The Bates Haunting

Right, already at the opening of the movie, when Bam Margera appeared, I was ready to turn off the movie. I just knew right there and then that this was going to be bad. And then you see Ryan Dunn (who can't act even if his life depended on it) is listed to be in the movie, and it seems it would go from bad to worse.

Right, well "The Bates Haunting" is a slasher movie, but ultimately not in the higher end of the scale. The movie wasn't particularly interesting, and the story was just so-so. And the fact that the acting throughout most of the movie was amateurish and staggering, really didn't help elevate the movie out of the gutter of mediocrity.

The story is about Agnes Rickover (played by Jean Louise O'Sullivan) who sees her friend burnt to death at a local haunting attraction. And she ends up working at the very same attraction later on as all of her job possibilities are bled dry (no pun intended here). But things are escalating at the attraction and the make-believe deaths of various people to scare people turns out to be real killings. Someone or something is after Agnes, and wants her blood.

Alright, well fairly average slasher storyline here, but it was just badly acted, badly scripted and executed on the screen. The movie was anything but scary and there weren't any shocks throughout the movie.

The movie's poster/DVD cover makes the movie seem far better than it actually is, and also insinuates a much higher level of production value. Guess you can't judge a movie by its cover, eh?

If you are looking for some slasher entertainment, I would recommend that you get your kicks elsewhere. This movie was not really worth spending about an hour and a half on.

I don't know if is the bad acting that reminded me of those cheap 90's straight to video movies. Or the bad directing and stiff actors that also reminded me of the old video era of porn. Unfortunately was a bad combination for a good plot. I also thought of how nice would have been to buy the book in an airport to read during a long flight. Using my imagination to follow the narrative could have being a better idea than watching the movie to the end. It didn't seem low budget, so i guess it was a bad choice in acting and directing. One particular shot that is repeated over an over will get on your nerves very soon into the movie. Don't be fooled by the title either, it has nothing to do with Bates motel.

"The movie actually, HAS NOTHING TO DO with the Bates family from the movie Psycho or the recently made TV show. When you see the film cover and read the synopsis, you think there's a ghost haunting the Bates motel or something. WRONG!

They are just using the Bates' name to attract a wider audience. I repeat, the movie HAS NOTHING to do with Norman Bates or a haunting, ever. Now how deceitful is that?? This is just a movie about a stupid hayride show and the family's name is Bates. That's it. There's not even a motel."

In response to this... 1. They never said they were gonna be about Psycho, Bates Motel, or Norman. 2. The set they based this in was THE REAL BATES MOTEL & THE HAUNTED HAYRIDE. So no, they weren't, in anyway, trying to be related to Bates Motel/Psycho. They were making a movie for a REAL thing. The movie is about a REAL HAUNTED HAYRIDE & THE BATES MOTEL. So, your review is based basically on you wanting to be an ass.

...has already spoken for me. BUT I do have to note that the director didn't shake the camera to death and that allows the audience to absorb the set, acting and plot--something that is missing in modern movie director's education. Hitchcock shook the set when it was called for, not the camera. The audience looks the actors in their eyes just like in real life. It's hard to do when the camera won't stop being so orgasmic. This is a high compliment for such a bad production. Better luck with experience. Would someone tell me how many lines past "ten" will the guideline finally consider allowing this post to proceed? So, moving on. The (hotty) newscaster was the best actress of the lot. She should have starred.

Maybe its due to my seeing this movie immediately AFTER having the misfortune of watching "After Darks Film:The Haunting of Whaley House", but I did not find this movie to be near as crappy as some have opined it to be. In fact after having watched what is a very real crap-fest "The Haunting of Whaley House", I actually rather enjoyed "The Bates Haunting". Don't get me wrong this is indeed a very much B-grade horror flick, but its definitely one that has enough redeeming qualities to hold my attention throughout, as well as the movie as a whole made complete sense. The actors did a fine job of playing each of their respective roles, the gore scenes are done very professionally and would rank right up there with the quality special effects of some of the grade A-horror movies. It had a beginning, middle, climax, and an end that left me feeling satisfied with the overall movie.

Maybe the fact that I had just watched the REALLY-pathetic-in-EVERY- SINGLE-WAY-movie, "The Haunting of Whaley House", that had me going into "The Bates Haunting" with very little expectations, but whatever the reason I can tell you that this film was miles apart from that pathetic garbage, and offered more than enough entertainment that left me totally satisfied at the conclusion of the film. I even took the time to REwatch "The Bates Haunting" the next day to see if my opinion of it changed and/or if it would even be tolerable for a complete repeat viewing...and I can tell you that Yes, it did hold up, I watched the entire movie again,and had no change of heart as to how I felt about the film going into without having had the horrible misfortune of viewing "Whaley House" immediately before hand.

To me, that says an awful lot due to the fact that there are quite a few "good" horror movies that just don't hold up in repeat viewings, whereas "Bates" absolutely did!