Loud Dolby sound crashes do not constitute "scary." Having 97 of them borders on punishment. Film borrows every trick from Robert Wise's THE HAUNTING...yet learned nothing from it: that you must have quiet, dull moments in between to lull the audience into relaxing. And worse..tense moments are set up, then filmed with no understanding of how to actually unnerve an audience.
Yes, Daniel Radcliffe is an actual actor and not only Harry Potter. Yes, Hammer Horror is back in style, with an old-school balls-to-the-walls vengeful ghost plot. Otherwise, be prepared to still think to yourself, "Why don't you just cast a Patronus?" -- PolarisDiB
Quite effective in its scares and creepiness, but overall bit ridiculous. Ask the movie "why?" and it falls to pieces. For instance, while Radcliffe indeed gives a good performance, his character is essentially nothing more than a guinea pig for the audience. Why is he opening that door? Why is he going up those stairs? "Because the script told me to" would be the most likely answer.
For Hammer House’s return to filmmaking, a tired recycling of haunted house clichés was a bad start. The atmosphere of the film and Ciarán Hinds made the film worth viewing, but this felt less like a Hammer film than a carbon copy of the tedious horror movies being made now, jump scares and all.