Ghosts of the Ozarks

I recommend avoiding the reviews as there are a number of selfish ducks who've included a big spoiler without having the courtesy of giving a warning.

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.

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.

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.

A very odd movie indeed. Very low production values, it looks incredibly cheap. Most of the cast would struggle to get work in TV commercials but what on Earth are Tim Blake Nelson and David Arquette doing here? Are they close friends of the director or were they blackmailed into it? Although the acting is wooden, the script stilted, the plot bizzare and the aforementioned negative production values this movie has a strange attraction. I can well see it becoming a cult classic especially among those keen on mind expanding fungus.