The basic concept of both stories is actually the same; The main difference is the nature of the haunted house. In the reconstruction, the house is depicted as a haunted psychiatric hospital where doctors subject their patients to horrific Nazi-inspired experiments. The house is also inhabited by an evil entity known only as “The Darkness”, who is the culmination of all the spirits that inhabit the house. Although the house in the original film is the site of several murders, it is not haunted at all. It turns out that the “supernatural” events taking place in the film were staged as part of an elaborate murder plan directly inspired by an Agatha Christie mystery novel.

The absence of an actual haunted house in the original film makes the story a clever psychological horror tale about the devastating effects of lust, greed, and paranoia. Although the remake maintains the fake murder storyline, it eventually counters this by showing that the house is actually haunted., resulting in a clichéd ghost story that fails to modernize the source material. Coincidentally, this film fails to reinvent the story in the same way. DamnedIt’s a remake of a similar horror classic released the same year.

House on Haunted Hill There’s a cavalcade of ’90s stars like Geoffrey Rush (Pirates of the Caribbean)Famke Janssen (X-Men), Taye Diggs (How Stella Got Her Groove Back), Ali Larter (Final destination), by Chris Kattan (Saturday Night Live), Peter Gallagher (Grace and Frankie) and Jeffrey Combs (Justice League Unlimited). Despite such a talented cast, they portray their obnoxious, one-dimensional characters so dryly and loaded with unrealistic dialogue that it’s no wonder they fail to impress the film’s audience. However, it’s fair to say that some footage of Larter’s hero losing his job was removed from the theatrical cut.

In contrast, horror icon Vincent Price leads the original film’s cast with his infamous performance of demonic charisma. While not every character in the source film is necessarily likable, each actor portrays them with their own brand of flamboyant, classic charm that makes them fun to watch. The film also introduces each of them very well and reveals their specific reasons for wanting the money promised by the mysterious landlord. The remake might make them targets of the Darkness by having the guests be descendants of the house’s original staff, but it doesn’t add anything truly compelling to their characters or stories.

Original House on Haunted Hill It builds enough suspense and suspense to get to some awesome jump scares. As cheap as the film may seem today, it more than makes up for this and the lack of R-rated gore by unnerving and shocking the audience the moment it begins.

The remake, meanwhile, essentially delivers on the “heavy metal” horror genre by bombarding viewers with violent, gory images of evil ghost doctors and dead hospital patients. This is the kind of thing viewers would see walking through a haunted hospital theme park. It also doesn’t help that the film uses unconvincing ’90s visual effects to present the eerie Darkness, which undermines its Rorschach test-esque clever design.

Everything aside, 1999’s House on Haunted Hill it looks more like an amusement park ride than an actual movie. Its thin narrative and flat, unappealing characters fail to engage viewers in what’s happening in the story. Even the film’s talented cast couldn’t save the film with the material they were given. It tries to do something new by adding a supernatural element surrounding the house’s former patients. Not only does it water down the themes that made the original so distinctive, it also goes against its good intentions by depicting people with mental health issues in a sensationalist and dehumanizing way.