Ghosts Don't Exist

I just got back from the preview of this film and what struck me as interesting is that the during whole ride home, a good 45 minute trip, I did nothing but discuss the movie with my wife. And as I sit down to write this, she mentions how she is worried about having nightmares - a very good sign as far as Horror/Suspense films go.

I had high expectations for this movie. I understood the level of effort, skill, and collaboration that was involved and was pretty sure it would turn out to be a decent flick. Therefore, I was pleasantly surprised that Ghosts Don't Exist actually exceeded my expectations in many ways.

The level of production quality is evident throughout the film and all of the elements in GDE are very well-executed, thanks to a talented cast and crew. The cinematography and musical score really stood out as exceptional, and worked perfectly to emphasize the overall mood. But, in my opinion, what defines GDE is in the original storyline and how well it is both directed and portrayed by the actors.

There are some very tense and unnerving moments throughout the movie, but GDE doesn't rely on shock tactics to scare you. The film is definitely creepy, but in a tasteful way. At the same time, it's still a horror flick at heart, and has just enough violence and blood to do the trick. I would consider GDE to be a perfect balance of elements for this genre.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit and thought it was a huge achievement by 19th and Wilson, as well as an incredible collaborative effort by everyone involved.

Look: if you're going to make a low budget movie:

1. Snappy dialog/script. None here. 2. Lighting: lighting is your friend. Either there was too much, or too little. The one minute long scene in the basement with total blackness was suspense-less. 3. Show, don't tell. Scenes where characters were huddled over a monitor. "Ooh, look at that!" Care to share with the audience. 4. Pacing. PACING!!!!! EDIT YOUR FOOTAGE! 5. Ever heard of blocking scenes? 6. Clearly, one of the characters in the movie is the HOUSE - like in The Shining, or the Amityville horror. So, why not go to some effort and find a house that has a sinister aspect? Gothic Revival, dilapidated late 19th/early 20thc - instead of what looks like an average home with vinyl siding! 7. Motivation: something other than "they've all lost people in their past and have ISSUES". Ugh. 8. At least ONE likable character? Someone for the audience to identify with? They're called "protagonists". The lead was not likable. 9. Close-ups are your friend. 10. Dialog that serves no purpose? Cut it. Silence is scarier than stupid dialog. What did Beckett say? "Every word is like an unnecessary stain on silence and nothingness."

Anyway, save yourself a ruined evening, and avoid this film. Try the original "The Haunting" from 1963 if you want to see how this is REALLY done.

It's always good to watch a film that might interest you, whether it's the cover of the video or the theme that caught your attention. What is not good is to guess in your mind how good the actual film will be. This is where some Genres fall by the wayside in their descriptions of films. I really didn't think this was a horror film at all. I think too many people simply guess that when a film deals with death - or even "life" after it, then there should be some good bits of gore/horrible death along the way. It isn't always like that in films that make you want to think about it's actual context.

The film deals with both sides of the believer and skeptic coin, and the coin keeps spinning in your mind as you watch the story unfold. In a way it is suspense only in where you feel your own beliefs lie and if what you were watching made you consider those beliefs - or even lose interest altogether.

There are very few films that actually deal with this topic and the approach to bringing something that is now becoming more popular should be welcomed.

Meet the Principals

Brett Wilson: Chief ghost hunter. Not, in my view, a likable lead; has a serious "cold spot" inside him. The movie shows him to be disloyal, selfish, and ruthless; and I would guess also "egotistical" though this trait is more subtle. Well there's no rule that says you must like the lead character in every film. As long as there are interesting doings, f!!ck them!

Jennifer Hughes: A team member. Brunette built like a Olive Oyl who has been having an affair with our chief GH. Seems a little too needy and dependent on him to me. Does well in the field as long as there is no possibility of running into any real ghosts. Otherwise, she often looks like she's about to pee her pants. Needs to grow up.

David Sherman: Ghost debunker. Main adversary of our chief GH. Doesn't seem to be as passionate or proactive as his counterpart; hovers in the background with a laid back cynical style (no doubt aided by his handy bottle of schnapps). He seems tired, though; possibly of having to prove over again and again that there are no such things as ghosts. --Or possibly, tired of not finding any real evidence yet.

Ritchie Lyons: A team member. The class clown, I guess. Though he never said much that was amusing. One of those with issues (old man was an alcoholic). So jovial and smiling on the outside but an unhappy kid on the inside. That aside, he functions normally enough setting up equipment and helping to monitoring this or that.

This movie is a Ghost Horror-Mystery. Since the mystery part is whether or not there are any actual ghosts, the mystery is also whether or not this is really a horror movie. A ghost hunter with a TV series, still haunted by his wife's death and plagued by guilt, decides to take one last crack at it before he quits. This he does partly under duress (fear of being sued over his contractual agreement) and partly because the man who called him to investigate this last case, a Mr. Travis Gardner, seemed like he might be genuine; had information about his wife that was not commonly known.

Originally, the ghost hunting team included Wilson's wife, Wilson, and the 2 listed above. So there were 4. And now there are 3. This last case was out in the country some place. It's a long drive, but the 3 (Wilson, Jennifer, and Richie), eventually get there. The house itself is nothing spectacular but it has a spectacular history. Seems it was once a funeral home and the undertaker at the time managed to convince people that their dear departed were "lonely" on the other side and "needed them". Well how do you solve this problem? You kill yourself, of course, so you can join them. So mass suicides occurred. What is one to think, dear reader? That the funeral director was very charismatic and persuasive? --Or that the people who listened to him were seriously stupid?

Anyway, as soon as the team get's to Travis Gardner's place for this last venture, David Sherman shows up (the debunking guy). The team, of course, is not pleased to see him. He explains apologetically that he too was invited. They basically said "The hell with it!" and go into the house on the bidding of a sickly-looking Travis Gardner. Inside, Gardner sits there, his plump grey bearded face perspiry and an old woman's shawl about his shoulders. His demeanor is odd (get acting lessons,dude); he's staring off into space somewhere (possibly looking for acting tips); won't answer direct questions directly (maybe he forgot his lines). The GH team and the debunker were getting ready to leave when the old bastard did something extraordinary that got their complete attention.

I thought this movie was an interesting mystery despite the very bad acting of one cast member and the unlikeable lead character. I'm a big horror fan so the best mystery is a ghost or horror mystery. So, are there really ghosts in this place, or not. We are treated to sounds, sightings, phenomenon that evidence --what? The GH team and the Debunker would like to know. By this time they've got all their ghost hunting equipment set up and are tracking readings on portable radios of some kind. So lastly (Praise the lord! Boloxxxi is about to shut the hell up!), not a bad mystery and I liked the way everyone's personal issue (guilt, hate, fear, regret, etc) tied into and was used by the ghost "idea" of the film. I give this a strong 5*s. Love, Boloxxxi.

Brett Wilson (Phillip Roebuck), a TV ghost hunter, is persuaded by his father to do one last programme before retiring to wallow in grief after the tragic loss of his pregnant wife some months before. A man called Travis Garner (Joe Hansard) calls him and begs for help in investigating the ghost of Wilson's wife Nicole. What finally convinces him to investigate further are some intimate details of his wife that Garner reveals to Wilson.

Wilson sets off with his cameraman Ritchie (Frederick Cowie) and his assistant Jen (Devon Marie Burt). When they arrive at the house they meet another investigator David Sherman (Josh Davidson) that Garner has also called. Sherman is a professional sceptic who has made a career out of debunking paranormal investigators. He is an arrogant dick and a drunk and nobody likes him.

In Garner's house Garner tries to tell them about the ghost of Nicole but he is confused and fails to convince them. They go to leave and Garner pulls out a gun. Wilson is still going to leave when Garner gives him message from Nicole then puts the gun into his own mouth and blows his brains out.

The message is secret code that Wilson and Nicole had agreed on it and convinces Wilson to stay and investigate. More than that he shoots the tyres of their cars to stop the others leaving too. They set up their equipment and start to investigate while Sherman snarks at their gullibility, rolling his eyes as they bring out EMF meters and start hearing voices in static interference from the computer speakers.

They all start hearing voices and seeing fleeting glimpses of other people. It becomes obvious that there really is something dangerous in the house, a slow silent killer.

This film is better than I thought it was going to be. I have seen films with sceptics included just so they could prove the arrogant dick is wrong and for most of the film it certainly looks like this was going down that road but they don't.

I can't say it is an exciting film to watch but it is interesting enough. The budget is low so there's a small cast and almost no special effects.

Rating 6/10