Winchester (2018) User Reviews

More of the same

[rstef1 · 4/10 · 13 February 2018]

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.

A good film, just a bit toothless.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 6/10 · 28 December 2018]

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

Pretty standard chiller

[lakishaferguson21 · 6/10 · 22 February 2018]

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

Winchester has an interesting story, but it's told in the dullest possible way.

[lnvicta · 4/10 · 11 March 2019]

There's a decent story here about an alcoholic living in the Winchester house who can't tell if he's experiencing withdrawals or something supernatural. Jason Clarke plays Dr. Price, who is invited to live in the Winchester house to give Ms. Winchester an ongoing psychological evaluation. Thing is, he's an alcoholic and Ms. Winchester won't allow him to be intoxicated as long as he's living in her house. So when he starts seeing apparitions, are they hallucinations? Are they ghosts? Dr. Price doesn't know and neither do we. Great setup.

But the movie chooses to go the boring route instead. It sidelines the interesting character study for a contrived ghost plot filled with every horror cliché in the book. What would a horror movie be without predictable, lame jump scares. There's not a single decent scare in the entire movie.

Winchester was a frustrating watch. The potential is right there, but it clutches onto these tired horror tropes for dear life - as if a mainstream audience wouldn't appreciate a deeper, more psychological approach to the material over a haphazardly-constructed, derivative, haunted house flick. It's the studio mentality - make it for a million bucks, we make 20 times that. They don't care about the integrity of the script or the material itself, and neither should you. By the way, this is a true story where 98% of the story is made up. Contradiction? No, marketing.

Again, Winchester is not terrible so much as it is frustrating. And boring. Don't bother with this one.

Not a mindless horror movie, but still not a smart one.

[ryslocum · 7/10 · 4 February 2018]

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.

Dull & Boring

[haileydavison · 1/10 · 24 September 2020]

Unremarkable and does not stand out in the slightest. The only perk to the film is getting to repeatedly see such a remarkable house.

Doesn't Quite Come Together.

[jburtonprod-802-759029 · 6/10 · 7 March 2018]

This movie isn't bad but it doesn't seem to quite deliver on it's setup. With a few tweaks this could've been a very successful slow burn, Gothic 'ghost' story in the manner of 'The Innocents' and 'The Haunting". What those movies did was create a film with all the trappings of supernatural horror without ever letting you know whether the supernatural element is real. 'Winchester' teases with this concept through most of the movie and then goes full blown, over the top, Hollywood-Ghost-Spooktacular at the end.

The cinematography is very atmospheric. The acting is good and there's a few scary moments. A marked over-reliance on jump scares got a little tedious. I really don't think they took as much advantage of the location as they could've. They might've tried some disembodied Steadicam shots with scary music to set the mood. We needed to see more of the 'Mystery House'. We needed to feel the craziness of it. It should've felt claustrophobic and all consuming. People should've got lost in it. Well, they don't and we feel everybody could leave anytime they felt like it.

The portrayal of Sarah Winchester as the tortured, guilt ridden ghost appeaser falls short, as well. This is a woman who lost a child and husband and believes she's cursed but they don't really bring that performance out and I'm sure they could've. I mean you've got Helen F-ing Miren for cripes sake. Don't you think she could knock that out of the park?

This is one of times when I have to put it all on the director. I think this screenplay probably read very well. The thing that consistently seems to bog it down is bad decisions on where to take it. For what it was, it was entertaining. I just don't think it fulfilled it's potential.

Words fail me.

[fostrhod · 3/10 · 10 August 2019]

Oh dear, words fail me. Helen Mirren must have been I'll advised to take on this turkey, or paid a shedload of money. It's bad.

Partially Inaccurate - Only A Few Good Scares

[neener3707 · 6/10 · 2 February 2018]

While I did like a little bit of the film, the story of Ms. Winchester was just so inaccurate. (Skip to paragraph 2 if you don't care about accuracy) I live less than 20 miles from the Winchester house and have been there multiple times and know the story. First of all, she wasn't building the house to protect herself from attacking spirits, she was building it out of guilt to help the spirits she supposedly communicated with, and while the film briefly touches on that, the majority is her building the house to protect from evil spirits, which is untrue, it was guilt and she was building it to serve as a home to spirits . She also wasn't an ominous and foreboding old woman who always wore black in a haunted house, by all accounts she was a normal and social woman who held many community events and parties at her house. But besides that the film was hit an miss, some good scares and atmosphere, and some not so good.

Helen Mirren did an alright job with her role and the rest of the actors were also very average. The atmosphere was well done, but good direction is not needed because the house itself is beautiful and mysterious. The scares are hit and miss, out of about 12, only 2 got me, but I'm a horror veteran, a group of teenage girls however screamed multiple times. Some scares work because of the accented atmosphere, but some are pretty lame and predictable, making the film an average chiller with noting very special. Over all the film is just another average effort for a Hollywood horror film that does not shine like other better films.

I would not recommend this to horror veterans.

A little slow but well made

[jjvolturno · 5/10 · 12 January 2020]

I expected a bit more as, well it's Helen Mirren. I heard people slamming this but it isn't all that bad, it's not fast paced but is well crafted overall. Some very eerie moments to satisfy the horror fans but I wouldn't call it a horror movie exactly.

Surprisingly cathartic

[ehzimmerman · 8/10 · 2 February 2018]

For those who want factual history, "Captive of the Labyrinth" by Mary Jo Ignoffo is an excellent biography of Sarah Winchester, who probably was not interested in ghosts, but rather in architecture, a field that did not invite professional participation by women. Sarah Winchester's father manufactured decorative architectural features for Victorian houses, and his factory was right next door to her childhood home -- so Sarah grew up intimately exposed to the physical details of building houses. As an educated rich woman, building her house was an expensive hobby she loved and could afford to pursue. She also incorporated the newest technology - elevators, showers, etc. - into the house, and managed a productive fruit orchards and a dried fruit business, and . I thought the movie did a good job of including some factual information based on the real Sarah Winchester, and accurately portrayed her as responsible, not crazy, and deeply caring for her family, As for the lurid sensational haunted house story, this was concocted by those who bought the house after Sarah Winchester died, and turned it into a money-making tourist trap. That said, I enjoyed this fictional ghost story, which explored deeper themes than I would normally expect from a supernatural horror genre flick. There does seem to be a heavy handed message about gun violence -- however, I agree with that message; it's more than timely..

Borefest

[ThomasDrufke · 2/10 · 6 February 2018]

It's gotten to the point where I go to see movies (that I have no interest in seeing and I likely know will be bad) just because I have a Moviepass. I'm a firm believer in not judging a movie until you go to the theater, but sometimes it's difficult to escape what you see in the trailers. With Winchester, there was little to no substance in the marketing material and the film pretty much followed suit. The story of Sarah Winchester and the haunted house she owned for so many years felt like a fascinating premise, especially knowing the similarity it could have had to The Conjuring films. However, Winchester falls flat as a boring horror film that lacks in just about every facet of filmmaking.

As haunted house horror films go, naturally the main story thread involves a possessed child and the demons that force him to do inexplicable things. We've seen it before time and time again, and besides a select few, I haven't found it to be a compelling narrative approach. Perhaps that's because it's been overdone, or perhaps it's that most of the time the characters just aren't fleshed out enough. Either way, the possessed child in Winchester haulted any sort of interest I had.

Even with Jason Clarke, Helen Mirren, and another chilling performance from the up and comer Eamon Farren (Twin Peaks), there wasn't much at all to write home about.

2.6/10

Seriously?

[elizabethdaugherty · 1/10 · 16 September 2018]

Who allowed this film to be made? Anyone who ever toured that house and gardens or read any biography on Sarah Winchester knows that, aside from the name and house, this story is complete crap.

Sarah Winchester and those who have stayed or lived in the house never experienced any of the paranormal phenomenon displayed in the film. The filmmakers couldn't even get the 1906 San Francisco earthquake correct. This earthquake hit in the early morning hours of April 18, 1906 and Mrs. Winchester was asleep in the Daisy Room (so called because of the Louis Comfort Tiffany stained glass windows featuring a daisy pattern).

No one indulged in opioids, the walls didn't bleed and the ghosts of those individuals killed by Winchester firearms did not ghoul about the mansion trying to kill people.

Paranormal phenomenon was not reported until well after Winchester's death and was limited to sights of servants, smells of chicken broth, sounds of construction and sounds of a grand piano being played that had two flat keys.

I love Helen Mirren but I cannot think why someone of her caliber would consent to be in this film.

Intriguing blend of true history, legend and outright fiction

[JamesHitchcock · 6/10 · 20 February 2018]

This film has nothing to do with the cathedral city in Hampshire. When William Winchester, the owner of the Winchester Repeating Arms Company, died in 1881 he left his vast fortune to his widow Sarah, making her one of the wealthiest women in America. Soon afterwards Sarah Winchester left her home in New Haven, Connecticut and moved to San Jose, California where she began building a vast, sprawling mansion. Work on the house continued until Sarah's own death in 1922. The building, today known as the Winchester Mystery House, still exists and is a popular tourist attraction; it is noted for oddities such as staircases and passageways which lead nowhere. It is said to have been left unfinished at Sarah Winchester's death, but it lacks any coherent plan and probably never would have been "finished" even if its owner had lived for many more years.

That much is fact. For many people, however, the main interest of the Winchester Mystery House lies in the legends which have grown up around it (and, indeed, had started to grow up even during Sarah's lifetime). It was said that the house was haunted by the ghosts of all those who had been killed by guns manufactured by the Winchester company and that Sarah's obsessive compulsion to add yet more rooms to her ever-growing house was in fact an attempt to placate them. The mansion still has the reputation of being one of the most haunted buildings in America.

The film, which is set in 1902 and has Sarah Winchester as its main character, assumes that the legends are true. (A supernatural horror film based around the assumption that ghost stories are all a load of superstitious nonsense would not, I suspect, be a great success). The officers of the Winchester company, still based in Connecticut, have heard rumours that Mrs Winchester, who still holds a controlling interest in the company even though she lives on the other side of the country, has gone mad and that she believes herself to be haunted by evil spirits. They therefore appoint Eric Price, a psychiatrist, to examine her, hoping that he will declare her to be insane which will allow them to remove her from any position of control in the company. (Was Price's surname chosen in homage to the late Vincent Price, a noted actor in horror films?)

Price is that familiar figure from horror films, the sceptic who is proved wrong. He initially believes that ghost stories are all a load of superstitious nonsense, but his acquaintance with Sarah Winchester and her extraordinary home soon persuades him to change his mind, and it becomes clear that he and Sarah are indeed threatened by vengeful spirits. Particularly malevolent is the ghost of a young man who, to avenge the deaths of his brothers, Confederate soldiers cut down by the rifles of the Union army, killed several employees of the Winchester Company at their headquarters and was in his turn shot dead by the police.

The film received largely negative reviews from the critics, but I actually enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I was going to. The cinematic ghost story can be a predictable, cliché-ridden genre, but "Winchester" brings a certain originality to it. Whereas the likes to "The Haunting in Connecticut" and the recent rehash of "The Amityville Horror" tried (very dubiously) to pass themselves off as "true" stories, "Winchester" builds upon an intriguing blend of true history, legend and outright fiction to produce something of much greater interest, a story which does not leave the viewer with a "seen-it-all-before" feeling. The film-makers were greatly assisted by their coup in persuading an actress as distinguished as Dame Helen Mirren, an actress you wouldn't normally associate with haunted-house horror movies, to star in the leading role. She invests Sarah with a good deal of dignity, making her a woman who is eminently sane, even if much of the world believes her to be mad. Dame Helen receives good support from Jason Clarke, an actor I had not previously come across, as Price, a man haunted by a personal tragedy, and one which he shares with Sarah. "Winchester" does have its share of horror clichés, including the normal spooky music and camera tricks, but overall it is one of the better recent examples of the genre. 6/10

Winchester: What I expected, which isn't good

[Platypuschow · 4/10 · 21 April 2019]

I'll be honest I never had any interest in Winchester, the trailer bored me.

I watched it simply because it was on and everything I assumed about it turned into reality.

Helen Mirren stars in this highly cliched generic horror movie that alike the trailer quite frankly bored me. It's not without its merits, in fact I quite like the premise but it comes across flat and even Mirren failed to bring her A game.

Telling the story of a doctor recruited to decide the mental state of an old lady living in a bizarre house who believes that victims of the gun her family invented are haunting her.

Something about this reminded me oddly of 13 Ghosts (2001), except that was a passable affair whereas this relies too much on the standard tropes and quite frankly is a tad pretentious.

I expected not to like it and I was correct, predictable tripe.

The Good:

Interesting idea

The Bad:

Failed execution

Mirren was quite poor here

Predictable

Generic stuff

Why do people dislike horror

[hifiman-62270 · 7/10 · 18 August 2021]

This is a very well made movie. Lovely looking . Well acted. Good story. Atmospheric. And at times very jump scary. I'm sure some low ratings are people who don't like horror movies.

It's not usual d movie rubbish made for £3 that get false ratings. It's a very good horry film.

a film

[Kirpianuscus · 8 June 2018]

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.

A film that tries incredibly hard to scare you, and never manages it once

[jtindahouse · 4/10 · 6 March 2018]

I had high hopes for 'Winchester' because The Spierig Brothers's previous two films 'Predestination' and 'Jigsaw' had both blown me away. They weren't just your average films. They were smart and left you thinking long after you left the cinema. So as I was watching 'Winchester' and thinking how it seemed like just your average ghost film, I still had hopes that there was a plot twist or a reveal waiting in the shadows that would blow me away. Sadly though, it never came. This is just another ghost story seen a thousand times before, and what's worse is that it's probably not as good as most of those ones before it.

The film isn't scary, period. It tries to be. It tries very hard in fact. But never once did it get the slightest jump out of me. The reason? There is zero tension or atmosphere built up. They thought all they had to do was set the film in a creepy looking house and the rest would take care of itself. That's certainly not the case however. Not only was there zero atmosphere, I also couldn't have cared less about the fate of the characters. I hated them all. No one was in any way likeable, so why should I care about their fate?

The film tries to sell itself on the 'Based on True Events' tagline which makes me sick. When your premise is this beyond belief and stupid you don't have the right to post that before your film. It's irresponsible to say the least. A very average film played out by a bored and disinterested looking cast who probably knew the film they were making was going to turn out terribly. Give it a miss and see 'Game Night' instead.

A complete mess.

[beemtoaustin · 1/10 · 5 July 2020]

Where to begin? This movie is such a missed opportunity. I lived not far from Winchester House and always saw incredible potential for a great movie, but too much has happened within the genre and changed the genre. The old scary house trick isn't what it used to be and the people behind this boring mess had no idea what they were doing. Too many jump scares, way too little story.

Don't even waste your time.

[satko_d · 1/10 · 13 July 2018]

This movie was one of the worst horror movies I've seen in the last 2 years and, I've seen a load of horror these last 2 years.

The character development is really poor. I knew this was going to be a boring experience, oh boy... Nothing could've prepared for what I witnessed in the next 90 minutes. The movie starts with a CGI shot of the Winchester house... I'm not a graphic designer or anything but, I guarantee you, I could've made it better. They had a budget of 3.5 million... Probably payed some kids a couple of hundred bucks to do all the CGI for this.

Also, expect a lot of obvious and dumb jump scares. A lot. It gets annoying and boring after a while. If you are a horror fan, like me(I've watched every single horror film in existence) don't waste your time with this one. Sure, there are worse movies out there but, I really didn't enjoy this one because of all the hype it got before release date, the awesome cast, which I have no idea how they got them. I almost gave up before the 1 hour mark cause I was falling asleep.

The story doesn't even bother to keep you interested or invested in what's about to happen next. You kind of figure out what's gonna happen next 5 minutes before it does.

My verdict: Hopeless.

Campy Ms. Mirren as Widow in Black

[3xHCCH · 5/10 · 2 February 2018]

The year was 1906 in San Jose, California. San Francisco-based psychiatrist Dr. Eric Price (Jason Clarke) was called in by the lawyers of the Winchester Repeating Arms Co. to assess the mental health of their CEO, Mrs. Sarah Winchester (Helen Mirren). She had been obsessed about constantly building new rooms and sections to her house with no clear reasons, which caused concern among the members of her board.

Upon visiting her house, Dr. Price began seeing frightful visions. At first, he thought that these were just illusions from his addiction to laudanum. However, when Ms. Sarah's grandson Henry (Finn Scicluna-O'Prey), son of her niece Marian (Sarah Snook), was showing signs of possession by an evil spirit, Dr. Price needed to get his act together to help the Winchesters figure out how to fight back against the violently disturbed spirit of Cpl. Benjamin Block (Eamon Farren) who was determined to exact his revenge.

Despite the American topic, this was actually an Australian production. The film was written and directed by Austrailian identical twins Peter and Michael Spierig, billed together as "The Spierig Brothers." I did not recognize the name right away, but I realized that I had seen one of their films before, "Predestination" (2015) which I liked (MY REVIEW). Just last year, they directed the 8th installment of the "Saw" franchise called "Jigsaw" which I was not able to see. Majority of the cast was also Australian, like Clarke, Snook and Farren, along with Angus Sampson (as Ms. Sarah's helper) and Laura Brent (as Ruby, Eric's wife).

Helen Mirren seemed to be having a lot of fun wearing her oppressively black widow's gown and veil, which she wore for the entire length of this movie. Her acting was on the hammy side and was actually quite amusing to watch. She somehow gave the impression that she was not taking this project too seriously, and that may be a good thing in this case. She knows her character had some over-the-top lines and scenes, so she wisely played her with tongue-in-cheek.

I know Jason Clarke mostly for his macho action films, like "Zero Dark Thirty" (2012), "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" (2014) and "Everest" (2015). Him getting jumpy, startled and freaked out as the tormented Dr. Price in this film must have been quite a fun change of pace for him. It was his character who went through a more complete story arc in film, and he did deliver, acting-wise. There was a remarkable detail in Dr. Price's life that was a nice little twist in the film which I appreciated.

The only other film I saw Sarah Snook in was "Predestination". She was just limited to playing the concerned mother. Viewers of the rebooted "Twin Peaks" last year will recognize Eamon Farren. His character Block was given quite a back story behind his vengeful anger. Of course, Angus Sampson was the comic relief for all the "Insidious" films. Here, all he did nothing much but to hammer doors shut with 13 pieces of nails.

It did not have the Hollywood polish in terms of its cinematography and special effects. The scenes which were set at night or in darkness were too dark and were difficult to watch. The horror visual effects were quite basic, not up to present standards. A lot of the scares were jump scares brought about by sudden jolts of a ghostly face or a sudden blast of sound. While certain aspects of the story were interesting, the pacing of the storytelling was rather slow and tedious at parts. 5/10.

A decent movie

[maxwolfie · 6/10 · 26 March 2020]

Winchester is a decent movie however it is marred by a fairly weak premise.

Hey why make a unique horror movie while you can make a cheap one and make more profit

[iomartarek · 31 August 2020]

I don't wanna sound to negative I mean the movie wasn't good but it had interesting idea that the souls of dead people killed by the Winchester guns are haunting Sarah Winchester house as she build rooms that represents the rooms they died on it and she try to apologize and make them leave and so on and so on.

Well that's indeed interesting idea but it's done very poorly so predictable in so many ways, I wish there were like a twist or something even stealing "The sixth sense" twist it doesn't matter make something interesting happen.

The acting was so ordinary nothing special from anyone I expected Sarah Snook will have a major role in the movie cause I loved so much in "Predestination" but it didn't appear as much and it was okay..The Winchester house the main focus of the movie looked very good from the inside made the movie looked great but the outside shots of the house looked like cheap CGI from an old game and the monster in the movie I think they didn't troubled themselves with adding makeup to make the monsters believable they just made it all CGI and just make the shot very dark no one will know..And the movie really so much in cheap jump scares if you took them out of the movie we can say it's comedy not horror and that's in my opinion is like the thing was most of the horror movies of the last decade they lack creativity despite the horror genre is one of the genres that you can invent no ways to scare people and it will work..STOP USING CHEAP JUMP SCARES!

Pretty Good as Far as Scary Movies Go

[view_and_review · 6/10 · 5 February 2018]

I believe Winchester is a result of the success of The Conjuring in that The Conjuring was a successful scary movie based upon real people and real events. Winchester wasn't quite as scary as The Conjuring but I don't think it tried to be.

Sarah Winchester (Helen Mirren) is a widow and heiress to the Winchester fortune. Incredibly haunted by the many deaths caused by her husbands rifles she builds and builds upon her San Jose mansion in hopes to keep the spirits satiated. This is all true stuff that can be easily found and is even in the Guiness Book of World Records. The other members of the Winchester Repeating Arms company want to drive her out with the help of a doctor's analysis of her.

The movie is about guilt. Sarah Winchester's guilt and even the guilt of Dr. Price (Eric Clarke), the doctor being paid to psychoanalyze her. The scares seem to take a back seat at times to the story. There are a few jump scares (one which was really good because it wasn't telegraphed like most jump scares). The cast is a solid cast being that I recognize the main actors. The movie is dark and ominous but it isn't one that will give you chills or nightmares. It's PG-13 and a fairly clean PG-13 at that--no foul language, nothing close to nudity and no blood. As far as scary movies go this was pretty good.

Wow

[elipsenbarnick · 3/10 · 21 July 2020]

Watched this while in my barracks at my job school. What a terrible boring and long movie. The set design is cool at first and the costuming is really great. This movie sucks though- terrible script, no real style to the creation of the film, and the climax of the film falls so flat that it's almost laughable. Instead of laughing though, I am groaning in disbelief.