The Poltergeist of Borley Forest (2013) User Reviews

You Will Love Me: Confusing mess

[Platypuschow · 2/10 · 4 February 2019]

You Will Love Me, otherwise known as The Poltergeist of Borley Forest is a messy awful excuse for a horror made even more complicated by the fact it's also known as American Poltergeist 2. Why is that complicated you ask? How about the fact that American Poltergeist came out in 2015, 2 years after this!

A messy uber low budget haunting tale that tells the story of a girl who gets targeted by a malevolent spirit after visiting some infamously haunted woods for a party.

Basically everything that happens from opening credits to closing you'll have seen before. The film doesn't have a single original moment, which wouldn't be so bad if they'd actually done a good job in crafting the movie.

Mostly lifeless and boring it's made worse by just how poorly put together it is. Shoddy editing, random audio spikes and a highly uninspired script make this a chore to watch.

I could rant but I'll resist the urge, there isn't much to say about a movie as unoriginal and shoddily made as this.

The Good:

Competent enough young cast

The Bad:

Dreadful sfx

Unforgivably bad sound balancing

Plain boring

I know Netflix's Horror selection is pathetic, but watch something else. Trust me.

[nitzanhavoc · 2/10 · 16 January 2019]

As I find myself unable to figure out where or how to begin, I'll start off by saying that this just might be the first time a Horror film receives a fair rating on IMDB (as usually, for some reason, people who dislike Horror think giving it bad reviews says something positive or flattering about them). This film is downright terrible, with perhaps four scenes that are not boring, badly written/acted/directed and worthy of screen time.

Of course, most people have only come across this atrocity due to Netflix, where it's called "American Poltergeist 2" (despite having been released two years prior to the less than overwhelming American Poltergeist, so I have no idea how this even works). And of course, there's no ignoring the fact that it doesn't take more than a two minute "research" to realize that whatever "entity" the antagonist is - it's not a poltergeist.

The camera trembles too much. The acting is childish. The "twist" is so forced it's sad. But the first prize by far goes to the audio quality in like half the film. No, there is nothing wrong with your sound card, speakers, television set or whatever. The director has actually had the audacity to release this film in its current quality level (or lack thereof). I don't even think the overall product would have passed a freshman year cinema course, so even implying this is a film that belongs on a paid streaming service is an affront to basic intelligence. Whoever was responsible for putting this on Netflix should know that he single handedly cost them at least half a star of reputation.

No this is not worth watching

[shieldfire · 2/10 · 2 April 2017]

Some review here said it was. No it's not.

I was looking for a silly B-movie horror flick to pass the time before dinner. I brought out Netflix and and 15 mins fast forwarded a bit. For the first 15 mins nothing of note happened. Apart from clichés, bad acting, bad filming and more bad acting. And clichés. Unfortunately nothing more seems to be happening apart from the above and bad plot logic (like 4 guys sitting in a room when things go *BUMP* somewhere in a supposedly empty house without anyone actually reacting to this).

I've given it a "2" out of kindness and because there are worse wastes of time out there. Possibly not many, but they do exist. Avoid!

Unwatchable... GOD AWFUL!!!

[aloysius_predato · 1/10 · 25 November 2015]

Don't pay attention to any review that paints this catastrophe on film in a positive light... these were mostly likely written by one of the morons involved in its production. It boasts horrid acting, horrid cinematography, and horrid writing with barely any creativity. The best part of this... I won't even call it a film... fodder-ridden, straw-stuffed horse **nt is the title sequence, which kept me in the movie for five minutes before the pervert in me found the FFWD button to see if this $#!t fest had any redeeming value in the form of nudity... big surprise there... NONE! *yawn* The acting is laughable as is the contrived nature of the story, but not enough to warrant you or anyone on earth watching it. Your time is more valuable than that even if mine isn't... trust me on this if on nothing else. God, we should just outlaw low budget horror distribution and work on getting every horror film from the 80's digitally remastered and redistributed... I've had enough of crap like "The Poltergeist of Borley Forest" sitting on shelves in the fleeting number rental shops in America. Do they even know what a poltergeist is? It's evident through the movie that they do not. Did they figure they covered their tracks by having the ghost throw Paige's ridiculous paintings all over the room and randomly rearrange flowers? I'm sure that d-bag professor who turns into a cartoon just before he's dismembered comes up with some half-cocked explanation in that scene I watched on >> x8. Stupidity begets stupidity, and I suppose I am proof of this.

A who cares, slow, plodding nodfest.

[bernardlcrawford · 1/10 · 4 June 2015]

A cast of character that one could not identify with nor care about. I think there is a plot here that could make fifteen minute short perhaps. Let us elongate that pain into almost two unbearable hours and one attempting to view said film could find themselves at their stove attempting to boil their own head.

This constant preoccupation with one frame? Digital video runs 25 frames per second so a 1 frame anomaly would not be noticed. Plus cleaning up 1 frame that has an artifact for complete clarity would be impossible. I am a digital editor as a living.

It is amazing that everyone these days can be in movies and NOT everyone is an actor. Just do not watch it unless you need a catalyst to put you to sleep.

Just walk away...

[ravenhair702 · 1/10 · 11 October 2015]

I gave this movie a 1 only because there is NO 0. Couldn't even finish watching this movie....halfway through my wife just got off the couch and said "I can't take anymore." She was right, of course...I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt, but the bad acting, the low budget locations...it's a true wonder how this piece of trash got the green light in the first place. When I rented it out of the Red box, it said new...but when I looked it up on IMDb, it said the movie was made in 2013. What gives? Was this movie so hot back in 2013 that it just couldn't be released until now?! Lets also discuss the 3.7 rating it got....WOW. Generous IMDb. All in all...I lost a whopping $1.60 to watch half of this awful...AWFUL movie. Please take my advice and just walk away. So not worth it.

Even for a micro budget film... Please don't waste your time.

[hillkc · 1/10 · 2 October 2015]

Now this movie isn't the worst horror film I have ever seen. Quality of the shots are great. However whoever filmed this needs to learn two things. Personal space and correct angles. Im not a professional by any means but every shot is literally in the actors face! Camera man back the hell up. The story drags on and there is absolutely terrible acting from most of the actors. especially the main girl in the film. Their speaking is dry and very regulated or unnatural. The camera is tilted more often than not and the low angles do the film no justice. The parents are idiots. I assume whoever wrote this couldn't find any real reason for them to act as they do. On top of that the only thing you really see most of the way through the film that partially indicates it is even a poltergeist is the camera's flickering. The ghost actually straight up attacks the girls in their bed. Dry and a horrible attempt to make something unique out of a great genre. You failed. Im sorry. Save yourself the time. I was utterly disappointed as I love supernatural films.

AV Disaster

[fonsanders · 1/10 · 1 April 2019]

I honestly can't tell you if the acting and script is any good cause I just can't get past the fact that the audio and camera work is just so bad. It feels like a high school production all the way through. To be fair, if it is in fact a high school production, it's fairly well done. But damn. An unmoving shot without any pans or zooms does not have to be so shaky.... and even with basic, cheap microphones it should be possible to make a more even and better sound mix.

Terrible

[tonyaarrasmith · 1/10 · 15 July 2018]

This movie was terrible. The acting and the plot is awful. It's worse than a "B" movie.

Like A Pileup On the Autobahn

[durango-06354 · 1/10 · 15 April 2017]

I muscled through the first 30 minutes thinking it would pick up steam and maybe get better, but after a while I found myself watching it simply because I couldn't believe something so awful made it onto Netflix! I ended up sitting there and trying not to laugh while the actors poorly delivered lines, overacted and ended up being reminiscent of a low budget family-owned business commercial. Even the levels in the sound were all over the place from one scene to the next which left me raising and lowering the volume quite often. The only time I would ever recommend showing this film would be for a videography class. What Not To Do 101.

Old School Horror

[mihangelnc · 10/10 · 25 August 2021]

I like the original title better, more true to a uniquely great film. Very much in the tradition of Night Of The Living Dead, The Hills Have Eyes, I Spit On Your Grave, films shot with the gritty reality of a home movie. The film drew me in and just kept getting better. And the ending rocks.

worth watching

[kayloar · 7/10 · 5 June 2015]

Usually these days "microbudget horror" means "found footage mockumentary" such as "Paranormal Activity" and "Blair Witch Project" and all of their dozens of copycats. So it is somewhat refreshing to see "The Poltergeist of Borley Forest" filmmakers try something different with no budget, even if it does end up being largely the same as many Hollywood supernatural horror productions.

In fact, its distributor Image Entertainment neatly nestled the home video release of this movie between the theatrical releases of two films from franchises it was trying to emulate: the "Poltergeist" remake and "Insidious 3." It's no "Insidious 1" but about the only difference between it and the lame new "Poltergeist" is 35 million dollars, which means Image got a bargain and Fox got screwed.

"The Poltergeist of Borley Forest" is more of a mystery film than anything else. High-schooler Paige Pritchard (first time actress Marina Petrano, who could be Lindsay Lohan's twin) accidentally releases a trapped supernatural entity while partying in the woods. The entity shows its gratitude by following her home to the suburbs and stalking her. Like in most movies of this nature, it takes her a while to realize what's happening, maybe a little too long and drawn out in this case. After it finally attacks one of her friends in the creepiest scene in the movie, she and her other friends start investigating, leading them to some eccentric characters such as an off-the-wall unbelieving parapsychology professor played deliciously by Jason Beck and a suspicious spinster who sends them back into the woods to uncover more clues. As usual, just as soon as they think they've figured it all out, the ghost shows up to mangle their theories.

As most of the cast are a long ways from SAG cards, the acting is hit-or-miss, but who goes into a horror film expecting Laurence Olivier and Meryl Streep? Petrano is charismatic and most of her young co- stars have potential, particularly Chris Ingle as Paige's brother, veteran actor Nicholas Barrera as her living romantic interest and the OTHER Rebecca Hall as one of her best friends, while modelesque Weston Adwell and Rhea Rossiter bring the eye candy as another close friend and her sister-in-law, respectively. Most of the adults like Paige's parents (Lisa Nunez, Chris Cook) show up for a minute then disappear, but not usually in a supernatural way.

The main issue I see from a production point-of-view is that these guys were overly ambitious. The cast is large, the movie was shot all over Tampa (not exactly the world's scariest place) and it apparently took them a lot of production time by indie standards. So despite director-cinematographer-editor Stephen McKendree's best efforts, there are far too many areas of sloppiness, and screenwriter R. Presley Stephens' dialogue, although somewhat entertaining, is much too dense for a horror film and often cannot be handled by the largely inexperienced cast. Sometimes it's like watching a community theater put on Shakespeare, if Shakespeare had ever written lines like "This library smells like a morgue" or "You WILL love me" (the movie's original title before Image sensed a piggyback marketing strategy). The tension is also come-and-go, which in the second half is not a good thing. The impressive flashback opening chase scene is the most intense of the movie. It's not so much downhill after that as just inconsistent.

But the story is interesting despite not being particularly original (the ending twist is solid), and the film has moments of cinematic cleverness, particularly McKendree's eye-catching camera work. The first shot of the party scene is more gorgeous than it has any business being, seemingly belonging in a Victorian Age romance instead of a modern day teen horror film. Most importantly, several of the scattered scare scenes actually work, even with microbudget visual effects. But the way Image is marketing the film, it's mostly reaching an audience that's not patient enough to wait for them. If you want a non-stop gorefest and half-naked girls, this film is not for you (which is not to say the actresses aren't attractive; they just don't get naked). But it's been in a number of festivals and won some awards, so it does appeal to a non- hardcore horror segment of the population.

On the behind-the-scenes documentary, the "Borley Forest" team outright admits they were trying to make a "The Ring"-type film, and it also has plenty in common with "The Grudge," "The Unborn," "The Eye," and all the other "The"-titled PG-13 teen-targeted ghost flicks since the heyday of "The Sixth Sense" and "The Others" 15 year ago. And by what has to be a coincidence, it follows almost the exact same structure as this year's indie horror hit "It Follows," which is not coincidentally referenced on the back of the DVD cover. "Poltergeist of Borley Forest" tries really hard to be those films, but it proves that it's nearly impossible to accomplish that on such a small budget. But if you like those films, it's worth at least a rental to see these guys try to do so. I give them an A for effort but C for execution.

I agree with him this is a stink bomb

[kylesellars-33776 · 1/10 · 7 November 2016]

I'm borrowing your review because i agree with it i'm just putting some touches on it Here we are with yet another paranormal themed, straight to DVD horror film, this time presented with "The Poltergeist of Borley Forest" a mirco - budget, highly independent film finally to DVD ..

Before I say anything, I don't look / judge a horror film for it's budget, some low budget films have proved to be amazing, or perhaps effective. Sadly, this one her wasn't as effective as I hoped it to be. The plot / story of this film was clichéd. We've seen this millions of times, a wretched past comes back to haunt the present, sending said characters to confront in. This film just executes said clichéd plot once more, disappointing in a way. It also throws clichéd characters in the situation, of course, of which won't be spoiled. The execution of the clichéd plot, in this film wasn't the best either. Once again, we've seen it millions of times before, the execution could be new - like, and unique, or just flat. This, sadly was flat, adding another to the other films of which already passed the cliché. In conclusion, there's truly nothing special of the plot. It's been seen in numerous amounts of other horror films, this film, just adding to those.

Now, as said before, the characters were just thrown into this clichéd situation. Dose that mean the said characters acting was bad? No. Although the characters here are clichéd / slightly clichéd, I was pleasantly surprised by they're acting execution. For such a low budget in the film, the acting could of been much, much worse as seen in other micro - budget films. But pleasantly, this film proves other wise, execution great, solid actors. Also, for such clichéd characters, they had a good run for they're characters in the film, caring for the characters they stood for, and, as said before, solidly execution they're lines with great sympathy of which lead to a pleasant little experience. Like said before, the acting could of been horrible. But once again, in this film, it wasn't, and stood out quite well! Finally, for the cinematography, CGI [ There's some in the film ], and other studio work. This went 50 / 50 - like in my book. It can go either way, depending on who's watching it, and what they entirely expect as a horror fan. I personally have my up's and down's. While the cinematography was great, for such a low budget film, it was flawed. In specific scenes, the camera was placed in odd spots, of which the audience had a hard time of seeing where / what was going to happen. It also had times where it was being flung around, going all directions as if this was a found footage film, giving the audience a disorienting - like feel, and, or look. The CGI decision, of having barely any, in my opinion was fine. As I keep saying over, and over, for such a LOW budget, there's not much that can be done. The CGI / what it was used for was eh. Of course, it wasn't that great, but for the purpose; what it stood for was just fine. The audio, though, needs to be talked about. It's clichéd; period. Many of the audio throughout the film have been heard in multiple amounts of other films, and even horror themed video games. Half of them have been heard millions of times, distracting the audience of which knows where it's from. But either way. It held grip, and was what it was.

In conclusion. This film wasn't the best. BUT. It wasn't drop dead horrible like other micro - budget films. But on the other hand, the core of the movie, of which holds it all together fell flat, and was highly, highly clichéd. It also had budget flaws, ranging from camera work, to CGI. But never the less, the acting just barely saved it all, giving the audience some up rising confidence in the film succeeding. But in the end, this film fell flat, dragging on, and becoming quite boring; overall. It was solid.. but clichéd. Not TOTALLY worth buying on DVD or BLU-RAY or online for that matter. This is a stink bomb 1 STAR RATING

Not what i was looking for

[blahblahblahblahblahbaby · 1/10 · 7 December 2016]

Not what I was looking for, didn't satisfy the horror part more like a horror movie that just makes you laugh. Will never get that's hour and 43 minutes back. I'm an easy scare and this didn't make me jump. Didn't make a whole lot of sense with the sound effects to people's actions the camera views were weird and didn't help at all. And the acting was like they were trying to convince themselves along with the audience that it was scary. Very predictable movie with a very bland plot. lighting was bad it was either to dark or to bright. Make up was horrible some had to much like it was caked on by a child and some had to little so they blended in with the background. A dog licking you is more entertaining than this movie.

It was just so bad

[cazza_leroy · 1/10 · 22 January 2017]

I feel bad saying this but the acting was so horrible that I wasn't even sure if it was just bad writing or if the actors just wanted the movie to made fun of. I have never written a review before but i felt it was my duty as a lover of bad horror movies to warn all others. I feel offended that this movie was even made let alone released for public viewing. Its a crime against humanity. Watch it if you want but i'm warning you it doesn't even fall into the "its so bad that its good" category, I feel like creators have stolen my time then slapped me in the face. I wish there was a redeeming feature to the film but there is not.

Awful Even for a Netflix Horror Movie

[joduff-42362 · 1/10 · 17 June 2017]

Horror movies on Netflix are generally awful. But this one is especially awful. The acting is horrible, across the board, starting with the lead. Why are any of these people trying to act? Who told them "Hey it would be a good idea for you to be in a movie?" Bad advice.

I fully understand that horror movies on Netflix are bad, but I want people to keep making them, so I usually don't write critical reviews, but the people who made this piece of garbage should just stop making movies. In fact, they should stop watching movies.

Quite honestly the worst "professional" movie I've ever seen

[cander49-976-23391 · 1/10 · 28 October 2019]

Horrible acting, horrible filming, horrible audio quality, horrible pacing, horrible story, horrible editing and effects, lots of inconsistencies. I'm unsure how something like this gets released. I literally just made this account to give this 1/10. There's absolutely nothing redeeming about it.

You can see the extension cords

[bmarcham · 1/10 · 2 October 2019]

Extension cords from the set are everywhere. I'm the background of most scenes.

During the cliche "The car won't start!" scene, the car makes no noise whatsoever.

The audio sounds like it's underwater.

I could do better special effects on my 7-year-old tablet and MS Paint.

You never see the supposed "artifact", whatever it is.

Plot makes no sense whatsoever.

For some reason all the parents all are overbearing or borderline abusive.

There's absolutely NO conflict resolved.

I love garbage movies, but godDAMN this was bad.

The case of the boring stalker ghost

[Woodyanders · 2/10 · 8 January 2020]

Teenager Paige Pritchard (foxy redhead Marina Petrano) and her friends find themselves being stalked and terrorized by an angry unrestful spirit after Paige desecrates the place in the woods where the ghost dude died.

Boy, does this steaming pile of celluloid excrement strike out something terrible in every possible way: The dull and uninvolving story plods along at a painfully lethargic pace, the slack (non)direction fails to generate any essential tension or creepy atmosphere, the cinematography looks smeary and washed-out, the flat acting from the lame no-name cast adds further abject insult to already appalling injury, the chintzy (markedly less than) special effects appear to have been done on a budget of about fifty cents, and there's even a groan-inducing "it ain't over yet!" surprise ending that leaves the door wide open for a sequel which thankfully never got made. To sum up, watching this hideously tedious clunker is about as fun and exciting as seeing mold grow on old rotten wood for an hour and forty minutes straight.

Like an amateur high-school film project

[max-74078 · 1/10 · 28 August 2018]

Terrible acting, poor special effects, unflattering angles and lighting, film and audio quality that would be more appropriate in an 80's movie, overuse of cliches, and extreme use of royalty-free stock music...it's like a group of teenagers who have no idea what they're doing got together to make an amateur horror-film project for high school and it somehow made its way to the public's viewing even though it really shouldn't have.

Nothing more needs to be said.

The Best

[samosborne-56422 · 10/10 · 25 May 2019]

This movie is the absolute best. One of the most unintentionally funny movies ever made. Please watch this I'm begging you. If you wanna join the fan club please let me know

Highly flawed, despite it's micro-budget.

[InDyingArms · 4/10 · 7 June 2015]

Here we are with yet another paranormal themed, straight to DVD horror film, this time presented with "The Poltergeist of Borley Forest" a mirco - budget, highly independent film finally to DVD ..

Before I say anything, I don't look / judge a horror film for it's budget, some low budget films have proved to be amazing, or perhaps effective. Sadly, this one her wasn't as effective as I hoped it to be. The plot / story of this film was clichéd. We've seen this millions of times, a wretched past comes back to haunt the present, sending said characters to confront in. This film just executes said clichéd plot once more, disappointing in a way. It also throws clichéd characters in the situation, of course, of which won't be spoiled. The execution of the clichéd plot, in this film wasn't the best either. Once again, we've seen it millions of times before, the execution could be new - like, and unique, or just flat. This, sadly was flat, adding another to the other films of which already passed the cliché. In conclusion, there's truly nothing special of the plot. It's been seen in numerous amounts of other horror films, this film, just adding to those.

Now, as said before, the characters were just thrown into this clichéd situation. Dose that mean the said characters acting was bad? No. Although the characters here are clichéd / slightly clichéd, I was pleasantly surprised by they're acting execution. For such a low budget in the film, the acting could of been much, much worse as seen in other micro - budget films. But pleasantly, this film proves other wise, execution great, solid actors. Also, for such clichéd characters, they had a good run for they're characters in the film, caring for the characters they stood for, and, as said before, solidly execution they're lines with great sympathy of which lead to a pleasant little experience. Like said before, the acting could of been horrible. But once again, in this film, it wasn't, and stood out quite well! Finally, for the cinematography, CGI [ There's some in the film ], and other studio work. This went 50 / 50 - like in my book. It can go either way, depending on who's watching it, and what they entirely expect as a horror fan. I personally have my up's and down's. While the cinematography was great, for such a low budget film, it was flawed. In specific scenes, the camera was placed in odd spots, of which the audience had a hard time of seeing where / what was going to happen. It also had times where it was being flung around, going all directions as if this was a found footage film, giving the audience a disorienting - like feel, and, or look. The CGI decision, of having barely any, in my opinion was fine. As I keep saying over, and over, for such a LOW budget, there's not much that can be done. The CGI / what it was used for was eh. Of course, it wasn't that great, but for the purpose; what it stood for was just fine. The audio, though, needs to be talked about. It's clichéd; period. Many of the audio throughout the film have been heard in multiple amounts of other films, and even horror themed video games. Half of them have been heard millions of times, distracting the audience of which knows where it's from. But either way. It held grip, and was what it was.

In conclusion. This film wasn't the best. BUT. It wasn't drop dead horrible like other micro - budget films. But on the other hand, the core of the movie, of which holds it all together fell flat, and was highly, highly clichéd. It also had budget flaws, ranging from camera work, to CGI. But never the less, the acting just barely saved it all, giving the audience some up rising confidence in the film succeeding. But in the end, this film fell flat, dragging on, and becoming quite boring; overall. It was solid.. but clichéd. Not TOTALLY worth buying on DVD.

No....Don't watch !!

[sofaki56 · 2/10 · 22 July 2018]

It could be really good but all the effects..All the acting ...This is not a 2013 movie..Maybe in the 70s it could be scary..

SUSAN!

[b32792-149-180754 · 2/10 · 2 June 2019]

Only watch this movie if you want to watch a comically bad movie. This movie is fantastic in that sense.

Horrible movie,a waste of time!

[xrainbowmessxmsp · 1/10 · 9 February 2018]

I gave it a one star. It was bad. Not bad...HORRIBLE! I mean,it could've been worse,but this is probably the worst movie on Netflix i ever watched!

Let's talk about the acting first...Really,really bad. I couldn't help myself but laugh at the horrible acting. What the hell were they thinking? That was slightly bad!

There's this thing that really annoyed me,the camera man. He was too close to the actors and i could barely focus and what's happening. It was also a bit shaky.

I recognized that the audios were from a lot of other movies and games... I think one was from Kevin MacLeod!

A lot of parts didn't make sense,especially this one: When their car didn't want to turn on,they slept in the car,woke up,then went to the woods,blah blah blah,not important. The car wasn't 'working',but the next day they normally left? How? The car was not turning on! I'm not a car expert,but i'm pretty sure that when your car won't turn on,it can't just randomly be able to turn on again after a day.

That part when Paige's brother 'killed' the ghost...How though? I never knew it's possible to kill ghosts...I know this is a movie,but still! I've never saw someone kill a ghost in a movie before,i watched hundreds of horror movies and i never saw that someone killed a ghost,so that part confused me a little.

The movie was too long,i don't even know why i kept watching it,thought something interesting would happen or thought it would get better,nope. Not at all.

The special effects in the movie were really bad,like it was made with a really bad video editor.

There's a lot more stupid nonsense stuff that happened in the movie,but i think if you didn't watch the movie,you understand that it's really bad.

DO NOT WATCH IT! As i said,a waste of time!