HM plot holes...

[WDWspider]

Another lesson in the movie:

Face your fears!

I hate spiders, but my wife asked if I would have been able to open the door... I said of course. I may not like it and certainly would not let 20 or so crawl all over me, but I would open it.

To be really fair to the movie, I need to see the DVD and deleted features to accurately decide how bad the storyline is. Yes, I know, the final product sould be all to judge on. But for some of us nit-pickers, we really should see the bigger picture. I imagine many casual movie-goers enjoyed it just fine (like my parents) and the younger audience (8 - 15) propably don't think that deep into movies.

Obviously you don't want the Haunted Mansion to be a spoof, but what possible storylines could have worked better. Well, for one, they could have just made the house haunted and they had to spend the night for whatever reason. That should have been easy enough. The ghosts have always been at the park Mansions, they are not leaving. Why did they need to leave in the movie... they could have been content haunting there and just wanting to scare the Evers out of their happily ever afterlife.

 

[HMGhost13]

exactly. i think it should have been based more off of the Mike and Karen story than trying to save ghosts. if i want that i'll watch casper. which in my opinoin was and is funnier than eddie murphy who seems to have basically sold out by now.

 

[WDWspider]

Originally posted by HMGhost13
eddie murphy who seems to have basically sold out by now.

Agreed. He does have potential to be funny, but in the Haunted Mansion most of the jokes seemed to be at the wrong time. At least I thought so, and some of them were shake your head in disbelief corny and/or lame jokes at that.

Sometimes Murphy hits a good film like Bowfinger, Nutty Professor, Beverly Hills Cop, Daddy Day Care (although more because of the kids). But when you are the star of Pluto Nash and Vampire in Brooklyn that says something too. :lol: Some of the hits I named are argueable as well. :lol:

Still, given the right direction Murphy could have worked much better in this film.

 

[HMGhost13]

Originally posted by WDWspider
Agreed. He does have potential to be funny, but in the Haunted Mansion most of the jokes seemed to be at the wrong time. At least I thought so, and some of them were shake your head in disbelief corny and/or lame jokes at that.

Sometimes Murphy hits a good film like Bowfinger, Nutty Professor, Beverly Hills Cop, Daddy Day Care (although more because of the kids). But when you are the star of Pluto Nash and Vampire in Brooklyn that says something too. :lol: Some of the hits I named are argueable as well. :lol:

Still, given the right direction Murphy could have worked much better in this film.

BHC trilogy was alright haven't seen the second or the third really to tell but they're alright. DDC, Bowfinger...a few others were just plain bad. Showtime was alright, the list goes on and on. unnecessary sequeals 9quick disney rehire murphy for some sequeal...you two go great hand in hand ni that category).

as for the right direction...maybe Time Burton should have done this movie.

 

[WDWspider]

Originally posted by HMGhost13
Bowfinger...a few others were just plain bad

I strongly disagree on this one. It is a much much deeper comedy than it appears. Great Cast. Two very different characters for Murphy to play and a good story. I would say it's a comedy style of movie I like, but I have read and heard others who like this movie a lot as well.

At first glance it does seem to be a bad movie, but it is intented in this case.

Now DDC, I love to watch kids in movies, so it was the innocent factor I liked in that movie (not Murphy).

 

[HMGhost13]

the whole bathroom humor made me want to beat myself up. i never saw it because of that one dumb scene.

 

[magicpixiesparklegirl]

Re: Re: HM plot holes...



I believe that it was supposed to be Elizabeth, because the key was to HER chest....

The zombie was obviously Ramsley. He literally took killing her to his grave. That why the key was in there.

 

[Rambozo]

I bet the original movie is looking a whole lot better compared to the new number 2.

 

[LittleBuford]

I bet the original movie is looking a whole lot better compared to the new number 2.

What makes you say that? Most people who’ve seen both appear to prefer the newer one.

 

[DKampy]

I bet the original movie is looking a whole lot better compared to the new number 2.

As someone who was personally disappointed with the current film..No…the original is still worse

 

[Ghost93]

I bet the original movie is looking a whole lot better compared to the new number 2.

The new movie is a 6/10 while the original is like a 3/10.

 

[Phroobar]

Agreed. The new one is better but not good enough for a series or to see theatrically.

 

[LittleBuford]

I thoroughly enjoyed the new one and will rewatch it while putting up Halloween decorations (if it’s on Disney+ by then). I haven’t seen the original.

 

[Prince-1]

I bet the original movie is looking a whole lot better compared to the new number 2.

Nope. First one was still trash compared to this one.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

What makes you say that? Most people who’ve seen both appear to prefer the newer one.

I was tremendously disappointed by the 2003 Movie, but I've come to let myself enjoy it for what it is. The production design, costumes, makeup, and musical score are all winners, despite being buried until a thick layer of schlock. The story makes no sense, the stakes are practically non-existent, and Eddie Murphy's turn is intensely unappealing. But at least it has moments where it is actually very pretty to look at and listen to, if you just tune out what's supposed to be happening.

The 2023 movie . . . I don't know how they missed this bad. They already had the blueprint of what not to do. While I appreciate that this one is more thematically ambitious, it makes nearly all the same mistakes as the last ones but loses basically all of the good stuff. The sets all excessively deferential to the ride, but feel like cheaper, less impressive versions of what's in the parks. The visual effects are no more impressive than the last film and in many places are actually worse. The story barely makes sense, takes forever to get going, and ultimately fails to deliver on what makes The Haunted Mansion ride so captivating. Bad writing, bad acting . . . I put it on this morning to see if it held up any better on repeat viewing, but I think it actually fared worse. I say that as someone who went in with expectations low, both because of how disappointed I was last time and because the trailers made clear this was not gonna be the Haunted Mansion movie of my dreams.

Of the two, I'd prefer to watch the 2003 film every time. The new one did sort of renew my appreciation for the old. It's not good, but it feels much more like a "thing" than the new one, which is an awkward, lumbering homage in search of a movie.

 

[LittleBuford]

I was tremendously disappointed by the 2003 Movie, but I've come to let myself enjoy it for what it is. The production design, costumes, makeup, and musical score are all winners, despite being buried until a thick layer of schlock. The story makes no sense, the stakes are practically non-existent, and Eddie Murphy's turn is intensely unappealing. But at least it has moments where it is actually very pretty to look at and listen to, if you just tune out what's supposed to be happening.

The 2023 movie . . . I don't know how they missed this bad. They already had the blueprint of what not to do. While I appreciate that this one is more thematically ambitious, it makes nearly all the same mistakes as the last ones but loses basically all of the good stuff. The sets all excessively deferential to the ride, but feel like cheaper, less impressive versions of what's in the parks. The visual effects are no more impressive than the last film and in many places are actually worse. The story barely makes sense, takes forever to get going, and ultimately fails to deliver on what makes The Haunted Mansion ride so captivating. Bad writing, bad acting . . . I put it on this morning to see if it held up any better on repeat viewing, but I think it actually fared worse. I say that as someone who went in with expectations low, both because of how disappointed I was last time and because the trailers made clear this was not gonna be the Haunted Mansion movie of my dreams.

Of the two, I'd prefer to watch the 2003 film every time. The new one did sort of renew my appreciation for the old. It's not good, but it feels much more like a "thing" than the new one, which is an awkward, lumbering homage in search of a movie.

I haven’t seen the 2003 film to compare them (I’m curious to watch it after reading your assessment), but I enjoyed the new one a lot. I can sort of understand most of your criticisms, even if I don’t agree with them, but I’m really surprised you felt the acting was bad.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

I haven’t seen the 2003 film to compare them (I’m curious to watch it after reading your assessment), but I enjoyed the new one a lot. I can sort of understand most of your criticisms, even if I don’t agree with them, but I’m really surprised you felt the acting was bad.

There were moments where it was alright - LaKeith Stanfield has some standout bits where his character gets into his backstory, and I thought Tiffany Haddish did a surprising job making her material feel believable. Everyone basically had an uphill battle there since almost nobody was given anything to work with, but I felt like she overcame that more than most. Her character could easily have been complete lunacy, but I thought she found the heart and managed to keep her grounded despite her antics, which is a hard balance to strike. I also liked Jamie Lee Curtis' Leota in her corruptible Mortal state, but that was brief, and her moments in the ball often felt puzzling to me. I found myself wondering "was she directed to do that??"

Outside of that most of the acting just felt all over the place to me. I can't blame the actors for not spinning straw into gold, and clearly the movie was edited into oblivion (there were pretty extensive reshoots, which accounts for some of the irregularities), but most of the performances just felt so totally inconsistent and under-realized. The sin of having too many characters with too little to do can be minimized if your actors endear those characters to the audience, but the movie gives you too few genuine opportunities to care about them or feel like they're building bonds. It was hard to care what was gonna happen to them.

Re: The 2003 Movie, I just want to reaffirm it is *not* good, and you should not get your hopes up. I think there are things in it to enjoy, and it's worth a watch for any Mansion fan, but it's definitely worth keeping your expectations thoroughly managed. It lives down to its reputation, I just think there are some bright spots in its midst.

 

[LittleBuford]

There were moments where it was alright - LaKeith Stanfield has some standout bits where his character gets into his backstory, and I thought Tiffany Haddish did a surprising job making her material feel believable. Everyone basically had an uphill battle there since almost nobody was given anything to work with, but I felt like she overcame that more than most. Her character could easily have been complete lunacy, but I thought she found the heart and managed to keep her grounded despite her antics, which is a hard balance to strike.

Outside of that most of the acting just felt all over the place to me. I can't blame the actors for not spinning straw into gold, and clearly the movie was edited into oblivion (there were pretty extensive reshoots, which accounts for some of the irregularities), but most of the performances just felt so totally inconsistent and under-realized. The sin of having too many characters with too little to do can be minimized if your actors endear those characters to the audience, but the movie gives you too few genuine opportunities to care about them or feel like they're building bonds. It was hard to care what was gonna happen to them.

Re: The 2003 Movie, I just want to reaffirm it is *not* good, and you should not get your hopes up. I think there are things in it to enjoy, and it's worth a watch for any Mansion fan, but it's definitely worth keeping your expectations thoroughly managed. It lives down to its reputation, I just think there are some bright spots in its midst.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on the new film. I’ll post my thoughts on the old one after I’ve had a chance to watch it.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

We’ll have to agree to disagree on the new film. I’ll post my thoughts on the old one after I’ve had a chance to watch it.

I'm certainly not trying to tell you how to feel about the new movie, just sharing my thoughts. The whole thing just did not come together for me, and I felt like I went in willing to cut it a lot of slack. I like the creators and wasn't looking for this to be the definitive Haunted Mansion movie or anything. But even with those in mind it just did not "do it" for me. Maybe in another 20 years we'll get one that does.

 

[LittleBuford]

I'm certainly not trying to tell you how to feel about the new movie, just sharing my thoughts.

Don’t worry, I didn’t think otherwise! Things would be pretty boring if we all agreed on everything.