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.

Death of a Ghost Hunter is not a good movie. I would consider myself a horror film fanatic. With that said I've seen hundreds of horrible films from this genre and maybe a few dozen genuinely good ones. While I wouldn't classify this as relatively bad with regards to the genre it was also not good either.

The special effects were actually pretty good for a B movie. The plot was decent, if almost shamefully predictable. The acting on the other hand was just horrible. Disregard anyone else's opinion on this movie who thinks that the acting was anything better than dismal. With average acting this movie may have earned a rating of 5. As it is it's lucky to get a 3.

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.

Average horror movie regarding a paranormal investigator who is assessing a house for supernatural activity. Due to the title, you know what happens to her in the end. It is done as a documentary style film, so it almost resembles found footage. The movie is more spooky than scary.

The genre has been done to death and there are many better movies out there about ghost hunters. This one, however, isn't too bad and was a little better than I expected. Parts of it are really creepy.

There are some issues with bad acting here and there and at times the dialog seemed a little silly, but overall it was certainly watchable and generally held my interest. Most of the actors did okay with their roles with the exception of the father. I also had a hard time with the casting of the church girl - I didn't find her believable at all. She did okay with what she was given, but I wish they had cast someone who didn't look so hardened.

Because the writer wants you to believe this is a documentary (it isn't), night vision film is used sporadically - it shows as green and is common in these types of movies. If you have ever seen shows about paranormal investigations, you'll know what I'm talking about. Part of the film also concerns the investigator's journal entries which might run some folk's nerves.

The movie runs at 1:45 so it is longer than most. As other reviewers have said, I think it could have been cut by at least 15 minutes and still told the story it wanted to tell. The back story of what actually happened in the house occurs towards the end of the movie so most of the loose ends are tied.

Finally, this isn't a splatter or CGI film, so if that's your thing, you might want to skip it. Otherwise, its just okay - not great, but not bad.

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.