Ghosts of Darkness

The is a UK low budget horror movie so when I say surprisingly good I am referencing the word budget from many angles.

The two relatively unknown actors carry virtually the whole film between them... No mean feat... And they do it very well.

The story isn't bad, the suspense is good, the creepiness is well timed and the scares are well launched.

I would go as far as to say I would watch it again in time and I would certainly recommend to friends.

The paranormal investigators Jack Donavan (Michael Koltes) and Jonathan Blazer (Paul Flannery) receive a mysterious invitation card to go to the notorious Richmond Manor, where several murders have happened along 200 years. A mysterious butler tells that his boss has invited them to stay for three nights at the mansion to get rid of the label of haunted house. In return, they would receive fifty thousand dollars each. Jack is a skeptical man that uses technology to find frauds while Jonathan is a medium. What will they find in the Richmond Manor?

"Ghosts of Darkness" is a flawed low budget haunted house film with many clichés. However with improvements in the storyline and screenplay; a better budget; and replacement of the unconvincing Michael Koltes, this film could work. The result is not good but is not awful at all since Paul Flannery gives some touch of humor to the story. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): Not Available

This is a fairly good B Movie. The characters are interesting and like able. The story line is enjoyable. The only complaint I have is the monster makeup is terrible. Like truly awful. If you can ignore that though you will probably like this movie.

Its a haunted house Movie allright. With 2 characters where it has been way to obvious to make then Total oppositie characters .

Some of the demons are scary , other ones more likely make you laugh.

IT has got Some scary moments, but I never got really drawn into the movie. Its a typical B Movie , but ive soon Manu worse.

'Ghosts of Darkness' drew me into seeing it, with a cool and creepy poster, an intriguing idea with a potentially relatable central relationship and as someone with a general appreciation for horror. That it was low-budget, which from frequent personal experience is rarely a good sign due to that there are so many poor ones out there, made me though apprehensive.

Actually found 'Ghosts of Darkness' fairly watchable, if not an easy film to rate or review. Had to think long and hard about what my thoughts were and how to articulate them. 'Ghosts of Darkness' is not great, or good, has a fair share of problems (fairly big ones too) and doesn't do enough with its potential, which was hardly small. There are however a number of decent, even good, qualities in 'Ghosts of Darkness', at least it wasn't intelligence insulting or inept (unlike some films seen recently) and the potential is not completely squandered.

Lets start with the positives. The scenery is very atmospheric, likewise with the very nice way it's shot. The music is suitably spooky and quirky and doesn't distract at all from the atmosphere, while not exactly enhancing it.

Some of the acting is better than average, particularly the breath of fresh air that is Paul Flanery who really livens things up. There are some genuinely scary and suspenseful moments and the atmosphere has creepiness.

However, the story does feel over-stretched and some of it feels vague, under-explained. The more 'Ghosts of Darkness' progresses, the duller, more predictable, more senseless and less scary, and too many characters are too sketchy. Other actors don't fare so well, with Michael Koltes being a truly lifeless lead.

Dialogue can be stilted while the pace is uneven, dragging in some of the second half. The humour is also variable, parts are funny while others are cheesy and misplaced. Found the supposedly shocking moments not so surprising and the end felt incomplete and not much of a climax.

Overall, not bad at all while leaving me a bit lukewarm. 5/10 Bethany Cox