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.

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.

I watched this movie just for David Arquette, the plot seemed interesting as well but sadly I didn't like it. It took me too long to understand what was going on through out the film and that's why I couldn't enjoy it. Even when I finally understood I didn't like what I saw. It was super boring as well and I'm sad it turned out that way for me.

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.

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.