It was never going to be easy. Remaking a masterpiece is a suicide mission in the film world, and few masterpieces carry the weight of Herk Harvey’s 1962 original. When the Carnival of Souls 1998 film finally hit the scene, it didn't just stumble; it practically vanished into the direct-to-video ether, leaving a trail of confused critics and annoyed purists in its wake. But looking back on it now, there’s a weird, jagged energy to this movie that deserves a second look, even if it’s just to understand how the 90s horror boom tried—and often failed—to package arthouse dread for a mainstream audience.
Wes Craven’s name was plastered all over the marketing. "Wes Craven Presents." That's a heavy title to carry. People expected Scream. They expected A Nightmare on Elm Street. Instead, they got something much more surreal, a film that felt like it was trapped between two eras.
The Impossible Task of Remaking a Ghost Story
The original 1962 film is basically a mood. It’s grainy, black-and-white, and feels like a nightmare you had while feverish in a Kansas motel. Adam Grossman and Ian Kessner, the duo behind the Carnival of Souls 1998 film, had a different vision. They didn't want a shot-for-shot remake. Honestly, that was probably a smart move, even if the execution didn't quite land with everyone. They decided to lean into a more visceral, psychosexual thriller vibe.
The plot centers on Alex Grant, played by Bobbie Phillips. She’s haunted by the memory of seeing her mother murdered by a man named Louis Seagram (played with a sort of greasy menace by Larry Miller). Cut to years later, Seagram is out of prison, and Alex’s reality starts to fracture. It’s less about a mysterious ballroom and more about the trauma of the past literally clawing its way into the present.
Some fans of the original hated this. They felt the ambiguity of the 1962 version—the "is she dead or is she crazy?" question—was traded for something too loud. But 90s horror was loud. It was the era of I Know What You Did Last Summer. Subtlety was out; jump scares and industrial soundtracks were in.
Where the Carnival of Souls 1998 Film Diverges
Most people don't realize how much the 1998 version changes the core "twist." In the original, Mary Henry is a spectral figure drifting through a world she no longer belongs to. In the Carnival of Souls 1998 film, Alex is much more of a proactive protagonist, or at least as proactive as you can be when you're seeing ghouls in every mirror.
📖 Related: Alfonso Cuarón: Why the Harry Potter 3 Director Changed the Wizarding World Forever
The setting shifted too. We moved from the eerie, desolate Great Salt Lake and the Saltair Pavilion to a more urban, grimy landscape. The "carnival" here feels less like a physical place and more like a mental state.
- The 1962 film: Focused on isolation and the silence of death.
- The 1998 film: Focused on the "return of the repressed" and the trauma of violence.
- The 1962 film: Used a haunting organ score.
- The 1998 film: Used a more traditional, orchestral/synth blend that felt very much of its time.
Bobbie Phillips actually does a decent job here. She has this wide-eyed, terrified look that carries a lot of the movie's weaker moments. And then there's Larry Miller. You probably know him as the funny guy from 10 Things I Hate About You or his stand-up specials. Seeing him as a cold-blooded killer is... jarring. It’s effective because you don't expect it, but it also gives the movie a strange, almost campy energy that clashes with the darker themes.
Production Hell and the "Wes Craven Presents" Curse
The production of the Carnival of Souls 1998 film was, frankly, a bit of a mess. It was caught in the middle of corporate shifts and a changing marketplace. By the time it was ready for the world, the "Wes Craven Presents" banner had lost some of its luster because it was being slapped on everything from Dracula 2000 to Mind Ripper.
It didn't get a wide theatrical release. It was dumped. That's usually a death sentence for a film's reputation. When a movie goes straight to video, the assumption is that it’s trash. But if you watch it today, the cinematography by Peter Deming—who worked on Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive—is actually quite striking. There are shots in this movie that look way better than they have any right to.
The visual effects are a mixed bag. Some of the practical makeup for the "souls" is creepy in that late-90s, over-the-top way. Other bits of early CGI haven't aged well. But that’s the charm of this era of horror. It was an experimental time.
👉 See also: Why the Cast of Hold Your Breath 2024 Makes This Dust Bowl Horror Actually Work
Why Does It Still Matter?
You might wonder why anyone still talks about the Carnival of Souls 1998 film. It’s not a "good" movie in the traditional sense, but it’s a fascinating failure. It represents a moment in time when Hollywood was trying to figure out how to monetize the "indie horror" vibe of the 60s and 70s for a generation raised on MTV.
It also highlights the difficulty of adapting "dream logic." The original film works because it doesn't explain itself. The 1998 version tries to give Alex a backstory, a motive, and a clear villain. In doing so, it loses the cosmic horror of the original but gains a weird, psychodramatic flavor that is unique to that specific window of the late 90s.
If you're a completist, you have to see it. You can't understand the evolution of the genre without looking at the remakes that missed the mark. Sometimes you learn more from a "bad" remake than a "good" one.
How to Approach This Film Today
If you’re going to sit down and watch the Carnival of Souls 1998 film, you have to clear your mind of the original. Don't compare them. They aren't trying to do the same thing. Think of the 1998 version as a dark, weird episode of an anthology series like The Outer Limits or Tales from the Crypt.
Watch for the Visuals
Focus on Peter Deming’s lighting. There are sequences involving water and mirrors that are genuinely beautiful. The use of color—lots of sickly greens and deep reds—creates a claustrophobic atmosphere that works even when the script doesn't.
✨ Don't miss: Is Steven Weber Leaving Chicago Med? What Really Happened With Dean Archer
Note the Performances
Larry Miller is the wildcard. Watch his performance and decide if he’s terrifying or just out of place. It’s a debate that horror fans have been having for over two decades.
Contextualize the Era
Keep in mind this came out around the same time as the Psycho remake (1998). There was a strange obsession with bringing back mid-century horror classics and "updating" them with modern psychological grit. Most of these projects failed to capture the magic of the originals, but they are all interesting time capsules.
The Carnival of Souls 1998 film is a relic. It’s a piece of horror history that reminds us that some stories are best left in the shadows of the past, but it also shows us how much the industry changed in thirty-six years. It's a loud, messy, visually interesting attempt to capture lightning in a bottle for the second time. It failed, but it failed with style.
To truly appreciate what happened here, your next step should be a double feature. Watch the 1962 original on a Friday night to get the atmosphere in your bones. Then, on Saturday, watch the 1998 version. Pay close attention to how the concept of "the ghost" changed from a silent, stalking figure to a manifestation of personal guilt and trauma. It’s the clearest way to see how the language of horror evolved from the Cold War era to the turn of the millennium.