Death of a Ghost Hunter (2007) User Reviews

Some decent shocks, could have been better

[Mikkel-0-934971 · 5/10 · 8 October 2012]

Overall, the film did decently with setting up an atmosphere.

I do have a few points of critique: 1. Very repetitive background music. Those notes on the piano ended up bugging me a lot, since they were in every scary scene.

2. Other sound issues - some scenes very obviously had all sound cut, the film could've used a "noise" track so these scenes wouldn't stand out so much. There was *some* nice music scores, but I feel that starting them out at a lower volume (and keeping them lower) would've drawn less attention to them.

3. Some sequences - particularly the end - could've been shortened down a bit. With the fluff overall, I'd say the film could easily have been 20 minutes (and maybe even 30 minutes, if you're good at killing your darlings) shorter.

Overall, I'd say the film shows some nice ideas, and at times a good execution of said ideas.

Death of a Ghost Hunter

[Scarecrow-88 · 5/10 · 6 March 2011]

Carter Simms was a paranormal investigator offered $5, 000 dollars if she would investigate the notorious home of a murdered family, slain through the use of a butcher knife. Considering herself a skeptic sort of investigator, who goes into places reputed to be haunted, Carter attempts to "debunk" claims of paranormal activity. But the Masterson home isn't like any other place she's ever investigated, and as the film informs us right off the bat, this would be her last investigation. Accompanied, much to her chagrin(she likes to investigate homes and other places by herself without others to get in the way of a proper investigation), by a video camera operator and a journalist(and an annoying, finger-pointing, judgmental religious fanatical girl who comes uninvited), at the behest of the owner of the Masterson home, Carter will conduct her investigation and make some startling discoveries. With investigative tools fans of GHOST HUNTERS might recognize(EMF and EVP detectors, digital night vision cameras), DEATH OF A GHOST HUNTER might appeal to fans of paranormal investigation reality shows. This movie does go a bit overboard with detailed explanations at the end to inform the viewer exactly what happened in the Masterson home and why, but there are some surprising eerie moments to be had here. We watch as the others have their difficulties contending with Mary Young Mortenson(Lindsay Page)and her bible thumping criticisms, always offering her beliefs and scolding them repeatedly. It is rather unfortunate that in the movies, this seems to be the way Christians are often always depicted, to be so obnoxious and irritating. That said, Page is quite chilling when it seems she has become possessed by whatever lurks within. Sickly and rather ill-tempered, Page seems to deteriorate psychologically. Davina Joy is the rather liberal and carefree Yvette, a polar opposite of Mary Young, a girl who likes to have a good time and dresses more "provocatively"(well to someone like Mary Young, it's provocative), swears, and talks about sex openly. Mike Marsh is Colin, the chain-smoking video camera tech specialist, a profane, but friendly guy who really does lend Carter a hand when it comes to catching paranormal activity. Patti Tindall, the film's narrative voice, is Carter Simms, her character's journal entries the basis for most of what we see during the film. It isn't until the fates of all involved are decided, where the film takes an alternate route to show us what actually happened to the Mastersons, as well as, some dirty, little secrets which pollute their supposedly saintly reputation as beloved God-fearing servants of the Lord.

I think the most indelible image which might be remembered is the the ghost girl peeking from her room, but other moments are almost just as creepy: a captured image of a ghost named Miranda(who becomes an important figure in why the murders took place, herself a devastating victim of religious fanaticism and hidden sexual deviance)moving across a window from another building across from the Masterson house, the "headdress"( a device which locks on a victim's head, costumed with crucifixes), and nude photographs which spill out of a bible found in a closet. The "paranormal attack" is a bit too over the top for my tastes and reeks of POLTERGEIST, although a chair dragging across the floor by itself always works for me personally. The revelations of the Mastersons themselves, particularly the patriarch, are certainly eye-opening, but the exposition which concludes the film, narrated by the delusional Mary Young, goes on and on to infinity. I like the idea of giving us little hints without feeling the need to draw us a map. Carter herself does seem to keep it together until the activity grows more intense, and Mary Young becomes more of a nuisance.

Slightly creepy, but not really that scary...

[paul_haakonsen · 5/10 · 29 December 2011]

Another alleged true documentary of a paranormal phenomena. "Death of a Ghost Hunter" proves to be entertaining, but I didn't buy this to be true for even a moment. The whole thing was just to staged for that.

Now, don't get me wrong, "Death of a Ghost Hunter" is good entertainment, and it does have an interesting and somewhat creepy story. And it does well at building up suspense. However, this is a movie meant to entertain, so take this movie for what it is, not for what it is intended to be.

The setting of the movie is quite good, because it is set in a well-kept house that looks good on the outside, but has a very dark and brooding feel once inside. You should know that the movie is shot mostly in the dark, with either night vision camera or very little lighting, so don't expect a well-lit movie where you see everything. This lack of lighting does work well for the movie, as you are kept in suspense and kept in the dark (duh!).

"Death of a Ghost Hunter" tells the story of a family killed in a house, and now the house is apparently haunted. The owner of the house hires a paranormal investigator, a reporter and a film man to do an investigation into the activities within the house. They are joined by a young girl from the church, and slowly, events start to happen at night, revealing the tragic events that occurred. However, not everything is as it seems... There is a nice twist to the story, though it wasn't all that difficult to figure it out before it was initially revealed in the movie.

The acting in "Death of a Ghost Hunter" was actually good enough, and the cast was all unknown faces, to me at least. People did good jobs with their given roles. You should know that the movie is limited to a short list of cast and characters, however it doesn't hinder the movie in any way.

"Death of a Ghost Hunter" is in the likes of "Paranormal Activity" and "The Blairwitch Project", so if you liked those types of staged documentaries, then you might want to give "Death of a Ghost Hunter" a chance as well.

Really bad

[I-am-Shellfish · 2/10 · 22 May 2011]

I hate to say that this was a really bad movie, because I like to think there is a gem in every bad horror flick and especially because I already spent nearly two hours watching it, but this was really a bad movie on multiple fronts.

My biggest problem: story development. Closely followed by my second biggest problem: unbelievably long. Which was exacerbated by my other problems: badddd acting, bad script

See, the bad acting and bad script are forgivable for about the first hour when I still had hope that the story might be worth a d^mn. And I'm an incredibly patient person, so when I turned on the time remaining and saw that after an hour and a half I still had twenty minutes left(!) I thought my head might explode. Compound that with the fact that by that point I STILL had no idea how this whole story came together (many people have complained about predictability, but I'm going to have to go the other way. So much was left until the horrible 'recap' moment at the end, I had no f^cking clue what was going on. I'd thought that somehow the movie makers had forgotten about the drowned baby?! (Pulling a Paranormal Entity, you can't predict the end if you've been given false information at the beginning!) But the story, ultimately, is what is making my head throb at this very moment. A poorly made movie with low budget effects can be saved by an interesting story. Unfortunately, I don't find completely unbelievable Christian psycho-zealots interesting or believable. I don't say that because I'm a devout Christian or because I don't believe there are insane people out there, but because there is NO way in our society that what was supposedly transpiring at the Masterson household would go for twenty years undiscovered. You're telling me that police didn't find the freshly buried grave of Miranda? You're telling me the cop didn't report the nearly drowned infant, at which point anyone who KNEW the family would say, 'well they didn't have a baby?!' You're telling me that out of the fifteen odd photos of girls that had been abused in this fashion that NO ONE ever came forward? You're telling me that the police did no investigation into the murders and took the wife's suicide note word for it, 'look, I know my prints are on the murder weapon, but I totally didn't do this'? This story at its most basic level, sucks. Everyone out there who is so excited about the story must have just totally nutted over the Amityville horror (also stupid). Mix into that the fact that we have to deal with the stereotypical aggressive Christian girl who is obviously NOT supposed to be there for at least an hour and by god I might strap a black box onto my head and start killing people!

Terrible. Terrible. Terrible. And the 'paranormal activity' in the house wasn't even that scary! Totally overdone and not threatening at all! Get me the Tylenol!

Far Too Many Plot Holes

[Billy_Crash · 2/10 · 9 August 2009]

Yes, this film had its creepy bits, but the acting was stiff on occasion, and since this was so prevalent, that was the director's fault for not bringing out the best in the actors.

All in all, the movie didn't add up to much because of plot holes and an ending you could see coming from the beginning. This meant there were no real surprises, which delivered a ho- hum ending.

This was a truly bad movie. I gave two stars for concept and a couple of scares. Otherwise, it's not even worth a rental - unless you like bad and thoughtless story lines.

*Spoilers Below*

Although a good concept, the movie gives itself away at the twenty minute mark when we meet Mary Young, a twenty-year-old Christian extremist who was asked by the home's owner to join the investigative team. No one expects her, yet none of the team calls in to check if this is true. Stupid. Furthermore, and most significantly, since the murders occurred twenty years before, and since it was never mentioned that a drowned baby was found floating in the tub, it is immediately obvious the Mary and the baby are one and the same.

The murders are supposedly well documented. If so, then how come Miranda was never mentioned by anyone? This is completely ludicrous since Mrs. Masterson didn't clean up the crime scene and did not have time to hide a body. This plot hole sank the entire film and was completely nonsensical.

Furthermore, if the Masterson's had repeatedly raped, tortured and ultimately murdered her mother, and tried to her as a baby, what is the logic for Mary to return and defend the family? Made no sense, especially when the investigative team was out to uncover the truth, which would have exposed the Mastersons for the beasts they were.

Pathetic.

[NiklausJK · 1/10 · 31 October 2011]

I can forgive the terrible acting, and the horrid special effects, even the incredibly predictable plot. But the "Christian" character in this movie was **offensive**, and I'm not even Christian! It was the equivalent of having a black character who does nothing but talk about fried chicken and commits rapes, or a Jewish character who does nothing but pick the other character's pockets. Obviously the writer/director had some bad experiences with religious people in his past, and decided to use this movie as a way of "getting back" at everyone. It's a sad, pathetic propaganda film disguised as something remotely entertaining. I would not recommend this film to anyone, except people who were diddled by priests and are looking for a comedy.

Acting

[linda_bras · 2/10 · 31 March 2011]

All I have to say is "What the heck kind of acting was that?" I liked the story itself, but I completely agree with all the other people about the acting. I could see that if the acting was better it would have been a great movie. There were times were I was a little scared. But seriously I had to watch the movie at 2 in the morning alone to be scared. Basically because of the acting. I kept thinking to myself "they are awful" I hope someone remakes this movie. I could be great. I cant believe they couldn't find better actors. Sheesh so disappointed. I wonder if I am being harsh or maybe just haven't watched enough movies but I just cant get over the acting.

Don't Waste Your Time

[alanmcooley · 2/10 · 26 December 2010]

I really cannot understand why anyone would want to watch this movie anywhere other than in a college film class as an example of how not to make a movie. The first ten minutes are nothing but narration. Even when characters are conversing, we are still told what they are saying instead of getting the information first hand. This continues throughout the movie.

My biggest problem is that everything lacks authenticity. The actors generally sound like they're reading from cue cards while improvising emotion. The editing jumps around. The story is also really bland. Shows like Ghost Adventures and A Haunting can tell stories like this in 60 minutes with commercials, so you can imagine how they try to stretch things out in this movie.

I think the only people who find this movie scary are people who scare too easily. Better suggestions: Poltergeist, Paranormal Activity, A Haunting in Connecticut.

Not your average scary flick... but kept me awake.

[dilarasdad · 7/10 · 29 September 2008]

I agree with much of the observations that MoviePhAnaTic presented - "Good B horror movie!".

It's all about realism, not acting. This contributed to the pucker factor.

Although most new gen movie watchers tend to lean more towards the 'Saw' type flicks to 'cut' to the chase of what the end result is for the actors, I still wondered if this movie was going to live up to the title. I suggest a different title should have been used; this would have added points to the freak factor.

Mike Marsh did a great job writing. The story was original although I detected a slight flavor of 'Carrie' and 'Blair Witch' in a few scenes. The choice of actors was fair, but the acting was marginal, yet it added to the realism. No one really adds hyper-drama to their lives like they do in the blockbusters... do they? This style contributed to the documentary flavor throughout many of the scenes.

I liked the movie overall. I look forward to more projects from Mike Marsh. This film was just what I needed to get the mind wandering about the hereafter. And in case you're wondering, the story kept me awake.

See it! You'll be drawn in.

So bad it's scary.

[dunmore_ego · 2/10 · 11 August 2011]

Is it real or is it B-Movie? No one in chat rooms can tell.

All because of a few lines of text at the head of DEATH OF A GHOST HUNTER: "In 2002 renowned ghost hunter Carter Simms was offered $5000 to perform a paranormal investigation of the Masterson house. Her investigation stands as the single most tragic paranormal inquiry in American history."

Not bad marketing for a B-Movie. Carter Simms (Patti Tindall) is the "renowned ghost hunter," for guys who like the S.I.L.F. type (Spinsters I'd Like To--), who spends three nights in the trusty house-with-murder-in-its-past, to determine whether it is haunted. (Original? No. Laughable? Yes.) Movie is supposedly based on her journals.

Set in Salem, Oregon, flashback to 1982 shows us the mother of the house drowning a doll supposed to be her baby, shooting her family via trusty shadows on the wall and blood splattering on said wall, and then taking her own life. Would have been much more tragic were it not for the filmstock stressed to look like "scratchy" 1930s footage. All it lacked was a honkytonk piano. If I remember correctly, the 1980s were only 20 years ago - how did the filmstock age 70 years?

Now that's scary.

Carter Simms is joined by a king dork videographer (Mike Marsh, also the co-writer) and a big-bootied brainless bimbo who looks like Ru Paul (Davina Joy, whose body just screams 'screwing her way to the middle'); Lindsay Page the Jesus Freak completes this F-Troop.

Writer-director-DP-editor, Sean Tretta, tries sincerely to make a scary movie, with ominous music, morbid concepts, old-fashioned scares (rather than CGI) - but mainly by keeping all the lights off. Yet there's only so much a writer-director-DP-editor can do with bad actors. Make that no actors.

Patti Tindall (as Carter) is passable, but as soon as she is joined by the troupe of non-actors, they drag her into their hellpit of sub-mediocrity. It's like playing tennis - you always get pulled down to the other guy's level. Still, Tindall is no Streep - her toneless opening narration is as chillingly blank-eyed as the narration in THE CREEPING TERROR.

Story goes from illogical to just plain stupid: Carter tells her drogues, "Ghost hunting is the process in which paranormal investigators use modern technology to obtain tangible evidence regarding the existence of life after death." I can't even begin to deconstruct the senselessness in this statement. When she mentions EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomena), we've crossed over. Into levels of intelligence resembling cowdung.

DEATH OF A GHOST HUNTER has the potential to be a classic, old-school, Gothic ghost story, not relying on hillbilly mutilation or anal-retentive axe-killers. But potential counts for nought with no actors and the cameraman's shadow in shots. And after screaming amateur at us - from the slipshod editing, to lighting a room by shining flashlights on each other's faces - Tretta has the brass-balled audacity to have his characters mention revolutionary movies like THE EXORCIST and BLAIR WITCH.

While the videographer constantly changes batteries, missing all the "haunted" action, such as chairs moving and ghosts actually appearing, the bimbo mills about aimlessly, and the Jesus Freak tries to subvert the investigation because she's a good Christian, and must protect the reputation of the good Christian lady who mass-murdered the family in the house. So while wearing a religious head-box (like something out of CARRIE), she kills all the "ghost hunters" - because that's what good christians do.

The "ghost hunters" tell us that supernatural "hauntings" occur because the people in that locale were murdered violently. Logic denotes that when other people are murdered violently at the same locale, THEY should also haunt it as ghosts. Suddenly - logic! Carter Simms actually wakes up as a shimmering, low-budget special effect after the Christian freak dispatches her. Logic may be served, but then inconsistency takes over - because, after all, the logic is draped over something ILLOGICAL in the first place, so it cannot be sustained. To wit: where are Carter's ill-fated crew? Which para-dimension are they inhabiting? They were all murdered by the Christian freak, who committed suicide. But Carter Simms can only see all the original ghosts of the house. And here's the funny thing: they're still appearing as insubstantial wraiths to her! One would think that playing on their team, she'd now see them clearly. Now where'd I put that Supernatural Rulebook written by living people?

The other great lapse in logic is something which the chat room dweebs could never fathom: if all this is taken from Carter's journals, exactly which entry stated she turned into a shimmering low-budget special effect?

And it's a good thing her CLOTHES have souls as well, so she can appear fully clothed as a shimmering low-budget special effect. Only a benevolent Christian god would allow ghosts to appear fully clothed to comply with American censorship laws; only a benevolent Christian god would leave a soul stranded on Earth so scared, broken, destitute and meaningless.

The grandest disconnect is not in the movie - it is with gullible viewers. Those same good christians who believe in the paradoxical, illogical, all-powerful yet powerless magical Christian god, who believe this is not just B-Movie. As they speculate ad insanitarium, dragging everyone else down to their F-level.

Game, set, match: Superstition.

not at all what you expect

[dutchchocolatecake · 8/10 · 2 June 2012]

When I started watching this movie, it began about as badly as I had expected it would. I seriously considered turning it off, because I thought it wouldn't even be worth the time to write a review about how bad I assumed it would be. It does take time to pick up, but it ended up delivering a lot more than it seemed capable of.

The movie is a lot more intelligent than I anticipated. I got the big clues right away; but the smaller ones I couldn't figure out until the end (or found out I missed entirely). There's several plot twists, some you see coming, some you don't; and this turned out to be a unique story that left me freaked out by the end. Not a lot of movies do that anymore, so that's saying quite a lot.

The actors were all fairly competent, but Lindsay Page's character (Mary Young) stood out in excellence. There are several strong female characters in this movie, but there is also graphic allusions to rape. You don't actually see anything, thank god, but the scenes are disturbing enough to earn a warning label for the female audience.

The only reason I am giving it an 8 out of 10, is because the sound didn't have dependable quality. I missed some sentences completely because it was inaudible.

Other than that, this movie shows that intelligent story telling and character depth is a lot more important than flashy FX. If you're in the mood for a scary movie that's different than the usual ilk out there, this would be it.

An interesting paranormal investigation film

[Shattered_Wake · 6/10 · 31 August 2008]

A paranormal investigator (Patti Tindall) is hired by the heir to the old Masterson house to investigate some supernatural forces that supposedly reside within caused by the murder of a God-fearing family. Once the investigation begins, however, the group of investigators begin to uncover some secrets to the house previously unknown. . . and there may be more of a threat from the living than the dead.

Over the years, countless films have been made regarding paranormal investigation and ghost hunting (yes, they are two different things). From Poltergeist and the attempt to RID spirits to White Noise and the attempt to FIND spirits, it's pretty much all been done. Since Death of a Ghost Hunter really isn't anything new, it had a lot of ground to make up if it wanted to be memorable. Although it was interesting, the lack of originality left it as mostly forgettable. Technically, as a film, it's not great. The typical low-budget errors are obvious: it's cheap-looking from the low-end video equipment, the acting isn't very good, the audio is muffled and out-of-sync at times, etc. However, as a paranormal investigation film, it's not that bad. I didn't think it would be, seeing as the film starts immediately with two factual errors involving definitions of phrases: 'Ghost hunting' is when a hunter goes to an area where no paranormal activity has been noted in hopes of finding something while a 'paranormal investigator' goes to supernatural hotspots where activity has been witnessed (or at least BELIEVED to be witnessed). The film mixed them up repeatedly, which was a bit annoying as the lead character was a professional investigator. But, it's a common error so fairly forgivable. Ignoring that, the rest of the film is nicely researched. The writers did well to make Carter a believable investigator (though her acting didn't make her seem as much). The character knows what she's talking about and goes about it in a believable way. I've worked with both skeptics and believers (myself falling somewhere in between based on my own science) during investigations, and she was a realistic skeptic. The 'findings,' though a bit over-the-top at points, weren't as exaggerated as some films get (like the far-too-clear EVPs that Michael Keaton discovers in White Noise (we wish they were that good)). There are some creepy moments and the backstory works well with the 'modern' events. It's a film that should satisfy someone looking for a rational look at paranormal investigation, but it's not the type of film that will ever live as one of the 'great ghost stories' of our time. I still enjoyed it on both the levels of an investigator and a horror fan.

Final verdict: 6/10.

-AP3-

Death of Your Two Hours

[johnmcd1234 · 1/10 · 25 July 2014]

There are many things that will take you out of a movie, bad writing, bad acting, bad story, and overall bad cinematography. This movie has it all, except for one thing, actual horror.

The movie starts off trying to sell you the typical horror movie lie; "This really happened, the following events were real events!" No, they're not. Nothing in real life could be as dull as this. Then we are greeted to what feels like an eternity of narration by our main lead, who explains to us everything she sees, to the point you want to scream "Yes I know you are looking at a bird cage, I can see that, you don't need to tell us!" After that, we are introduced to the other characters, a comic relief, a bimbo, and, of course, a cartoon character Christian, who, like all cartoon character Christians, are huge stick in the muds that have to ask Jesus if it's okay for them to poop or not. And whoever directed this movie choose the finest actors the dump had to offer, with delivery that rivals that of audio book narrators (not the good ones).

So let's get down to the biggest problem with the movie. It's not that the story is crap, or the characters are bland and cliché, or that the actors aren't trying; the biggest problem is, it's boring. The only thing that can get you through it is making fun of how bad it is, and even then it's still cringe worthy and the scenes of them just doing nothing but "ghost hunting" leave you with nothing; nothing to make fun of and nothing for you to be interested in.

So, if you're one of those people who like really bad movies, this is kind of in your alley, but if you want a suspenseful, scary ghost movie, I recommend Poltergeist. (Mainly because there's a scene in Death of a Ghost Hunter where the main character gags with disgust after some mentions the latter, I guess she's allergic to good movies).

"Are there any entities that wish to present themselves?" More cheap low budget horror tripe.

[poolandrews · 2/10 · 24 January 2009]

Death of a Ghost Hunter starts on October 17th 2002 as paranormal investigator Carter Simms (Patti Tindall) arrives in the small town of Queens Creek in Arizona where she is being paid $5,000 to conduct an investigation into the notorious Masterson House where an entire family were brutally murdered twenty years ago. Rumours of ghostly goings-on have persisted ever since & Carter has been brought in to try & discover the truth along with video guy Colin Green (Mike Marsh) & writer Yvette Sandoval (Davina Joy). Over the course of three nights they experience supernatural activity which is linked to the homes violent past, Carter believes she has 'tangible evidence' that there is life after death...

Edited, photographed, produced, written & directed by Sean Tretta I thought this ghost film was pretty terrible on all fronts. The film revolves around the modern MTV style trend of Ghost Hunting, you know the sort of show's like Real Scary Stories (2000), Ghost Hunters (2004) & the UK equivalent Ghost Hunting with 'add celebrity name here' in which various 'experts', celebrities & ordinary members of the public are filmed in supposedly haunted locations on blurry night vision camera equipment & overact terribly. Imagine one of those largely awful show's drawn out to almost two hours in length & you still can't imagine how bad Death of a Ghost Hunter is. The film also plays like a cheap TV reenactment of the likes of The Entity (1981), Poltergeist (1982) & The Haunting (1999) in which scientific means are used to try & prove life after death but since it's set in a bland two storey middle class town house there's zero atmosphere. The back-story is also fairly routine stuff with some terrible event happening in the homes past & that provides the twist when it gets reenacted during the present which isn't much of a twist since that's what always happens, isn't it? The only other twist is given away in the films title. The character's are poor, the dialogue is dull & at almost two hours the pace is gruelling, I really wanted to bail out on several occasions but just about managed to stick with it.

Horror films & haunted house horror films in particularly need a certain atmosphere & feel to be effective & that's one of my biggest problems with Death of a Ghost Hunter since it takes place in a very bland house. No cobwebs, no dusty old attics, no creaking staircases & no cats jumping out at random moments. The style of the film borrows heavily from The Blair Witch Project (1999) with it's use of hand-held point-of-view camcorders, it's a style that I personally dislike & The Blair Witch Project is perhaps the exception that proves the rule. I just think it's a really ugly & annoying style of film-making. Apart from some blood splatter on a family photo there's no gore, or at least I don't remember any. The film lacks any scares, looks cheap & has a lot of boring exposition & discussion that I found tedious & dull in the extreme. Despite all the films claims that Carter Simm was real & the events portrayed were real Death of a Ghost Hunter is in fact totally fictitious & made-up.

Probably shot on a budget that wouldn't cover a round of drinks at my local pub Death of a Ghost Hunter really does look like it was shot by a bunch of friends in their middle class house on camcorders for fun & then decided to release it. Gee, thanks. The acting is weak from the whole five people in it.

Death of a Ghost Hunter is an awful cross between one of those reality ghost hunting TV show's, The Blair Witch Project & The Haunting. Sounds terrible, right? Well, it is terrible.

Too Bad...

[tmj550 · 2/10 · 31 October 2010]

I was kind of upset by this movie-- not because it was scary but because it could have been SO GOOD but the acting and filming were just so poor it was completely ruined. The reporter and cameraman clearly have no real acting experience (or they really are just that bad) and they drag everyone else down. We only watched maybe a half hour of the film and just had to give it up from there.

It's filmed in such a way that I got a headache and you need to keep the remote in had to control the volume from 5 to 50 if you have neighbors within 1,000 yards... or ears. It felt very "Blair Witch" as well, they spend a lot of time making you think it's real. It's frustrating because you think they are doing this poor woman such an injustice by portraying her so terribly- then you find out the entire thing was made up (poorly at that) and it turns from crap to crumbled crap.

Terrible in every way

[racerx111 · 1/10 · 27 February 2010]

I am pretty lenient with what I think about movies. If it's mildly entertaining, I'm generally OK with it. But this movie is without a doubt the worst I've ever seen.

The acting was god-awful. I could find 5 people at random off the street and they would be no worse, and probably better, than this group. Hell, make that 5 people at random out of a 6th grade classroom and my statement still stands. The fight scene was horrendously executed - laughable if I wasn't so amazed at how bad it was. The acting in every single scene was terrible. Absolutely terrible.

The audio was worse than the acting if that is possible. You have to watch this movie while holding the remote so you can change the volume as needed, which is about every 6 seconds. The volume ranged from 20 to 54 on my TV. I was constantly changing it. Seriously, I do a better job with my Corel Video Studio when editing my home movies.

The people giving this movie good reviews simply aren't being honest. I know a review is subjective, but honestly, any good review of this movie has to be from friends of people associated with it.

Sometimes a movie is not very good, but you can give an "A" for effort. This one gets an F...at best. If I could give a lower grade, I would. Absolute disaster. Everyone associated with it should be embarrassed. It is simply the worst movie I have ever seen. Bar none.

Poor Acting was the Real Death of Death of a Ghost Hunter

[sammyd1020 · 3/10 · 28 July 2008]

Death of a Ghost Hunter is not a good movie. I would consider myself a horror film fanatic. With that said I've seen hundreds of horrible films from this genre and maybe a few dozen genuinely good ones. While I wouldn't classify this as relatively bad with regards to the genre it was also not good either.

The special effects were actually pretty good for a B movie. The plot was decent, if almost shamefully predictable. The acting on the other hand was just horrible. Disregard anyone else's opinion on this movie who thinks that the acting was anything better than dismal. With average acting this movie may have earned a rating of 5. As it is it's lucky to get a 3.

Predictable and terribly made...

[RevRonster · 1/10 · 23 January 2015]

The budget doesn't really make a movie. A film could be bad in almost every aspect but still have some saving graces that make it entertaining. "Death of a Ghost Hunter" is NOT one of those examples.

The only thing that could have saved this movie is a decent story and one that stays completely relevant to its title but "DoaGH" doesn't do that. The story tries way too hard to make a twist ending that the actual established subject of the film suddenly takes a backseat and the film looks like it is scrambling to tie up all its loose ends—this ends up giving the movie more endings than it needed. This is very evident thanks to the fact it's supposed surprise ending is painfully predictable and very lackluster.

The rest of the film doesn't do much better as the editing is painful to endure and the acting is even worse. However, this is the price you pay when watching something that clearly had the budget that couldn't even pay for the pizzas that would be needed to feed the crew.

Had potential

[aqos-1 · 6/10 · 15 August 2009]

This was a well written movie. The story was gripping and it wrapped up nicely leaving no questions to be asked. The thing that brought this movie down was the acting on the part of the two people helping the investigator. The male actor has the same reaction to ripping his hand open on a nail as he does to going to smoke a cigarette. His acting was flat. The other thing that put me off was the much unneeded cursing by the reporter and camera man. There was no reason for it. If it had been a few times, that would have been acceptable, but every time they opened their mouth, out came bad words. The nudity in the movie was also uncalled for, but understandable. If the entire movie had only contained the investigator and Mary, it would have been a ten star movie. The little girl in the movie is absolutely gorgeous. This movie is worth watching. There's no was to figure this one out before the very last scene.

Meh.

[befoulmetalroosa · 3/10 · 26 March 2016]

I vaguely remember watching this on Netflix, I believe, quite some time ago. It was that memorable that I watched it again, remembering it after most of it was done. It was...all right. The acting was better than expected, but the music was quite annoying. The interactions between the characters was believable, except for the jarring, one-note characterization of the Jesus freak. I've known some holy rollers in my time, and though they can be annoying, they're not nearly as nasty as this one was.

What I can't understand is how it could be considered a 'found footage film'. The 'found footage' comprises perhaps fifteen percent of the total film. No real jump scares, unless you're very nearly asleep and the loud noises make you jump, like they did me. The little girl was, perhaps, the only really sympathetic character in a film full of veiled hostility. The characters were vaguely hostile to each others' chosen professions, and the environment itself was hostile. All in all, an okay film with a 'message'.

Haven't been this creeped out in a while.

[tcowley · 8/10 · 12 August 2008]

Here's the story: A woman has brutally killed her family at home. The guy that just inherited the house is a little spooked by all the ghost stories, and wants it checked out. So he hires Carter Simms, a sort of ghost documentarian, to spend a few days in the house and gather evidence.

Sounds pretty ho-hum, huh? It isn't. This film gave me the willies. It's relatively low-budget - shot on video, and the first little bit of the film makes you think 'how can this be any good?' But trust me, this film had me seeing things in the shadows at the end of the hall before it was half over. NOT a film to watch alone at night in the suburbs. There's lots of 'little bits' of gore, and some absolutely unnerving ghost stuff. (I've got goosebumps just thinking about it).

This is a very well crafted film. As I said earlier, it's not big budget, but clearly everyone involved is VERY good at what they do. Good direction, cinematography and editing. The makeup and effects were top notch. Of special note, the lead actress (Patti Tindall) was excellent and super watchable. I hope we see more of her in the future. The rest of the cast were good as well, but the lead really gave the film depth and weight that made it that much more terrifying to watch.

Creepy story, but not a film

[siras · 6/10 · 1 April 2009]

Paradocumentary style of shooting this movie is letting you forget that this is actually fiction. Wooden acting (except for the main role) has to be put to the side to enjoy this great story. Carter Simms is a ghost hunter that investigates haunted houses. Her new project is the Mastersons House, we're bodies of four members of the family were found 20 years ago. In this case she will be assisted by video technician, a writer and member of a church Masterson family had been part of. What they discover is recorded in Simms' diary and tapes. In pursue of finding out what's on the other side Carter will learn things she wishes not to...

Summary: better this than Blair Witch Project II.

funny stuff

[phenomynouss · 1/10 · 17 March 2018]

This is an odd little film, further oddened by the fact that apparently it wasn't properly transferred to Amazon Prime in terms of aspect ratio, because it's supposed to be in widescreen, but for some reason comes out in full screen, with the black bars on top and bottom, so it's only taking up like 2/3rds of the screen.

At first I thought it was supposed to be in full screen, as it begins with an inexplicable murder sequence set in 1982 yet supposedly filmed on some kind of 1950s or 60s style reel camera. As the camera repeatedly cuts to multiple shots, including some impossible ones like several feet behind a solid wall, it's increasingly unclear what the point of this footage is or what it's supposed to be in-universe. No mention of this footage is made ever again and it's completely unnecessary. They could have used it the way they do later on, splicing fragments and clips in like "visions".

Once it gets to the real film itself, it turns to a more conventional camera, though with a rather odd framerate that, mixed with its introductory style, makes it look and feel like a Forensic Files-style re-enactment documentary. They go with this style for about 20 minutes before dropping it and going for a purely conventional style movie... but continuing in the odd framerate/shooting style of a true crime re-enactment, complete with a solitary piece of repetitive music that is used and re-used in every spooky scene that sounds like it was pecked out on a casio keyboard.

the film itself covers a paranormal investigator named Carter who is investigating a house owned by an inexplicably successful 28-year old who inherited it from his father, who in turn inherited it from his brother who was murdered with his children by his wife, who then apparently drowns a baby. This is the murder we see at the beginning of the film.

Inexplicably, the guy wants her to work with two other people; a cameraguy friend of his, and a writer. Once they all meet and come to the house, they're met up with a woman, Mary Young Mortenson, for whom I give credit to the actor for not portraying in the stereotypical uptight Christian conservative zealot but making her somewhat believable, willing to curse and talk about guys and actually be reasonable when confronted with non religious people instead of constantly jabbering about god.

The flip side of this potentially "realistic" portrayal is that it may just be so terribly written and acted that it is only accidentally believable. The acting is indeed terrible, yet ironically it is about the exact same caliber of stilted, awkwardly wooden acting that you get from true crime documentary re-enactments. If that were the intention, it would better explain the bad acting, while throwing in the potential mystery of what the hell happened in the editing room to edit out the "documentary style".

The plot is a boring foray into this group scouting out a supposedly haunting house and experiencing spooky ghosty events using some of the worst little visual effects and clumsily spliced in backmasked audio.

Virtually nothing happens other than some scattered, unconvincing "ghost" appearances while the people involved all bicker and fight constantly, mostly with Mary Young. These encounters are hilarious for all the wrong reasons, and culminate in the obvious revelation that Mary Young was not originally invited by the owner of the house as she'd said, but just a crackpot member of the murder victim's church who occasionally shows cult-like devotion to him and his memory.

While the group finds mounting evidence that the original man of the house was a bad and devious man, Mary Young refuses to hear of it and has a freakout that leads to her leaving. She then calls in to a religious radio show complaining about them, and then comes back to wear a weird religious box-helmet thing, then kill them all, or something. It's not entirely clear what was happening.

After that, we get an extremely long sequence, filmed even more in true crime documentary re-enactment style, with Mary Young's voice-over narration. Turns out the original man of the house was a very bad man, as he takes in a moronic couple's teenage daughter who they say has been a "whore", and chains her up in the attic and rapes her repeatedly over several weeks. The wife is fully aware of all this, and the husband also has sex with her, while making her wear the religious box-helmet contraption. The girl gets pregnant and gives birth, and the wife finally loses it and the murder we saw at the beginning is revealed in full, and it's then revealed the baby didn't drown in the bathtub and was rescued by a police cop named Mortenson, and it's revealed that baby was Mary Young Mortenson, who then comes out of the narration and kills herself in the same way as the wife did.

Rather than ending now, the film goes on painfully to apparently show Carter as a ghost in the house now, and by this point the story has long since ended and what unfolds here is a sad epilogue to a poorly-made film lamenting the fate of a character no one cares about.

GHOSTS CAUSE AUNT FLO TO VISIT EARLY

[nogodnomasters · 5/10 · 21 April 2019]

A team of four are investigating a haunted house. Carter (Patti Tindall) is a skeptical ghost hunter who leads the group. Her tools are a digital thermometer, EMF detector (great at detecting nuclear blasts), sound recorder, and irritating first person narration filled with creative 101 phrases such as "ominous foreboding" and "retain the darkness." Colin (Mike Marsh- writer, producer, and composer of said film) is the bald camera man who gives himself a "7" out of "10" or at least those are the words he wrote for reporter Yvette (Davina Joy, who remarkably still had a career after this film). The creepy Mary Young tags along as a representative of the church.

The official story of the house is that someone killed the family, then mom coming home finding them dead, commits suicide in grief as per her note. We know that mom is the killer from the opening grainy film...but the "why" provides the twist.

For those who like the "Paranormal Activity" series or someone who likes to see a skeptic put in their place, this film fits your needs. The acting left much to be desired. Patti Tindall read her lines horribly. The frequent close ups of her face didn't add anything to the film, but may be a clue as to the director's love interest. The music composed by Mike Marsh for the film was trite and cliche horror stuff, that should not have been used, leading me to believe the director swings both ways.

The film had a good slow build up which held my interest, but at times the green night time camera became too much. Decent for a low budget production. I was not overly fond of the "Paranormal" series and would place it on par with them.

F-bomb, brief weird sex, nudity (Lindsay Page, Sarah Lawton, April Hinojosa)

Just no

[nerona13 · 3/10 · 23 July 2022]

This was sooo bad. I have no words. Dull acting, dull movie. I don't know what people are saying but this must have been their first "horror" movie they've seen cause there was not one thing that was scary lol.