Ghosts Don't Exist

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.

This film in my opinion and those that watched with me, unfortunately fails On most levels

Of Basic film making. Story, sound, editing, lighting all need to review the basics again before embarking on any more film projects. The film at best comes across as unbalanced, random and bumpy. We were lost as far as the story goes and the tension is dissolved due to a lack of long, unemotional cuts which dissolve any attempt to build up some sort of thrill or drama. I will at least give credit to the fact that the production seems to have been funded enough to make a film as big as this one based on the endless list if credits that run when it finally ends. I know this might come across as bitter but we did give it a chance and struggled through to the end in hopes of something remotely scary, but in the end it is 2 hours we will never get back.

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.

I have seen some bad films and while this is no where near as bad as some I've seen it gets pretty close. Had it been a TV movie shown on one of those cheap cable movie channels I would have expected no more, but this bigs itself up to be a huge cinematic release and it would take a very successful cinema to show this, because it would have hundreds of empty seats once word got around. The acting is on par with some of the films SyFy pay to get made; the story is a muddle - I don't know if this is because of bad writing, bad editing or bad film making; but it was difficult to follow and parts of it made no sense. It's one of those films that leaves you thinking about specifics and realising that there is no rhyme or reason for it. The shame about it is that given to the right people it might have been a good film, but that would have required cutting away everything apart from the title and the idea that you can have a ghost hunter who is on his last case. I also found the blatant good reviewing by obvious stooges a very underhanded attempt at upping the film's rating. I'm disappointed that tactics like this are used, because they just come back and bite the reviewers' on the a$$. A poor show.

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