almaric777 This one reminded me of those old TV Movie of the Week thrillers. Quirky and somewhat flat until the final sequence followed by an ending that misses the mark. Claire was cute and likable. The main guy was more creepy than funny. Maverick's girlfriend was underused. Worth a watch if you like jumpy ghost stories.

nmn34 I had high hopes going in, the box has it listed 4 stars, its rated high on RT, Rogerebert.com gave it a 3/4. It really shows the disconnect between audiences and critics however. The movie is well put together in most aspects, the acting is strong and at times it can be quite tense. But the plot is broken, there are two different movies going on and they are stuck together by tape.The first half is very bubbly and charming, it goes a great length in creating an attachment to the characters. This could have been a very entertaining comedy as two hotel clerks talk about a supposed ghost while they're underlying attraction to each other grows stronger. Then halfway through, we are confirmed that there is a ghost and the tone shifts completely. And the shift is very jarring, just BAM, here is the ghost, don't go in the basement. From here on, there are no more jokes and everyone sobers up. The lack of focus early on has major ramifications later on that hinder it from really taking off as a horror movie.The second half is done well but it is still not quite fleshed out. We are never given quite enough information on the ghost to really discern anything about her. We are led to believe in the beginning that she was someone that committed suicide when her fiancé stood her up on their wedding day but then I got the impression that a guest that comes to the hotel was her husband. His suicide note speaks of his wife, he is emotionally attached to the room she died in,and his spirit seems to assist her but that contradicts the story we were told. There is no need for motivation in ghost stories but there needs to be at least some sort of explanation what happened. It gives the audience some sort of reasoning, something to grasp onto and make them believe the character has some sort of chance even if it is just to be taken away.What gets me the worse about the story is the implication that there are three benefactor spirits. Its mentioned by the actress that they died in some tragedy and were warning Claire to stay out of the basement. The problem is, when? They were never brought up before nor heard from again by a character that plays a pivotal role for Claire's character. There isn't even any ghostly evidence of their existence, like they were cut from the script and the director forgot to fix the one line. It could be that the actress is trying to frame her warning, but why? Why not just say it was the ghost? Why mention some vague tragedy that no one seems aware of? And why 3? If she is framing her advice, it's like a person with a bag on their head trying to prove they aren't crazy by trading their paper bag for plastic.The ending has impact because Claire was a likable character but her death really has no build. Its quite obvious what is going to come, she locks the bilco door and seals her own fate, but there was no twists and turns that made it seem she was going to escape. The lack of catharsis makes for a forgettable finale, certainly not one that deserves such a high score elsewhere.

Paige Chaplin (rickyslittlehorror) I wanted to watch The Innkeepers since it came out back in 2011, and it was recently on television. I recorded it, and gladly decided to curl up on a chilly winter's night thinking that the adrenaline would help warm me up, and that I might even spill my hot chocolate.Unfortunately, this was not the case.The Innkeepers won 2 awards and was nominated for another four; it won Scariest Film at the Toronto After Dark Film Festival and also won Best Musical Score at Screamfest. In my opinion, it only deserved the Best Musical Score.Now, I give a lot of horror movies a chance but this movie was just... grim. Sure, there were scary moments that caused you to flinch away from the screen, but nothing to make you, or rather, me, fully jump. The plot was predictable, and I felt that it lagged on. There were two or three times I had to turn it off and come back to it for the main fact that I couldn't get into the movie itself. The plot – two inn workers are trying to prove that there's a ghost that haunts the inn they work at before it closes down.With the scares few and far between, I honestly do not understand how this won Scariest Film at Toronto, when there were plenty of better movies released.The movie itself was alright. I definitely wouldn't watch it again, and I wouldn't go out my way to buy the DVD or to own a copy of the movie. I suppose for people who are not avid horror watchers, this movie would be ideal – and probably a lot scarier to, but for your avid horror watchers, I'd avoid this movie and go watch a good old fashioned fright fest like The Descent. Scoring only a 4/10 from me, I would avoid this movie.

ritera1 I will not necessarily eviscerate this trainwreck. The two leads were actually very good and likable. Especially the girl. Some very good camera work.But the script was a nothing. Sure, horror has a good amount of filler 'til the exciting parts. I never understood that and never understood how audiences consistently sat through that. I guess I have to make that assertion from experience, to my stupidity.But it's mostly filler. Just a day in the life nonsense drawn out to the extreme. For a solid hour. Meaningless.Then the last half hour, which has about 10 minutes of substance maximum, is so poorly directed, shot and edited. There's no rhyme or reason. Other horror movies attempt to explain something about what's going on.But this? Screw that! It's just by happenstance that the girl only sees the ghost woman for no reason during the last night of the hotel's operation. And the suicide of the old man has no relevance other than a desperate grope for any sort of substance.And why does the guy spend all that energy and lies to maintain a website of paranormal activity AND have video showing such but doesn't believe it at all? Probably to extend the relationship with the girl, but that was never really addressed in that specific circumstance.Several times in the basement the director/editor kills any sort of fright. The girl kicks a can down the steps but no coverage of her foot hitting the can. We clearly see the dead guy behind her seconds before her being startled. (His appearance is apparently blamed on her head wound in the Epilogue, but she had no head wound just before that.)After she falls, there is no coverage of the dead guy at the top of the stairs. There is no coverage of her losing the atomizer, which is shown later. There is no shock value to seeing the ghost woman.Then the Epilogue. Terrible cut when the cop looks at the girl's face on the gurney. Apparently the psychic knew it was going to happen? Didn't seem consistent with her appearances in the film up to that point. And finally they all have to go down to the station to answer questions. But the cop leads the psychic to the cop car. Where was the guy? Took his own car?Ty West, the director/writer/editor has made several films. Good for you, kid. But this one was so bad that I specifically have to make a point of not seeing any of his other attempts.