you know Eleanor makes a joke about her like having trouble with commitment. She's like well my girlfriend doesn't think I do but my boyfriend does you know what I mean? They're they're making her a more sexually free woman.

SPEAKER_04 1:09:54

Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 1:09:54

Which A, on the one hand, is it just a sign in the 90s? You know what I mean?

SPEAKER_04 1:09:59

Right.

SPEAKER_05 1:10:00

But also B, are they just being more obvious because they simply can be because the Haze code is no longer a thing. Sure. You know what I mean? It's kind of like sticking it where they can.

SPEAKER_01 1:10:08

So do you like Claire Bloom or Catherine Zeta Jones more? It sounds like Claire Bloom.

SPEAKER_05 1:10:13

Yeah I like them both but I love the original for sure.

SPEAKER_01 1:10:17

You know I think Catherine Zeta Jones as Theo there's a commanding presence there. I think she does really well with that character. But there's just something in the way that Claire Bloom depicts the character that just gives you um and maybe it's because it's closer to the book but I've never read the book but I think Claire really just gives a more authentic presence as far as that character like really depicts like the I don't know what the right word is. I don't know if it's like free spirited bohemian whatever but you know I just feel like the character was a little bit more authentic with Claire Bloom.

SPEAKER_03 1:10:56

Speaking of authentic I want to say I'm going to leave Eleanor for last. I want to get into Luke just a smidge obviously we've talked a little bit about Owen Wilson already and his uh depiction of Luke. And I want to bring up I've I wanted to mention it earlier but I think now's the time to say it. It's kind of giving Vince Vaughn when we did our freaky episode is really what it is. You can't and it and it's funny right because it's Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn a duo. It's hard to take that role seriously when it's him unfortunately and I think the thing about Luke is that he is supposed to be that rich boy like uh cynic type of character a little bit of a flirtatious you know guy a little snarky and Owen Wilson although sometimes does that it doesn't really speak to the volume of this character and who it should be. Now Ross Tamblin's Luke on the other hand I think was great because he is that um he is snarky. He doubts and he's a skeptic even down to the cold spot right in in the house like it's the little things um the the sounds that he hears and he tries to reenact it on the on the stairs like it's just so much about him that I think he did so well. And I think actually that's exactly why in the Haunting of Hill House show he makes a cameo as Nell's therapist.

SPEAKER_01 1:12:20

Oh nice.

SPEAKER_03 1:12:21

Yeah and so I thought that was a great little you know little nudge nudge hint hint uh in terms of this adaptation I think he's so great and the irony of it right he's playing a character that's a skeptic that kind of downplays maybe borderline gaslights obviously and then he then plays a therapist to Nell who is supposed to be someone who in some ways gaslights again but just really wants Nell to kind of take it a step further in terms of her reflection. Obviously is it going to be like okay yeah what you're seeing is correct because I understand probably wouldn't necessarily validate that but it was interesting how they decided to integrate him into the show.

SPEAKER_05 1:13:00

So let me say this first I deeply appreciate everything that you just shared about Luke's character and I do not disagree with a single note of it. I would like to only add that I think he looks like a fucking twerp.

SPEAKER_00 1:13:10

Well but no they both do both versions.

SPEAKER_03 1:13:15

They both do and guess what it's because Luke is a twerp it's just the fact 100% you're not wrong.

SPEAKER_05 1:13:22

I when he said the word vermouth I wanted to punch him in the fucking throat.

SPEAKER_01 1:13:25

But you know I got I got more doofus vibes from Owen Wilson's Luke and I got more scoundrel vibes. You know what I mean? Like and and I also like and this isn't it's not just Luke it's it's it's the doctor too and I get adaptation adaptation whatever. I just don't understand changing the backstory of the characters doesn't really do anything. Maybe they had to I don't know but it just didn't do anything to add to the story at all for me.

SPEAKER_03 1:13:54

Yeah no definitely unfortunately it did not definitely did not now for someone who did in terms of Eleanor I have a hard time about her because she's the she's the main the main gal the main point although I love Lily Taylor 1999 a scream queen truly I have a hard time rooting for that Eleanor in 1999 than I do 1963.

SPEAKER_05 1:14:16

I actually agree with you because for as much as I just said about the emotional like selling I was there with her in the beginning but the further the movie went on the more I liked Owen Wilson the more I disliked Eleanor and I was like all right girl you're you're doing a lot there's a lot happening here.

SPEAKER_03 1:14:35

Yeah I just was not a hundred percent sold on her altogether and I don't I I I I still am sorting out why that is I think for me it's that 1999 chose to go a route that was just so odd and so I almost said stereotypical. I don't think it's that it's just almost cheap. Let's just call it for what it is by saying that she's a part of this family somehow and that Mrs. Crane is like the great great grandmother of some sort like oh no what? Yeah no because then it becomes a matter of the house is not making you mad. It's the ghosts of everything and that's not what Hill House is.

SPEAKER_04 1:15:12

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 1:15:13

And so with 1963 I mean I certainly bought into it for several reasons. One, you're in there. I said it at the beginning, right? You're in her thoughts you're seeing it from two different perspectives you're physically seeing it and how it's being received by the rest of the of the characters in the house but you're also in her mind. And you're kind of like okay I think the house is like you know it it is good for her. She should stay like I can understand why she doesn't belong anywhere else. Why would she ever want to go anywhere else? But then you're also like you're about to fall down these stairs like get it together. You know like the little things that as a as an outside perspective you're like she's losing she's off her rocker. It's so different. It's unfortunate but it's so different. Okay.

SPEAKER_05 1:15:53

Where do the children come into play in the novel? Because the more she leaned in to her uh fate as the guardian of these ghost children the more it felt like Casper the more I expected Christina Ricci to show up the more I expected Devin Sawa to show up. It was just getting ridiculous.

SPEAKER_01 1:16:11

Yeah so that I mean that's what I'm saying like uh even when we were talking about like how the ending went I feel like just changing that story around a little bit and emphasizing like the family ties and like the weird I don't know the children angle it just to me took away but I can tell you I agree with both of you I think Lila Taylor or whatever just didn't it to me didn't do the character justice. I feel like Eleanor is a very complex character. I think that Eleanor is a super vulnerable character almost neurotic at times delusional even and I just don't think Taylor really portrayed this in the right way in my opinion I think she seems almost confused uh on how to really portray the character properly because there's a lot of depth to the character. She seems vulnerable in some scenes but then way too confident in other scenes. The thing that for me made Julie Harris so special as Eleanor is that she was really able to absorb all of those traits that Eleanor was supposed to be from what I understand without reading the novel and really bring them to life on the screen. And I think that just speaks to the level of acting between the two films in my opinion.

SPEAKER_03 1:17:30

No, it it it is I think ultimately what's unfortunate is like this movie is supposed to be one that talks to you so much about isolation, fear, loneliness. And at the superficial level I would say when people analyze the book right or or just Hill House I guess it's the idea of like supernatural versus psychological. When it comes down to it when you're looking at Eleanor who is kind of swayed by one and Eleanor is 1999 it's supernatural full throttle and then Eleanor 1963 is the psychological so whichever version of Hill House you want to like lean into and believe if you want to believe that it's a poltergeist and very supernatural and just like that kind of essence 1999 because that definitely goes in that direction with ghosts and all of these other antics that go on and a whole boss fight in the end which was what the heck was that? Yo it's the haunting video game. She literally had so much HP she was out here she had all the weapons at full level whatever.

SPEAKER_05 1:18:42

But what are her power-ups?

SPEAKER_03 1:18:44

Belief in the children what are her attribute boosters her attribute booster boosters are I guess empathy I don't know brushes her hair and I don't know has a very nice voice. I mean it is Lily Taylor who this is not her I mean this is actually one of her first encounters I guess in terms of you know rallying up the troops of children because fast forward to the conjuring you know she really just uh handles a lot there it's so different. It's so different in terms of her it's a little disappointing but it is what it is.

SPEAKER_05 1:19:14

Let me just round this out and we're talking about some disappointment here. Not to go back to Theo but obviously to go back to Theo because I can't get enough. Can I tell you how relatable I found it when she's talking they're talking about insomnia. So obviously in in the first film we have the discussion at the table of um you know encounters with the supernatural with with ghosts etc and then we learn that Eleanor was plagued by a poltergeist at one point but then in the second film the different approach to the doctor and his reasoning and his motivation for bringing everyone together was to study fear but under the guise of insomnia so when they're talking about this and uh Theo is talking about I don't know that I want to cure mine I come through AMFI like a genius. It's like when she gets all her best thinking done and her best ideas. I'm like yes girl yes this is me in a movie right here except looking very different not as feminine.

SPEAKER_01 1:20:10

It's a fair point and I think just what you both said right there, right? I think when you're saying the 1999 version is so supernatural and the 1963 version is psychological which is odd because the Doctor in the 1963 version to your point Chris is there researching the supernatural but it's a psychological horror film whereas the doctor in the in the 1999 version is researching the psycho psyche of fear but it's a supernatural film so what the fuck same same but different it is the the biggest eye roll you know what I just realized we did not talk about this doctor he doesn't get let off easy he sure doesn't because it is that that's the gag honestly yeah and you know what Liam Neeson being like this very ominous doctor that's like studying the psyche of fear how on brand for this man.

SPEAKER_03 1:21:08

You couldn't paint it better. Of course that was going to be the case but what in the hell like the fear I guess is so dramatic that it's like okay is this like a nightmare movie like that that's really the the angle that they're going. It's such a choice that they made.

SPEAKER_05 1:21:23

It really is and I I did not feel great about him and and and I I never remember feeling so much distaste for him or disdain for him whenever I've watched this movie in the past. Again I think because I chalked it up to some casual viewing I'm like oh yeah this is a fun movie it's fine whatever but I really just couldn't stand him this time just bad decision after bad decision after gaslighting after gaslighting and I think I didn't mind the doctor in the original as much because he was interested in the paranormal you know what I mean? Yeah it's like there's like this this ounce of like I'm open to believing in this whereas Liam Neeson's doctor just served to discredit anything that happened.

SPEAKER_01 1:22:07

Yeah for sure I and you know what I think Liam Neeson himself he's a good actor I think maybe it was just the way the character was written for this one or something just didn't risk resonate with him for this one. But yeah I agree I didn't like how he was here just doing an experiment or a study on fear and just discrediting everything until he eventually got it you know full force. But I think here's the thing Richard Johnson he for sure does it better I I don't know in a way like it's it's almost captivating the way that he talks throughout the film I love again that he's studying the supernatural and the open you know the line that I use to open this film like the supernatural is something that isn't supposed to happen but it does happen. To me it's such a it's such a good line and it's it speaks volumes because hey look Rob Zombie himself uses that opening line that that little insert to to um to open one of his white zombie songs.

SPEAKER_05 1:23:06

Listen he falls flat but he is not among the worst things that I have for the 1963 and the 1999 versions. I hope you're ready for my short list. Let's hear it 1963 I just don't like Eleanor's attraction to the doctor and the tension that they have between each other. Just not a fan could have done without it. Moving on because that movie is almost perfection 1999 worst part of this movie the thinness of Nell's eyebrows really was a 90s moment. It was the precursor to the even thinner early 2000s eyebrows really problematic point two ignoring the red footsteps in the paint she walks away she's all bundled up she's just so like traumatized by what she just saw on the wall but there's literally red fucking footsteps on her path to her room and she doesn't see it. Yeah no one sees that the ghostly curtain CGI wasn't quite as bad as I remembered but it doesn't look great in silk sheets. So the ghost getting into the sheets you know what I mean it wasn't great. It's very uh very the mummy Hugh Crane uh one his portrait makes it look like his face is just using the wrong color foundation from the rest of his neck but his portrait his ghost coming from the portrait looks fucking weird. That's all I got worst parts done. Sorry.

SPEAKER_03 1:24:18

You know what's funny is I'm thinking to myself okay you slashed this film but it was obviously you had a long list of things to say and I'm just thinking about how I hacked this film and now I have to think of a best part right?

SPEAKER_05 1:24:30

I feel like I've given a lot of compliments to the movie thus far and if I want to just come back real quick just to even this out I liked the zodiac in the glass above Nell's bed.

SPEAKER_03 1:24:40

How dare you mention that and not me there's your best part. Okay all right well look best part of 1999 gosh okay I want to say the house but I can't because I've already gone on my tangent I've gone on my soapbox. I'm just gonna say kind of like in my scoring right the best part of this movie is that all of the things that we've said aside it is a movie that I believe that is worth rewatching and you can kind of just like put on it and we'll get into it a little bit deeper in a moment but like I just think it's a movie that is still worthy of its time that you know is kind of like a a movie that stands the test of time in terms of cast and everything else it's a funny watch it's a creepy watch if you were probably like you know very young at the time and kind of get spooked by certain things but I think it's still a good movie. I would recommend it to people regardless right so I hacked it but I think it's gotta give you got to give it its flowers in that it's the best thing that can do. Now when I think of 1963 and now I gotta pick the worst part of 1963 yeah I got nothing. I didn't even I nothing because you said it was almost perfect. No I I think it was fantastic.

SPEAKER_01 1:25:51

I was so blown away by that movie I I would be honestly lying to our listeners if I tried to make something up so I can't do that to them right you know it you've got a point that the 1963 version is so good it it's hard to pick a worse part if I had to like really try to think and pick apart something I I think that it it's possible that it could be a little bit a little bit plotty with the dialogue at certain times like you could maybe cut back on a little bit of that and then this is like me really trying to nitpick something out of this film that really at the end doesn't need to happen but if I had to try to dig something out of this film it I guess I could pick apart that for a you know as small of a thing as it is the best part for me of the 1999 version is kind of a double-edged sword because it's unfortunately some of the visuals that we do get in the film not necessarily the CGI ghosts but the visuals of the house itself and all of these things but the reason why I say it's a double-edged sword is because while it was visually cool to look at it really took away from the film like it didn't really add to the film to me. Like I I I loved the look of the house but it overall didn't do anything to put the film over the top for me. So it's kind of a double-edged sword. That's fair.

SPEAKER_05 1:27:19

I can deeply appreciate your acknowledgement of the fact that to find a worse part of this movie would be a nitpick that just doesn't need to happen. I respect that. I think of all the times I've watched these movies uh it's been very difficult to find something wrong with the 1963 version and obviously like the 1999 it has its imperfections it's still fun to me though and I will continue to rewatch it. In fact instead of watching it back to back with the house on haunted hill I will be doing another Haunted House binge where I watch Hell Knight The Haunting The Haunting The House on Haunted Hill The Shining the T V edit And then Doctor Sleep. I think that's gonna be like my my ultimate binge.

SPEAKER_01 1:28:04

But which House on Haunted Hill are you watching? Vincent Price or the remake?

SPEAKER_03 1:28:08

Both. But hold on, in that binge, I know they were all movies, but can we cheat a little bit? And then you watch Mike Flanagan's The Haunting of Hill House.

SPEAKER_05 1:28:15

And also The Haunting of Black Manor.

SPEAKER_03 1:28:17

And then the Haunting of Black. Oh, don't get me started. Oh, Jesus Christ. And then Midnight Mass. And then all just all Mike Flanagan's work. Okay, I'm done.

SPEAKER_05 1:28:25

And then the hush. Yeah, 100%. But not Oculus. I draw the line of Oculus.

SPEAKER_03 1:28:29

Oh, okay, that's fair. That's fair. Look, I just said it earlier, right? I'm I'm for sure rewatching both of these movies. It probably won't even take very long until I do it again. Let's be honest. I already re-watch the show as it is, probably every four to five months at best. And I certainly listen to the soundtrack almost every other day. So when I say I'm a fan, I'm not playing around. So when it comes to the movies, 1999 will be a movie that I I hope to revisit more frequently than I have in the past, you know, as a background, as a moment to like, at the very least, let's just enjoy the fact that all of these icons are in one movie together. And it's certainly a movie that you can watch with someone who isn't into horror regardless, so it works out perfectly. And in 1963, because it is a work of art, point blank period, absolutely we'll be re-watching.

SPEAKER_05 1:29:21

I like to make a motion and I'd like us all to do this binge together and then also play the betrayal at House on the Hill. Because that game is fucking awesome.

SPEAKER_03 1:29:30

That game is remarkable, amazing, and such a blast. And once again, I need everyone to really no, are people not understanding anything that says Hill House? I can promise you, I have probably like consumed it, wanted to see it. I I know about it, it's ridiculous. Talk about branding, it's like engraved in me.

SPEAKER_01 1:29:49

Well, I've said it already, but I'll say it again. There isn't a chance, if you put the two side by side, that I'm ever picking the 1999 version. So I don't think I'll probably re-watch that one unless for some reason we have to rewind this fucker again. Because in 19 the 1963 version is just too good. If I'm looking for a good ghost story, a good haunted house story, it's the 1963 version. If I'm showing somebody something remarkable in film, it's this version. It's no way ever gonna pop in my mind to watch the 1999 version again.

SPEAKER_05 1:30:27

I want you to rest at peace, Sean, and knowing that when you've already been on the episode, your presence on the rewind episode is optional.

SPEAKER_01 1:30:35

Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 1:30:35

So you still don't have to watch it.

SPEAKER_01 1:30:37

That's true. But you know what? I might have to be there just to share my strong sentiments about how much it sucked.

SPEAKER_03 1:30:44

Because who knows what I'm capable of? Because obviously I'm going to choose to be on it because I'm a psychopath. Yeah. But also, who knows? Who knows what'll happen to me?

SPEAKER_02 1:30:53

I might just like wake up tomorrow and be like, 1999 is a piece of art.

SPEAKER_05 1:30:56

Not the retract the hack already. Oh, Jesus. Well, there you have it, folks. It was a tale of two hauntings this evening, as the 1963 haunting earned a universal slash, and its 1999 successor earned two hacks in one slash. Now we've certainly had a robust discussion here, but it doesn't end here by any means because we need to know what you think.

SPEAKER_03 1:31:18

Yes, which version of the haunting did you prefer? Let us know. You can join in on the conversation by hanging out with us for free in our Discord. Click the link in our show notes to sign up.

SPEAKER_01 1:31:27

And hey, if you've enjoyed listening to us in this episode, consider becoming one of our patrons. Visit patreon.com/slash hackerslash to enjoy more of the show, which includes early access, extended episodes, bonus content, and live shows.

SPEAKER_05 1:31:41

We'll see you next time, folks. And remember, it's always been about family.

SPEAKER_01 1:31:45

And also remember there won't be anyone around if you need help. We couldn't even hear you in the night.

SPEAKER_05 1:31:50

In the dark.