Ghosts of Edendale

Rating:
Summary: THIS IS ONE HORRIBLE WASTE OF ENERGY
Review: All I can say about this film is DO NOT waste the money on it. The acting is incredibly horrible - the effects are so-so, the lighting is even worse (looks like they shot with existing light with very little sculptural lighting) and highlights are overexposed. You can tell that this waste of energy was not created on quality film or high quality digital. My girlfriend and I both fell asleep through it and continued it the next day (for justifying the expenditure) and turned it off before it ended. You would think AT LEAST they would have had a nice boob shot to make up for the lack of creativity everywhere else....BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! The actress/model they starred in it should have aimed a little higher. She's an attractive looking actress, and it's a shame she couldn't have been in a better movie. The plot of this is horrible....and I won't even go into it to bore you to death...all I can say is DON'T WATCH IT....stick with the classics.

Rating:
Summary: "Edendale" is my new synonym for GARBAGE.
Review: Hoo-boy, where to begin? All right, for starters, I really do love Avalos' The Last Broadcast. It had the stupid and boring Blair Witch Project beat in spades. The digital video production suited the pseudo-documentary style, and even if you didn't like the ending (I do), there are plenty of creepy and funny moments throughout the film, and Avalos did make a fine case for making low budget horror flicks on his desktop computer.

However, the same cannot be said for the truly wretched Ghosts of Edendale. This time around, the digital production makes it seem like you're watching either the cheesiest of soap operas or a [...] flick minus the sex (there is a brief sex scene here, but completely pointless) - and who wants to watch one of those, right? Avalos' story and dialogue are helplessly thin here. The actors are worse than [...] stars, delivering their lines as if they were in some kind of high school acting class.

As for the scares, there aren't any. The brief bits of digitized gore that worked well in Broadcast look completely silly in Edendale. Not that there's any gore, but the faces appearing in the fence, and Our Hero morphing into a skeleton are lousy at best. This is the kind of goofball effects that were popular in old PC games like The 7th Guest years ago that were innovative then, but are scraping the bottom of the barrel these days.

My advice to Stefan is to just quit making these types of flicks. If you want to make low budget horror movies, then by all means join up with a studio that specializes in such things and go for it. Heck, even old fashioned special effects look ten times better than the stuff Avalos is doing on his computer. And for God's sake, don't be afraid to come up with something interesting again. Edendale is like reading Beowulf, except it's not high school anymore and you're not required to sit through it. And that's my advice to anyone interested in this wreck; just don't bother.

So yeah, whenever I see anything lousy anymore, I immediately say, "Dood, that was sooooo Edendale, brah". Feh.

Rating:
Summary: Don't even think about it!
Review: 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.....

Rating:
Summary: Let There Be DV!!!
Review: This another in the ongoing direct to vid shot on dv ghost stories flooding the market right now.
When an aspiring writer and his not so supermodle wife move to LA for a fresh start the home they inhabit as well as their new neighbors are not quiet what they seem.
The relationship between the couple begins to crumble when he becomes more Hollywood buffing up quitting smoking and attending trendy parties while she starts seeing dead people and wonders wether the place is haunted or if she is in fact crazy.
The film plays out like a cheap Shining knockoff with hints of about a dozen or more films of this genre.
However considering the low budget nature GHOSTS is a very smooth watch as long as your not expecting too much because it is slow and in the end the movie is little more than a tele drama.
Not bad.Not Great.
Overall a healthy and intresting viewing experience.

Rating:
Summary: The Little Movie That Could
Review: This is a classic ghost story, pure and simple...with an interesting tweak or two. And that is part of its charm, in a day where hack `n slash and witty self-referential dialogue rules the genre...it's a throwback to the Twilight Zone and the Tales from the Crypt style of storytelling.
Another aspect of its charm is that this is the Little Picture That Could. Writer/director/editor/half-the-sound-department Stefan Avalos (The Last Broadcast) and his partner in crime, producer Marianne Connor, push their independent, itty-bitty budget way past the envelope. Sometimes it shows...many of the effects have the earmarks of video effects (good video effects, but still video effects)...but often, you don't even realize that the effects were done on the computer instead of a makeup lab, or that the sky had to be repainted. Avalos and company made their own dollies for track shots, and even pulled off an effect shot by hand that is normally done with a motion tracking rig. Essentially, they shouldn't have been able to pull this picture off, and because they did it so well, one tends to forgive the areas where it's a tad rough.
Avalos has crafted a film where the reality of the situation is up to the viewer, and he's done this using traditional ghost story trappings (and an unhealthy dash of Hollywood paranoia). It's story that would have fallen flat on its face if the leads were not cast so amazingly well. Wastell alternates between charmingly laid back and stone cold creepy with apparent ease, and Ficara's arc covers practically every emotion in an actor's repertoire...and she nails it every time. What's more, both actors have an innate sex appeal that, combined with their range and ability to project their emotions onto the screen, makes Avalos very lucky that he found these two before they get snatched up by the major studios.

As for the DVD itself, it's packed with behind-the-scenes tidbits, and advice on the dos and don'ts of independant film making. The FX section practically shows you how to do it yourself. If you're getting into the business or thinking about it, this disk is worth it for the extras alone.




Rating:
Summary: A total waste of time
Review: This is a terrible piece of [...] that isn't worth your time no matter who you are. The fact that it is shot on video makes it worse. Besides Cradle Of Fear, NOTHING good has EVER been SOV and this is no exception. Weak story, boring characters, terrible acting and laughable "special effects" all make this a total snore. Maybe if you're out of Valium or Xanax you could substitute a few minutes of this [...] but that's about it.
I like low-budget movies, I don't like [...]low-budget movies a bad name. Perhaps we should institute a law that NOTHING except XXX movies should be allowed to be SOV, that would save a lot of trouble for a lot of people. Here's another idea, if you think you've got the makings of a good movie, [...]

Rating:
Summary: Could have been better...
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Low budget fun.
Review: 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.