Haunting of Winchester House

There isn't a whole lot to say about the film so I'll get right to the point. The acting was by far the worst part of it. The performances were forced, uninspired, and a pain to watch in some places.

That being said, the film at first seemed to be pretty much a mish mash of every other haunting movie, same scare tactics, same suspense builders, same basic idea of ghosts with unfinished business, etc. At first. After the film got going it was obvious that the writers were trying to take things in a different direction, and while overall the film will most definitely be buried amongst all the other "ghost movies" and "haunted house" movies, there was still an original idea or two to be found, and for a fan of the genre it was still worth a view to the end. Most of the plot you could see clear ahead for miles, though, and again the acting really detracted from scenes that would have otherwise been more intense. The script was a bit awkward in spots as well, so I can't blame the actors entirely.

Anyway, if you're teetering on the edge as to whether or not to spend the time or money on the movie, I'd recommend giving it a shot. If you haven't seen many horror films it's definitely worth a watch, and if you have, you might be pleasantly surprised.

Apart from getting the history of The Winchester House completely wrong, there is no substance in the story, the characters are not well developed, so you don't really care what happens to them, and the trite horror movie set-ups are the very definition of campy. It isn't scary and you can't even laugh at it as a suitable schlock flick. A complete waste of an hour and a half.

For those of us who are familiar with the actual Winchester House in San Jose, CA, the house portrayed is not the actual house, nor is it in its actual location. How hard would it have been for the makers of this film to have done even a little bit of research to get the content in the ballpark?

I love the genre, so this comes from someone who can appreciate a good horror movie. Unfortunately, this isn't one!

With all the horror movies made in the USA involving a haunted house, you would think one that features one of the most famous haunted places in the world (Winchester Mystery House in San Nose, CA) would feature a unique and compelling story. However, this film fails to deliver that notion and instead is a campy, low-budget, and unoriginal movie.

This film was Winchester in name only, elaborating very little on the real-life Winchester Mystery House. Sarah Winchester, the heiress who kept construction on the house going non-stop for 38 years to appease the spirits of those killed by the Winchester firearms, was portrayed as just a lost soul looking for her long lost daughter (why she could not find her daughter in her own darn house is beyond me). There was no effort in elaborating the history behind Sarah Winchester nor the many different rooms, secret chambers, doors and hallways in the house. If you're going to have the Winchester Mystery House portrayed in a film, at least make the characters explore the many different and eerie aspects of the house like the staircase that leads up to the ceiling, door to nowhere, the séance room, Winchester's bedroom, the garden, the 7-11 staircase, emphasis of the number 13, etc. Also, make the effort of having the house located in a city like in real life, rather than sequestered in the woods. Detailing and emphasizing the history and mystery of the house will make the film more unique and original. Instead, the lack thereof makes the film dull and stands out as just another low-budget, ghost-on-the-loose horror flick.

Lastly, the acting is absolutely horrible - lack of substance, emotion, depth and drama. It looked as if the actors were ill-prepared for their roles and made very little effort in portraying their characters. I had to cover my eyes a few times just because the acting was so terrible. I have to single out the actress who played "Susan Grenier." I think she is the worse actor in the film who, at times, tries too hard to be realistic (i.e., forcing out tears when she cries).

Overall, if you're bored and looking for a good horror movie to pass the time (like I was), you might be better off choosing to watch something else!

Grade F

The actors - especially the mother - seemed quite sincere in their roles, but the story itself didn't really make any sense. It all seemed so random - just random ghosts at random times coming after random people in random ways and doing random things with them, all for no apparent reason. The characters were pretty much text-book cookie-cutter. There were entirely too many full-on face shots where the heads of the characters filled up the entire screen, back & forth between them. I never realized how annoying that could be, but I've never seen that kind of shot so over-used before. There is no discernible story, just a bunch of disjointed, discombobulated "fragments". Not very well plotted. If you don't care too much about story but just like seeing people scream & ghosts go, "Boo!", this will do it for you. But if you're looking for an interesting or engaging story of some sort, this really doesn't cut it.

I'm in film school reviewing movies over and over. I have to say, it's not the fault of the actors. The storyline on what the proper reaction would be to certain incidents is the fault of the script writer and the director. I wasn't bored in the movie. I saw the whole thing. All movies have defects- just some have less than others! Basically, the end shouldn't have ended like that. The moral of the story from this movie: Speak-up, don't let people exist with a lie! Tell them what really happened.