Customer Reviews

The Ghosts of Edendale

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(13)

 

 

This is the type of movies I love... unknown realistic scary movies. However this B-ghost movie is not what it is advertised as. But are they ever? Basically it comes down to the fact that this movie could have been so much better had there been a bigger budget and better plot. It got a few creepy moments out of me but thats it. Nothing actually scary. I'd reccommend this a rental only.

I usually save my Amazon reviews for music (and an occasional rant about a great movie), but after seeing all the superlatives thrown at this horrible (not horror) movie, I must try to rectify the situation. This is the lowest budget movie I think I've ever seen attached to a major studio (Warner Bros.). Anybody giving this flick any positive word at all must be attached to the production or a relative of the filmmakers ("The scariest indie horror movie I've ever seen and in many ways stands up to the best in the genre"!!? Tell me this guy isn't the director's brother!). The acting is wooden by all involved....the script is junior copywriter-level writing....and the effects, if you can call them that, are on a par with what I could accomplish with downloaded FX software on my five-year old Compaq Prosignia. And the story, about a guy being possessed by spirits in his house? The Shining.....Amityville Horror....HELLO?! While I will concede that there are some good ideas buried deep within this film, they've been simply unable to escape. And while I was prepared for the look of digital video here, I could not believe how poor this film looked. In the few outdoor scenes, everything is generally OK, but the indoor scenes had all the color drained out of them, and the nighttime scenes were almost unwatchable in their artifacts-laden graininess. Surprising, since the "making-of" feature had better indoor filming, on the same damn sets! Several horror-movie websites have also given this dribble high marks, so I am mystified. But, if you want the look of a movie that your friends made with their Sony 8mm Handycam, then by all means.....

"The Ghosts of Edendale" tells the tale of an East Coast couple, ambitious to make their mark in the movie biz, who rent a run-down house in L.A.'s Echo Park district. The previous occupants left in a great hurry, it seems, although the procession of mildly creepy neighbors who emerge early in the film appear not to have gotten their stories straight on exactly what happened.

We learn also that the house, which is located at the far end of a hilltop cul-de-sac, sits on ranchland once owned by early 1900s cowboy-movie icon Tom Mix, back when Echo Park was known as Edendale. It is within this context that the ghost story begins to unfold.

The filmmakers gradually transform the ambience from sunny to sinister over the course of the movie. For example, the breezes wafting through the hilltop foliage in the opening scenes are palpably soothing and inviting; by the end, the chill of those very same breezes wouldn't feel out of place in an episode of Twin Peaks.

What starts off as an almost Nancy Drew-like mystery thus evolves into a more disquieting tale as the proverbial ghosts of the title make their first fleeting appearances. An even deeper fear sets in as these apparitions grow bolder and nastier -- and as hints emerge that a key character may be possessed by the spirit of Thomas Edwin Mix himself. Although there is only one moment of real terror, involving the discovery of a murder, a nervous gloom settles in for the remainder of the movie and never entirely disappears.

Despite its horror-genre DNA, in its more thoughtful moments "Ghosts" takes some thematic cues from the psychological thriller -- chiefly the mental disintegration of an emotionally unstable and increasingly isolated character. Think "Gaslight", among others. This is a welcome departure in an era of cardboard-cutout protagonists, rapid-fire edits and increasingly over-the-top CGI effects. (Viewers should nonetheless consider themselves warned that their startle reflexes, too, will be tested at times. And it should also be noted that "Ghosts" is not itself effects-free, although the few tricks that are employed have an almost homemade feel to them, based as they are on a clever mashup of those strobey old silent films and the monochromatic video-cowboy wraiths who occasionally stride by or thunder past on their horses, six-shooters blazing.)

The pervasively low-budget feel -- no doubt born of necessity for the indie filmmakers -- is a virtue in this style of cinematic storytelling, and helps give "Ghosts" its spooky charm. Even the haunting soundtrack borrows a cheesy bit or two from the B-movies of a bygone era.

Much of the 151-minute movie has the vibe of an extended Twilight Zone episode, both in the story arc and in the sometimes intentionally wooden acting -- and most especially in the emergence of an underlying moral as the story progresses.

It is in the ending -- which will leave viewers sympathetically tut-tutting with pity over the fate of one major character -- that the film pays its most direct homage to Rod Serling's 1960s-era cult series. As the remaining pieces of the story fall grimly into place in the not-entirely-unpredictable closing scene, we half expect to see Serling himself step in front of the camera, cigarette in hand, and deliver the coda to a tale as much about the morally corrosive effects of blind ambition as it is about supernatural possession.

This movie had its moments. THe theme of the movie was very good but some of its execution needed work. As a B movie goes, I enjoyed watching it and my friends will enjoy borrowing it from me.

3 ½ stars

I had this DVD sitting around for about a year before I got around to starting it. The Amazon reviews weren't exactly good and I was in no rush to watch it (got the DVD for free).

Having been involved in some low budget film-making in New York with director Frank Stamm, I started this film last night (and will probably finish it this weekend) and I wanted to post a review to counter the many negative reviews on Amazon. For a low budget film, it's actually pretty good.

What the film is not: It's not a fast-paced intense horror film, so the box art is a little misleading.

What the film is: It's a low-budget film made with some care. In terms of quality it reminded me of some of the Asian soap operas my wife watches (which are shot in actual rooms rather than on sets): you can see that there wasn't a huge budget, and it runs a little slow, but the quality is decent enough that you can keep watching pretty easily.

Most of the primary actors have some talent. The couple actors who are horribly stiff thankfully have had very small parts in the film. The main character is a woman (Christine Charters?) and the actress who plays her is great. She's a capable actress, she's pretty, and she's seen in some revealing outfits.

I could recommend buying this film used, but more for people who like independent film than horror movie fans. The film is sort of like a low-budget soap opera with horror elements.

This movie is a nice attempt at a serious ghost story. Yes it is low budget but the scares are effective when used. The acting is good throughout. The ending heads almost into Twilight Zone territory. A solid effort and worth checking out.

The Ghosts of Edendale had one weird premise. Ghost producers are coming back to Hollywood to conquer it by possessing young people. Indy movies have the premises you just don't find in traditional movies. They got the two stars for originality.

Special effects? Not so good. Weird ghost kids running around at supernatural speeds, and it looks like the kid was walking, but the special effects people intentionally blurred him and sped him up. And that's the limits of the special effects. At least there wasn't much?

Good job with make up. The dead bodies looked like dead bodies. Insane people wandering the streets looked like they haven't bathed for months. Whoever did that knew what they were doing.

Acting was decent, if not okay. They looked like they had fun.

The drug references were really forced and added nothing to the movie.

It was an okay movie to rent, and maybe to buy just to see what else they could do.

This was a real piece of crap. I could only get thru about 12 minutes of it. The only reason I got it was that my interest was aroused after reading about it Western Clippings.

The movie is ok for being ultra low budget. The acting is low grade to poor...often wooden at times. It's the kind of acting you have to use your imagination with and then it becomes great acting. The plot is slow moving and is paced even slower with the acting.

The only redeeming fact was a few of the ghost scenes were creepy. I liked the little boy staring through the broken fence. That was the creepiest.

The end was confusing. I didn't understand why one of the leads was walking the streets crazed and the other driving a car there as if he had never been there before. I didn't get it, but then, by this point, it really doesn't matter.

Honestly, the DVD cover image is the best thing about this movie. It was shot in the real Edendale area of Los Angeles (now Echo Park/Silver Lake), and the scenery tends to chew up the cast, all of whom are film school quality actors. There are a few decent moments, but most of it is obvious and unthrilling, and like most amateur films it is acted with that sloooooowwww portentousness that makes it look like it was filmed underwater. Don't bother.