Ghosts Don't Exist

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

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.

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.

As a previous reviewer mentioned the same thing happened. Over the car ride over home, there was quite a bit of discussion of each part dissecting the movie. I suspect there will be a lot of it after you watch the movie. The gentle messages throughout the movie.

The music made it twice as creepy, keeping me on the edge of my seat, expecting something to jump out onto the screen. All the actors played their parts really well. Definitely some scene stealing in the movie, in a good way.

Well done by the GDE cast and crew especially given the time and budget on the movie. Looking forward to more productions from 19th and Wilson.

I like cheap B movies. I like indie films. I enjoy cheesy made for tv movies. The problem with this one was it did not bill itself as a B movie, it did not present itself like an indie film, and it did not embrace the moments of levity that could have upped the tension by contrast.

They.forgot to forget to include a plot.

The story runs like 5 different scriptwriters, with 5 different agendas, all wrote this at the same time.

No character development. No protagonist that the audience can actually buy into; it's one thing to tell a story utilizing an anti-hero as your protagonist, but this was a story utilizing a non-protagonist as the protagonist.

The thing where it gets revealed that each person on the investigative team each has their own unresolved traumas motivating them makes sense to me, but the story suggests they've been working together for years now, and it feels like they should already know this stuff about each other. Character history feels like something the scriptwriters forgot to develop and tossed on the page at the last minute.

The story lines get really tangled and disjointed the deeper into the story you get. And the resolution is cliche and repetitive, no consequences, no growth, no foreshadowing.

This is a special level of awful.