It would be silly to say that The Conjuring created the ghost movie. Of course it didn't- it's a subgenre of horror that has been around since the inception of Hollywood. It has changed and evolved over time, moving from William Freidkin's The Exorcist to M. Night Shyamalan's The Sixth Sense and beyond. But after inventing the torture porn flick with the Saw franchise, it almost feels like director James Wan created The Conjuring as an act of penance. Here's a filmmaker who brought extreme gore to the mainstream, opting for shock value over actual scares, now turning to the kind of classical horror film that feels both elegant and frightening. And it worked- with gorefests and found footage in the rearview mirror, The Conjuring became a box office bonanza on a light budget, eventually starting a new craze for expertly calibrated ghost stories. Elaborate scares, period settings, big action- it became a formula of its own.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of both Conjuring movies. The original is downright terrifying, and I think the sequel might be even better. But the characters and the sense of atmosphere are the crucial ingredients in that franchise, not the fact that James Wan can execute an amazing jump scare. So in the years since, we've had plenty of films imitating the Conjuring aesthetic (including the franchise's own Annabelle spin-offs) without actually capturing what makes those movies special. The result of that kind of cheap knock-off strategy is a film like Winchester, a silly and familiar ghost movie that fails to terrify or surprise in any significant way. It pretends to be about big themes like guilt and acceptance, but let's be real, this is just an excuse for easy scares and poor storytelling. As inconsequential as it is tiresome, Winchester is a rote and pointless horror flick, even with its prestigious cast and commendable production design.
It's 1906 in California, and Dr. Eric Price (Jason Clarke) has hit a low point. After the death of his wife and a horrific injury of his own, Price is now drug-addled and strung out, hanging with prostitutes and passing the time with opium and painkillers. Enter Arthur Gates (Tyler Coppin). The liaison for the Winchester Repeating Arms Company's board of directors arrives at Price's door with an offer, something that is both intriguing and a little scary. Sarah Winchester (Helen Wirren) is the leading shareholder in the company, but she's also the head of the Winchester mansion, a massive Northern California home with no apparent rhythm. Sarah claims that the house is haunted, but the board thinks she has lost her mind. It's Price's job to uncover the truth, and he's fairly certain that he'll declare Winchester to be insane. Instead, the skeptical Price finds a house that is haunted by the spirits killed by the Winchester rifle, a mansion with danger around every corner. When a certain malevolent ghost awakens, Sarah, Price, and the entire family will find their lives at risk.
The film is executed in precisely the manner you would expect. It's all about loud noises and spooky teases, foolish attempts to draw the viewer in before administering the next jolt. Of course, it all builds to a conclusion that eschews finely tuned scares in favor of lots of screaming and running, all set during the famous San Francisco Earthquake of 1906. Oh, and I think it implies that the earthquake was caused by a vengeful Confederate soldier from beyond the grave- could be wrong, but that's what the movie seems to imply. It's all rather ridiculous, and I'd be lying if I said that I didn't jump from time to time. After all, that's what these movies are supposed to do. They're like the haunted mazes that pop up at amusement parks around Halloween- they're supposed to "surprise" you. So sure, Winchester can pull off a few mildly amusing twists and effective jump scares. But it can't give us a reason to care. In fact, I'm not sure it even really tries.
Winchester takes a compelling concept- a house literally built by thousands of victims of a rifle manufacturer- and does absolutely nothing of interest with its fundamental idea. It reduces a story about the responsibility of violence and the lingering echoes of death into a movie where a ghost that sounds like Adam Sandler's Bobby Boucher wants to wreak havoc on some random people. It's clear that directors Michael and Peter Spierig want their movie to sound smart without really putting the work in on a character or narrative level. We're left with three things- obvious "scary" scenes with creepy noises and odd occurrences, psychological evaluations and philosophical discussions with Sarah Winchester and Dr. Price, and a left-field Sixth Sense twist that sends the actual plot in motion. Winchester spins its wheels until it decides to finally go somewhere- it's just unfortunate that that "somewhere" isn't particularly interesting at all.
This is also the rare film that succeeds in looking both lavish and extraordinarily cheap. The Winchester mansion is a thing of beauty, and there are some design elements that feel both intricate and chilling. But the cinematography does the film no favors, pedestrian, generic, and lacking in any tangible sense of authenticity. Winchester has no visual stamp of its own, and the lack of atmosphere only hinders the film more and more as it moves forward. The cast is led by two veteran performers, one a big-screen legend in her own right, but they're stuck with a script that consistently lets them down. Helen Mirren plays Winchester as a strong-willed woman stuck with a massive burden, but it gives the character no room to grow, no way for the audience to sympathize. Theoretically, the viewer's "in" is Jason Clarke's Dr. Price, but the handling of his story is so ham-fisted and disappointing that it left me mystified. Why doesn't Price accept the ghosts earlier? I don't know. Is there any real closure to his story? Not really. The character work here is a mess.
But am I surprised that Winchester is pretty much a total bomb? No, not in the slightest. It's an early February horror movie, these things are meant to be terrible. It's a wholly mediocre, utterly forgettable film that is destined for the bargain bin at Walmart. It's not the kind of film that offended me with its awfulness, but not once did it engage me in any significant way. And for a genre that thrives on putting the viewer on the edge of his/her seat, that's never a good sign. A brilliant true story and a respectable cast can only take it so far- Winchester is a tepid and toothless slog that just isn't worth your time.
THE FINAL GRADE: D+ (4.7/10)
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of both Conjuring movies. The original is downright terrifying, and I think the sequel might be even better. But the characters and the sense of atmosphere are the crucial ingredients in that franchise, not the fact that James Wan can execute an amazing jump scare. So in the years since, we've had plenty of films imitating the Conjuring aesthetic (including the franchise's own Annabelle spin-offs) without actually capturing what makes those movies special. The result of that kind of cheap knock-off strategy is a film like Winchester, a silly and familiar ghost movie that fails to terrify or surprise in any significant way. It pretends to be about big themes like guilt and acceptance, but let's be real, this is just an excuse for easy scares and poor storytelling. As inconsequential as it is tiresome, Winchester is a rote and pointless horror flick, even with its prestigious cast and commendable production design.
It's 1906 in California, and Dr. Eric Price (Jason Clarke) has hit a low point. After the death of his wife and a horrific injury of his own, Price is now drug-addled and strung out, hanging with prostitutes and passing the time with opium and painkillers. Enter Arthur Gates (Tyler Coppin). The liaison for the Winchester Repeating Arms Company's board of directors arrives at Price's door with an offer, something that is both intriguing and a little scary. Sarah Winchester (Helen Wirren) is the leading shareholder in the company, but she's also the head of the Winchester mansion, a massive Northern California home with no apparent rhythm. Sarah claims that the house is haunted, but the board thinks she has lost her mind. It's Price's job to uncover the truth, and he's fairly certain that he'll declare Winchester to be insane. Instead, the skeptical Price finds a house that is haunted by the spirits killed by the Winchester rifle, a mansion with danger around every corner. When a certain malevolent ghost awakens, Sarah, Price, and the entire family will find their lives at risk.
The film is executed in precisely the manner you would expect. It's all about loud noises and spooky teases, foolish attempts to draw the viewer in before administering the next jolt. Of course, it all builds to a conclusion that eschews finely tuned scares in favor of lots of screaming and running, all set during the famous San Francisco Earthquake of 1906. Oh, and I think it implies that the earthquake was caused by a vengeful Confederate soldier from beyond the grave- could be wrong, but that's what the movie seems to imply. It's all rather ridiculous, and I'd be lying if I said that I didn't jump from time to time. After all, that's what these movies are supposed to do. They're like the haunted mazes that pop up at amusement parks around Halloween- they're supposed to "surprise" you. So sure, Winchester can pull off a few mildly amusing twists and effective jump scares. But it can't give us a reason to care. In fact, I'm not sure it even really tries.
Winchester takes a compelling concept- a house literally built by thousands of victims of a rifle manufacturer- and does absolutely nothing of interest with its fundamental idea. It reduces a story about the responsibility of violence and the lingering echoes of death into a movie where a ghost that sounds like Adam Sandler's Bobby Boucher wants to wreak havoc on some random people. It's clear that directors Michael and Peter Spierig want their movie to sound smart without really putting the work in on a character or narrative level. We're left with three things- obvious "scary" scenes with creepy noises and odd occurrences, psychological evaluations and philosophical discussions with Sarah Winchester and Dr. Price, and a left-field Sixth Sense twist that sends the actual plot in motion. Winchester spins its wheels until it decides to finally go somewhere- it's just unfortunate that that "somewhere" isn't particularly interesting at all.
This is also the rare film that succeeds in looking both lavish and extraordinarily cheap. The Winchester mansion is a thing of beauty, and there are some design elements that feel both intricate and chilling. But the cinematography does the film no favors, pedestrian, generic, and lacking in any tangible sense of authenticity. Winchester has no visual stamp of its own, and the lack of atmosphere only hinders the film more and more as it moves forward. The cast is led by two veteran performers, one a big-screen legend in her own right, but they're stuck with a script that consistently lets them down. Helen Mirren plays Winchester as a strong-willed woman stuck with a massive burden, but it gives the character no room to grow, no way for the audience to sympathize. Theoretically, the viewer's "in" is Jason Clarke's Dr. Price, but the handling of his story is so ham-fisted and disappointing that it left me mystified. Why doesn't Price accept the ghosts earlier? I don't know. Is there any real closure to his story? Not really. The character work here is a mess.
But am I surprised that Winchester is pretty much a total bomb? No, not in the slightest. It's an early February horror movie, these things are meant to be terrible. It's a wholly mediocre, utterly forgettable film that is destined for the bargain bin at Walmart. It's not the kind of film that offended me with its awfulness, but not once did it engage me in any significant way. And for a genre that thrives on putting the viewer on the edge of his/her seat, that's never a good sign. A brilliant true story and a respectable cast can only take it so far- Winchester is a tepid and toothless slog that just isn't worth your time.
THE FINAL GRADE: D+ (4.7/10)
Comments
Post a Comment