Ghosts of Darkness

I wasnt expecting much from this but it was surprisingly good for a low budget movie.

Firstly it isnt a horror its a horror comedy.

I have always loved Ardgour house where it was filmed and my favourite Scottish Ghost Story movie LORD OF TEARS was also filmed there - If you havent seen it then do so; its a uniquely Scottish chilling ghost story harkening back to the days of Agatha Christie and reminiscent of a James Herbert novel like Ghosts Of Sleath. I dunno whether it was because this film was also filmed at the same location but it also had that old style feel to it which added to my enjoyment.

I thought the two main characters performed well although Paul Flannery stole the show for me , his acting was excellent and he was one of those guys who are naturally funny and looked more like Johnny Depp than Johnny Depp does himself these days.

This was quite an interesting film with gore akin to higher budget movies; a cross between the Evil Dead and House On Haunted Hill with laughs.

Very different and quite funny - It wont split your sides with laughter and it wont scare the pants off you but it will make you smile and the Scottish setting was as always very impressive - The location itself is always up for rental so if you fancy a spooky Scottish getaway I can highly recommend Ardgour house - take this along with you and watch it in the house as we did with both movies and you might just meet the real ghosts!

Ghosts Of Darkness is a fun film to watch, don't expect anything innovative, it's a paint by the numbers horror that has a few scares. The two leads are very good and have a bit of on screen chemistry despite their characters differences.

It's best watched with a couple of glasses of wine and some popcorn. It's fun, not too violent and the story moves along pretty smoothly. It stayed away from being another found footage movie, not that I have anything against found footage movies, it's just their there are so many at the moment. It told a good story and even though the acting was at times stilted, it still did the job.

Don't expect too much, just settle back and enjoy.

'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

Firstly the positives: the poster, awesome. Very Army of Darkness feel. Secondly: Paul Flannery - delivery was great, just a hint of light-heartedness & gravitas. Thirdly: cinematography was good - not enough dark or shadows but generally OK. . Sadly that's where the positives stop. . Unfortunately Michael Koltes was flat & delivery was ordinary. His timing & tone need work. His facial expression was just as flat. There was a lot of "Dean Winchester" style about the character without the bluster, fun or aggression. . The story was fairly typical of this type of movie & had potential to be a fun/action movie. . Certainly not the best movie nor the worst.

I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. As far as small budget movies go, this was one of the better ones. Of course there are issues and the acting seems a bit off, but the script makes some sense at least until we get near the end. The sounds are balanced enough, there's no awesome visual effects but what there is is well enough done and doesn't look dirt cheap.

The worst thing about the movie is the ending. It gets a bit, well silly and felt a little rushed. But apart from that, the movie was entertaining and there were some comedic elements that actually weren't all that bad. The jumpscares were made with good taste and without supersonic booms that break your ears.