House on Haunted Hill (1999) User Reviews

It's actually not a remake of the original film...

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 27 December 2018]

... in that pieces of the plot are borrowed, but there is quite a bit of original material added including background information , and I'd say this version is much scarier than the 1959 William Castle film. The only thing the original had that this one lacks is the irreplaceable Vincent Price, and this 1999 version does a bit of homage to him by naming the wealthy man Stephen Price who hosts a birthday party for his wife in a supposedly haunted house.

As in the original ,the Prices are hostile to each other, but Mrs. Price is staying because she gets no money in a divorce but gets it all if Mr. Price dies. Also, as in the original, there are five guests who get - in this case - one million dollars each if they stay the entire night. Anybody who leaves forfeits their money to the others. What's different? Well the road the plot takes from there is different, and the beginning of the film details the origins of the haunted house. It was originally the Vannacutt Psychiatric Institute for the Criminally Insane run by the sadistic Dr. Vannacutt. In 1931 the inmates manage to free themselves from their cells and start a fire that kills all of the patients and all but five of the staff. The house has meant death or tragedy to anybody who lived in it since.

So the five guests who arrive are not who Price invited. His wife doesn't know them either. And after everybody is inside it turns out that turning chicken and wanting to leave would be futile because the house shuts itself down, sealing every window and door. It was a feature when the place was an insane asylum in case of escape.

So at this point wouldn't it be wise just to sit in the civilized renovated upstairs portion of the house, all in one little group, and wait out the night? But no. This group goes down the fateful but familiar path of "Some malevolent force is out to get us so let's split up and explore the basement", which is the original insane asylum part of the house. Downstairs interesting frights and discoveries about exactly who the guests are await them, and I'll just let you watch and find out what happens. It does rely quite a bit more on suspense and less on gore than most modern horror films. I'll just say this thing scared me to death when I saw it in the theater years ago, and the William Castle/Vincent Price version was eerie and psychologically interesting, but I have never found it all that frightening.

I don't understand why the the rating is so low.

[marlieH · 7/10 · 17 April 2019]

Okay sure this movie is a remake and obviously not as good as the original. but its actually a really well done movie, definately deserves a better rating than 5.6. i really enjoyed it!

A Terrifying movie, with no ending

[Quicksand · 7/10 · 30 October 1999]

For once, a movie even scarier and more horrifying than the trailers for it. BUT......

The whole was not equal to the sum of its parts. Geoffrey Rush (what's HE doing in this movie?!) as Steven Price is actually a very interesting character, which can be attributed to either the effort the script takes to set him up, and/or the brilliance of the Oscar-winning actor in the role. Price's wife, Evelyn, gets similar treatment, but it is here the screenwriter(s?) get lazy.

The strangers in the house DO get a minimal amount of character set-up, i.e. who they are, what they do... but this information is never touched on again. One would HOPE that all ths information is being displayed for some higher purpose-- the background of these five strangers, the cat-and-mouse game played by Mr. & Mrs. Price, and Mr. Price's fascination with fear that is set up so intensely in the movie's opening minutes.

But alas, none of this GOES anywhere. It is all completely independent from the agenda of the House when I felt like it should all tie together, somehow. There are three forces at work here-- the ghosts who haunt the house, the humans who are trapped in it, and the Darkness that lives beneath it. These are all separate entities, we find, but for what purpose? This movie could have gone on another ten minutes, some loose ends could have been tied up, and I could have given it a much higher score.

Instead, what was truly an INTENSE build-up, sputters out at the very end of the movie. It didn't even feel like an end, it just felt like the movie stopped, and we're left without an explanation to what happens to the survivors-- including the most interesting character in the movie, the House itself.

7 out of 10. Fun to watch, truly terrifying, but incomplete.

Despite a weak ending this is a surprisingly creepy Hollywood horror

[bob the moo · 21 October 2002]

Rich but eccentric millionaire Steven Price is looking for the ultimate scares. He invites a group of people to spend the night in the former Vannacutt Psychiatric Institute for the Criminally Insane – where the inmates revolved in a orgy of violence against the cruel regime of Dr Vannacutt. The one who does spend the night will get $1million dollars. However it soon becomes evident that not all the scares are set up by Price himself.

This remake of the old 1958 movie sees the plot expanded and made a lot more creepy and enjoyable. In fact the end point of the original is only the halfway mark of this one. The plot may not be imaginative but the delivery is very good for this type of film. I'm not a big fan of horror or this type of Hollywood slasher movie as I find them too obvious and not scary. However here the gore is well used and the general creepy mood wins the film. The movement of the deceased Dr Vannacutt is very creepy and is much better than some of the gore.

Sadly the final 20 minutes feels it needs to reveal a bigger evil and the secrets of the house are brought to life in boom of CGI beasties. At this point it reverts to form and because just another Hollywood creature feature and it is a bit of a let down. However up to this point it works very well and it's real creepy.

The cast are all pretty good and do `camp' when necessary but don't take away from the terror that's coming later. Rush plays nicely to the camp in his homage to Price's role in the original. Jensen, Diggs, Gallagher and Kattan all do well and the cast do better than the scream queens that usual inhabit these films.

Overall the film starts like any other Hollywood horror but the clever direction, creepy music and imaginative visuals of Dr Vannacutt all create a creepy feel to the film that is better than the gore that also comes. The final section slides back into standard fare with the old CGI evil coming to get us – but up till then it's surprisingly good stuff.

Grisly update takes few prisoners

[Libretio · 5/10 · 3 March 2005]

HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound formats: Dolby Digital / DTS / SDDS

Six strangers are invited to a 'haunted house' party at a former asylum - the scene of a massacre many years earlier, when inmates rebelled against the psychotic chief surgeon (Jeffrey Combs) - and the guests are assailed by restless spirits with a murderous agenda...

This remake of William Castle's 1959 shocker was the first title in a projected series by Dark Castle Entertainment, a genre outfit established by the creative personnel behind HBO's "Tales from the Crypt" (Robert Zemeckis, Joel Silver and Gilbert Adler) as a platform for the 'revision' of Castle's entire oeuvre. Working from Robb White's original story, screenwriter Dick Beebe and director William Malone - previously responsible for such unassuming B-movies as SCARED TO DEATH (1980) and CREATURE (1985) - remain faithful to Castle's original whilst goosing the material with newfangled effects technology and levels of gore which Castle had been denied during his lifetime. Production designer David F. Klassen has also updated the eponymous house, a clifftop monstrosity whose plunging Art deco exterior masks the Gothic ruin within, haunted by monstrous spirits who 'come alive' and terrorize a cast of defiantly modern characters, including Geoffrey Rush as a cynical fairground entrepeneur (clearly modelled after Vincent Price), and Famke Janssen as his beautiful, bitchy, duplicitous wife.

The film's uneven tone (veering between horror and humor and back again) is likely to divide viewers from the outset, but the horror scenes are played with remarkable gravity, and attentive viewers will spot visual references to the likes of GHOST STORY (1981) and JACOB'S LADDER (1990), particularly a 'guest appearance' by one of the most hair-raising phantoms from that former title. Some of the original film's charm has been lost along the way, replaced by profanity and splatter (though not as much as some outraged critics would have you believe), and there's nothing in the remake which compares to the blood-freezing shock induced by Carol Ohmart's encounter with a blind, white-haired ghost in Castle's version, but Malone's update deserves a mark for trying. Also starring Bridgette Wilson, Peter Gallagher, Ali Larter and the ultra-beautiful Taye Diggs, alongside comedian Chris Kattan, here playing it impressively straight in a role originally essayed by Elisha Cook Jr.

Entertaining and pretty scary, until the last 10 minutes.

[edenney01 · 7/10 · 7 July 2017]

I won't go into a full review, since there are countless others and they all say about the same thing, which is that the movie is actually pretty good until the last 5 or 10 minutes, and I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoys scary movies. It really has a nice mix of suspense, horror, gore, and levity, without overdoing it on any of those, or with the special effects (except for the ending). The score is also pretty good, and I liked the use of Marilyn Manson's eerie remake of "Sweet Dreams Are Made Of This".

Unfortunately, it wasn't enough for the filmmakers that the house just be evil or haunted... someone involved with the film decided the "evil" should have some sort of actual form. I think that was a very bad idea, but it was a bad idea made much MUCH worse by some very cheesy fractal/mirrored CGI effects. Maybe they blew their budget on the set and the actors (quite possible), and didn't have enough left over to properly give form to the "evil" with CGI, so they just settled for what they could get. IMO it would've been much better if they'd never given any form to it at all.

I gave this movie a rating of 7 in this review, but I'd really give it a 6.5 if I could. If not for the horrible turn the movie takes in the last 10 minutes, with the absurd mirrored fractal CGI effects, I'd actually have given it a 7.5 to an 8. Everybody's comments about the ending are spot on.... it's just a huge let down.

Btw, that sun rising over the ocean at the end is a pretty big goof. The movie is set on the west coast, where the sun SETS over the ocean.

Welcome To A Thrillless Thrillride

[walken_on_sunshine · 1/10 · 13 January 2007]

No amount of Famke Janssen awesomeness can save this poor attempt at horror that spewed from Dark Castle pictures.This movie starts off very abruptly and just sort of speeds up what little character development there is so the house scenes get shown.The storyline is absolutely ridiculous which is good because it matches the equally ridiculous attempts at scaring an audience over 6 years of age.There is nothing even remotely scary in this film as the ghosts look very cheap and well nothing like a ghost one of them looks half woman half meal worm.Even the gore isn't enjoyable as this film suffers from Jelly like blood disease which doesn't add to the realism of the movie however the movie has absolutely zero realism at all so i guess the blood effects were just blending in with all the other crappy things about this film.The cast is actually solid i surprisingly had expectations due to Famke Janssen,Geoffery Rush,Ali Larter, and Tae Diggs but the films terrible well everything else ruined any chance of these actors to stand out.This movie is almost exactly like The Haunting (1999)big cast, lots of hype but an equally bad storyline and equally bad special effects.There is nothing terrifying about any CGI generated creature especially the CGI ghost thing in the end what was that supposed to be?Scary?Intense?It was neither just extremely over the top and extremely stupid.This movie has absolutely no scares it tries to have scares but well when the freaky images aren't freaky and the music that's supposed to create suspense creates boredom the movie really is not a horror.This was like watching Clue the whole time i was waiting for someone to say "It was Evelyn in the library with the candlestick" and i would be less than shocked if that was in the script.Overall this piece of garbage should be burned it makes no sense and fits into no genre unless there is one for bad attempt at a mystery/horror.

Good scary movie

[preppy-3 · 7/10 · 10 November 1999]

I was expecting the worst--a remake of a lousy 1950s Vincent Price flick (I HATE the original--talk about boring!) and there were no previews--never a good sign. I was surprised to find an intelligent, scary movie. There was gore and violence, but they didn't overdo it (except for the part when someone was given shock treatment--talk about harrowing!). The script was intelligent--all the characters talk and, sometimes, act like real people. And, thankfully, no stupid in-jokes or character to provide "comic" relief. Everything is dealt with seriously which just adds to the tension. The setting is scary--the "house" (actually an abandoned asylum) LOOKS evil, and inside it's all darkness and cobwebs. The acting...well...Rush is having a GREAT time in his role, and it rubbed off on me. Every time he was on screen I enjoyed it. The rest of the cast is OK, but anyone could have played these roles...they were just mostly reacting to special effects. The only real disappointment here was Taye Diggs. He showed that he had charisma, could act and has a GREAT body in previous flicks ("How Stella Got Her Groove Back"; "GO"; "The Wood"). So why does he give such a so-so performance here--he's even worse in "The Best Man". Hopefully he'll start acting again...soon.

I also heard about lousy CGI effects in this movie. When the CGI effects go barreling out of control at the end though, I was scared! I'm a veteran of hundreds (literally) of horror films so I don't scare easy. The only weak part was a real stupid "surprise" at the end that comes out of nowhere. Other than that it worked.

So, this is a good, scary horror film. Worth shelling out full price at a cinema--DON'T wait for the video. This works great in a dark theatre with excellent stereo sound--it won't work on a TV.

They should pay you a million dollars to sit through this movie

[nehpetstephen · 1/10 · 17 December 1999]

When five strangers are mysteriously invited to a party held at a haunted asylum, strange things start to unravel.... and everyone in the audience starts to fall asleep.

This movie is everything a movie should not be. It is a horror with no real scary parts in it. It has plenty of gore, and some good special effects, but aside from that, this movie has nothing in its favor. Maybe that's all you need to scare eight year olds and idiots, but for the average viewer, that just isn't going to cut it.

The characters are completely one-dimensional and have no motivation for anything they do. They are so undeveloped and stupid, you actually find yourself happy when they are killed. The plot, too, is undeveloped. What could be a great psychological horror falls short when the writer decided to tell nothing about what is happening and why. Why are the patients revolting? Why is the doctor commiting these horrible crimes?

Chris Kattan from Saturday Night Live makes an appearance, and this brought my hopes up thinking he would provide some sound comic relief, but instead he spends the whole movie ranting about how "the house is alive," something we have known since the first five minutes.

Avoid this movie at all costs, it has enough holes in it to drive a Mack truck through. I gave it two stars instead of one because of one somewhat exciting scene at the beginning.

Pathetic ending ruined this one.

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 6/10 · 25 February 2002]

I've never seen William Castle's original from 1958,but in my opinion 1999 version isn't completely bad.Director William Malone creates some atmosphere and suspense during the first hour,but everything is almost completely ruined by awful ending.There's some good gore,striking visuals and atmospheric sets,but the conclusion is absolutely lame(the CGI effects look really fake!).If you like horror movies give this one a look,just don't expect something impressive.

Shockingly Awful Waste of Film and Money!!

[davekelly · 1/10 · 26 May 2000]

I saw the trailer for this film at the cinema and was impressed by the special effects. When i actually watched the film on DVD this week i soon realised that the decent special effects featured on the trailer were in fact the only special effects in the film. Though i quite like the original, i absolutely hated this movie, and if it is true that Dark Castle productions are indeed planning to remake a whole host of William Castle movies then i hope they do a better job! The script was perhaps the worst i have witnessed in a long time, the characters were all so instantly annoying that i found my self wishing them dead with in the first fifteen minutes. It actually took me two sittings to watch the movie, it was either that or i would have found myself fast forwarding through it. The plot, what there is of it, doesn't make much sense and the film doesn't explain why certain things are happening, Price's wifes relationship with one of the guests for example. This movie was so bad i ended up feeling frustrated and cheated, it actually made me so angry. Avoid this like the plague.

Who Wants to be a Millionaire?

[BaronBl00d · 6 May 2001]

Asylums. Crazy people. Insanity. Mental therapy, mental hospitals, mental patients have been used time and time again in horror fiction and horror films. Why? I'm not sure; maybe, it is the normality of being like those that are insane which brings a more genuine horror to us. Whatever it is, House on Haunted Hill certainly uses all the mental derangement cliches to full effect. I could easily pan this film by saying(and rightly so) that its predecessor, the original House on Haunted Hill directed by William Castle, is a far superior film. That Castle's film was filled with better acting, better timing, and easily a better script. But I liked this film, which is not really a remake entirely. It has many elements that are not in the first film; most of them centering around the mental aspect aforementioned. The house in this film was once an asylum where people...thousands perhaps..were brutally butchered in the name of mental good health. The house is scary. Empty corridors, large, vast rooms, incredible special effects all add to the frightening aspects of the film. The biggest problem with the film is that much of it just doesn't add up in terms of making sense of the plot. The film fortunately is more special effects driven than plot driven, and at least is able to deliver the goods in that arena. The acting is pretty good with all the leads really doing quite a good job. Geoffrey Rush gives his best Vincent Price impression(pencil-thin mustache and all) delivering lines with bravura gusto. The other exceptional standout is Chris Kattan as Watson Pritchard. Kattan is just wonderful in the role showcasing his obvious talent. As far as great horror films go...this film is adequate, yet very thrilling, exciting, and entertaining. If you are like me and love the old one...just look at this film as a totally different entity. It is. One thing is for sure...it is one heck of a rollercoaster ride!

Cheap and trashy but strangely entertaining

[adamonIMDb · 7/10 · 1 May 2016]

'House on Haunted Hill' is a cheap, trashy horror film with a weak plot and a pathetic ending, but it somehow still manages to be entertaining and creepy as hell.

The film does a good job at building up tension and suspense, especially towards the end, which makes the disappointing ending even more of an anticlimax. Forget the plot though, the best part of this film is the incredibly creepy individual scenes. In particular, the scene involving Mr. Price in the chamber seeing all sorts of disturbing and creepy things freaked me out. The ghost scene where Melissa disappears is also very creepy, and there are plenty of others.

Overall, I was pleasantly surprised - 'House on Haunted Hill' was better than I expected. It's a very cheap, low quality movie, but it does serve a purpose if you're looking for something creepy that will freak you out.

"Barney's Great Adventure" was scarier.

[CandiCFG · 1/10 · 2 November 1999]

Even with the numerous attempts to gross out the audience, this movie simply isn't scary. Wait, no... I may be wrong. The dialogue was terrifyingly bad. There wasn't one sympathetic character in the movie. I found myself wishing they'd hurry up and succumb to their predictable fates. Even the special effects left me feeling like I'd just discovered coal in my stocking at Christmas. The "monster" resembled a large, morphing Rorshach test.

When I saw "The Haunting" recently, I wasn't all that impressed. Now after watching THIS movie, I think comparatively speaking, "The Haunting" is Shakespeare quality. Save your money.

Butcher us, mad doctor Combs!!

[Coventry · 6/10 · 2 November 2004]

The similarities between William Castle's campy 1959 original and this typical Hollywood remake are kept to a minimum. We have the premise of 5 people who're offered a million $ if they survive spending a night in 'the house' and Rush who brings tribute to Vincent Price (who played the lead role in the original). Other than this, Malone just follows the routine remake-standards meaning bigger, louder and more spectacular. If you're not too harsh, this actually is a pretty enjoyable movie and – at times – a successful mixture between an old-fashioned 'haunted house' chiller and a modern special effects playground. Thanks to some sort of miracle, Malone managed to cast class actor Geoffrey Rush and a more than decent supportive cast. Rush is talented enough to make his performance of eccentric impresario Steven Price look like a homage to Vincent Price instead of doing a lame impersonation. To me, however, the absolute star of this film is Jeffrey Combs (Re-Animator) who plays the small role of the demented Dr. Vannacutt. As usual, Combs' character is the cause of all horror and his grimaces are more diabolical then ever. He's an amazing horror icon and I simply can't get why he isn't enjoying an immortal success-status. Until about 5 minutes before the ending, the use of CGI is imaginative and not irritating at all. The finale is overly fake and kinda ruins the film. If you're not too demanding, The House on Haunted Hill guarantees a lot of fun and a few scares. Definitely a better remake than Jan De Bont's The Haunting and Steve Beck's 13 Ghosts.

A complete waste of film! This movie has no right to exist!

[JDinSeattle · 1/10 · 31 October 1999]

I wanted to give this movie a 2 out of 10 rating for some interesting special effects, but I just can't. The fact that it was even made while other scripts (any other scripts) were passed over is a crime. None of the characters interested me, the story was boring, and the movie seemed to end abruptly. It started out bad and went downhill from there!

Most lousy plot and storyline, not worth calling a horrormovie.

[bvl · 1/10 · 27 December 1999]

There are no real thrills in this movie and the missing storyline leaves you kind of empty and disappointed at the end of the movie. The plot is so weak, that it is not worth calling a horrormovie and the fact there are no boundaries makes it even more lousy. There where so many unexplained things happening (e.g. why is all the "souls" locked in one room?). It seemed like an okay movie at first, when they showed the black/white clips, but after that it went downhill and hit the bottom hard. My overall rating of this movie is lower than "Scream 1+2" and "I know what you did last summer" (and believe me, they rated really low!).

if you LOVE wlm. castle you may be disappointed with this loosely based remake.

[tripperM · 16 April 2001]

i really dig castle, and of corse, vincent price. you just can't go wrong with vincent price for sheer menace... and camp!

the remake has changed a few things. it's set in an insaine assylum instead of a house. (i am sure this is to utilize f/x and freak-scares as much as possible.) the opening credits had this we-really-want-to-be-a-Seven-kind-of-movie feel to it, but when you get in to the actual film about 5 minutes the freaky feeling is gone and it's just another new-hollywood horror film.

there is an association between the guests and the house to tighten the story up more, and the f/x are really groovey.

don't get me wrong, i LIKED the film. it just didn't keep up on the creepyness it promised to have in the opening credits and only hinted at throughout the film. if you want to see a good scary film-see this,if you want to get the creeps-see the original in w/s in a dark room...

Stick with the original

[capkronos · 5/10 · 25 February 2004]

As a fan of this first film (and of both director William Castle and star Vincent Price), this first effort from Dark Castle Entertainment (founded by Joel Silver and Robert Zemeckis) comes off as a minor disappointment. However, the original story was pretty much left intact...A group of complete strangers are offered a handsome reward (a million dollars this time) to spend the night in a supposed haunted mansion. Only difference are that this time the ghosts are for real, there's violence/gore and a back story to the house (shown in flashbacks featuring an all-too-briefly-seen Jeffrey Combs as a deranged scientist).

Geoffrey Rush's performance is near-perfect Vincent Price schtick (although he claims he tried to pattern it after cult director John Waters!) and the FX thankfully showcase more make-up (by the always reliable KNB) than CGI. However, it's too dark and serious to really be "enjoyable," completely fails to capture the spirit of fun that was so prevalent in the original and the ending really stinks. Still, it's much better than the same years atrocious remake of THE HAUNTING, which, of course did much better at the box office.

Score: 4 out of 10

Better than I remember

[AverageJoesDriveInPodcast · 7/10 · 19 May 2018]

As far as remakes go, I thought this was a pretty solid update. It kept to the spirit of the original, but at the same time did its own thing. The acting worked well and I was actually surprised by the amount of gore it had. I didn't remember it being that gory when I first watched it. While it wasn't too gratuitous there was enough there to sate the gorehound in me. Overall, it was a good blend of jump scare moments, gore, and a fairly solid story. One of the few things I didn't like about it was the constant flashing imagery. At times, it made it hard to concentrate on what was going on and distracting.

I adore the original. It's in my Top 3 favorite Vincent Price films. The fact I didn't feel like this was tarnishing the name of the original caught me a bit off guard. Looking back I wonder if maybe that's why I didn't enjoy it as much the first time I saw it. It was also around that time period when I was sick and tired of remake after remake coming out. I think I may have gone in with a bit of pre-conceived hatred before I even viewed it.

I'm glad I threw it on and watched it. I really enjoyed it, way more than I was expecting. It's far from perfect, but it's a solid film that I'll watch again. With that being said, I still don't think it's as good as the original. There was a lasting fun creepiness about that one that still holds up, which I don't think this one quite delivers on the same level.

My Rating: 7/10

Not scary, not interesting, just plain boring

[atzimo · 1/10 · 23 February 2002]

I was hoping that 'House on Haunted Hill' was going to be better than 'The Haunting', but this is even worse. It's supposed to be a big ride into horror, but it's not. The director tries to create some 'disturbing' images, but the timing is always wrong and the way things are shot stresses out his lack of craftsmanship. It might scare some kids, but it's not for the horror fans. The characters' background is not developed at all, so it's not even interesting to watch the movie for the sake of the story. At least 'The Haunting' had some well developed characters, which made it watchable.

Well, I believe that if 'House on Haunted Hill' or even 'The Haunting' were filmed in the 80's, they would have been a lot more successful in their goal (which is to scare the audience). Maybe it's the digital age that it's not suitable for horror movies yet (was 'The Mummy' scary at all?), but maybe it's just the lack of talent of some directors.

You want to see something scary and disturbing? Watch 'Hellraiser'!

1/10

I'm going to keep this short and sweet.

[welshy023 · 2/10 · 2 June 2008]

To stop you from spending anymore time on this movie I will give you the best possible piece of advice by saying some words of wisdom.

I was a bright spark of light before this curse of a movie was brought upon my television.

This was 90 minutes of wasted life on the most shockingly clichéd horror film to date. I'm not even going to go into the plot as to not remind me of the unintentional horror the movie provided. If I can save one person, be it man, woman or child from seeing this movie my life's purpose will be fulfilled. So please, next time you read a positive review, hear from a friend that it was actually OK, or decide you might give it a go, do not.

It is terrible.

Pretty good remake to the original.

[HorrorDisasterGuy-90617 · 7/10 · 30 September 2023]

While the story is somewhat similar to the original, there's a bunch of differences with this version. There's a couple of neat ideas in it like turning the house into a psychiatric institute and the supernatural being real in this version. I also like how the movie included institution devices like a electroshock therapy and a saturation chamber. And the atmosphere does pretty good job with the suspense this movie have. Unfortunately the movie is pretty predictable with it being some parts are taken from the original and a couple of scenes feels like it's dragging a little bit too long. The effects are mostly mix in this remake of the movie. I really like the set pieces inside the psychiatric institute which looks both creepy and really well made. And there's a couple of pretty good practical effects in the movie. Unfortunately the CGI looks really outdated and the entity doesn't look creepy at all.