Freaktana A Major Disappointment

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Allissa .Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Naly Shawnda First off let me start by saying, if you're hoping to watch a scary movie than this is NOT the movie you want to watch. The plot wasn't all that terrible, but there was just to much talking. I'll admit that some parts of the movie i would zone out and than realize i'm watching it because it was so boring.The beginning was okay, It started as five friends wanting to make documentary about a haunted hotel, they go on a road trip & the car breaks down they go to a cemetery blah blah blah, then finally they get to a bar with a man who is important to the story, he gives them a key and they're off to the hotel. The ghost wasn't scary, it wasn't any nightmare on elm street effects, it didn't look real & by the end if you were looking for a scary movie you'd be disappointed like i was.

Peppered_Productions So, this was one of those movies that I just couldn't get into. Usually I can have a horror movie in the background while doing other things, and still follow along. This one couldn't keep my attention & I had to keep rewinding parts (sometimes more than once) to catch up to the plot.Basic premise: 5 university students descend upon an alleged haunted hotel to get footage of phenomena for a thesis project. A woman, Elizabeth, and her baby were murdered at the hands of the hotel owner, George, after he finds out she was not faithful, and the baby was not his. Of course the students have car problems; of course they have to go through a graveyard; of course they encounter punchy locals (with a where-in-the-hell-do-I know-this-guy cameo by "Rowdy" Roddy Piper); of course the writing is plagued with trite stereotypes - the obnoxious alcoholic sex-on-the-brain a-hole & the slutty kleptomaniac girlfriend; of course I found this on fearnet.So we have our start and back story (sort of). But, here's where things go from standard to confusingly off-track. We have a shot of the old, deaf townie presumably in the hotel after the group begins to settle in the hotel. This is never explained or followed up on. Seriously, were there scenes cut? Was it meant as misdirection that this was all a setup?The ghost - can she not decide whether she just wants her murdered baby? revenge against the lineage who wronged her? to kill everyone? to get laid? Because although most of her lines have to do with the first choice, she dabbles in all of the above.Of course the gang splits up, and amid possession and solid ghost 'hauntings' the kids are picked off one by one. Our heroine, Julie, feels responsible because it was her grandmother who snitched & started all the trouble. Julie gets most of the story through a weird mind- meld flashback. Her heirloom, a locket, actually belongs to the ghost. Will giving it back free her spirit & appease her?Nope - a trinket doesn't give her baby back, excuse her being tortured and murdered, or get rid of her bloodlust.The film gives a clear delineation of the 'good' characters versus the 'bad' ones. You pretty much figure out early who will be killed first. The good ones get it, too, because this is one angry spirit.The ending is kind of craptastic. Julie sees the fate of Elizabeth and succumbs somehow to the same torture. She is left alone in the hotel, staring out of the window, while the tetchy bartender (a lookalike descendant of Elizabeth's lover) looks on, satisfied.The movie is plagued with a nonsensical plot, bad writing, and some not-so-stellar acting. Honestly, I thought George was a Soprano's reject. The pouty princess 'friend' was kind of annoying, and even our ghost was a bit over-the-top with her expressions.But the kicker? Over the credits is this random history-lesson back story about the town that really added NOTHING to the plot or characters. The narrator isn't even credited. It was a bizarre choice that really made no sense. Maybe if it was tied in at the beginning as exposition, it may have transitioned properly. Or even if it was in Julie's voice, it may have tied in. But, this was a random, unheard-from omniscient voice-over that made it feel even more like a film school project that had to fit in required elements.Overall, not a great flick - I have seen worse, but this one definitely could've been made much better.Side notes - after reading a few of the other reviews:I had totally missed that this hotel was set in Nevada - or that I-95 reference would have clicked as well. Just goes to show how not interested I was in this film.Re: Twilight Zone feel. Actually, the summary (and voice) reminded me much more of the Outer Limits. But, I also didn't get that vibe until the ending credits.It's a semi-watchable movie, with a lot of plot holes and characterization issues to contend with. Fairly forewarned.

trashgang I saw nothing than bad reviews about Ghosts Of Goldfield. Indeed, that title is more like a western instead of a horror so they changed it in Europe to Paranormal Ghost to make use of the success of the "Paranormal" word. Naturally that isn't enough so they made use of the title "Twilight" as coming from the movie Twilight, Kellan Lutz. If you have seen my review on the Twilight trilogy then you know it's in my top 5 of worst flicks ever. So that was no reference for me. Another name that I notice was Roddy Piper. If I put the word Rowdy between then I guess you know that I'm talking about the Hall Of Fame from the WWE. I had no problem with his acting like so many had, I know him from his WWF period in the eighties, screaming and very aggressive. He do appears sometimes in the new WWE world and here in this flick, I thought he did it well, hoped I could say that from the other actors too. Some you really see acting, sadly, Mandy Amano is number one on that list. The scene about the rat in the bar, so bad acting. She is also the only one who goes nude but there's nothing to see for the Kleenex boys out there. It's funny that Paranormal Ghosts started off pretty well. And it even had some blood in the first minutes but after a while the ghost appears in real life and it all becomes a bit dull. There's a lot of talking and suggesting that the ghost is there but when the red stuff comes in it's all to late. The ending is predictable and so it's not all that ghostly as it should be. The version I have is 18+ well if someone can tell why please do so. You can sit through it easily with your family just before the children TV starts. Nevertheless, due the good beginning of the film and the decapitation scene I give it a 4.

parmenides6 The plot of this movie is the basic haunted house scenario. However it suffers from bad direction, a bad script, bad acting and bad special effects. The cast is relatively small and I only recognised two of them, Roddy Piper (They Live) and Marnette Patterson (Kaley Cuoco's sister in Charmed). Marnette can act and in my opinion is the only person in the movie who can. I would go into more detail but i wasted enough time watching the movie itself so I'm not going to waste any more. This should be a 1 star rating but unfortunately and unbelievably I have seen worse movies than this, therefore I have to save the 1's for them.