Brainsbell
The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.
Kaydan Christian
A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.
Guillelmina
The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.
jgraziano2
Crummy music,horrible acting and bad directing align themselves in a way that I could never have imagined to be possible. Scenes where a simple shot of two persons speaking to each other were clumsily "over- directed" by quick cutting back and forth between the two to the point where I was getting dizzy. What's even more pathetic is that even the makeup sucked in this movie. The ghost makeup made the actor appear as a demented version of a dude from Blue Man Group. The Elizabeth Dean character had so much blush applied in some scenes that you could swear the she had just been involved in a bitch- slapping session.Anyone who thinks this is even SOMEWHAT remotely watchable needs their head examined. This effort is so lame and unprofessional I was actually chuckling from the very beginning. I enjoy low budget pics but this stoops to an all-time low in cinema. Pure excrement. Only to be viewed with a trusty can of Lysol, yes, it stinks that bad.
Justin West
Why anyone would be at all willing to defend this piece of tripe is beyond me. Is that a rude statement, designed to evoke a defensive response in people with poor taste in films - or no taste at all? No. It is, quite simply, the statement of a fact: I do not understand why anyone would enjoy this film.I've no idea what the film was shot on, but the video quality is equivalent to that of 1.5 hours worth of America's Funniest Home Videos. The music was god-awful, repetitive and annoying. Who would actually LISTEN to this stuff? And, the acting. Here is where this pile truly shines. Every line seems forced and awkward, read or poorly memorized instead of being acted. Any casting director who worked on this film would be forced into suicide after viewing it, so I can agree with another poster who took the opinion that these actors are the director's friends, or friends of friends.What about the story? Well... what about it? There's really nothing to talk about here. Only the first 20 minutes or so of the film have anything at all to do with ghosts or "ghost watching." After that it's all exposition involving characters we know nothing about due to extremely poor characterization. Then again, I guess good characterization isn't really possible when the film is acted by people who would merely call that a "big word," and not attempt to understand its meaning.Do not waste your time with this piece of dreck. The music, story, filming, acting, lighting, sound... it's all absolutely terrible. $4 for a rental was, quite simply, the worst $4 I have ever spent.J
oktobeimperfect
i enjoyed the movie, i thought it was fun, entertaining and interesting. what bothers me about all these flamingly mean reviews is that these people seem to forget that this is a FIRST MOVIE FOR MOST OF THESE PEOPLE! David cross, his actors and crew did a great job and show a whole lot of potential even if they didn't get it ALL perfect first time around. I don't know ANYONE who ever got everything right on their first try. show me any of these vehement haters that did, and i will take their criticism. until then, enjoy this movie for what it is, a fun, low budget, horror movie! Keep an eye out for the sequel, and best of luck to all who worked on this film!
pmaidan
Having seen pretty much ever horror movie ever made I can safely say I have seen it all. And I can also state quite confidently that the scariest movies were made in the between the 60's and 80's (Exorcist, Amityville Horror, Rosemary''s Baby, Carrie, Psycho, Texas Chainsaw, Evil Dead.... just to name a few), and the crap that came out after that was mostly crap (Friday the 13th, Halloween, Candy Man, The Others, and your average slasher thrill-kill flicks...). Recently, the only good horror movies I've seen were Stigmata, Ju-on, and the Ring. Ghostwatcher reminds me of a low budget film from the 80's called Witchboard. Same type of cinematography, music, acting and style. Witcboard scared me then, and Ghostwatcher scared me now. It's the possession thing. Hard to pull off, but when it's done right it's scary as hell. David Cross, the director, must have seen Witchboard and liked it too. Ghostwatcher made my girlfriend scream out loud and it made me want to shut my eyes a few times too. The LAST thing this movie needs is a big budget, because it's better off the way it is. It is genuinely eerie and believable in a way most other flicks are not. The haunting scenes are blood-curdling and it has some excellent originality which I have not seen used before. Although I would have thought this movie was made in the 80's, that is not a bad thing - because most good movies were, so cudos to Cross for capturing a mood that is so hard to find in modern day horror. And cudos to the nearly yall female cast as well for pulling off horror with a blend of amusement and coolness as well. I loved it. Anyone who puts this movie down obviously has no fear of hauntings, and should stick to the slasher flicks, which don't scare me at all. But if hauntings scare you, then see this movie. And keep the lights down low. Definitely a good ride.
