Cinafilm has over 5 million movie reviews and counting …
Sitemap
Search

Last updated: 05 Jun 2026 at 04:19 UTC

Back to movie details

Review of by Pipec — 25 Apr 2018

Share
Tweet

Are tedious replication and habitual creative absence ghosts for a resurrected horror genre? Aiming to be one of the scariest delectations in the first film semester as far as supernatural horror sub-genre is concerned, Lionsgate's movie ended up being, from a very personal perspective, the first fiasco of the year. Openly, it's shameful and disappointing to accept that two filmmakers, creative goldsmiths for their work, have wasted such colossal talents in a horrible way, with tremendous assembly it's inconceivable that a film of such punishable caliber has been released in theaters.

Probably surprising for many, there is wretchedly little to say about this huge disaster, which means a terrible false move for a genre that might well be flirting, again, with the painful irreversibility. Among the noteworthy aspects, without hesitation, the successful, gloomy and faithful cinematography of 20th century. Few films afford to have such visual marvels because of the complexity that these involve, however, now Ben Nott gives an important contribution to present-day cinema. This mansion has nothing to envy the crystal building from "Thir13en Ghosts" or the dark famous house from "The Amityville Horror," and even so it's used with lazier creative skill throughout all the runtime, sometimes reach to be moderately enjoyable thanks to the constant insecurity that denotes its walls, its doors, its imposing architecture.

Besides, in the middle of its soporific predictability, an uncomplicated but acceptable sequence takes place, it never manages to produce a full impact, but it sets up a successful step by step tension that, odiously, ends with a shocking editing and an insulting jump-scare. The previous factor is the biggest flaw and disappointment of the film, abusing strident and ominous music and poorly accomplished scares that are neither effective nor terrifying, stifle the idea, have no control whatsoever, for the audience, suspense and terror are supported, by 90 percent, on such cheap and unsustainable tricks that are so common in this kind of work today. Now, not to mention the huge waste of acting talent. Helen Mirren and Jason Clarke should never have accepted a role in a movie like this one. It's not possible to understand Clarke's hardships regarding— spoiler! —the death of his wife or his addiction to medicine, as for the difficulties of the erratic and tormented heiress regarding her deceased husband and daughter occurs the same thing, they're illogical and cold, since their exposure is terribly insipid, the characters don't present a well-shaped background or clever introduction to get some of the principal purposes of the first act, It should be added that the character of Finn Scicluna-O'Prey, Henry Marriott, is used shamelessly as a single-use comic relief, I mean their interventions tend to the unnecessary comedy leading to a boring and incoherent pace. Also, the performance of the kid shows no spark or connection to try to justify his function, another major error.

And the worst part is coming. Despite all that, the real big mistake lies in the worst place of all: the script. The movie initially exhibits already-known prototypes: a mysterious widow resides alone in a haunted Victorian mansion; however, the interesting variable here is that, besides the fact that Helen Mirren is who interprets a terrifying lady with a lot of secrets, day after day evil spirits destroy and reconstruct the house, a twist inspired in real life events that could easily add good things to the typical haunted-house stories. It wasn't the case. The script is tempted by superficialities such as unjustified jump-scares or the development of a sub-plot coming from nowhere. Although the story seemed to explore a rich dual discovery journey between the doctor and the widow, it ended up being a family demonic plot, returning without cause to the usual gloomy horror tropes. "Winchester" by The Spierig Brothers is a misleading invention that means a false step in the triumphant streak of horror movies, as it drowns itself in a sea of jump-scares and traditions, from which we have wanted to escape for many years. Poorly-structured characters, nugatory sequences, emotionless editions and oversaturation of sound effects and goofy jump-scares compose the real first horror film hodgepodge of the year. What was predicted as a Magnum opus for the genre in the first half of 2018 just encompassed all a horror movie buff really fears: a wasted story, wasted high-scale actors, a fantastic but wasted mise-en-scène and endless and repellent successions of jump-scares. To be honest, in the end, it did turn out to be a real horror experience, but not those that make you suffer with pleasure, but those which you want to lock in a mansion with thousands of passageways and no-exit rooms. Although, all in all, it's doomed to the worst fate: oblivion.

This review of Winchester (2018) was written by on 25 Apr 2018.

Winchester has generally received mixed reviews.

Was this review helpful?

Yes
No

More Reviews of Winchester

More reviews of this movie

Reviews of Similar Movies

More Reviews

Share This Page

Share
Tweet

Popular Movies Right Now

Movies You Viewed Recently

Get social with CinafilmFollow us for reviews of the latest moviesCinafilm - TwitterCinafilm - PinterestCinafilm - RSS