Search

» » Winchester (2018)

Short summary

Ensconced in her sprawling California mansion, eccentric firearm heiress Sarah Winchester believes she is haunted by the souls of people killed by the Winchester repeating rifle.
Inspired by true events. On an isolated stretch of land 50 miles outside of San Francisco sits the most haunted house in the world. Built by Sarah Winchester, (Academy Award®-winner Helen Mirren) heiress to the Winchester fortune, it is a house that knows no end. Constructed in an incessant twenty-four hour a day, seven day a week mania for decades, it stands seven stories tall and contains hundreds of rooms. To the outsider it looks like a monstrous monument to a disturbed woman's madness. But Sarah is not building for herself, for her niece (Sarah Snook) or for the brilliant Doctor Eric Price (Jason Clarke) whom she has summoned to the house. She is building a prison, an asylum for hundreds of vengeful ghosts, and the most terrifying among them have a score to settle with the Winchesters.

Trailers "Winchester (2018)"

The Winchester Mystery House is a mansion located in San Jose, California. It is believed to be haunted by the victims of the Winchester rifle. It has been a tourist attraction since 1923, a year after Sarah Winchester's death.

Very little of the filming took place in the actual mansion. The mansion's design in reality is extremely cramped, making filming very difficult. As such, most of the mansion's interior needed to be recreated on sound stages.

Sarah Winchester had severe, debilitating arthritis and had a series of short risers, only 3 or 4 inches high, in place of stairs as it was very painful for her to raise her foot more than a few inches.

According to records kept by the Mystery House proprietors today, Sarah Winchester constantly built and rebuilt the house throughout her 38 years in residence. The Winchester house has windows and doors in the floor, doors that open into walls or go nowhere, and stairs to nowhere or into the ceiling. Its total area is around 6 acres (24,000 m²).

The promotional image for the film of Helen Mirren sitting in the carriage in mourning clothes mirrors the only known photograph of the reclusive Sarah Winchester on the estate, which is seen on the tour of the mansion in San Jose, California.

Oliver Winchester's first company was Winchester & Company, a men's shirt company he owned with his twin brother, Samuel. In the 1860s, Winchester invested in Volcanic Repeating Arms Company, which produced a revolver designed by Horace Smith & Daniel Wesson. When the company went bankrupt, he bought the company and cleared the debt of $57,000.

Not much is known about how the Winchester house was furnished while Sarah Winchester lived there. She was incredibly private and generally didn't allow photos. Marion Marriott auctioned off what she didn't want herself soon after Sarah's death, and didn't keep any records of what was auctioned off.

The quotes on the stained glass windows shown at the beginning, "Wide unclasp the tables of their thoughts" and "These same thoughts people this little world," are obscure Shakespearean quotes, and not even from the same play. No one knows why Sarah Winchester chose them.

The real life Winchester house has spider webs incorporated into its design, as Sarah believed that spider webs were good luck.

The directors are twins. Dame Mirren likened the experience to having one mind speaking through two mouths.

The real Sarah Winchester did not know a Dr. Eric Price at any point in her life, including when she had moved out to San Jose, California. Price was a fictional story made up specifically for the movie.

Sarah Winchester and her house are given their own chapter discussion in "Ghostland: an American history in haunted places" written by Colin Dickey in 2016. Historically, Sarah Winchester was living in a time that was uncommon and unusual for women to pursue architecture. She was never licensed. Instead, she practiced and experimented on her own house. When one project would prove to not work out or she would lose interest a new project would be started. Even the projects that were completed will have an off-kilter appearance due to space constraints. It is easier to continue building and expanding the size of various parts of the house and within the house than to tear it out to start over.

According to Wendy Cork, the costume designer on the film, Ms Marriott's (Sarah Snook) large, puffy sleeves are actually much slimmer and smaller than the fashion was at the time.

Partly to avoid confusion with Supernatural (2005), featuring main characters Sam and Dean Winchester, the movie is released in some countries in its original title "Winchester: The House That Ghosts Built".

In real life, Sarah Winchester was 4' 10" while Helen Mirren is 5' 4" tall.

The Travel Channel's show Ghost Adventures (2008) aired two paranormal investigations, Ghost Adventures: Winchester Mystery House (2011) and Ghost Adventures: Return to Winchester Mystery House (2016), which depicted evidence of supposed paranormal happenings at the Winchester Mansion.

Winchester did expand to manufacturing other household goods (including roller skates) but not until the 1920s. Despite being a skilled inventor, Sarah Winchester did not invent roller skates, as implied in the film. They had already been mass-produced for decades in the States by 1906.

The nickname of the house is "The Most Haunted House in America".

Among the records Mrs Winchester (Helen Mirren) keeps on deaths caused by her company's firearms are 1899 - Kris Featherloop, 1902 - Mr T Weilloy, 1897 - Sheila Ashton, 1903 - Edward Troft, 1881 - Namrita Singh, 1893 - Frederick North, 1893 - The Norman Brothers.

Dr. Eric Price states he is $300.00 in debt and the company attorney offers him $600.00. Currency Inflation in 2018 equals, in 1916, $6936.00 and $13,872.00, respectively. The 1916 inflation rate was 7.92%. $1 in 1916 is equivalent in purchasing power to $23.12 in 2018, a difference of $22.12 over 102 years (an increase of over 2000%).

Tourists have not been allowed to take photographs as far back as 1989. In 2009, well before Lionsgate bought the film rights, The Asylum film company released a low budget horror film called Haunting of Winchester House and did so without the permission of the Winchester estate as the house is privately owned and operated as a tourist attraction. It was explained that someone connected with the filmmakers surreptitiously took photographs of the interiors of the house on several of the tours in effort to get schematics of enough of the floor plan and of the interiors . The estate has never allowed filming inside the house or grounds for that reason.

Due to the age of the house and the condition of the Victorian interiors, flash photography has never been allowed on the tours.

Despite the title of this supernatural themed movie, Winchester is unrelated to the Supernatural TV series which has the Winchester brothers as its principal characters.

In the movie Sarah Winchester claims that 13 nails are necessary to retain the ghosts in their respective rooms, nailing a wooden piece in the door. It is a nod for the real life Sarah Winchester, who was obsessed with number 13: her house has 13 candles and wall clothes hooks are in multiples of 13; a spider web-patterned stained glass window contains 13 colored stones; and the drain covers on the sinks have 13 holes. In Sarah's tribute, the house's groundskeepers have created a topiary tree shaped like the numeral 13 and every Friday the 13th the large bell on the property is rung 13 times at "1300 hours" (13:00 PT, 1:00 PM) in tribute to her.

The massacre at the Winchester showroom was purely fictional--it never happened.

The 1906 earthquake happened in the early morning, around 5 am, not midnight. The top three storeys of the house collapsed, and multiple rooms were shut up permanently at this time as being unsafe.

In the scene of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, someone dies, but in real life the only casualties were couple of cupolas (dome roofing) and a tower.

The room where Sarah is 'channeling' spirits to draw architectural designs is a recreation of a real room in the house known as "the witch's cap." If you look closely, the walls taper in; the real room is conical so the walls come up into a point.

The real Marion Marriott went by the name "Daisy," had no son (though she adopted a daughter after 1906), and left Sarah Winchester's employ as a secretary before 1906 to marry into the Marriott family (no relation to the hotels). Also, her husband did not die tragically.

User reviews


  • comment
    • Author: Gavinranara
    For those who want factual history, "Captive of the Labyrinth" by Mary Jo Ignoffo is an excellent biography of Sarah Winchester, who probably was not interested in ghosts, but rather in architecture, a field that did not invite professional participation by women. Sarah Winchester's father manufactured decorative architectural features for Victorian houses, and his factory was right next door to her childhood home -- so Sarah grew up intimately exposed to the physical details of building houses. As an educated rich woman, building her house was an expensive hobby she loved and could afford to pursue. She also incorporated the newest technology - elevators, showers, etc. - into the house, and managed a productive fruit orchards and a dried fruit business, and . I thought the movie did a good job of including some factual information based on the real Sarah Winchester, and accurately portrayed her as responsible, not crazy, and deeply caring for her family, As for the lurid sensational haunted house story, this was concocted by those who bought the house after Sarah Winchester died, and turned it into a money-making tourist trap. That said, I enjoyed this fictional ghost story, which explored deeper themes than I would normally expect from a supernatural horror genre flick. There does seem to be a heavy handed message about gun violence -- however, I agree with that message; it's more than timely..
  • comment
    • Author: Flamekiller
    From the commercials, I didn't set my hopes too high. The film seemed very average, but it surprised me.

    Be forewarned this is more of a supernatural drama, like The Lady in Black, than a straight-up balls-to-the-wall horror film. Not to say there aren't any genuine scares in this. There are two really creepy scenes here. It's just that the film focuses on the story behind the characters and it sometimes takes too much time between scares. Still, I appreciate the emphasis on characters and plot in this. The film feels fully realized and it has a strong cast.

    Credit should also be given to the set, costumes, and props; a lot of detail and color. This film looks like the directors did their research and wanted the film to look historically accurate.

    ALright, this may not be the best scary movie, but it is a good movie.
  • comment
    • Author: Leniga
    I saw a trailer for this, and was instantly dying to watch it, sadly though, as is so ifyen the case, they flattered to deceive. It's not a bad film, I would go so far as to say it's a decent watch, maybe my expectations were just too high. It just fails to deliver on the excellent premise, there is subtlety, and then there's dull, and for me, Winchester languishes somewhere between the two. The scares are non existent, there are one or two good ones, but I expected so many more, they could have gone to town with these parameters. The best single element, as many would expect is the presence of Helen Mirren, who is terrific, but in all truth, slightly under used.

    It looks fantastic, it's well acted, if you're looking for a horror with bite, you'll be disappointed, if you're after an intriguing, spooky tale, then you may well enjoy it. 6/10
  • comment
    • Author: Raniconne
    I saw this during matinee it was worth the $8... Some of the spooky parts were indeed spooky. Not amazing, but not horrendous
  • comment
    • Author: Hiclerlsi
    It is better than most "Paranormal Activity" sequels in regards that the make-up effects are very well done. The biggest flaw with the movie is the dialogue. The dialogue, for a lack of a better word, is just plain corny. I struggle to enjoy a movie with horrible dialogue, but if you can get past that flaw you should enjoy this movie very much.

    There are multiple jumpscares throughout the movie which did cause audience member to jump and gasp. The scenery of the movie is my favorite part, as the scenery is what made me feel uneasy with fear. The lighting of the scenes are perfect and the re-creation of the supposedly horrifying house are gripping. If you are easily scared you should have a blast with this movie! For horror fans that are looking for some exceptional horror, this movie is not for you.
  • comment
    • Author: Nidor
    This movie isn't bad but it doesn't seem to quite deliver on it's setup. With a few tweaks this could've been a very successful slow burn, Gothic 'ghost' story in the manner of 'The Innocents' and 'The Haunting". What those movies did was create a film with all the trappings of supernatural horror without ever letting you know whether the supernatural element is real. 'Winchester' teases with this concept through most of the movie and then goes full blown, over the top, Hollywood-Ghost-Spooktacular at the end.

    The cinematography is very atmospheric. The acting is good and there's a few scary moments. A marked over-reliance on jump scares got a little tedious. I really don't think they took as much advantage of the location as they could've. They might've tried some disembodied Steadicam shots with scary music to set the mood. We needed to see more of the 'Mystery House'. We needed to feel the craziness of it. It should've felt claustrophobic and all consuming. People should've got lost in it. Well, they don't and we feel everybody could leave anytime they felt like it.

    The portrayal of Sarah Winchester as the tortured, guilt ridden ghost appeaser falls short, as well. This is a woman who lost a child and husband and believes she's cursed but they don't really bring that performance out and I'm sure they could've. I mean you've got Helen F-ing Miren for cripes sake. Don't you think she could knock that out of the park?

    This is one of times when I have to put it all on the director. I think this screenplay probably read very well. The thing that consistently seems to bog it down is bad decisions on where to take it. For what it was, it was entertaining. I just don't think it fulfilled it's potential.
  • comment
    • Author: Abandoned Electrical
    While I did like a little bit of the film, the story of Ms. Winchester was just so inaccurate. (Skip to paragraph 2 if you don't care about accuracy) I live less than 20 miles from the Winchester house and have been there multiple times and know the story. First of all, she wasn't building the house to protect herself from attacking spirits, she was building it out of guilt to help the spirits she supposedly communicated with, and while the film briefly touches on that, the majority is her building the house to protect from evil spirits, which is untrue, it was guilt and she was building it to serve as a home to spirits . She also wasn't an ominous and foreboding old woman who always wore black in a haunted house, by all accounts she was a normal and social woman who held many community events and parties at her house. But besides that the film was hit an miss, some good scares and atmosphere, and some not so good.

    Helen Mirren did an alright job with her role and the rest of the actors were also very average. The atmosphere was well done, but good direction is not needed because the house itself is beautiful and mysterious. The scares are hit and miss, out of about 12, only 2 got me, but I'm a horror veteran, a group of teenage girls however screamed multiple times. Some scares work because of the accented atmosphere, but some are pretty lame and predictable, making the film an average chiller with noting very special. Over all the film is just another average effort for a Hollywood horror film that does not shine like other better films.

    I would not recommend this to horror veterans.
  • comment
    • Author: Gann
    While it is clear that The Spierig Brothers are familiar with all the haunted house horror story conventions, they, like Rob Zombie before them, do not seem to be able to effectively use them. A fondness for the genre does not translate into the ability to engage and frighten an audience.

    Before anyone dismisses my review as being from someone who doesn't enjoy deliberately paced, creepy stories without a plethora of pyrotechnics, let me state that The Haunting (the original not the crappy remake) and 1944's The Uninvited are two of my favorite films. You don't need a large budget or special effects to make a scary film on the subject of a haunted house. Both Insidious and Sinister demonstrated that with good direction and a decent story you can scare the hell out of an audience.

    While Winchester boasts some good actors and a wonderful setting that is fraught with possibilities, it squanders both on a tired story of ghosts looking for revenge, which completely ignores the real facts of the Winchester House. A couple jump scares accompanied by sudden music stings work to a degree, but there is no genuine feeling of suspense generated by the script, no growing sense of escalating dread. Instead we get acceptable performances and some nice looking sets as the actors go through their paces to little effect.

    It's not a terrible film, but one which fails to raise the hackles and which you will quickly forget after leaving the theater.
  • comment
    • Author: Mejora
    Winchester: Based on a true story but this telling is rather embellished. Never mind, the additions make for a solid if quotidian Horror Film. Psychiatrist Eric Price (Jason Clarke) is addicted to laudanum and living a dissolute lifestyle when he is offered a much needed job by the legal counsel for the Winchester Company. They want him to assess the sanity of Sarah Winchester (Helen Mirren) who owns 51% of the company's shares. The Board will double his fee if he produces the "right" report. Sarah has been building a house for over 20 years, adding and demolishing rooms and wings, with construction teams working 24/7. That doesn't bother the Winchester Directors but Sarah is also forcing them to diversify from rifles into manufacturing roller blades.

    Sarah believes that she and her house are haunted by the ghosts of victims of the Winchester repeating rifle. The rooms are for ghosts, when they finally find peace the rooms are demolished and the ghosts move on. But now a deadlier spirit (Eamon Farren) has arrived is possessing young Henry (Finn Scicluna-O'Prey), son of Marion Marriott (Sarah Snook), Sarah Winchester's niece and secretary. Eric finds that this won't such an easy job after all.

    So the battle begins, this spirit is also a poltergeist and is talented at throwing people around. We get many of the usual nasty spirit tropes and a butler who resembles Lurch from The Addams Family. Acting is generally good but this isn't Mirren's most demanding role, Finn Scicluna-O'Prey does impress as Henry. The House is perhaps the real star with set design/decoration by Michael Bell/Vanessa Cerne. Superb makeup/prosthetics by Aracelli Frias/Samantha Lyttle on the deadly spirit and other ghosts. The cinematography (Ben Nott) and film editing (Mark Villa) is impressive but doesn't quite make up for the pedestrian direction by Michael & Peter Spierig. So just 7/10.
  • comment
    • Author: Tuliancel
    I do not understand why this movie is so underrated. It has a good amount of jumpscares, it creates a horror atmosphere that makes you wonder how would you feel if you were there and it does not reveal the exact end. The movie has a great acting from Jason Clarke and Helen Mirel. It has a great portrait from superstitious people from the previous 10 decades. The directing was really great and the movie has a simple lovely story with a beginning and an end. What more do you want people nowadays? You re never pleased with horror movies so if you don't like this one you deserve to spend your time with other low movies. If you want to take my advice, watch this movie! Enjoy!
  • comment
    • Author: Malann
    The movie takes place solely in the Winchester mansion. It's a small cast, wandering around the place, and there's ghosts, which give you the horror element, and there are some scares. But the scares are just a part of a beautifully crafted story. There's no gory, bloody stuff, or any of the cheesy horror tropes. What starts off as a seemingly creepy and exciting story, slowly builds into a psychological thriller, and as things reach a crescendo, the pieces of the puzzle come together to form a heartwarming climax. You get horror, drama and romance in a film that clocks in at less than two hours. Very well-crafted, and I didn't want this thing to end!

    The entire cast is top-notch. The mansion, the way the camera moves around the place... it's all eye candy and overall it's just a joy to see this film on the big screen. I have to see this again in a few days. Basically, if you've seen the trailer and it's got you interested, I bet you'll enjoy it!
  • comment
    • Author: SARAND
    This film has nothing to do with the cathedral city in Hampshire. When William Winchester, the owner of the Winchester Repeating Arms Company, died in 1881 he left his vast fortune to his widow Sarah, making her one of the wealthiest women in America. Soon afterwards Sarah Winchester left her home in New Haven, Connecticut and moved to San Jose, California where she began building a vast, sprawling mansion. Work on the house continued until Sarah's own death in 1922. The building, today known as the Winchester Mystery House, still exists and is a popular tourist attraction; it is noted for oddities such as staircases and passageways which lead nowhere. It is said to have been left unfinished at Sarah Winchester's death, but it lacks any coherent plan and probably never would have been "finished" even if its owner had lived for many more years.

    That much is fact. For many people, however, the main interest of the Winchester Mystery House lies in the legends which have grown up around it (and, indeed, had started to grow up even during Sarah's lifetime). It was said that the house was haunted by the ghosts of all those who had been killed by guns manufactured by the Winchester company and that Sarah's obsessive compulsion to add yet more rooms to her ever-growing house was in fact an attempt to placate them. The mansion still has the reputation of being one of the most haunted buildings in America.

    The film, which is set in 1902 and has Sarah Winchester as its main character, assumes that the legends are true. (A supernatural horror film based around the assumption that ghost stories are all a load of superstitious nonsense would not, I suspect, be a great success). The officers of the Winchester company, still based in Connecticut, have heard rumours that Mrs Winchester, who still holds a controlling interest in the company even though she lives on the other side of the country, has gone mad and that she believes herself to be haunted by evil spirits. They therefore appoint Eric Price, a psychiatrist, to examine her, hoping that he will declare her to be insane which will allow them to remove her from any position of control in the company. (Was Price's surname chosen in homage to the late Vincent Price, a noted actor in horror films?)

    Price is that familiar figure from horror films, the sceptic who is proved wrong. He initially believes that ghost stories are all a load of superstitious nonsense, but his acquaintance with Sarah Winchester and her extraordinary home soon persuades him to change his mind, and it becomes clear that he and Sarah are indeed threatened by vengeful spirits. Particularly malevolent is the ghost of a young man who, to avenge the deaths of his brothers, Confederate soldiers cut down by the rifles of the Union army, killed several employees of the Winchester Company at their headquarters and was in his turn shot dead by the police.

    The film received largely negative reviews from the critics, but I actually enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I was going to. The cinematic ghost story can be a predictable, cliché-ridden genre, but "Winchester" brings a certain originality to it. Whereas the likes to "The Haunting in Connecticut" and the recent rehash of "The Amityville Horror" tried (very dubiously) to pass themselves off as "true" stories, "Winchester" builds upon an intriguing blend of true history, legend and outright fiction to produce something of much greater interest, a story which does not leave the viewer with a "seen-it-all-before" feeling. The film-makers were greatly assisted by their coup in persuading an actress as distinguished as Dame Helen Mirren, an actress you wouldn't normally associate with haunted-house horror movies, to star in the leading role. She invests Sarah with a good deal of dignity, making her a woman who is eminently sane, even if much of the world believes her to be mad. Dame Helen receives good support from Jason Clarke, an actor I had not previously come across, as Price, a man haunted by a personal tragedy, and one which he shares with Sarah. "Winchester" does have its share of horror clichés, including the normal spooky music and camera tricks, but overall it is one of the better recent examples of the genre. 6/10
  • comment
    • Author: Ghile
    While I went to see it alone, I would recommend this for an edgier date for folks who dislike slasher and exorcism flicks. I'd sit through this one holding someone's hand, or burrowing my nose into someone's shoulder, but mostly because of the few jump scares and some not too bad moments of suspense.

    I would like it so much more if it did not call back to "Thirteen Ghosts" so much in my mind. I liked the main character, the protagonist Doctor, while the reveal a-la "Sixth Sense" could have been done more effectively, with a more sophisticated denouement, I suppose.

    The Winchester family story wasn't quite elaborately presented, if only the film mentioned some true aspects of the story in the beginning, I'd have a different attitude towards certain aspects of the film. For example, the footprint of the home, the photo of Mrs. Winchester, etc.
  • comment
    • Author: Agrainel
    In 1906, Dr. Eric Price (Jason Clarke) is hired by the board of the Winchester Company to make a mental assessment of Sarah Winchester (Helen Mirren), who inherited and is in charge of the firearms company. When her husband died after the loss of her daughter Annie, Sarah met a medium and began to build and rebuild a never-ending house in San Jose, California. Now she lives with her widow niece Marion Marriott (Sarah Snook) and her son Henry (Finn Scicluna-O'Prey) and the executives believe that Sarah is unbalanced and cannot be in charge of the company. She invites Dr. Price to spend a couple of days in her house and he begins to interview her. Soon Sarah explains that angry spirits of people killed by the Winchester rifles are designing the house and are sealed in the rooms to become calmer. The skeptical Dr. Prive, who grieves the loss of his beloved wife Ruby, writes his preliminary assessment but soon he witness the truth about the Winchester house.

    "Winchester" is an underrated supernatural ghost story. It is not a masterpiece and has flaws, but is a good spooky movie and the viewer will certainly startle in many scenes. Maybe the greatest flaw is the use of a real personality (Sarah Winchester) in a fictional film. My vote is seven.

    Title (Brazil): "A Maldição da Casa Winchester" ("The Curse of the Winchester House")
  • comment
    • Author: Hellstaff
    I believe Winchester is a result of the success of The Conjuring in that The Conjuring was a successful scary movie based upon real people and real events. Winchester wasn't quite as scary as The Conjuring but I don't think it tried to be.

    Sarah Winchester (Helen Mirren) is a widow and heiress to the Winchester fortune. Incredibly haunted by the many deaths caused by her husbands rifles she builds and builds upon her San Jose mansion in hopes to keep the spirits satiated. This is all true stuff that can be easily found and is even in the Guiness Book of World Records. The other members of the Winchester Repeating Arms company want to drive her out with the help of a doctor's analysis of her.

    The movie is about guilt. Sarah Winchester's guilt and even the guilt of Dr. Price (Eric Clarke), the doctor being paid to psychoanalyze her. The scares seem to take a back seat at times to the story. There are a few jump scares (one which was really good because it wasn't telegraphed like most jump scares). The cast is a solid cast being that I recognize the main actors. The movie is dark and ominous but it isn't one that will give you chills or nightmares. It's PG-13 and a fairly clean PG-13 at that--no foul language, nothing close to nudity and no blood. As far as scary movies go this was pretty good.
  • comment
    • Author: Whitestone
    Almost every scene in this movie, I could see coming from a mile away. Even the jump scares were to be expected. I mean, this is one of the rare times where I don't read the plot synopsis before seeing the movie (which I do a lot), and I could correctly guess almost everything in this movie. Predictability is a bad thing when it comes to horror movies. You wanna be on the edge of your seat, wondering what's coming next. If you can guess what's coming, it makes the film somewhat of a snooze-fest. The meh-dialogue and flat characters don't help much either. The only interesting things in this movie are the vintage clothes, in my opinion.
  • comment
    • Author: Kulafyn
    I think the lead doctor was cast just fine. Very Depp-esque (think Secret window). Miss Winchester worked with what she was given. But, the whole movie was very slow, and ended with cheesy cornballs.

    I think there are 3 jump scares, which were all done just fine. I just feel the whole climax of this movie was something that could have been straight out of "Are You Afraid Of The Dark?"

    Did not care for it.
  • comment
    • Author: Burgas
    I saw this house in the 80s, was impressed by tour guides; all the women were dressed in some kind of period garb from the 1860s, full hoop skirts; by all accounts this woman was widely regarded as a very sweet, kindly lady who provided employment for hundreds of workers; she should not have felt guilty about the thousands of people who fell victim to the gun that won the west,& the tortured souls who came back to seek vengeance on her; it was her husband who should have felt guilt & atonement for the men & women who met a violent end from this weapon of mass destruction; but if she was a woman that these souls branded a villainous demon, I would have said to her:'...sarah, there have been many figures in past, both famous & obscure that tried to turn over a new leaf, renounced their past history, & disavowed their criminal misdeeds & tried to contribute to society( which she did by building this bewildering mansion); for what reason is a mystery, some kind of transformation; a death in family, wartime experiences, a diagnosis of an interminable disease, or even a spiritual, religious transformation, it happens ,not often but occasionally in history...'>>
  • comment
    • Author: Vushura
    Honestly, I could give credit to the set design and the whole crew who did their best to make the film look historically accurate. However, I can't say there was anything scary nor was anything new with the plot. Everything was pretty basic and so were the story of love and all the other elements about how to lay a spirit to rest. Yet, I can't help but feel like their were certain rules in the spiritual realm as to how violent a spirit could become once it has been tainted by anger and hate.

    seriously, a bullet with together forever used to shoot the ghost and lay him to rest? less explanation and nothing but happy cheers about how the shrink saves the day after his wife gave him clues? sorry, does it sound more like a rant rather than a review? I suppose-- the reason here is because I was rooting for this Film and it ended up into nothing. comical as a few would describe it and I'd fairly agree.
  • comment
    • Author: Carrot
    The year was 1906 in San Jose, California. San Francisco-based psychiatrist Dr. Eric Price (Jason Clarke) was called in by the lawyers of the Winchester Repeating Arms Co. to assess the mental health of their CEO, Mrs. Sarah Winchester (Helen Mirren). She had been obsessed about constantly building new rooms and sections to her house with no clear reasons, which caused concern among the members of her board.

    Upon visiting her house, Dr. Price began seeing frightful visions. At first, he thought that these were just illusions from his addiction to laudanum. However, when Ms. Sarah's grandson Henry (Finn Scicluna-O'Prey), son of her niece Marian (Sarah Snook), was showing signs of possession by an evil spirit, Dr. Price needed to get his act together to help the Winchesters figure out how to fight back against the violently disturbed spirit of Cpl. Benjamin Block (Eamon Farren) who was determined to exact his revenge.

    Despite the American topic, this was actually an Australian production. The film was written and directed by Austrailian identical twins Peter and Michael Spierig, billed together as "The Spierig Brothers." I did not recognize the name right away, but I realized that I had seen one of their films before, "Predestination" (2015) which I liked (MY REVIEW). Just last year, they directed the 8th installment of the "Saw" franchise called "Jigsaw" which I was not able to see. Majority of the cast was also Australian, like Clarke, Snook and Farren, along with Angus Sampson (as Ms. Sarah's helper) and Laura Brent (as Ruby, Eric's wife).

    Helen Mirren seemed to be having a lot of fun wearing her oppressively black widow's gown and veil, which she wore for the entire length of this movie. Her acting was on the hammy side and was actually quite amusing to watch. She somehow gave the impression that she was not taking this project too seriously, and that may be a good thing in this case. She knows her character had some over-the-top lines and scenes, so she wisely played her with tongue-in-cheek.

    I know Jason Clarke mostly for his macho action films, like "Zero Dark Thirty" (2012), "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" (2014) and "Everest" (2015). Him getting jumpy, startled and freaked out as the tormented Dr. Price in this film must have been quite a fun change of pace for him. It was his character who went through a more complete story arc in film, and he did deliver, acting-wise. There was a remarkable detail in Dr. Price's life that was a nice little twist in the film which I appreciated.

    The only other film I saw Sarah Snook in was "Predestination". She was just limited to playing the concerned mother. Viewers of the rebooted "Twin Peaks" last year will recognize Eamon Farren. His character Block was given quite a back story behind his vengeful anger. Of course, Angus Sampson was the comic relief for all the "Insidious" films. Here, all he did nothing much but to hammer doors shut with 13 pieces of nails.

    It did not have the Hollywood polish in terms of its cinematography and special effects. The scenes which were set at night or in darkness were too dark and were difficult to watch. The horror visual effects were quite basic, not up to present standards. A lot of the scares were jump scares brought about by sudden jolts of a ghostly face or a sudden blast of sound. While certain aspects of the story were interesting, the pacing of the storytelling was rather slow and tedious at parts. 5/10.
  • comment
    • Author: Nilasida
    I had high hopes for 'Winchester' because The Spierig Brothers's previous two films 'Predestination' and 'Jigsaw' had both blown me away. They weren't just your average films. They were smart and left you thinking long after you left the cinema. So as I was watching 'Winchester' and thinking how it seemed like just your average ghost film, I still had hopes that there was a plot twist or a reveal waiting in the shadows that would blow me away. Sadly though, it never came. This is just another ghost story seen a thousand times before, and what's worse is that it's probably not as good as most of those ones before it.

    The film isn't scary, period. It tries to be. It tries very hard in fact. But never once did it get the slightest jump out of me. The reason? There is zero tension or atmosphere built up. They thought all they had to do was set the film in a creepy looking house and the rest would take care of itself. That's certainly not the case however. Not only was there zero atmosphere, I also couldn't have cared less about the fate of the characters. I hated them all. No one was in any way likeable, so why should I care about their fate?

    The film tries to sell itself on the 'Based on True Events' tagline which makes me sick. When your premise is this beyond belief and stupid you don't have the right to post that before your film. It's irresponsible to say the least. A very average film played out by a bored and disinterested looking cast who probably knew the film they were making was going to turn out terribly. Give it a miss and see 'Game Night' instead.
  • comment
    • Author: Cenneel
    Who allowed this film to be made? Anyone who ever toured that house and gardens or read any biography on Sarah Winchester knows that, aside from the name and house, this story is complete crap.

    Sarah Winchester and those who have stayed or lived in the house never experienced any of the paranormal phenomenon displayed in the film. The filmmakers couldn't even get the 1906 San Francisco earthquake correct. This earthquake hit in the early morning hours of April 18, 1906 and Mrs. Winchester was asleep in the Daisy Room (so called because of the Louis Comfort Tiffany stained glass windows featuring a daisy pattern).

    No one indulged in opioids, the walls didn't bleed and the ghosts of those individuals killed by Winchester firearms did not ghoul about the mansion trying to kill people.

    Paranormal phenomenon was not reported until well after Winchester's death and was limited to sights of servants, smells of chicken broth, sounds of construction and sounds of a grand piano being played that had two flat keys.

    I love Helen Mirren but I cannot think why someone of her caliber would consent to be in this film.
  • comment
    • Author: Altad
    It's hard to find a decent ghost/horror movie. This one is VERY GOOD. Story is good or the 2 A-List actors wouldn't have done it. Costume designer A+. Of the literally thousands of horror movies I've watched, -at the top of my head I can only think of around 20 that were actually good. This one is in that list. Horror is my favorite genre too.
  • comment
    • Author: Skunk Black
    It's gotten to the point where I go to see movies (that I have no interest in seeing and I likely know will be bad) just because I have a Moviepass. I'm a firm believer in not judging a movie until you go to the theater, but sometimes it's difficult to escape what you see in the trailers. With Winchester, there was little to no substance in the marketing material and the film pretty much followed suit. The story of Sarah Winchester and the haunted house she owned for so many years felt like a fascinating premise, especially knowing the similarity it could have had to The Conjuring films. However, Winchester falls flat as a boring horror film that lacks in just about every facet of filmmaking.

    As haunted house horror films go, naturally the main story thread involves a possessed child and the demons that force him to do inexplicable things. We've seen it before time and time again, and besides a select few, I haven't found it to be a compelling narrative approach. Perhaps that's because it's been overdone, or perhaps it's that most of the time the characters just aren't fleshed out enough. Either way, the possessed child in Winchester haulted any sort of interest I had.

    Even with Jason Clarke, Helen Mirren, and another chilling performance from the up and comer Eamon Farren (Twin Peaks), there wasn't much at all to write home about.

    2.6/10
  • comment
    • Author: Falya
    The true horror was having to stare at Helen Mirren's massively injected lips for 2 hours and what seemed like 10 hours. One Big Long Gun Control Commercial with Helen Mirren giving big long speeches about all the people coming back from the dead so mad at the gun companies for making guns used in the civil war. Then there was Mirren's lip injections that made her look very weird in close ups and when she gave her speeches. On top of it all it was long and boring and did not have any good scares or psychological drama. Even the paranormal stuff was a bore with a really bad script that kept veering off into modern politics. Oh yeah, they threw a bunch of slaves coming back from the dead just to make the commercial complete with the racist stuff.
  • Cast overview, first billed only:
    Helen Mirren Helen Mirren - Sarah Winchester
    Sarah Snook Sarah Snook - Marion Marriott
    Finn Scicluna-O'Prey Finn Scicluna-O'Prey - Henry Marriott
    Jason Clarke Jason Clarke - Dr. Eric Price
    Emm Wiseman Emm Wiseman - Nancy
    Alana Fagan Alana Fagan - Partially Dressed Lady #1
    Rebecca Makar Rebecca Makar - Partially Dressed Lady #2
    Tyler Coppin Tyler Coppin - Arthur Gates
    Michael Carman Michael Carman - Frank
    Angus Sampson Angus Sampson - John Hansen
    Alice Chaston Alice Chaston - Clara
    Eamon Farren Eamon Farren - Ben Block
    Laura Brent Laura Brent - Ruby Price
    Adam Bowes Adam Bowes - Farmer Amputee
    Bruce Spence Bruce Spence - Augustine
    All rights reserved © 2017-2024 hd.thomson-multimedia.com