As a sort of dying wish, an old and wealthy man hires a scientist (Clive Revill), his wife (Gayle Hunnicutt), and two paranormal investigators to spend a week in Belasco House and determine if there is such a thing as life after death, and if the rumors of spiritual hauntings in the house are true.
The film's star is likely Roddy McDowall, who plays investigator Benjamin Franklin Fischer. His character has a rich history that I feel is ignored. He was the only surviving medium of Hell House in 1953, and they imply that he was only fifteen at the time. A professional medium at fifteen who can withstand the power of Belasco? That deserves more background.
But for me, the real star was Pamela Franklin, the medium Florence Tanner. She was beautiful and effectively commanded the plot from a position of subversion. Looked down on by her peers, Tanner takes a proactive approach, sensing the dangers and tracking down the clues. The others do not take her seriously, and Franklin plays this part effortlessly.
Clive Revell's physicist role is interesting, even for a "straight man" character. He does not discount the paranormal completely as most scientists would, but instead searches for physical explanations to supernatural events. I give Matheson credit for making a character who does not call these things "parlor tricks" but instead seeks out ways to reduce them to mere material manifestations.
Stephen King has praised the original novel, saying it "may be the scariest haunted house novel ever written". Peter Straub, likewise, calls it "one of the absolute best contemporary horror novels", which if you know Richard Matheson's talent is no surprise.
I have not read the novel yet, but heard the main difference is that the sexuality and violence is toned down from the book, with the film rated a mere PG. The sexuality still exists, as do many disturbing scenes, but they're presented in a way that really does so subtly. There are tricks of horror films that they can make you think you saw things you really did not, and this film is full of those -- you can be scared just as much by what you do not see as what you do.
Mike Mayo points out the effectiveness of Matheson's script based on his own work, calling it "a model of efficiency" that has no single "wasted motion". He claims the film is "comparatively inoffensive" (compared to "The Exorcist", for example), but this in no way reduces the scare power. Mayo also points out that he watched it on a tape taken "from a faded print". I cannot say if the DVD transfer is any better -- I personally did not notice anything lacking in the picture. Howard Maxford also praises the film, saying it has "just the right style and atmosphere."
The film stands strong almost forty years after its original release. I would love to see a special edition release with deleted scenes (if any exist), a commentary and more. Of all the so-called "classic" horror films, this one seems to have been largely forgotten. And I think that is a tragedy... perhaps the most overlooked film of its time, even more so than "The Beast Must Die".
The film's star is likely Roddy McDowall, who plays investigator Benjamin Franklin Fischer. His character has a rich history that I feel is ignored. He was the only surviving medium of Hell House in 1953, and they imply that he was only fifteen at the time. A professional medium at fifteen who can withstand the power of Belasco? That deserves more background.
But for me, the real star was Pamela Franklin, the medium Florence Tanner. She was beautiful and effectively commanded the plot from a position of subversion. Looked down on by her peers, Tanner takes a proactive approach, sensing the dangers and tracking down the clues. The others do not take her seriously, and Franklin plays this part effortlessly.
Clive Revell's physicist role is interesting, even for a "straight man" character. He does not discount the paranormal completely as most scientists would, but instead searches for physical explanations to supernatural events. I give Matheson credit for making a character who does not call these things "parlor tricks" but instead seeks out ways to reduce them to mere material manifestations.
Stephen King has praised the original novel, saying it "may be the scariest haunted house novel ever written". Peter Straub, likewise, calls it "one of the absolute best contemporary horror novels", which if you know Richard Matheson's talent is no surprise.
I have not read the novel yet, but heard the main difference is that the sexuality and violence is toned down from the book, with the film rated a mere PG. The sexuality still exists, as do many disturbing scenes, but they're presented in a way that really does so subtly. There are tricks of horror films that they can make you think you saw things you really did not, and this film is full of those -- you can be scared just as much by what you do not see as what you do.
Mike Mayo points out the effectiveness of Matheson's script based on his own work, calling it "a model of efficiency" that has no single "wasted motion". He claims the film is "comparatively inoffensive" (compared to "The Exorcist", for example), but this in no way reduces the scare power. Mayo also points out that he watched it on a tape taken "from a faded print". I cannot say if the DVD transfer is any better -- I personally did not notice anything lacking in the picture. Howard Maxford also praises the film, saying it has "just the right style and atmosphere."
The film stands strong almost forty years after its original release. I would love to see a special edition release with deleted scenes (if any exist), a commentary and more. Of all the so-called "classic" horror films, this one seems to have been largely forgotten. And I think that is a tragedy... perhaps the most overlooked film of its time, even more so than "The Beast Must Die".