By Erik Jimenez
“Winchester” is bad. But that is to be expected from the Spierig Brothers whose previous film, “Jigsaw” (or Saw 8) was… well “Jigsaw,” and their best film was “Daybreakers” from 2010 which no one barely remembers due to it wasting a great premise of a society where Vampires are the dominant species on Earth. This film also wastes its premise of the true-life story of a real-life mystery house with winding corridors, stairs and doors to nowhere, and all matters of illogical design choices made by a widowed heiress to keep the ghosts of those who were killed by her husband’s rifle trapped so they will not harm her family… and tosses it away for cheap jump scares, inane dialogue, and the worst use of Helen Mirren I have ever seen (yes, that Hellen Mirren).
But despite Mirren being on the front cover of every single poster for this movie, she’s not the main character. Instead, it’s Jason Clarke as a Doctor sent to the mansion by the Winchester company to examine Sarah Winchester’s (Helen Mirren) mental stability while she is sharing the house with her relative Marion (Sarah Snook) and Marion’s son Henry (Finn O’Prey). Clarke first thinks she’s crazy, but soon he finds that Mirren may be right about the curse that has been put on her family as he discovers that the Mansion genuinely is haunted, in the most unimpressive and generic ways possible for a film like this.
What’s surprising is just how little screen time Mirren, Snook and anyone else besides Clarke’s character have in the film. Now structuring your film so a big star needs to only shoot for small amount of time compared to the cheaper and more available actors (who usually shoot the rest of the film) is a legit strategy that is completely acceptable in Hollywood as long as it’s not obvious to the audience in the finished product. “Winchester” clearly did not follow that rule, as Mirren is barely in it. She’s practically a guest star in a movie that was falsely advertised as her having the lead role. Jason Clarke isn’t even on any of the posters.
Comparing the script of the film to the architectural plans of the actual Winchester Mystery House is an obvious comparison. The film feels disjointed with no real flow between any of the scenes and halfway through the film, when the film decides to reveal its secrets at a snail’s pace, it leaves the remaining 45 minutes feeling emotionally and intellectually cold to what is happening on the screen. And it also doesn’t help that the cinematography looks like something out of a SYFY movie of the week. I’m guessing they saved that part of the budget for Helen Mirren.
“Winchester” simply isn’t scary. None of its scares feel earned, there is no atmosphere throughout its 100-minute runtime, and the fact that it wastes the potential of a truly creepy true story is almost as criminal as the marketing campaign for the film.
If you want a real haunted house experience, go see the actual Winchester House in San Jose. The money you spend will be much more worth it than the 20-something bucks you waste on this rip-off of a film.
About Post Author
