Café de Nuit

ScS of the Fraternity wrote:I don't know - the first half of the 1999 remake was actually pretty good. Of course, they switch styles of horror several times in the movie, which is usually a no-no.

My problem with the '99 remake is that it unmistakably defines why the events in the house are happening. It is definitely haunted. This ruins the story, in my opinion.

In the novel and the '63 movie, neither the characters nor the audience know for sure why the events played out the way they did. Was the house truly haunted? Was the house constructed in an eccentric manner and the occupants' imaginations getting the best of them? Was it a mass hallucination? The enduring creepiness of the tale is that the mystery remains unsolved. The '99 remake solves the mystery and wraps everything up in a neat little package. Blah.

Hold on, my mistake:

I was thinking of the remake of The House on Haunted Hill.



You're completly right, the Haunting remake was absolutly awful.

Bluebomber4evr wrote:My problem with the '99 remake is that it unmistakably defines why the events in the house are happening. It is definitely haunted. This ruins the story, in my opinion.

Well, this isn't always a sin-- the movie Legend of Hell House has a very definite haunting with some very definite (and *physical*) assaults on the people inside, and it works pretty well.

This review makes a surprisingly strong case for the notion that the 1999 Haunting film is not in fact a crap remake of the '63 version of The Haunting but is in fact a crap remake of Legend of Hell House...

I recently read a horror paperback titled "The Tower" -- darned if I recall the author off the top of my head, IDHTBIFOM -- which I wasn't expecting much from, but it turned out to be an interesting variant on the haunted house theme. Like the House of Lament, it was more a phantasmagoria than a haunting -- no actual ghosts, just a hostile house that gave people visions that presaged their "accidental" or homicidal deaths -- and the survivors used an intriguing strategy (quite compatible with the "sinkhole of evil" concept, no less!) to stop it from preying upon them. The Tower in the story even resembles the House of Lament, having been built around a solitary stone tower, which contains a malign, mysterious, and disembodied intelligence.

The House of Lament is tricky, but can be done.
The Phantom Lover gives me more problems idea-wise. He might come into play if the heroes have to save someone from his grasp or recover something given to him as a token of affection.

Hello. I saw the topic, and HAVE to say something. In my campaign, I introduced the House at the very start. One of the player characters, was an orphan who watched her parents get killed by the general of the local army. She (the general), learned that they own an old house (the HOL), and wanted it for her. The character fleed, and joined the party. Two years later (three years of real time) they encountered the general again, and had to run into the forest to save their life. In all that time, they never knew the house is enchanted. The session in the house will be the final one of my whole campaign (could have a second part), but they (the players), don't know anything about the history of the house. They think only on their own survival. And yes, I don't know too much about the history of the house (don't have the Darklords), but it is my favorite domain by far.
To me, this is the gate between the Domains of Dread and Hell itself. Isn't that spooky enough?