Death of a Ghost Hunter

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.