If you've ever been to a theme park Halloween night (I highly recommend Universal Halloween Horror nights - the maze quality is of a much higher caliber), then you know how they work. You walk through a dark maze with grotesque mannequins placed in rooms and actors in costumes jumping out from behind walls to make you scream in fright. There is no real fear here. It's more like startling. And startling is not real fear. This is what Winchester is akin to. You do it because when you're startled ("scared"), it's an adrenaline rush. You jump, you scream, you laugh, rinse, repeat. And even though it's the very definition of a "cheap scare", it doesn't mean it isn't fun. Some horror movies rely entirely on the jump scare. The music stops, someone peers around the corner only the find nothing there, then they turn around and there's a creepy demon/monster who pops out for a second to once again startle you and make you jump/scream/laugh. The films that rely entirely on this cheap trick are generally not great films, yet lately there have been a few that have somewhat worked. The Insidious franchise works like this, but it's due to some clever storytelling and solid acting performances that it elevates itself (slightly) from the rest of the jump-scare tactics lesser films employ. Winchester is very much like an Insidious film. However, right now, Winchester sits at a paltry 13% on Rotten Tomatoes. Insidious: The Last Key sits at a 31%. And I believe this all has to do with Helen Mirren.
Before we delve into my Helen Mirren theory, let me give you a little insight into the film. Winchester which is apparently "inspired by actual events" (a phrase that has little to no meaning in Hollywood anymore), tells the story of Sarah Winchester, heiress to the Winchester rifle fortune. She lives in a seven story mansion that is constantly under construction and renovation 24-hours a day (this part was actually true). The company believes she is no longer of sound mind to be the figurehead and they call in expert Psychologist Eric Price (Jason Clarke) to come to her home and evaluate her. Turns out, she believes she and her house are haunted by all of the spirits who have been killed by the Winchester rifle (this is also true). Where the film takes its several liberties is the fact that it shows these spirits actually haunting the house and possessing her young nephew who lives there. Rooms are built for the spirits-- they are locked away in them until they can be at peace, then the room will be demolished and rebuilt for the next troubled spirit. However, some spirits aren't just looking for an apology from Sarah, they're looking for revenge... much like the head ghost causing all of the ruckus and main plot of the film.
The success of the film lies in the creepiness of the house and its surroundings. The film has a definitely frightening atmosphere that immediately thrusts the audience into a sense of terror. However, from there it's just a series of jump scares and startlings. They can be a lot of fun if you go with a group of people (which I did), but it may come off a tad silly if you went alone, or attempt to watch it again. However, nothing in the film is that much worse than anything in the Insidious series. The directors Michael and Peter Spierig have made a movie that appears as if they're trying to recreate a James Wan film. Wan, who helmed the first two Insidious films, as well as The Conjuring films has mastered his craft at horror filmmaking. The Spierig brothers are getting there, but not quite yet. While I can forgive an over-reliance on jump scares, I have a hard time forgiving a sub-par script, a less-than-thrilling ending, and several gaping plot holes. While two-thirds of the film are fine, albiet a little silly, the ending goes bananas and not in a good way. Half of the time during the ending you're trying not to laugh from the absurdity of everything, and the other half you're in your head trying to figure out how we got here (hence the plot holes).
Mirren and Clarke both give terrific performances... better than this film deserved... and this is why I believe Winchester is getting a worse score than the latest Insidious film. When you cast such a beloved and respected actor like Mirren in a horror film, expectations are egregiously high. And while she certainly does everything she can to portray the troubled Winchester widow, the film around her doesn't do her acting abilities much justice. This, in my opinion, can have two effects. One, it can make the movie seem much worse (which is what I believe happened with the majority of critics reviewing the film). Or two, it can make the movie seem better than what it probably is (which is what happened with me). I can say that the film, in a vacuum, isn't that great of a movie. However, due to Mirren and Clarke's performances, it was elevated from "not that great" to "decent". What it actually reminded me of the most are the two Woman in Black movies. They're old-timey, gothic, jump scare horror films that are decently entertaining whilst watching them in a dark theater, and immediately forgettable the second you leave. That's what Winchester is. If you like horror and don't mind a jump scare or seven, then you may actually enjoy the film, but it is by no means a great film.
C
No comments:
Post a Comment