The Bates Haunting

...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.

Anyone who gave this movie positive reviews clearly is somehow a part of the movie, or was paid to leave a positive review.

The first thing that jumps out to anyone who watches this is just how bad the acting is. The fake reviewers say we need to just get past the actors being no-names. But them being no- names is not the issue here. It's just that most of them can't act. It's blatantly obvious to everyone and you don't have to be "in the business" or a movie critic to realize it. I wonder just how little some of these actors were paid, because they clearly took anyone and everyone willing to work for cheap without actual talent factoring in.

In fact, I'm sure everybody can agree that there are some great movies with all no-names. But this is not one of them.

There's also the issue of special effects. I don't think the intent with this movie was the "so bad, it's good" effect. I really think they tried. Unfortunately, they failed. The scene with the tractor was atrocious. First, they didn't even hear the tractor as it got closer? They only heard it when it was far away?

The girl hit by the tractor first had a few drops of blood on her, as she's starring blankly into the distance, then, seconds later, she's covered with blood all over. But not drips of blood. Someone just took fake blood and lathered it onto her entire body. It looked like red body paint.

I wasn't able to make it much further past that part — I'm sure this was the case for most viewers.

Also, the addition of Bam Margera and his deceased cohort was shameless, unnecessary and outright annoying. Just because you're able to give a former reality star a cameo doesn't mean you should actually do it.

Overall, two thumbs down. No stars. Rotten to the core. Don't make the mistake of thinking this is one of those "so bad, it's good" movies. "So bad, it's bad" does, indeed, exist. Bates Haunting is undeniable proof.

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.

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.