La vedova Winchester

I saw this during matinee it was worth the $8... Some of the spooky parts were indeed spooky. Not amazing, but not horrendous

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.

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.

Two virtues define this film - Hellen Mirren. and the house. and , sure, the atmosphere, costumes, drops of fear and reasonable sketches of tension. the basic sin - it is one of many haunting house films. not a bad one, not a modest one, but one who has not the science to convince. not a bad fact but one who could not be so easy ignored . if you do not ignore the potential of story, the actors and the landscape. something missing is the ordinary conclusion after its end. what ? maybe the courage to say, in right manner, the right story. the science to propose a better script to good actors. and to explore the art of Hellen Mirren.