Watch Ghosts of Darkness For Free

You won't be disappointed!

The Worst Film Ever

Sick Product of a Sick System

Absolutely Fantastic

When I got the chance to sit down and watch "Ghosts of Darkness", it was without knowing a single thing about the movie. I didn't know what it was about, nor did I know who was starring in the movie. I only knew, well assumed actually, that it was a horror movie based on the DVD cover.The story in "Ghosts of Darkness" was actually quite alright. The movie just suffered from being a low budget movie, you know what I mean here if you actually sit down to watch this movie.The CGI in the movie was rather questionable, but of course that was to be expected from a movie such as this, given the production value and the budget of the movie.The acting performances were good, and the few actors and actresses on the cast list did carry the movie quite well."Ghosts of Darkness" was weighed down by a predictable outcome of the storyline.The house itself was quite interesting and had lots of character, and that was actually one of the best things about the movie.All in all, "Ghosts of Darkness" is hardly worth the time or effort, as there are far, far better horror movies available to pick and choose from.

'Ghosts of Darkness' drew me into seeing it, with a cool and creepy poster, an intriguing idea with a potentially relatable central relationship and as someone with a general appreciation for horror. That it was low-budget, which from frequent personal experience is rarely a good sign due to that there are so many poor ones out there, made me though apprehensive. Actually found 'Ghosts of Darkness' fairly watchable, if not an easy film to rate or review. Had to think long and hard about what my thoughts were and how to articulate them. 'Ghosts of Darkness' is not great, or good, has a fair share of problems (fairly big ones too) and doesn't do enough with its potential, which was hardly small. There are however a number of decent, even good, qualities in 'Ghosts of Darkness', at least it wasn't intelligence insulting or inept (unlike some films seen recently) and the potential is not completely squandered.Lets start with the positives. The scenery is very atmospheric, likewise with the very nice way it's shot. The music is suitably spooky and quirky and doesn't distract at all from the atmosphere, while not exactly enhancing it. Some of the acting is better than average, particularly the breath of fresh air that is Paul Flanery who really livens things up. There are some genuinely scary and suspenseful moments and the atmosphere has creepiness.However, the story does feel over-stretched and some of it feels vague, under-explained. The more 'Ghosts of Darkness' progresses, the duller, more predictable, more senseless and less scary, and too many characters are too sketchy. Other actors don't fare so well, with Michael Koltes being a truly lifeless lead.Dialogue can be stilted while the pace is uneven, dragging in some of the second half. The humour is also variable, parts are funny while others are cheesy and misplaced. Found the supposedly shocking moments not so surprising and the end felt incomplete and not much of a climax. Overall, not bad at all while leaving me a bit lukewarm. 5/10 Bethany Cox

The film opens with the girl being dragged across the floor and not the closing shot. Afterwards Sarah (Morgan Faith Keith) shows her father Mike Johnson (Cameron Mowat) what she thinks of her cereal breakfast. It appears the Richmond Manor has some possession issues. Two polar opposite ghost hunters are called in to give the house a clean bill of health. Jonathan Blazer (Paul Flannery) is old school psychic equipped with candles, salt, and a Ouija board. Jack Donavan (Michael Koltes) is new school with electronic gadgets. He is also a skeptic and believes Blazer to be a phony and doesn't mind saying so. The two are tasked to spend three days in the house, come out and say "nothing happened." Except something does happen.The film starts out with music and events that make you think it is supposed to be a comedy-horror. There are later events to indicate this too, however when the film attempts to take itself seriously, it fails. Perhaps the worst scene in the film was when Jack laments about his dead wife to Blazer. We have already seen what happened in a flashback. Jack speaks very slowly taking Shatneresque dramatic pauses that dragged along giving us information we already know. Just run the clip again! There were scenes that reminded me of "House" (1985) but they didn't pan out as well. Better than most horror films out there with some originality. Paul Flannery gives a good performance with unkempt hair reminding me of a little of Gary Oldman as Sirius Black.Guide: F-word. No sex or nudity.

It still amazes me how people involved in a film can manage to mangle it so bad that it comes off as a joke. Such is the case for "Ghosts of Darkness." I rarely go on about a movie this bad, but I'm going to make an exception here because this movie had potential--the house and its back story. However, given what was put on the screen, you'd never know it.Two paranormal researchers are contacted by a mysterious man who offers them each $50,000 if they can stay in a house with a gruesome history. Jonathan is a medium; Jack is the "I'm-not-going-to- believe-anything-unless-it-bites-me-in-the-ass" dude. If that isn't bad enough, he also has the personality of a fence post. Mystery man takes their cell phones and car keys and tells them they will be locked in for the next 36 hours. They are each given $25,000 up front and told they'll get the remaining $25,000 upon completion of their "project." This is where the film went off track completely, and if you're smart, you'll realize what I'm talking about. For a movie to rely on two people, those people should have some kind of chemistry. That is nowhere to be found. Jonathan acts as though the entire project is a joke. Jack acts as if he's just been hit in the head with a brick. The director couldn't make up his mind if he wanted a comedy or a horror movie and although you can have elements of both in a movie, you need to know how to blend those elements. It also would help if your characters could ACT. It was pretty evident to me the guy cast to play the "tortured soul", a/k/a Jack, couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. The character of Jonathan looked eerily like Gary Oldman's character of Sirius Black (from the Harry Potter movies). Another suggestion is to STOP with this crap of CGI demons. They are not scary and give me an impression you're too lazy to hire real makeup artists. Rated "R" for violence, disturbing images, and language.