3/10
Shirley Jackson must be rolling over in her grave
21 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
It's rare that I will write a review of a TV series before I've finished the season, but there's a first time for everything, and that would be Netflix's adaptation of Shirley Jackson's The Haunting of Hill House.

Seven episodes in and I've found myself not only struggling to finish it, but wondering why they opted to make this in the first place. The answer is obvious. Money, and the ability to cash in on a recognized work of literary horror. And seemingly because showrunner Mike Flanagan needs something to do after Netflix signed him to a developmental deal.

The first episode I forgave because with most television series it's generally the one spent introducing characters and setting up the narrative. However by episode three out of ten things should be hitting their stride, which was not the case here.

Gone is Jackson's tale of a disparate group of psychic researchers investigating the paranormal. Instead they've been replaced by a dysfunctional family who long ago hightailed it out of the haunted abode but now must wrestle with the legacy of turmoil left in its wake.

The characters are connected to the book in name only. The Hugh Crane of Jackson's novel was the long departed deranged patriarch of the aforementioned mansion who tormented his family in numerable ways, essentially distilling their trauma into the walls of Hill House. Here the Crane family are merely transient owners bent on renovating and flipping the property, with the children bearing the names of the book's researchers.

Incorporating a similar plot device to the television series Lost, the show relies heavily on flashbacks. Ironically, this is the only part that works. The child actors chosen are quite good and empathetic, whereas their present day adult counterparts are a group of neurotics whose sole mission seems alienating the viewer.

And as for the chills, yes, they do work, initially. However by episode three they've already resorted to recycling the scares, a sure sign of an uninspired effort.

Curiously, the series has garnered an outpouring of rave reviews on this site, which has caused me to think that most folk have either never read Jackson's vastly superior book, or never treated themselves to Robert Wise's excellent 1963 movie adaptation that is a classic skin crawler (we'll conveniently forget about the 1999 Liam Neeson fiasco).

From the get go I hoped that my initial negativity would be offset by a slow, marked improvement in the story, scares, and characters. Sadly, that's not the case here.
89 out of 179 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed