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.

Just like the apparently real-life attraction from which it gets its name, The Bates Haunting squats upon the name Norman Bates, the iconic horror figure from Robert Bloch's story and Alfred Hitchcock's film. This film is no better or worse than your average xerox copy "mock-buster" or Asylum knock off.

Normally I would say a film like this should not exist as it is only destined to eventually take up space in a landfill. But The existence of The Bates Haunting is justified because, sadly, it is probably now the closest we will ever get to an actual film adaptation of Bloch's own Psycho House.

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!

To call this low-budget would be generous as it has the production value of a high school film project. The writing is awful and the acting is worse, but sometimes it's just so silly that you can't help but laugh. It definitely doesn't take itself too seriously, so that's a plus. Apparently the name comes from an actual haunted house attraction, not anything to do with the Bates Motel franchise, and that's an interesting location for a horror movie, because no one suspects the murders are real when all the blood is supposed to be fake. It's for sure not the worst horror movie I've seen, and some of those were so bad I didn't make it past the first 15 minutes.