The Bates Haunting

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.

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!

This movie has nothing to do with the actual Bates Motel used in the original "Psycho". It's about the haunted attraction which is located in Pennsylvania. Furthermore, we have a movie mocking the original in a haunted attraction form.

Acting was bad. Story wasn't anything special, but only kind of fun. Not scary at all. While it was entertaining enough to make it to the end, that's not saying much. I'd say only watch if your a die hard for anything Bates and interested in the attraction located in Pennsylvania. Almost seems like a movie made to gain recognition for the haunted attraction and also cashing in on the success of the recent "Bates Motel" show.

Actually... it's more like 'Welcome to amateur hour (and twenty minutes).' This, incidentally, is about an hour and twenty minutes more than you'll probably feel is worth spending with this film.

'The Haunting of Bates Hotel' has no actors that you've probably heard of. Yes, I know, many a great film has been made without stars. Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt alone doesn't guarantee a film's success. However, this one doesn't just not have stars; it also doesn't have actors. Seriously... these people's LACK of acting talent is almost amazing. I know it's a horror movie and so I wasn't expecting Oscar-worthy performances, but this is going to extremes. I really can't let the bad acting lie... it was like they just let anyone on set and allowed them to say the lines how they liked.

The film is about a *supposedly* haunted house on some farmland in small-town America. Only it's not haunted and everyone knows that. The owners just put on some horror-themed events to bring in the money. However, a year after some girl gets horribly burned to death by 'accident,' more killings start to emerge.

It's not all bad (most, but not all). The setting itself is quite a nice place for a slasher movie, i.e. a place where there are already *deliberately* plenty of gory props to confuse and startle the hapless victims. And there are some nice homages to existing horror icons, i.e. Freddy Krueger's jumper etc.

But, the odd brief glimpse of Jason Vorhees' head-sack isn't enough to save this catastrophe of a film. It tries to be really funny. It fails. It falls flat on every attempt at humour and just comes across as cringe-worthy. Plus the gore isn't that good (yes, I know it's a cheap film, but I've seen student zombie films with better effects than this one) and, despite trying to be really post modern and self-knowing, it falls into every horror cliché going, i.e. 'have sex and die.' One word: avoid. If you've ever seen a horror film then it was better than this one. If, by some miracle you haven't ever seen a horror movie... then don't start with this one. If fact, just make your own horror flick with the video camera ap on your smartphone – guaranteed it'll be better than this!

...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.