Protraph Lack of good storyline.

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Leofwine_draca This low budget chiller is a film easy to pass over, mainly because of the generic nature of the title (there are many ghost ship films in existence, right up to the present day). It's only a minor film, and not the best for any of the talent involved, but it is a solid, effective little movie that sets out to do what it wants to do: create an atmospheric mystery-cum-chiller on a non-existent budget, relying on acting, dialogue, characters, and story rather than special effects. Indeed, the spirit 'manifestations' are limited to a single scene of a cigar-chomping apparition so for those expecting something like POLTERGEIST, think again.There's just something about British horror films of the mid century that give them the edge over their American counterparts. They're always genteel, and quite classy despite the silliness of some of the story lines. Vernon Sewell, a noted horror director, directs this well-handled outing. There's no action so to speak of, but the film does contain some admirable acting, an excellent flashback told by a medium of a love triangle gone horribly wrong, lots of tension, a good plot twist, and fine, crisp black and white camera-work.Of the stars, there are bit players who would later go on to find fame and success (Joss Ackland and Ian Carmichael); a British star, Dermot Walsh, with a dodgy American accent; a brief turn for Sewell's real-life wife, Joan Carol; an excellent performance from TV's QUATERMASS, John Robinson, as a wronged captain; a kooky turn from Hugh Burden, who later found success in television; and of course, a starring turn from lovely Hammer starlet Hazel Court. Court takes centre stage for much of the production, but I found her natural beauty – later used to great effect in Gothic horror – toned down and hidden away, unfortunately.

davidvmcgillivray-24-905811 Many important observations about this minor ghost story have already been made by others. The plot has a gaping plot hole and two long, irrelevant sequences - Ian Carmichael's drunk act and Hugh Burden's demonstration of unusual vibrations - that must have been added merely to increase the running time. The film is one of several shot on director Vernon Sewell's own yacht and the story has a flavour (wife encourages her lover to kill her husband) of Sewell's later film "Rogue's Yarn" (1957), shot in the same Shoreham boatyard. Most interesting, however, is that this is the third film Sewell made of Pierre Mills and Celia de Vylars' one act play, "L'Angoisse." The first was "The Medium" (1934), now lost. Then came "Latin Quarter" (1945). After "Ghost Ship" Sewell had one more crack at the tale, "House of Mystery" (1960). The common factor, apart from the psychic gobbledygook, is the sadism of the murders. I'd like to point out that none of this information comes from me. It was first pointed out as long ago as 1973 in David Pirie's book "A Heritage of Horror". Jonathan Rigby added more details in his 2000 book "English Gothic."

writtenbymkm-583-902097 I can't believe nobody questioned a huge plot hole in this movie. I'll omit the story, since other reviewers have mostly explained it, but we are to believe that three people went out on a boat -- SPOILER ALERT***SPOILER ALERT -- and one of them murdered the other two and hid their bodies on the boat... repeat, on the boat, and then, later, when the boat is found, the bodies are NOT found. It's even dumber than that, because at one point the hero buys the boat and has it completely repaired from stem to stern, and, again, no bodies are found. Not even a couple of skeletons. This is incredible. I also didn't believe for a minute that the murderer would have returned to the boat at the very end -- ANOTHER SPOILER ALERT -- and killed himself just because some weird so-called "medium" went into a "trance" and supposedly revealed that he had murdered the other two people, why didn't he just head for the hills? What court of law would've allowed the testimony of a "medium" as the only proof, especially with no bodies? If I slept through essential parts of this movie and missed things that would explain all this, feel free to yell at me and set me straight!

MARIO GAUCI This British low-budgeter does not have a good reputation within its subgenre – mainly because it is "singularly unfrightening", as one critic had remarked about SON OF FRANKENSTEIN (1939) but also since, as often happens, the manifestations prove to be just a hoax! It is harmless enough under the circumstances, but does take its time to get going (despite running only 71 minutes), eventually generating some interest during the second half with the parapsychology elements, the ghost's backstory (he is played by John Robinson – Professor Bernard Quatermass in the TV serial "Quatermass II" [1955]) and the twist ending. Hazel Court makes for a pretty and likable leading lady; however, Ian Carmichael – soon to portray the naïve hero of many a classic Boulting Bros. satire – has an extended and unfunny bit as a drunk at a party held on the titular vessel. Although, personally, I did not recognize any of them, the cast also includes Joss (1970's THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD) Ackland, Patricia (1958's THE FLY) Owens and Melissa (1958's HORROR OF Dracula) Stribling in bit parts.