Smoking Ban May Now Include Your Apartment
Giuliani Livid Over Bringing 9/11 Trials to NYC
Access-A-Ride Nailed by Local News
House Cat Terrorizes Family In Dramatic Hostage Situation
Oreo The Dog Is Dead, Blame Game Is Not
Nightmare: Ghost Stories is a walk-through haunted house by the creators of last year’s shriek-out hit Nightmare: Face Your Fear. Now doubled in size, the house boasts 23 different interconnected rooms of ghosts, psycho killers and gory, dismembered limbs – the sight of which prompted one girl in our group to declare, “No Red Lobster ever again!” An extra fee gets you entrance to a separate but much more frightening side-show: a dark labyrinth haunted by barely-visible specters flitting through the shadows. The maze – a more subtle, psychological scare than the main tour – is well worth the extra five bucks; we highly recommend getting separated from your friends and being followed by a clown through pitch-black corridors that culminate in a dead end.
Maybe we’re too horrified by the real world these days, but we found the 25-minute long main attraction conceptually clumsy, repetitive and remarkably devoid of tension. Tip: try not to get stuck in the back of the group like we were because you’ll end up missing a lot of the surprises. For us, the most frightening parts of the evening were the long lines, the powerful paint fumes inside and the errant hazards like a metal rod poking out of a mannequin that nearly tore a new dress. (This is a massive production, so it’s likely that such kinks will be exorcised soon enough.) The unitard-clad ghouls do their best to startle, but the word unitard should tell you all you need to know about their fear factor. And if the producers are going to plant people to act like scared audience members, they need to be a bit stealthier; on our way in a young man popped out of backstage to join us and screamed enthusiastically throughout the tour, lingering behind after we exited.
Nevertheless, if you’re looking for something to scare the kids this Halloween season, Nightmare: Ghost Stories is perfect for the pre-teen age bracket, though the $25-$30 ticket price might give you a bad night’s sleep. Buy advance tickets here.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
So, is this attraction good or not? First you say the extra 5 buck sideshow is worth it. Then you say the overall attraction isn't scary. Then you say its good for pre-teens. Then you say it's not worth the $25-30 price tag.
yeah that threw me off too. All I know was last year it was worth going to. Deff better than your regular grade haunted house. They even had a bar in the back where you could pre-game a little bit before you got in the final line.
Ok, I didn't think "we found the 25-minute long main attraction conceptually clumsy, repetitive and remarkably devoid of tension" left much room for interpretation, but let me break it down:
If you have kids that want to go, they'll probably have a blast while you're terrorized by your impending credit card statement.
If you do decide to go, the "maze – a more subtle, psychological scare than the main tour – is well worth the extra five bucks."
Maybe the confusion is coming from the fact that there are too pretty different attractions this year - one I loved and another that really wasn't for me.
It's just this, the first portion really made me want to go and got me excited about it. The 2nd part while written equally well, made me almost not want to go. I'll deff be checking out the maze as well though.
I saw this show and thought it was laughably bad. Such a missed opportunity because the space is great, but there's little to no creativity or thought put into it. Mostly just dark rooms with strobe lights and people in shredded nightgowns and blood makeup popping out at you. Ugh.
i am the creator and director of nightmare haunted house timothy haskell. i would like to say a few things to make things clear. the writer went on sneak preview night and only saw about half of the house completed. this isn't an excuse, it is a fact. it wasn't done. our public relations department claims they made that clear to the writers, but perhaps they did not with this one. if that is the case then i apologize to the writer for not knowing that, but if he did know that and did not mention that in his "review" (of which the house wasn't open to until this weekend) then that is not that cool. plus his girlfriend said she was "really scared."
next, the writer who claims that he went to the house and it was "Mostly just dark rooms with strobe lights and people in shredded nightgowns and blood makeup popping out at you." then he clearly didn't go this year so disregard that altogether (he is describing, poorly, last year's house. no one is wearing a nightgown this year. but a lot of people did last year. and there is not a drop of blood on a single character). he is referring to last year's house and a lot of people don't realize we change the house every year. one of the things that we are most praised for is our creativity (if not always the scariest thing), so that honestly might be the first time ever that our house was criticized for lacking that, but everyone is welcome to their opinion.
i don't mind criticism in the least, it is just a bit frustrating when it is not factually accurate. most people really love our house which is why it has grown in attendance every year (and we actually spent considerably less money on advertisement this year). i absolutely welcome the writer's opinion. when we invite people to the house i would never fasult them for not loving it. we ask people for their opinion so one cannot jump down someone's throat when they don't give you the one that you want. that's a bunch of crap. if it didn't work for him it is absolutely valid, but i did want all the readers to know that he did not see a completed house, and the other commentor didn't see the house at all.
and for the record, this year's house is much better than last year. to prove it i invited some of our most disgruntled patrons from last year back this year. they have all loved it so far. some times i nail it better than other times. this year i am most proud of what we have accomplished, the reactions are out of this world, and i have a feeling if the writer went on another night that wasn't quite as messy as the first preview, he might have had a different opinion. and even if he didn't, that's okay to.
While I can't comment on the completed house versus half-completed house issue the "creator" talks about above, I take issue with just about everything else he writes.
I went to the show this Saturday (Oct 6th) night. It was in fact a nightmare... but only because little about it was scary except for the price tag and the sinking realization that time and money was wasted on something so ridiculously commercial and cheesy.
the writer above who says that it was "mostly just dark rooms with strobe lights and people in shredded nightgowns and blood makeup popping out at you" is SPOT ON. regardless of what they were wearing (bloody nightgowns versus anything else) both myself and my two friends were disappointed, finding it nothing more than room after room of mediocre decorations and actors give near predictable half-assed attempts to jump out and scare people. one actor appeared and started laughing herself. another seemed half asleep. that's supposed to be scary?
to the creator: if you truly want to make it scary, try the following suggestions, all of which will make it better at the expense of your revenues.
1) less people per group - if you're part of a group of 10 people it's hard to get scared by one actor popping out in a costume.
2) even better, separate people and have them go almost one by one or in groups of two, 30 seconds after one another.
3) have better actors who actually care about each scare. i know they're tired of doing it so many times to so many people, but it shows - and that's a problem.
4) have more creative scares than decorated rooms and actors jumping out. those are cheap scares and become predictable and cheesy after the second (of many) rooms.
While I can't comment on the completed house versus half-completed house issue the "creator" talks about above, I take issue with just about everything else he writes.
I went to the show this Saturday (Oct 6th) night. It was in fact a nightmare... but only because little about it was scary except for the price tag and the sinking realization that time and money was wasted on something so ridiculously commercial and cheesy.
the writer above who says that it was "mostly just dark rooms with strobe lights and people in shredded nightgowns and blood makeup popping out at you" is SPOT ON. regardless of what they were wearing (bloody nightgowns versus anything else) both myself and my two friends were disappointed, finding it nothing more than room after room of mediocre decorations and actors give near predictable half-assed attempts to jump out and scare people. one actor appeared and started laughing herself. another seemed half asleep. that's supposed to be scary?
to the creator: if you truly want to make it scary, try the following suggestions, all of which will make it better at the expense of your revenues.
1) less people per group - if you're part of a group of 10 people it's hard to get scared by one actor popping out in a costume.
2) even better, separate people and have them go almost one by one or in groups of two, 30 seconds after one another.
3) have better actors who actually care about each scare. i know they're tired of doing it so many times to so many people, but it shows - and that's a problem.
4) have more creative scares than decorated rooms and actors jumping out. those are cheap scares and become predictable and cheesy after the second (of many) rooms.