52 reviews
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.
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.
- Mikkel-0-934971
- Oct 7, 2012
- Permalink
- Scarecrow-88
- Mar 5, 2011
- Permalink
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.
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.
- paul_haakonsen
- Dec 28, 2011
- Permalink
- I-am-Shellfish
- May 21, 2011
- Permalink
- Billy_Crash
- Aug 8, 2009
- Permalink
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.
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.
- alanmcooley
- Dec 25, 2010
- Permalink
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.
- linda_bras
- Mar 30, 2011
- Permalink
- Shattered_Wake
- Aug 30, 2008
- Permalink
- dunmore_ego
- Aug 10, 2011
- Permalink
- dutchchocolatecake
- Jun 1, 2012
- Permalink
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.
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.
- dilarasdad
- Sep 28, 2008
- Permalink
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).
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).
- johnmcd1234
- Jul 24, 2014
- Permalink
- poolandrews
- Jan 23, 2009
- Permalink
- phenomynouss
- Mar 16, 2018
- Permalink
- nogodnomasters
- Apr 20, 2019
- Permalink
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.
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.
Average horror movie regarding a paranormal investigator who is assessing a house for supernatural activity. Due to the title, you know what happens to her in the end. It is done as a documentary style film, so it almost resembles found footage. The movie is more spooky than scary.
The genre has been done to death and there are many better movies out there about ghost hunters. This one, however, isn't too bad and was a little better than I expected. Parts of it are really creepy.
There are some issues with bad acting here and there and at times the dialog seemed a little silly, but overall it was certainly watchable and generally held my interest. Most of the actors did okay with their roles with the exception of the father. I also had a hard time with the casting of the church girl - I didn't find her believable at all. She did okay with what she was given, but I wish they had cast someone who didn't look so hardened.
Because the writer wants you to believe this is a documentary (it isn't), night vision film is used sporadically - it shows as green and is common in these types of movies. If you have ever seen shows about paranormal investigations, you'll know what I'm talking about. Part of the film also concerns the investigator's journal entries which might run some folk's nerves.
The movie runs at 1:45 so it is longer than most. As other reviewers have said, I think it could have been cut by at least 15 minutes and still told the story it wanted to tell. The back story of what actually happened in the house occurs towards the end of the movie so most of the loose ends are tied.
Finally, this isn't a splatter or CGI film, so if that's your thing, you might want to skip it. Otherwise, its just okay - not great, but not bad.
The genre has been done to death and there are many better movies out there about ghost hunters. This one, however, isn't too bad and was a little better than I expected. Parts of it are really creepy.
There are some issues with bad acting here and there and at times the dialog seemed a little silly, but overall it was certainly watchable and generally held my interest. Most of the actors did okay with their roles with the exception of the father. I also had a hard time with the casting of the church girl - I didn't find her believable at all. She did okay with what she was given, but I wish they had cast someone who didn't look so hardened.
Because the writer wants you to believe this is a documentary (it isn't), night vision film is used sporadically - it shows as green and is common in these types of movies. If you have ever seen shows about paranormal investigations, you'll know what I'm talking about. Part of the film also concerns the investigator's journal entries which might run some folk's nerves.
The movie runs at 1:45 so it is longer than most. As other reviewers have said, I think it could have been cut by at least 15 minutes and still told the story it wanted to tell. The back story of what actually happened in the house occurs towards the end of the movie so most of the loose ends are tied.
Finally, this isn't a splatter or CGI film, so if that's your thing, you might want to skip it. Otherwise, its just okay - not great, but not bad.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- sammyd1020
- Jul 27, 2008
- Permalink
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.
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.