I have seen some bad films and while this is no where near as bad as some I've seen it gets pretty close. Had it been a TV movie shown on one of those cheap cable movie channels I would have expected no more, but this bigs itself up to be a huge cinematic release and it would take a very successful cinema to show this, because it would have hundreds of empty seats once word got around. The acting is on par with some of the films SyFy pay to get made; the story is a muddle - I don't know if this is because of bad writing, bad editing or bad film making; but it was difficult to follow and parts of it made no sense. It's one of those films that leaves you thinking about specifics and realising that there is no rhyme or reason for it. The shame about it is that given to the right people it might have been a good film, but that would have required cutting away everything apart from the title and the idea that you can have a ghost hunter who is on his last case. I also found the blatant good reviewing by obvious stooges a very underhanded attempt at upping the film's rating. I'm disappointed that tactics like this are used, because they just come back and bite the reviewers' on the a$$. A poor show.
15 Reviews
GDE. Or do they?....Hmmmm.
Someguysomwhere30 January 2011
Meet the Principals
Brett Wilson: Chief ghost hunter. Not, in my view, a likable lead; has a serious "cold spot" inside him. The movie shows him to be disloyal, selfish, and ruthless; and I would guess also "egotistical" though this trait is more subtle. Well there's no rule that says you must like the lead character in every film. As long as there are interesting doings, f!!ck them!
Jennifer Hughes: A team member. Brunette built like a Olive Oyl who has been having an affair with our chief GH. Seems a little too needy and dependent on him to me. Does well in the field as long as there is no possibility of running into any real ghosts. Otherwise, she often looks like she's about to pee her pants. Needs to grow up.
David Sherman: Ghost debunker. Main adversary of our chief GH. Doesn't seem to be as passionate or proactive as his counterpart; hovers in the background with a laid back cynical style (no doubt aided by his handy bottle of schnapps). He seems tired, though; possibly of having to prove over again and again that there are no such things as ghosts. --Or possibly, tired of not finding any real evidence yet.
Ritchie Lyons: A team member. The class clown, I guess. Though he never said much that was amusing. One of those with issues (old man was an alcoholic). So jovial and smiling on the outside but an unhappy kid on the inside. That aside, he functions normally enough setting up equipment and helping to monitoring this or that.
This movie is a Ghost Horror-Mystery. Since the mystery part is whether or not there are any actual ghosts, the mystery is also whether or not this is really a horror movie. A ghost hunter with a TV series, still haunted by his wife's death and plagued by guilt, decides to take one last crack at it before he quits. This he does partly under duress (fear of being sued over his contractual agreement) and partly because the man who called him to investigate this last case, a Mr. Travis Gardner, seemed like he might be genuine; had information about his wife that was not commonly known.
Originally, the ghost hunting team included Wilson's wife, Wilson, and the 2 listed above. So there were 4. And now there are 3. This last case was out in the country some place. It's a long drive, but the 3 (Wilson, Jennifer, and Richie), eventually get there. The house itself is nothing spectacular but it has a spectacular history. Seems it was once a funeral home and the undertaker at the time managed to convince people that their dear departed were "lonely" on the other side and "needed them". Well how do you solve this problem? You kill yourself, of course, so you can join them. So mass suicides occurred. What is one to think, dear reader? That the funeral director was very charismatic and persuasive? --Or that the people who listened to him were seriously stupid?
Anyway, as soon as the team get's to Travis Gardner's place for this last venture, David Sherman shows up (the debunking guy). The team, of course, is not pleased to see him. He explains apologetically that he too was invited. They basically said "The hell with it!" and go into the house on the bidding of a sickly-looking Travis Gardner. Inside, Gardner sits there, his plump grey bearded face perspiry and an old woman's shawl about his shoulders. His demeanor is odd (get acting lessons,dude); he's staring off into space somewhere (possibly looking for acting tips); won't answer direct questions directly (maybe he forgot his lines). The GH team and the debunker were getting ready to leave when the old bastard did something extraordinary that got their complete attention.
I thought this movie was an interesting mystery despite the very bad acting of one cast member and the unlikeable lead character. I'm a big horror fan so the best mystery is a ghost or horror mystery. So, are there really ghosts in this place, or not. We are treated to sounds, sightings, phenomenon that evidence --what? The GH team and the Debunker would like to know. By this time they've got all their ghost hunting equipment set up and are tracking readings on portable radios of some kind. So lastly (Praise the lord! Boloxxxi is about to shut the hell up!), not a bad mystery and I liked the way everyone's personal issue (guilt, hate, fear, regret, etc) tied into and was used by the ghost "idea" of the film. I give this a strong 5*s. Love, Boloxxxi.
Brett Wilson: Chief ghost hunter. Not, in my view, a likable lead; has a serious "cold spot" inside him. The movie shows him to be disloyal, selfish, and ruthless; and I would guess also "egotistical" though this trait is more subtle. Well there's no rule that says you must like the lead character in every film. As long as there are interesting doings, f!!ck them!
Jennifer Hughes: A team member. Brunette built like a Olive Oyl who has been having an affair with our chief GH. Seems a little too needy and dependent on him to me. Does well in the field as long as there is no possibility of running into any real ghosts. Otherwise, she often looks like she's about to pee her pants. Needs to grow up.
David Sherman: Ghost debunker. Main adversary of our chief GH. Doesn't seem to be as passionate or proactive as his counterpart; hovers in the background with a laid back cynical style (no doubt aided by his handy bottle of schnapps). He seems tired, though; possibly of having to prove over again and again that there are no such things as ghosts. --Or possibly, tired of not finding any real evidence yet.
Ritchie Lyons: A team member. The class clown, I guess. Though he never said much that was amusing. One of those with issues (old man was an alcoholic). So jovial and smiling on the outside but an unhappy kid on the inside. That aside, he functions normally enough setting up equipment and helping to monitoring this or that.
This movie is a Ghost Horror-Mystery. Since the mystery part is whether or not there are any actual ghosts, the mystery is also whether or not this is really a horror movie. A ghost hunter with a TV series, still haunted by his wife's death and plagued by guilt, decides to take one last crack at it before he quits. This he does partly under duress (fear of being sued over his contractual agreement) and partly because the man who called him to investigate this last case, a Mr. Travis Gardner, seemed like he might be genuine; had information about his wife that was not commonly known.
Originally, the ghost hunting team included Wilson's wife, Wilson, and the 2 listed above. So there were 4. And now there are 3. This last case was out in the country some place. It's a long drive, but the 3 (Wilson, Jennifer, and Richie), eventually get there. The house itself is nothing spectacular but it has a spectacular history. Seems it was once a funeral home and the undertaker at the time managed to convince people that their dear departed were "lonely" on the other side and "needed them". Well how do you solve this problem? You kill yourself, of course, so you can join them. So mass suicides occurred. What is one to think, dear reader? That the funeral director was very charismatic and persuasive? --Or that the people who listened to him were seriously stupid?
Anyway, as soon as the team get's to Travis Gardner's place for this last venture, David Sherman shows up (the debunking guy). The team, of course, is not pleased to see him. He explains apologetically that he too was invited. They basically said "The hell with it!" and go into the house on the bidding of a sickly-looking Travis Gardner. Inside, Gardner sits there, his plump grey bearded face perspiry and an old woman's shawl about his shoulders. His demeanor is odd (get acting lessons,dude); he's staring off into space somewhere (possibly looking for acting tips); won't answer direct questions directly (maybe he forgot his lines). The GH team and the debunker were getting ready to leave when the old bastard did something extraordinary that got their complete attention.
I thought this movie was an interesting mystery despite the very bad acting of one cast member and the unlikeable lead character. I'm a big horror fan so the best mystery is a ghost or horror mystery. So, are there really ghosts in this place, or not. We are treated to sounds, sightings, phenomenon that evidence --what? The GH team and the Debunker would like to know. By this time they've got all their ghost hunting equipment set up and are tracking readings on portable radios of some kind. So lastly (Praise the lord! Boloxxxi is about to shut the hell up!), not a bad mystery and I liked the way everyone's personal issue (guilt, hate, fear, regret, etc) tied into and was used by the ghost "idea" of the film. I give this a strong 5*s. Love, Boloxxxi.
Not bad for its budget
peteranderson97517 July 2011
Brett Wilson (Phillip Roebuck), a TV ghost hunter, is persuaded by his father to do one last programme before retiring to wallow in grief after the tragic loss of his pregnant wife some months before. A man called Travis Garner (Joe Hansard) calls him and begs for help in investigating the ghost of Wilson's wife Nicole. What finally convinces him to investigate further are some intimate details of his wife that Garner reveals to Wilson.
Wilson sets off with his cameraman Ritchie (Frederick Cowie) and his assistant Jen (Devon Marie Burt). When they arrive at the house they meet another investigator David Sherman (Josh Davidson) that Garner has also called. Sherman is a professional sceptic who has made a career out of debunking paranormal investigators. He is an arrogant dick and a drunk and nobody likes him.
In Garner's house Garner tries to tell them about the ghost of Nicole but he is confused and fails to convince them. They go to leave and Garner pulls out a gun. Wilson is still going to leave when Garner gives him message from Nicole then puts the gun into his own mouth and blows his brains out.
The message is secret code that Wilson and Nicole had agreed on it and convinces Wilson to stay and investigate. More than that he shoots the tyres of their cars to stop the others leaving too. They set up their equipment and start to investigate while Sherman snarks at their gullibility, rolling his eyes as they bring out EMF meters and start hearing voices in static interference from the computer speakers.
They all start hearing voices and seeing fleeting glimpses of other people. It becomes obvious that there really is something dangerous in the house, a slow silent killer.
This film is better than I thought it was going to be. I have seen films with sceptics included just so they could prove the arrogant dick is wrong and for most of the film it certainly looks like this was going down that road but they don't.
I can't say it is an exciting film to watch but it is interesting enough. The budget is low so there's a small cast and almost no special effects.
Rating 6/10
Wilson sets off with his cameraman Ritchie (Frederick Cowie) and his assistant Jen (Devon Marie Burt). When they arrive at the house they meet another investigator David Sherman (Josh Davidson) that Garner has also called. Sherman is a professional sceptic who has made a career out of debunking paranormal investigators. He is an arrogant dick and a drunk and nobody likes him.
In Garner's house Garner tries to tell them about the ghost of Nicole but he is confused and fails to convince them. They go to leave and Garner pulls out a gun. Wilson is still going to leave when Garner gives him message from Nicole then puts the gun into his own mouth and blows his brains out.
The message is secret code that Wilson and Nicole had agreed on it and convinces Wilson to stay and investigate. More than that he shoots the tyres of their cars to stop the others leaving too. They set up their equipment and start to investigate while Sherman snarks at their gullibility, rolling his eyes as they bring out EMF meters and start hearing voices in static interference from the computer speakers.
They all start hearing voices and seeing fleeting glimpses of other people. It becomes obvious that there really is something dangerous in the house, a slow silent killer.
This film is better than I thought it was going to be. I have seen films with sceptics included just so they could prove the arrogant dick is wrong and for most of the film it certainly looks like this was going down that road but they don't.
I can't say it is an exciting film to watch but it is interesting enough. The budget is low so there's a small cast and almost no special effects.
Rating 6/10
The Only Thing Scary Was The Acting
brotherorto18 December 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This is a classic B movie, except most B movies are more entertaining. I was prepared for a really cool scary movie. However, it was disappointing from beginning to end. The acting was forced the entire time, very stilted with some corny lines. It was very unnatural. One person would say their line, pause, another person would continue on. The house scenes were really bad. I know if I'm getting sick while in a stranger's home, first thing I'm doing is getting out. Instead, the actors linger on in the house and needlessly stretch out the movie. I was slowly getting sick with them, but it was because the movie kept going on and on, just like the ending. It dragged on, and on. I really didn't see any scary parts to the show. If you have a slow evening with nothing to do and you can rent this movie for $1, then do it. You'll be glad you didn't pay more.
Dreadful
dermotmoconnor30 January 2011
Look: if you're going to make a low budget movie:
1. Snappy dialog/script. None here. 2. Lighting: lighting is your friend. Either there was too much, or too little. The one minute long scene in the basement with total blackness was suspense-less. 3. Show, don't tell. Scenes where characters were huddled over a monitor. "Ooh, look at that!" Care to share with the audience. 4. Pacing. PACING!!!!! EDIT YOUR FOOTAGE! 5. Ever heard of blocking scenes? 6. Clearly, one of the characters in the movie is the HOUSE - like in The Shining, or the Amityville horror. So, why not go to some effort and find a house that has a sinister aspect? Gothic Revival, dilapidated late 19th/early 20thc - instead of what looks like an average home with vinyl siding! 7. Motivation: something other than "they've all lost people in their past and have ISSUES". Ugh. 8. At least ONE likable character? Someone for the audience to identify with? They're called "protagonists". The lead was not likable. 9. Close-ups are your friend. 10. Dialog that serves no purpose? Cut it. Silence is scarier than stupid dialog. What did Beckett say? "Every word is like an unnecessary stain on silence and nothingness."
Anyway, save yourself a ruined evening, and avoid this film. Try the original "The Haunting" from 1963 if you want to see how this is REALLY done.
1. Snappy dialog/script. None here. 2. Lighting: lighting is your friend. Either there was too much, or too little. The one minute long scene in the basement with total blackness was suspense-less. 3. Show, don't tell. Scenes where characters were huddled over a monitor. "Ooh, look at that!" Care to share with the audience. 4. Pacing. PACING!!!!! EDIT YOUR FOOTAGE! 5. Ever heard of blocking scenes? 6. Clearly, one of the characters in the movie is the HOUSE - like in The Shining, or the Amityville horror. So, why not go to some effort and find a house that has a sinister aspect? Gothic Revival, dilapidated late 19th/early 20thc - instead of what looks like an average home with vinyl siding! 7. Motivation: something other than "they've all lost people in their past and have ISSUES". Ugh. 8. At least ONE likable character? Someone for the audience to identify with? They're called "protagonists". The lead was not likable. 9. Close-ups are your friend. 10. Dialog that serves no purpose? Cut it. Silence is scarier than stupid dialog. What did Beckett say? "Every word is like an unnecessary stain on silence and nothingness."
Anyway, save yourself a ruined evening, and avoid this film. Try the original "The Haunting" from 1963 if you want to see how this is REALLY done.
Boring, just boring.
faceboy2178 September 2010
I just watched the movie, and it was just boring. The acting was bad. There wasn't anything scary about the movie. I really really like movies that this is trying to be but it fails. The acting was some of the worse. It makes no sense. I had to rewind scenes and watch them again and still it made no sense.
The editing was VERY choppy. The movie seemed to just drag on and on. It took what could have been a really great concept and dropped the ball very early on.
By the end I was only enjoying the movie to make fun of, in between yelling at the movie about how stupid the characters were acting.
The editing was VERY choppy. The movie seemed to just drag on and on. It took what could have been a really great concept and dropped the ball very early on.
By the end I was only enjoying the movie to make fun of, in between yelling at the movie about how stupid the characters were acting.
Ugh...
soulman1015-14-14185129 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
OK, basically, I can sum it up for you like this..
Lifetime quality "horror" music; worse than a lifetime movie "acting" - which was mixed with a badly put together ghost "hunting" show that you would see on cable. I say acting in quotes as I can tell you that now, I would rather watch another Lifetime movie about "that girl," than watch this. I have seen bad movies in my time, but I have to say, I think that this even isn't worth putting on any network channel.
I go with Plot, Char development, and cinematography.
Plot was terrible. Another story of person A loses loved one, now going nuts trying to get them back, while person's B, C, D etc, think he's a lunatic, meanwhile persons B, C, and D all have issues... not to mention that only two of them are really only discussed, and then there is the crazy one, who doesn't live long due to "unfortunate" causes... blah blah. And someone please tell me where the heck this house is, that it takes almost 1/3rd of the movie for a police car to reach the house - from a station that's supposed to cover it... it went from the middle of the night (when they left) to daytime - not even morning but daytime.
Errors noticed: Bagging a woman who is still breathing for starters. One guy apparently suffering from CO poisoning for a long time. The stuff doesn't work it's way out, it's in the bloodstream unless treated. Ambulance shows up, and about 15 medics/techs pour out of it, no other vehicle is shown. An AED never would have brought back someone with Carbon Monoxide poisoning... not a chance - even with movie standards.
Character development took much too long, and the movie dragged throughout. No sense of suspense. No sense of eerieness or sense of anticipation even. Too many unanswered questions, and then again, way too many answered questions too early in the movie. You know what to expect from the characters before it was even shown.
Cinematography was either a horribly failed attempt at suspenseful or eerie, or the directors version of a joke on film. Lighting throughout the movie was too much or too little, and you cannot - under any circumstances - black out in a room without showing more of the room than just two guys staring at a camera. Don't show a close up of someone, when we know that they are taken care of by another character for literally 1:30 minutes. That's a lifetime when bad acting is involved.
Honestly, this would have done much better with a more thought out..., well, everything.
Lifetime quality "horror" music; worse than a lifetime movie "acting" - which was mixed with a badly put together ghost "hunting" show that you would see on cable. I say acting in quotes as I can tell you that now, I would rather watch another Lifetime movie about "that girl," than watch this. I have seen bad movies in my time, but I have to say, I think that this even isn't worth putting on any network channel.
I go with Plot, Char development, and cinematography.
Plot was terrible. Another story of person A loses loved one, now going nuts trying to get them back, while person's B, C, D etc, think he's a lunatic, meanwhile persons B, C, and D all have issues... not to mention that only two of them are really only discussed, and then there is the crazy one, who doesn't live long due to "unfortunate" causes... blah blah. And someone please tell me where the heck this house is, that it takes almost 1/3rd of the movie for a police car to reach the house - from a station that's supposed to cover it... it went from the middle of the night (when they left) to daytime - not even morning but daytime.
Errors noticed: Bagging a woman who is still breathing for starters. One guy apparently suffering from CO poisoning for a long time. The stuff doesn't work it's way out, it's in the bloodstream unless treated. Ambulance shows up, and about 15 medics/techs pour out of it, no other vehicle is shown. An AED never would have brought back someone with Carbon Monoxide poisoning... not a chance - even with movie standards.
Character development took much too long, and the movie dragged throughout. No sense of suspense. No sense of eerieness or sense of anticipation even. Too many unanswered questions, and then again, way too many answered questions too early in the movie. You know what to expect from the characters before it was even shown.
Cinematography was either a horribly failed attempt at suspenseful or eerie, or the directors version of a joke on film. Lighting throughout the movie was too much or too little, and you cannot - under any circumstances - black out in a room without showing more of the room than just two guys staring at a camera. Don't show a close up of someone, when we know that they are taken care of by another character for literally 1:30 minutes. That's a lifetime when bad acting is involved.
Honestly, this would have done much better with a more thought out..., well, everything.
An excellent, original Film by 19w
atbdesigns20 January 2010
I just got back from the preview of this film and what struck me as interesting is that the during whole ride home, a good 45 minute trip, I did nothing but discuss the movie with my wife. And as I sit down to write this, she mentions how she is worried about having nightmares - a very good sign as far as Horror/Suspense films go.
I had high expectations for this movie. I understood the level of effort, skill, and collaboration that was involved and was pretty sure it would turn out to be a decent flick. Therefore, I was pleasantly surprised that Ghosts Don't Exist actually exceeded my expectations in many ways.
The level of production quality is evident throughout the film and all of the elements in GDE are very well-executed, thanks to a talented cast and crew. The cinematography and musical score really stood out as exceptional, and worked perfectly to emphasize the overall mood. But, in my opinion, what defines GDE is in the original storyline and how well it is both directed and portrayed by the actors.
There are some very tense and unnerving moments throughout the movie, but GDE doesn't rely on shock tactics to scare you. The film is definitely creepy, but in a tasteful way. At the same time, it's still a horror flick at heart, and has just enough violence and blood to do the trick. I would consider GDE to be a perfect balance of elements for this genre.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit and thought it was a huge achievement by 19th and Wilson, as well as an incredible collaborative effort by everyone involved.
I had high expectations for this movie. I understood the level of effort, skill, and collaboration that was involved and was pretty sure it would turn out to be a decent flick. Therefore, I was pleasantly surprised that Ghosts Don't Exist actually exceeded my expectations in many ways.
The level of production quality is evident throughout the film and all of the elements in GDE are very well-executed, thanks to a talented cast and crew. The cinematography and musical score really stood out as exceptional, and worked perfectly to emphasize the overall mood. But, in my opinion, what defines GDE is in the original storyline and how well it is both directed and portrayed by the actors.
There are some very tense and unnerving moments throughout the movie, but GDE doesn't rely on shock tactics to scare you. The film is definitely creepy, but in a tasteful way. At the same time, it's still a horror flick at heart, and has just enough violence and blood to do the trick. I would consider GDE to be a perfect balance of elements for this genre.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit and thought it was a huge achievement by 19th and Wilson, as well as an incredible collaborative effort by everyone involved.
Has to be a joke!
ravenfaust7 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
So i thought this movie would be good, it started out okay, but as the movie progressed you were left thinking is this a joke? It made me feel as if the director wanted to make ghost hunters look like fools. The basic story was a team of ghost hunters go to see a man , who shoots himself in front of them, claiming to give them what they wanted.. A ghost hunt, come to find out the house has a Carbon Monoxide leak which makes the team go crazy and try to kill one another..End of story horrible film in my opinion , it left you with the thought of this can't be a true film, it has to be a mockumenty for real ghosthunters.. awful just plain awful!
Good for it's budget
plodsie5 February 2011
It's always good to watch a film that might interest you, whether it's the cover of the video or the theme that caught your attention. What is not good is to guess in your mind how good the actual film will be. This is where some Genres fall by the wayside in their descriptions of films. I really didn't think this was a horror film at all. I think too many people simply guess that when a film deals with death - or even "life" after it, then there should be some good bits of gore/horrible death along the way. It isn't always like that in films that make you want to think about it's actual context.
The film deals with both sides of the believer and skeptic coin, and the coin keeps spinning in your mind as you watch the story unfold. In a way it is suspense only in where you feel your own beliefs lie and if what you were watching made you consider those beliefs - or even lose interest altogether.
There are very few films that actually deal with this topic and the approach to bringing something that is now becoming more popular should be welcomed.
The film deals with both sides of the believer and skeptic coin, and the coin keeps spinning in your mind as you watch the story unfold. In a way it is suspense only in where you feel your own beliefs lie and if what you were watching made you consider those beliefs - or even lose interest altogether.
There are very few films that actually deal with this topic and the approach to bringing something that is now becoming more popular should be welcomed.
Not that bad
moviecriticlaguna838 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I was expecting this to be awful after reading some of the reviews. I finally got the movie from Netflix and I was surprised. I had low expectations but I also understand it was a low budget. Acting is hit or miss but the story is what kept me watching. It could've been scarier but there were some creepy moments. I enjoyed the twist, but other than that, it was not as bad as I thought it was going to be.
I had to rewind some parts to understand what the significance was of some parts. The suicides in the home from the funeral owner weren't really explained in the end. It's one of those movies that doesn't tie everything up nicely but rather leaves you asking more questions, which sometimes can be intriguing.
I had to rewind some parts to understand what the significance was of some parts. The suicides in the home from the funeral owner weren't really explained in the end. It's one of those movies that doesn't tie everything up nicely but rather leaves you asking more questions, which sometimes can be intriguing.
Bad
coppernight7220 April 2011
This film in my opinion and those that watched with me, unfortunately fails On most levels
Of Basic film making. Story, sound, editing, lighting all need to review the basics again before embarking on any more film projects. The film at best comes across as unbalanced, random and bumpy. We were lost as far as the story goes and the tension is dissolved due to a lack of long, unemotional cuts which dissolve any attempt to build up some sort of thrill or drama. I will at least give credit to the fact that the production seems to have been funded enough to make a film as big as this one based on the endless list if credits that run when it finally ends. I know this might come across as bitter but we did give it a chance and struggled through to the end in hopes of something remotely scary, but in the end it is 2 hours we will never get back.
Of Basic film making. Story, sound, editing, lighting all need to review the basics again before embarking on any more film projects. The film at best comes across as unbalanced, random and bumpy. We were lost as far as the story goes and the tension is dissolved due to a lack of long, unemotional cuts which dissolve any attempt to build up some sort of thrill or drama. I will at least give credit to the fact that the production seems to have been funded enough to make a film as big as this one based on the endless list if credits that run when it finally ends. I know this might come across as bitter but we did give it a chance and struggled through to the end in hopes of something remotely scary, but in the end it is 2 hours we will never get back.
Good skeptical thriller
foxyglamarchist15 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Very good film. The popularity of ghost hunting shows has spawned a number of bloody treatments that frankly have been good fun. I initially thought it was going to be of the ghost hunting show finds real ghosts and the ghosts kill them genre. The End. Instead I was treated to a pretty skeptical treatment of the whole phenomena of haunting and ghosts. It's a nice change of pace from the usual fare and the film does a nice job of showing that pseudoscience kills. When watching something like Ghost Hunters or Paranormal State the EVP sessions always drive me up a wall because all I hear is static. I enjoyed the fact that all the EVP's they do in the film are just static or a hallucination of some kind. The best part of those shows is credulous people hanging out in the dark, in a reportedly haunted house, who then proceed to scare the crap out of each other. The film does a great job capturing that aspect of ghost hunting. If you like yelling "That's not an orb it's a moth!" at the TV you will like this movie. Ignore the bit of Woo at the end.
Unbiased Reviews
whatdiga7 February 2011
First of all, seeing as how I am one of the producers on the film, I am not going to bore you with my completely biased view of this fantastic film. I will however let you know that it was selected into the DC Independent Film Festival and won the Local Filmmaker Award. It was also selected into the Eerie Horror Film Festival, where it was up for best picture and best actor. And also an official selection for The Chicago Filipino American Film Festival.
Second, I am going to give you the names of several critics so that you can see for yourself what people are saying. (I would give you links, but IMDb won't allow that in a review)
28 Days Later Analysis The Liberal Dead John Of The Dead 411-Manis DVD Talk DVD Verdict
Lastly, If that still doesn't help, go to youTube and search for "Ghosts Don't Exist" to see a great scene from the film (again, I would give you link, but IMDb won't allow that in a review)
Thank you for your time, Aaron Goodmiller
Second, I am going to give you the names of several critics so that you can see for yourself what people are saying. (I would give you links, but IMDb won't allow that in a review)
28 Days Later Analysis The Liberal Dead John Of The Dead 411-Manis DVD Talk DVD Verdict
Lastly, If that still doesn't help, go to youTube and search for "Ghosts Don't Exist" to see a great scene from the film (again, I would give you link, but IMDb won't allow that in a review)
Thank you for your time, Aaron Goodmiller
Creepy
Jim23727 January 2010
As a previous reviewer mentioned the same thing happened. Over the car ride over home, there was quite a bit of discussion of each part dissecting the movie. I suspect there will be a lot of it after you watch the movie. The gentle messages throughout the movie.
The music made it twice as creepy, keeping me on the edge of my seat, expecting something to jump out onto the screen. All the actors played their parts really well. Definitely some scene stealing in the movie, in a good way.
Well done by the GDE cast and crew especially given the time and budget on the movie. Looking forward to more productions from 19th and Wilson.
The music made it twice as creepy, keeping me on the edge of my seat, expecting something to jump out onto the screen. All the actors played their parts really well. Definitely some scene stealing in the movie, in a good way.
Well done by the GDE cast and crew especially given the time and budget on the movie. Looking forward to more productions from 19th and Wilson.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
