source: Death of a Ghost Hunter

All I have to say is "What the heck kind of acting was that?" I liked the story itself, but I completely agree with all the other people about the acting. I could see that if the acting was better it would have been a great movie. There were times were I was a little scared. But seriously I had to watch the movie at 2 in the morning alone to be scared. Basically because of the acting. I kept thinking to myself "they are awful" I hope someone remakes this movie. I could be great. I cant believe they couldn't find better actors. Sheesh so disappointed. I wonder if I am being harsh or maybe just haven't watched enough movies but I just cant get over the acting.

Death of a Ghost Hunter starts on October 17th 2002 as paranormal investigator Carter Simms (Patti Tindall) arrives in the small town of Queens Creek in Arizona where she is being paid $5,000 to conduct an investigation into the notorious Masterson House where an entire family were brutally murdered twenty years ago. Rumours of ghostly goings-on have persisted ever since & Carter has been brought in to try & discover the truth along with video guy Colin Green (Mike Marsh) & writer Yvette Sandoval (Davina Joy). Over the course of three nights they experience supernatural activity which is linked to the homes violent past, Carter believes she has 'tangible evidence' that there is life after death... Edited, photographed, produced, written & directed by Sean Tretta I thought this ghost film was pretty terrible on all fronts. The film revolves around the modern MTV style trend of Ghost Hunting, you know the sort of show's like Real Scary Stories (2000), Ghost Hunters (2004) & the UK equivalent Ghost Hunting with 'add celebrity name here' in which various 'experts', celebrities & ordinary members of the public are filmed in supposedly haunted locations on blurry night vision camera equipment & overact terribly. Imagine one of those largely awful show's drawn out to almost two hours in length & you still can't imagine how bad Death of a Ghost Hunter is. The film also plays like a cheap TV reenactment of the likes of The Entity (1981), Poltergeist (1982) & The Haunting (1999) in which scientific means are used to try & prove life after death but since it's set in a bland two storey middle class town house there's zero atmosphere. The back-story is also fairly routine stuff with some terrible event happening in the homes past & that provides the twist when it gets reenacted during the present which isn't much of a twist since that's what always happens, isn't it? The only other twist is given away in the films title. The character's are poor, the dialogue is dull & at almost two hours the pace is gruelling, I really wanted to bail out on several occasions but just about managed to stick with it. Horror films & haunted house horror films in particularly need a certain atmosphere & feel to be effective & that's one of my biggest problems with Death of a Ghost Hunter since it takes place in a very bland house. No cobwebs, no dusty old attics, no creaking staircases & no cats jumping out at random moments. The style of the film borrows heavily from The Blair Witch Project (1999) with it's use of hand-held point-of-view camcorders, it's a style that I personally dislike & The Blair Witch Project is perhaps the exception that proves the rule. I just think it's a really ugly & annoying style of film-making. Apart from some blood splatter on a family photo there's no gore, or at least I don't remember any. The film lacks any scares, looks cheap & has a lot of boring exposition & discussion that I found tedious & dull in the extreme. Despite all the films claims that Carter Simm was real & the events portrayed were real Death of a Ghost Hunter is in fact totally fictitious & made-up. Probably shot on a budget that wouldn't cover a round of drinks at my local pub Death of a Ghost Hunter really does look like it was shot by a bunch of friends in their middle class house on camcorders for fun & then decided to release it. Gee, thanks. The acting is weak from the whole five people in it. Death of a Ghost Hunter is an awful cross between one of those reality ghost hunting TV show's, The Blair Witch Project & The Haunting. Sounds terrible, right? Well, it is terrible.

I am pretty lenient with what I think about movies. If it's mildly entertaining, I'm generally OK with it. But this movie is without a doubt the worst I've ever seen. The acting was god-awful. I could find 5 people at random off the street and they would be no worse, and probably better, than this group. Hell, make that 5 people at random out of a 6th grade classroom and my statement still stands. The fight scene was horrendously executed - laughable if I wasn't so amazed at how bad it was. The acting in every single scene was terrible. Absolutely terrible. The audio was worse than the acting if that is possible. You have to watch this movie while holding the remote so you can change the volume as needed, which is about every 6 seconds. The volume ranged from 20 to 54 on my TV. I was constantly changing it. Seriously, I do a better job with my Corel Video Studio when editing my home movies. The people giving this movie good reviews simply aren't being honest. I know a review is subjective, but honestly, any good review of this movie has to be from friends of people associated with it. Sometimes a movie is not very good, but you can give an "A" for effort. This one gets an F...at best. If I could give a lower grade, I would. Absolute disaster. Everyone associated with it should be embarrassed. It is simply the worst movie I have ever seen. Bar none.

I can forgive the terrible acting, and the horrid special effects, even the incredibly predictable plot. But the "Christian" character in this movie was **offensive**, and I'm not even Christian! It was the equivalent of having a black character who does nothing but talk about fried chicken and commits rapes, or a Jewish character who does nothing but pick the other character's pockets. Obviously the writer/director had some bad experiences with religious people in his past, and decided to use this movie as a way of "getting back" at everyone. It's a sad, pathetic propaganda film disguised as something remotely entertaining. I would not recommend this film to anyone, except people who were diddled by priests and are looking for a comedy.

A paranormal investigator (Patti Tindall) is hired by the heir to the old Masterson house to investigate some supernatural forces that supposedly reside within caused by the murder of a God-fearing family. Once the investigation begins, however, the group of investigators begin to uncover some secrets to the house previously unknown. . . and there may be more of a threat from the living than the dead. Over the years, countless films have been made regarding paranormal investigation and ghost hunting (yes, they are two different things). From Poltergeist and the attempt to RID spirits to White Noise and the attempt to FIND spirits, it's pretty much all been done. Since Death of a Ghost Hunter really isn't anything new, it had a lot of ground to make up if it wanted to be memorable. Although it was interesting, the lack of originality left it as mostly forgettable. Technically, as a film, it's not great. The typical low-budget errors are obvious: it's cheap-looking from the low-end video equipment, the acting isn't very good, the audio is muffled and out-of-sync at times, etc. However, as a paranormal investigation film, it's not that bad. I didn't think it would be, seeing as the film starts immediately with two factual errors involving definitions of phrases: 'Ghost hunting' is when a hunter goes to an area where no paranormal activity has been noted in hopes of finding something while a 'paranormal investigator' goes to supernatural hotspots where activity has been witnessed (or at least BELIEVED to be witnessed). The film mixed them up repeatedly, which was a bit annoying as the lead character was a professional investigator. But, it's a common error so fairly forgivable. Ignoring that, the rest of the film is nicely researched. The writers did well to make Carter a believable investigator (though her acting didn't make her seem as much). The character knows what she's talking about and goes about it in a believable way. I've worked with both skeptics and believers (myself falling somewhere in between based on my own science) during investigations, and she was a realistic skeptic. The 'findings,' though a bit over-the-top at points, weren't as exaggerated as some films get (like the far-too-clear EVPs that Michael Keaton discovers in White Noise (we wish they were that good)). There are some creepy moments and the backstory works well with the 'modern' events. It's a film that should satisfy someone looking for a rational look at paranormal investigation, but it's not the type of film that will ever live as one of the 'great ghost stories' of our time. I still enjoyed it on both the levels of an investigator and a horror fan. Final verdict: 6/10. -AP3-

Here's the story: A woman has brutally killed her family at home. The guy that just inherited the house is a little spooked by all the ghost stories, and wants it checked out. So he hires Carter Simms, a sort of ghost documentarian, to spend a few days in the house and gather evidence. Sounds pretty ho-hum, huh? It isn't. This film gave me the willies. It's relatively low-budget - shot on video, and the first little bit of the film makes you think 'how can this be any good?' But trust me, this film had me seeing things in the shadows at the end of the hall before it was half over. NOT a film to watch alone at night in the suburbs. There's lots of 'little bits' of gore, and some absolutely unnerving ghost stuff. (I've got goosebumps just thinking about it). This is a very well crafted film. As I said earlier, it's not big budget, but clearly everyone involved is VERY good at what they do. Good direction, cinematography and editing. The makeup and effects were top notch. Of special note, the lead actress (Patti Tindall) was excellent and super watchable. I hope we see more of her in the future. The rest of the cast were good as well, but the lead really gave the film depth and weight that made it that much more terrifying to watch.

Wow. I mentioned in an earlier post that as someone who watches so many horror films, it is known that none of them are genuinely scary. Well this one is. There are some cheesy parts, yeah, but the story is original and good. For a B movie, the acting is decent, the filming isn't bad. There are a few scenes in which the filming could be better, but there are plenty of movies that have that same problem, even big budget films. The only thing I have to complain about is the sound editing. One scene is really loud, the next really quiet. Usually this happens in movies with a lot of action, where it gets very loud during action scenes, but this one switches from quiet to loud in conversation scenes, which is really annoying. I literally closed my eyes at some of the ghost scenes. That is what surprised me. The images are decent and will stay with you. I don't know, I guess after watching so many horrible B movies I get really excited when a good one comes along. The story is told in a narrative form throughout most of it. It is documenting a ghost hunter, Carter, who is hired to check out a house that was the site of a family murder in 1982. The remaining family member is trying to prove that the house is haunted so they hire carter. She has to stay for 3 nights, almost sounds like the premise of house on haunted hill or 13 ghosts, but believe me it is anything but. Along with her, a video guy and a reporter (to write the story) are hired to stay with her, along with a member of the local church who wants to make sure that the original family's name isn't tarnished. There is activity in the house as the mystery of what happens unfold throughout the 3 nights ending in the death of the ghost hunter (hence the name) Carter. The film has an eerily true story feeling about it, like Blair Witch meets an American Haunting. It makes you want to look up the case, even though you know it isn't based on real events. There are a few good jumps, but the actual images are well done for the genre and budget. Available in your local video store July 8. WARNING: If you are extremely religious, don't watch this film. It will offend you.

Before I watched this I saw The Haunting In Connecticut movie and also the made for TV documentary/recreation. They both left me a little underwhelmed and the movie version was a messy version of the real story and relied too much on fast cuts and loud sound effects to try to scare you. I reviewed the movie and gave it 6 stars because... I don't know, perhaps I smoking crack. Death Of A Ghost Hunter is virtually zero budget and yet is a far superior movie. You may be wondering why I only gave it the same rating? Well as I'll explain in this review the movie both delighted and infuriated me. It begins with the following text, "In 1982, Minister Joseph Masterton and his family were murdered inside their home. In 2002 renowned Ghost Hunter, Carter Simms, was offered $5,000 to perform a paranormal investigation of the Masterton house. Her investigation stands as the single most tragic paranormal inquiry in American history. It ended with her death." So based on a true story then about someone who actually died! Most haunted house movies based on reality have nobody dying so I was excited and as the movie progressed it really wasn't disappointing; this was a far more interesting story than the more famous real life haunting movies. It was creepy and engaging and I wanted to applaud the film makers for making such a surprising low budget gem. Not that the movie isn't without flaws. When reviewing a no budget movie you have to make allowances to some degree for poor acting and special effects. I've read reviews complaining about both and I think that's rather unfair. Considering the budget they were acceptable at least. However, there were a couple of bad decisions and one epic bad decision that spoiled the movie quite a bit. The scenes set in 1982 were done stylistically like an old sepia projector with lines and squiggles complete with really annoying loud projector noise. For a start the scenes weren't filmed within the context of the movie but also it was 1982 not 1920! Furthermore, throughout the movie they use backtracked voices from the other side for effect. In small doses this can be effective but they overdo it so it's a little annoying. Neither of those things were enough to spoil the movie and I found the ending satisfying and the story of the Masterton family fascinating. It ends with the following text, "Since the events in 2002, the Masterton house has been regarded as one of the top 10 most active hauntings in America. In 2003 holy men from several denominations were asked to bless the house. It is believed that their efforts were unsuccessful." I thought, despite it's flaws and lack of budget, this was a movie which deserved some exposure as it had interested me far more than the big budget 'The Haunting in Connecticut' and was, as far as I was concerned, a superior movie. I was prepared to give it at least 7 stars if not 8. The story had intrigued me so much I had to find out more about Carter Simms, the haunting, the Masterton family and the Masterton family home. I searched online but was severely disappointed to find no information about the case other than other people who'd seen the movie either asking around for information or rather annoyed claiming the movie wasn't based on a true story at all. I felt cheated; there is no such case and the film makers lied to me. Sure they made a decent movie with no real budget but at the expense of playing a practical joke on the viewer. I feel it's completely out of order. It could be argued that the Blair Witch Project did the same thing but it was obvious that that wasn't really found footage and they didn't go into detail with text on the screen and narrated journal entries. If I ever met the Director Sean Tretta I wouldn't know whether to shake his hand for making one of the better no budget movies I've seen or give him a slap. The cheeky monkey!

This was a well written movie. The story was gripping and it wrapped up nicely leaving no questions to be asked. The thing that brought this movie down was the acting on the part of the two people helping the investigator. The male actor has the same reaction to ripping his hand open on a nail as he does to going to smoke a cigarette. His acting was flat. The other thing that put me off was the much unneeded cursing by the reporter and camera man. There was no reason for it. If it had been a few times, that would have been acceptable, but every time they opened their mouth, out came bad words. The nudity in the movie was also uncalled for, but understandable. If the entire movie had only contained the investigator and Mary, it would have been a ten star movie. The little girl in the movie is absolutely gorgeous. This movie is worth watching. There's no was to figure this one out before the very last scene.