House of Ghosts

Look, I appreciate what the filmmaker was trying to do. I'm a huge fan of the classic Castle films. But if you're going to make a movie that's an homage to that style of movie, then at least make it entertaining. It shouldn't be worse - or more boring - than the original. Sure, the Castle films were low budget, but they still had creepy scenes, likable characters, and an actual story. House of Ghosts has none of those. Either write an enjoyable scary script in the vein of Castle or other classic '50s movies, or go full spoof and make it funny like the hilarious Lost Skeleton of Cadavra (2012) did. That way the audience has a reason to watch and recommend it. Otherwise, you're wasting your time and the audience's, because we're not interested in your pet project.

This spoof to the genre is brilliantly bad. My brain was constantly asking me 'why am I watching this?' Yet I could not turn it off. You will laugh at the absence of anything you like about movies and in the end feel a bit confused how it could hold your attention.

With an estimated budget of only $3k, Christopher R. Mihm seems to have a recipe for success. HOUSE OF GHOSTS is my first Mihm experience and I must say I am looking forward to viewing his other films.

Yes, the budget shows. The acting is not very good, but not horrible. The story is nothing special. The setting is very simplistic. The special effects are not very special and are quite comical at times (like the dog on the wall). You would think this film is terrible by my comments thus far, yet I could not stop watching. Like the World's Ugliest Dog Contest, it had a certain charm to it.

I enjoyed the film being shot in black and white. While I already mentioned I was not too high on the acting, I did enjoy Justen Overlander. I think it is because he reminds me of Michael C. Hall (DEXTER, SIX FEET UNDER), who is one of my favorite actors. I think if given the opportunity, Mr. Overlander could act in much bigger budget films or in a TV Series. Granted, this is all I have seen him in, but I have a good feeling I will enjoy his acting in his other films as well.

So while HOUSE OF GHOSTS is obviously an extremely low budget film, and it shows, I could not stop watching it. Christopher R. Mihm appears to be a pretty talented man given the budget he had to work with. Writing, directing, producing and editing? That's a lot of work. Given a bigger budget and some help, I think he could become pretty successful in film making. Not that he is not successful now, because anyone who can get a film made is successful in my eyes (let alone getting 8 done in 8 years). So congratulations Mr. Mihm. I look forward to seeing your other films.

Christopher Mihm's House of Ghosts should have been called Castle of Ghosts as it is a thinly veiled tribute to the Schlockmeister of the fifties and sixties--William Castle. It is intended to be kooky, schlocky, and a bit slow. And it is. If you enjoyed those old fifties and sixties low budget offerings, then you should give this a try.

It takes a few minutes before you realise you are watching a great filmmaker pretending to be a really bad filmmaker, but stick with it and you will find yourself sucked in. The acting starts out over the top exposition heavy and hammy, but gradually shifts until without your having consciously realising it until the really good solid cast have drawn you in and are acting well enough to get jump scares out of almost unbearable tension upon their audience, before dropping back in to complete ham salad for the ending. Utilising actual techniques and camera tricks from the fifties and showing just how effective they and good make up can sell a movie you start to wonder why films today cost hundreds of millions when this director can turn out comparable stuff on a nothing budget of only $3000. I am going to seek out the rest of the films in the Mihmiverse ASAP.