Ghosts of the Ozarks

Can be somewhat o.k. But really nothing special. It lacks personality and feels extremely generic like so much of what is being done these days. Its a very "run of the mill" movie but still can be an o.k. Watch if you're bored and have nothing else to do but there is by far much better stuff to watch out there.

This could have been so much better if classified as 'suspense' and not 'horror' - which it isn't. Expecting a 'horror' genre led us to keep thinking, as we were watching, "When will the horror part start?". It never did.

Excellent acting, good filming, interesting plot. But trying to market this as a horror genre will disappoint many people, and put off an audience who would otherwise enjoy a suspense genre. Hence many negative reviews. Which is a shame for such a well acted film.

To be honest, for Horror movies these days, this one is going to strike many as very slow and uneventful. It is indeed very, very different from the 'Hip' Horror of today. It is a very old fashioned story set after the Civil War. Its strong points are that just as a film in and of itself, it is extremely well made. The acting across the board is very strong. There are many instances where because the characters are so well developed and portrayed, you really become emotionally attached to them and are genuinely moved by what happens to them. In many 'Modern' Horror movies this is rarely the case. So, the primary focus here is on character as opposed to a Slam/Bang story.

The atmosphere and time period are created in a deep, layered, and fully believable way. Another strong point is that right from the beginning an intriguing mystery is suggested as the audience wonders just what exactly is going on. I felt the tone and mood that the filmmakers created was quite effective. First presenting us with the almost Fairytale like village, and then slowly but steadily building an increasing sense of tension as the audience tries to figure out where this is going.

First and foremost, in my very lowly and wretched opinion, I just really appreciate the fact that the film is very well made. With such a slow building story, it is vital to keep all of the elements, the acting, the situations, the pacing just right in order to be successful to build to a good finish, which I honestly feel they do quite effectively.

But, be warned that this is NOT your run-of-the-mill Slash & Dash modern Horror movie. And, if you are looking for ANYTHING that even resembles modern day Horror, you are very likely to be disappointed. BUT... if you truly enjoy quality filmmaking in and of itself, and if you don't mind a very slow burn, low key build to the story, and I guess if you also happen to like the time period which is represented very well here, there is a chance that you might enjoy this very unusual, but well put together film.

***EDIT

After reading Ferguson-6's excellent review above, I just wanted to add that if you would like more details about the characters and such, his review will give you some excellent information about the flavour of the movie. I have a tendency to give more of an overview of how good of a film I thought it was and why, but without giving very many specifics.

So, I would HIGHLY recommend that you also make sure to read Ferguson-6's great review above (he also gave it a '7') 😊

The plot is simple - and one that should work with relative ease. James, a young doctor (Thomas Hobson), is invited to set up his practice in the remote, utopian town of North Fork in the post-Civil War Arkansas Ozarks. This town, of course, is set in their ways. They host their own internal secrets, while fighting off an external supernatural menace. Ghosts of the Ozarks had the potential to be gothic and creepy; low-lying fog and the full moon are every horror fan's friends. The mystery could have been a slow, involved burn with Shyamalan-ian twists. Instead, the movie is hampered with sub-par acting, generic dialogue, and ridiculous Civil War cosplay. Truly, North Fork's ghost wouldn't even have kept the Scooby Gang overly occupied.

If Ghosts of the Ozarks had a style to its production, the amateur acting from its primary cast of Hobson, Perry, and Phil Morris as the town's mayor, could almost be excused. But the movie looks flat and dull. The story is a dud that even Tim Blake Nelson with a cleaver could not cut with any excitement. XYZ Films, the movie's distributor, is known for chancy, genre flicks (Nic Cage's Mandy, anyone?). Ghosts of the Ozarks has a ghost of a chance to entertain even the basest of genre fans.

The people being purely negative about this movie are not being fair. Anyone who has watched it knows that a lot of time, talent, heart, and soul went into it. It isn't by any means a "bad" movie at all, but it is however a really slow burn, and suffers from several scenes that could have been condensed a bit. At over 1:45 minutes, some padding could have been stripped.

The acting is pretty solid across the board, and the overall look and feel is well crafted. The special effects aren't terrible, but aren't groundbreaking either. Aside from the plodding pace at times, the ending is sadly an M. Night Shyamalan style brow-raiser disappointment for me. While I would never call this a film unworthy of a watch, it isn't one I'll be adding to my collection either. It's a great story with a lot of potential, but one that sadly doesn't live all the way up to it.