“The house tried to kill me. It almost succeeded.”

Story: In 1953, a group of scientists and psychics investigated the Belasco House. Called the “Mount Everest of haunted houses”, only one person in that group escaped “alive and sane.” So now of course, someone wants to gather a group together. A group of four. Y’all, why not fifty? Safety in numbers and all that. Well, too late now; they’re stuck there for the next four days. I’m sure they’ll be fine.

Scares: Lots of eerie Gothic visuals, and ghostly behavior.
Splat Factor: People get attacked and bleed. People get bloody and die. Or die and get bloody? Something like that.

Subgenre: Haunted House Modern-day Gothics
Year Released: 1973
Remake, Sequel or OG (Original Ghoul)?: Based on the book Hell House, by Richard Matheson

Trick or Treat?: Wanna know a good way to make sure your movie adaptation hits all the right notes? Have the author write your screenplay. Okay fine, that doesn’t always work. But with House, it does. Like walking through a Halloween haunted attraction, Hell gives good fun, enjoyable frights, and plenty of creepy stuff to check out. It’s rather by-the-numbers, but it’s a spooky good time.

I often used to get this story mixed up with Shirley Jackson’s The Haunting of Hill House, a similarly story with a confusingly similar name. Hill has had a few adaptations through the years, including the classic1963 film, and the brilliant miniseries by Mike Flanagan. This story has only had one film adaptation, along with a comic book series back in the aughts. (Though some like to add Stephen King’s miniseries Rose Red to either or both adaptation lists.) Outside of the number of people in the house, and the specifics of the Big Bad House Owner, the books are rather similar in their premise.

While Hill focuses on chills and thrills that never quite answer the question of what’s real and what’s psychological (I’m not talking about you, The Haunting)? Hell is more of a roller-coaster ride of ghostly horrors, with supernatural occurrences that leave very little room for doubt. I chalk this difference up to each author’s writing style, and what that author was trying to convey; Jackson was interested in possibilities, Matheson was interested in scaring the pants off you. Both left me a happy gal.

I’ll watch Roddy McDowall in anything, and in Hell his Ben Fischer is the character who knows what’s up, can’t stand being there, and his snarkier-than-thou vibe is delicious. Pamela Franklin portrays Florence Tanner, the other psychic in the group, as a young woman whose psychic talent is hindered by her willful naivete, and her wide-eyed performance is pitch-perfect. Clive Revill and Gayle Hunnicutt, Dr. and Mrs. Barrett, are basically there to play off the two other characters. Though Hunnicutt gets to go a little wild once the house really gets going, and her riff on a classic Hammer heroine is fun to watch. Revill injects the doc with a level of pompous self-aggrandizement that could have been dialed up more, but that’s a directorial choice. Plus, this film skates close enough to camp as it is.

There’s lots of back-and-forth between science and religion/belief, which probably hit older viewers like a gut punch back then. Messing with the norm was a big part of the counterculture of the time, even though as a whole, the young Boomers of the era ended up fitting right into their establishment slots as the decades went by. Director John Hough injects quite a bit of sensuality into this film, with ghosts either overriding someone’s regular views of morality, or just going to town on someone. Yeah, ghost sex. That happens. Groovy, baby!

Bonus? There’s a black kitty in this story, and he’s adorable. Just don’t get too attached; Hell definitely helped cement the Animals Don’t Last In Horror trope… Otherwise? This is a great film to watch this time of year. Grab your biggest bowl of popcorn, and turn all the lights out, for maximum fun.

Score: 4 out of 5 pumpkins.