La maldición de la casa de Winchester

It is better than most "Paranormal Activity" sequels in regards that the make-up effects are very well done. The biggest flaw with the movie is the dialogue. The dialogue, for a lack of a better word, is just plain corny. I struggle to enjoy a movie with horrible dialogue, but if you can get past that flaw you should enjoy this movie very much.

There are multiple jumpscares throughout the movie which did cause audience member to jump and gasp. The scenery of the movie is my favorite part, as the scenery is what made me feel uneasy with fear. The lighting of the scenes are perfect and the re-creation of the supposedly horrifying house are gripping. If you are easily scared you should have a blast with this movie! For horror fans that are looking for some exceptional horror, this movie is not for you.

There's a decent story here about an alcoholic living in the Winchester house who can't tell if he's experiencing withdrawals or something supernatural. Jason Clarke plays Dr. Price, who is invited to live in the Winchester house to give Ms. Winchester an ongoing psychological evaluation. Thing is, he's an alcoholic and Ms. Winchester won't allow him to be intoxicated as long as he's living in her house. So when he starts seeing apparitions, are they hallucinations? Are they ghosts? Dr. Price doesn't know and neither do we. Great setup.

But the movie chooses to go the boring route instead. It sidelines the interesting character study for a contrived ghost plot filled with every horror cliché in the book. What would a horror movie be without predictable, lame jump scares. There's not a single decent scare in the entire movie.

Winchester was a frustrating watch. The potential is right there, but it clutches onto these tired horror tropes for dear life - as if a mainstream audience wouldn't appreciate a deeper, more psychological approach to the material over a haphazardly-constructed, derivative, haunted house flick. It's the studio mentality - make it for a million bucks, we make 20 times that. They don't care about the integrity of the script or the material itself, and neither should you. By the way, this is a true story where 98% of the story is made up. Contradiction? No, marketing.

Again, Winchester is not terrible so much as it is frustrating. And boring. Don't bother with this one.

For those who want factual history, "Captive of the Labyrinth" by Mary Jo Ignoffo is an excellent biography of Sarah Winchester, who probably was not interested in ghosts, but rather in architecture, a field that did not invite professional participation by women. Sarah Winchester's father manufactured decorative architectural features for Victorian houses, and his factory was right next door to her childhood home -- so Sarah grew up intimately exposed to the physical details of building houses. As an educated rich woman, building her house was an expensive hobby she loved and could afford to pursue. She also incorporated the newest technology - elevators, showers, etc. - into the house, and managed a productive fruit orchards and a dried fruit business, and . I thought the movie did a good job of including some factual information based on the real Sarah Winchester, and accurately portrayed her as responsible, not crazy, and deeply caring for her family, As for the lurid sensational haunted house story, this was concocted by those who bought the house after Sarah Winchester died, and turned it into a money-making tourist trap. That said, I enjoyed this fictional ghost story, which explored deeper themes than I would normally expect from a supernatural horror genre flick. There does seem to be a heavy handed message about gun violence -- however, I agree with that message; it's more than timely..

I saw a trailer for this, and was instantly dying to watch it, sadly though, as is so ifyen the case, they flattered to deceive. It's not a bad film, I would go so far as to say it's a decent watch, maybe my expectations were just too high. It just fails to deliver on the excellent premise, there is subtlety, and then there's dull, and for me, Winchester languishes somewhere between the two. The scares are non existent, there are one or two good ones, but I expected so many more, they could have gone to town with these parameters. The best single element, as many would expect is the presence of Helen Mirren, who is terrific, but in all truth, slightly under used.

It looks fantastic, it's well acted, if you're looking for a horror with bite, you'll be disappointed, if you're after an intriguing, spooky tale, then you may well enjoy it. 6/10

While it is clear that The Spierig Brothers are familiar with all the haunted house horror story conventions, they, like Rob Zombie before them, do not seem to be able to effectively use them. A fondness for the genre does not translate into the ability to engage and frighten an audience.

Before anyone dismisses my review as being from someone who doesn't enjoy deliberately paced, creepy stories without a plethora of pyrotechnics, let me state that The Haunting (the original not the crappy remake) and 1944's The Uninvited are two of my favorite films. You don't need a large budget or special effects to make a scary film on the subject of a haunted house. Both Insidious and Sinister demonstrated that with good direction and a decent story you can scare the hell out of an audience.

While Winchester boasts some good actors and a wonderful setting that is fraught with possibilities, it squanders both on a tired story of ghosts looking for revenge, which completely ignores the real facts of the Winchester House. A couple jump scares accompanied by sudden music stings work to a degree, but there is no genuine feeling of suspense generated by the script, no growing sense of escalating dread. Instead we get acceptable performances and some nice looking sets as the actors go through their paces to little effect.

It's not a terrible film, but one which fails to raise the hackles and which you will quickly forget after leaving the theater.