Film Review - Winchester (15)

Do you believe in ghosts, Doctor?

There's an intriguing true story behind the film Winchester, one which was news to me. In 1884 Sarah Winchester, widow of the firearms tycoon who had established the Winchester Repeating Arms Company, funded the building of a mansion in San Jose. Inspired by a spiritualist she had visited, she continued to expand the build randomly over several decades. By the time of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake the sprawling residence had grown to seven storeys, although after that devastating event it remained at a mere four. The so-called Winchester Mystery House remains a tourist location to this day, due to its reputation as America's most haunted location. And the spirits - well they're all victims of the Winchester rifle. It's a splendid piece of Gothic folklore, one worthy of a scintillatingly spooky horror movie.

This is not that movie.

It's not for want of a good cast, for the film draws on a clutch of talented performers. Helen Mirren plays the grieving widow Winchester, obsessively pursuing the endless construction of her spirit-house. Dependable actor Jason Clarke (Everest, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes) is Doctor Eric Price, the analyst employed by the Winchester company to ascertain how mad she actually is, with a view to removing her; he of course don't believe in ghosts, whatever his laudanum addiction might tell him to the contrary. Meanwhile Clarke's fellow-Australian Sarah Snook is Mirren's niece, a fraught young woman with a deeply troubled son. Put them all together in a rambling spook-house and it should provide a deliciously unsettling cinema experience.

The problems kick off shortly after the doc arrives at the house. The period location is suitably imposing, but any tension is quickly squandered by cliched storytelling and a chronic dependency on jump-scares. The first couple of these work effectively enough, but the next dozen (and I'm not exaggerating here) result in seriously diminishing returns. This is not helped by a score that basically consists of 'creepy-music-creepy-music-creepy-music-BOO!'. There are only so many cheap frighteners a story can take at the expense of all atmosphere. From there the potentially fascinating scenario descends into a muddle of ludicrous I-see-dead-people shenanigans delivered with a lump-hammer level of subtlety. It's daft, it's derivative and it's a sad waste.

On the up-side (and I am the glass half-full reviewer after all) Dame Helen seems to be enjoying herself and turns in a nicely understated performance, much like a diamond floating on sewage. The others to give them credit, show similar levels of commitment, undeterred by the script's insufficiencies. There are some good ideas and neat plot developments struggling for room, and the movie is too short to get genuinely boring. In fact it retains a rubbishy form of entertainment value to the end. And it's good to come out the other side having discovered a whole new nugget of American lore. 

Seriously though - in this era of US gun-toting madness, this is an opportunity wasted to combine a genuinely spine-chilling ghost story with some pointed social commentary. Winchester opts for superficial thrills over the kind of atmosphere that seeps into the viewer's bones. And the latter is what this subject really deserves. 

Gut Reaction: I actually began to laugh when the jumpy moments hit double figures. But the character interactions provided a bit more to enjoy.

Where Are the Women?: Mirren walks away with her dignity and reputation intact and Snook similarly builds hers by giving better than the material deserves.  

Ed's Verdict: 5/10. Winchester is the definition of a half-marks movie, with enough plusses to show what it might have been with better execution. Daft fun at best, shored up by A-grade acting. Not unlike the later Carry On films, come to think of it.