Watched it tonight. I liked it, a lot actually, but not as much as House of the Devil. This one is slow paced too, obviously intentionally, but the tension is the opposite of House. In that film, you had this dread going on that the main character seemed oblivious to, which ratcheted up the unease big time. But in The Innkeepers, everything felt pretty....safe. It seemed like the main characters were much more frightened than the situation lent itself to be, so it seemed a little hollow.
It does get a lot more interesting once it gets cooking though, but it does take time to get there. Again, the opposite of House of the Devil. With that film, I felt no exposition could possibly match the built up tension (and indeed, it was actually a bit of a let-down once it did heat up), here I was thinking to myself "this better lead to something good".
In an earlier post in this thread, I referred to jump scares as "cheap and manipulative". Innkeepers goes for the jump scare route, but the first one is the most cheap and manipulative one in the book (one we've all fallen for at least once), so I kinda think West was trying to show that they're a trick that should not take the place of real tension. Not sure if I'm making my point well enough here, I just think the choice of the first jump scare had a very intentional meaning.
I don't have the urge to see it again like I did with House, but I was still very entertained by it.
CINEMA PAFF - Your BB-Movie Showcase *
* - The extra B is for BYOBB