deram-77963 This was certainly a scary movie for its time. Vincent Price was a great choice for the leading role. The movie in black and white made it intense.

Ilikehorrormovies This is a classic even though I didn't see the reboot of it (The Dark Castle one). I like it like I'd enjoyed like I don't care if it's black and white like back then they're no colors back then for movies like this. I'd enjoy this film like it's fun to watch in my opinion. This is truly a classic like I wish they sell it in stores. I'd recommend this film for people who like classic films.

James Hitchcock Eccentric millionaire Frederick Loren and his glamorous young wife Annabelle invite five people to a house party. And not just any house party. This is a haunted house party. Loren has rented a mansion in which, over the years, seven people have been murdered and which is said to be haunted by their ghosts. The rules of the party are that whoever stays in the house for one night will earn $10,000. After midnight, however, the only door to the house will be locked until the morning, and there will be no escape. (All the windows are barred). The five, all of whom are in need of money, are a test pilot, a newspaper columnist, a psychiatrist, a secretary who works for one of Loren's companies and the brother of one of the murder victims. The plot is superficially similar to that of another horror film from a few years later, "The Haunting", which also concerned a disparate group of people invited to stay in a haunted house. There is, however, a major difference. Everything that happens in "House on Haunted Hill" can be explained in rational terms. Although Watson Pritchard (he whose brother was murdered in the house) wanders around warning his fellow guests that the ghosts are coming for them, they are threatened not by malevolent supernatural forces but by human evil. The supposed "party" is no more than an elaborate set-up for a complicated murder scheme- and there may be more than one person with murder in mind. When I say that everything in the film can be explained in rational terms, I was simply using the word "rational" to mean "non- supernatural". I was not implying that the plot makes a lot of sense, because it doesn't. The lack of logic starts with the house itself. It is supposed to be Victorian, and looks it from the inside, but the shots of the exterior show a building designed by Frank Lloyd Wright in 1924 and which would still have looked strikingly modernistic in 1959. The film-makers couldn't even be bothered to look for a genuine Victorian property. It is the sort of less-than-desirable residence which still lacked electricity even in the late fifties- Loren and his guests have to make do with gas lighting- but which comes equipped with its own vat of acid in the basement for the unwary to stumble into. (As soon as this vat was mentioned I knew that at least one character would meet their death in it). And what self-respecting architect would design, and what self-respecting fire department allow, a house with only one door and bars on all the windows? The problems with the film do not end with the architecture. The plot seems full of holes. It is never, for example, explained why Pritchard has accepted Loren's invitation to spend a night in a building which obviously terrifies him and where he clearly expects to be killed. He can't have been that much in need of money. More importantly, the storyline, with its two interlinked murder plots, can be confusing and difficult to follow. Without wanting to give away too much of the ending, I can say that both schemes are so complicated, and so dependent on predicting exactly how a third person, who is not a party to the scheme, will behave, that I cannot imagine any would-be murderer ever coming up with them, especially as one of the killers does not seem to care very much about evading detection. The acting is undistinguished. Vincent Price, by far the best-known cast member, was a gifted actor, and could give good performances even in low-budget horror flicks, a genre in which he seemed to specialise. (I am thinking of films like Michael Reeves' "Witchfinder-General" and some of the Edgar Allen Poe series he made with Roger Corman). This, however, is one low-budget horror flick in which he failed to shine and it is not one of his better films. None of his co-stars, however, is any better, and some are considerably worse. Carol Ohmart is able to convey Annabelle's glamour, but never succeeds in conveying her essentially vicious nature. Elisha Cook's acting as Pritchard seems horribly mannered and exaggerated. Julie Mitchum (sister of the more famous Robert) as the columnist has so little to do that I wondered why the scriptwriter didn't simply write her character out and make do with four guests instead of five. Director William Castle does manage to pull a few surprises, resulting in a couple of genuinely scary moments, although these might have been more effective with a higher budget for special effects, but the film is little more than a cheap and nasty shocker which looks very dated today. There were some excellent horror films from the late fifties and early sixties- "The Haunting", "The Masque of the Red Death" and, above all, Hitchcock's "Psycho", but "House on Haunted Hill" is not one of them. I find myself quite unable to comprehend the relatively high score it enjoys on this board. 4/10

jacobjohntaylor1 6.9 is underrating this movie. It is a very scary movie. A rich couple find a gorp of people who need money. And offer then a lot of money if the send the night in a haunted house. The remake from 1999 it a scarier. The follow up to the 1999 version The Return to the house on haunted hill is also scarier. But still this is one of the scariest movies to come before 1999. This movie has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. Vincent Price was a great actor. Carol Olmart was a great actress. Richard Long was a great actor. Alan Marshal was a great actor. Carolyn Craig was great actress. All The House on Haunted hill movies are must sees.