The Ghosts of Edendale Reviews

  • Aug 31, 2015

    It's awful. The acting is bad. At least in some movies you get to see a bit of skin, but the brunette doesn't really show enough for that to be a saving grace. I got the movie for free, and I want my money back.

    It's awful. The acting is bad. At least in some movies you get to see a bit of skin, but the brunette doesn't really show enough for that to be a saving grace. I got the movie for free, and I want my money back.

  • Kevin M. W Super Reviewer
    Jan 22, 2012

    A couple with dreams of making it in the movie business move from New York to what turns out to be one of the oldest film making neighborhoods in Los Angeles only to discover that the old residents have not quite moved on yet. Like many ghost stories this effort offers a great setup ... but a dismal payoff. Too bad.

    A couple with dreams of making it in the movie business move from New York to what turns out to be one of the oldest film making neighborhoods in Los Angeles only to discover that the old residents have not quite moved on yet. Like many ghost stories this effort offers a great setup ... but a dismal payoff. Too bad.

  • Jan 16, 2012

    Monday, January 16, 2012 (2003) Ghosts of Edendale HORROR Low budget, straight to rental via-camcorder look which mixes a real life incident with fiction turning it into a horror film. Story centers, young couple move into a particular part of LA, Hollywood to get away from a current relapse with it's goal to make it big in Hollywood, only to be subjected to more of the same with the rest or most of the neighborhood acting qeer/ odd which 're somehow linked from an 'urban legend' about an actual actor by the name of Tom Mix who was originally killed on an automobile accident and once lived in the Edendale houshold. Anybody who don't mind a much lower budget version of Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining" might like this , otherwise it's rather predictable, slow, and illogical. 1 out of 4

    Monday, January 16, 2012 (2003) Ghosts of Edendale HORROR Low budget, straight to rental via-camcorder look which mixes a real life incident with fiction turning it into a horror film. Story centers, young couple move into a particular part of LA, Hollywood to get away from a current relapse with it's goal to make it big in Hollywood, only to be subjected to more of the same with the rest or most of the neighborhood acting qeer/ odd which 're somehow linked from an 'urban legend' about an actual actor by the name of Tom Mix who was originally killed on an automobile accident and once lived in the Edendale houshold. Anybody who don't mind a much lower budget version of Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining" might like this , otherwise it's rather predictable, slow, and illogical. 1 out of 4

  • Oct 13, 2009

    Not bad- you never know what you're getting into with a low budget film, but the acting was decent and there were some genuinely scary moments. The special effects were well done considering the budget- not really cheesy at all.

    Not bad- you never know what you're getting into with a low budget film, but the acting was decent and there were some genuinely scary moments. The special effects were well done considering the budget- not really cheesy at all.

  • Dec 06, 2008

    A pleasant surprise. Despite its non-existent budget, Ghosts of Edendale manages to be quite the impressive little indie horror flick. Plot-wise, it's nothing that we haven't seen in The Shining and a million haunted house films, but suspense- and scare-wise, it's not bad at all. In fact, the lack of budget ends up complimenting the film, giving us simple, monochromatic spooks that are somehow eerier than many of their big-budget counterparts. The actors are competant - particularly Stephen Wastell as Kevin - and a number of scenes are quite effective and memorable. It's not a fantastic film - it suffers mainly due to its unoriginal plot that never really comes together - but it's enjoyable. Check it out.

    A pleasant surprise. Despite its non-existent budget, Ghosts of Edendale manages to be quite the impressive little indie horror flick. Plot-wise, it's nothing that we haven't seen in The Shining and a million haunted house films, but suspense- and scare-wise, it's not bad at all. In fact, the lack of budget ends up complimenting the film, giving us simple, monochromatic spooks that are somehow eerier than many of their big-budget counterparts. The actors are competant - particularly Stephen Wastell as Kevin - and a number of scenes are quite effective and memorable. It's not a fantastic film - it suffers mainly due to its unoriginal plot that never really comes together - but it's enjoyable. Check it out.

  • Oct 14, 2008

    After Rachel (Ficara) a successful and sought-after photo model suffers a nervous breakdown, she moves with her writer boyfriend (Wastell) to Hollywood to make a fresh start in a different part of the entertainment industry. They move into a house in a neighborhood built on the land once owned by silent movie star Tom Mix, and, while they are initially delighted to be so close to Hollywood's history, Rachel soon discovers that history isn't completely in the past. Is she really seeing ghosts, and is her boyfriend really turning into Tom Mix, or is she finally going completely crazy? "The Ghosts of Edendale" is a ghost movie that incorporates real-world history and stereotypes about life in the Hollywood movie business to create a film that spends all of its time in very familiar territory but which is still very creepy. There no terrifying moments in the film, and only a small handful of truly scary ones, but the sense of dread it evokes is one that will stay with you even as the end credits start to role. It's a sense of dread that even manages to elevate a somewhat weak ending. Most of the credit for the success fo this film goes to the superior acting talents shown by stars Paula Ficara and Stephen Wastell. Ficara's mostly understated performance as a woman questioning her own sanity when she starts seeing the ghosts of Old Mixville throughout her house and the neighborhood, and Wastell's transformation from a cheerful, supportive lover to a fame-obsessed asshole possessed by the ghost of a long-dead silent movie star is very effective in the way it starts out somewhat subtle and builds to the point where the viewer believes and shares Rachel's fear of him. The script is so-so and the characters these actors portray are strictly ghost movie stock figures, but they bring them to full and realized life as the film unfolds. The one slightly mystifying thing about "The Ghosts of Edendale is why writer/director Stefan Avalos chose to rewrite Hollywood history for his movie and cast the restless ghost of silent movie star Tom Mix as main villain. I'm no expert, but as far as I know, Tom Mix wasn't particularly obsessed with Hollywood. While it's true he died in a freak car accident while speeding through Arizona on his way to sign a movie contract, his career wasn't ruined because of the advent of sound--in fact, his last movie was a huge hit for the studio that made it--but he rather chose to step away from film because of his own advancing age. Mix doesn't seem to have any sort of unfinished business as is implied in this film. So, in this case, a little knowledge was a dangerous thing, beause it got in the way of my enjoyment of the film. I suppose few people would even be aware of the historical errors, because, as a character in the film says, the early days of Hollywood and the silent movie era are mostly forgotten by all. (And, I admit, there are probably lots of things I don't know about Tom Mix.) Despite my wondering about the wisdom of taking real history and messing with it in a completely illogical fashion, "The Ghosts of Edendale" is a nicely done and well-acted ghost movie. It's worth checking out if you enjoy movies that are more about atmosphere than splashy effects. ([URL=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002TT0OG?ie=UTF8&tag=stevemillesdo-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0002TT0OG]Click here[/URL] to read other opinions of this film, or to buy a copy of it at Amazon.com.) The Ghosts of Edendale Starring: Paula Ficara and Stephen Wastell Director: Stefan Avalos

    After Rachel (Ficara) a successful and sought-after photo model suffers a nervous breakdown, she moves with her writer boyfriend (Wastell) to Hollywood to make a fresh start in a different part of the entertainment industry. They move into a house in a neighborhood built on the land once owned by silent movie star Tom Mix, and, while they are initially delighted to be so close to Hollywood's history, Rachel soon discovers that history isn't completely in the past. Is she really seeing ghosts, and is her boyfriend really turning into Tom Mix, or is she finally going completely crazy? "The Ghosts of Edendale" is a ghost movie that incorporates real-world history and stereotypes about life in the Hollywood movie business to create a film that spends all of its time in very familiar territory but which is still very creepy. There no terrifying moments in the film, and only a small handful of truly scary ones, but the sense of dread it evokes is one that will stay with you even as the end credits start to role. It's a sense of dread that even manages to elevate a somewhat weak ending. Most of the credit for the success fo this film goes to the superior acting talents shown by stars Paula Ficara and Stephen Wastell. Ficara's mostly understated performance as a woman questioning her own sanity when she starts seeing the ghosts of Old Mixville throughout her house and the neighborhood, and Wastell's transformation from a cheerful, supportive lover to a fame-obsessed asshole possessed by the ghost of a long-dead silent movie star is very effective in the way it starts out somewhat subtle and builds to the point where the viewer believes and shares Rachel's fear of him. The script is so-so and the characters these actors portray are strictly ghost movie stock figures, but they bring them to full and realized life as the film unfolds. The one slightly mystifying thing about "The Ghosts of Edendale is why writer/director Stefan Avalos chose to rewrite Hollywood history for his movie and cast the restless ghost of silent movie star Tom Mix as main villain. I'm no expert, but as far as I know, Tom Mix wasn't particularly obsessed with Hollywood. While it's true he died in a freak car accident while speeding through Arizona on his way to sign a movie contract, his career wasn't ruined because of the advent of sound--in fact, his last movie was a huge hit for the studio that made it--but he rather chose to step away from film because of his own advancing age. Mix doesn't seem to have any sort of unfinished business as is implied in this film. So, in this case, a little knowledge was a dangerous thing, beause it got in the way of my enjoyment of the film. I suppose few people would even be aware of the historical errors, because, as a character in the film says, the early days of Hollywood and the silent movie era are mostly forgotten by all. (And, I admit, there are probably lots of things I don't know about Tom Mix.) Despite my wondering about the wisdom of taking real history and messing with it in a completely illogical fashion, "The Ghosts of Edendale" is a nicely done and well-acted ghost movie. It's worth checking out if you enjoy movies that are more about atmosphere than splashy effects. ([URL=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002TT0OG?ie=UTF8&tag=stevemillesdo-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0002TT0OG]Click here[/URL] to read other opinions of this film, or to buy a copy of it at Amazon.com.) The Ghosts of Edendale Starring: Paula Ficara and Stephen Wastell Director: Stefan Avalos

  • Sep 22, 2008

    Sin comentarios tal vez la idea con un mejor presupuesto podria funcionar

    Sin comentarios tal vez la idea con un mejor presupuesto podria funcionar

  • Feb 06, 2008

    The scariest thing about this movie is the cover of the box it comes in (which, I might add bares no resemblence to any scene or character in the movie itself); acting is just about as intense as a reduced-sodium saltine cracker can get. Mercy, this one sucks indeed.

    The scariest thing about this movie is the cover of the box it comes in (which, I might add bares no resemblence to any scene or character in the movie itself); acting is just about as intense as a reduced-sodium saltine cracker can get. Mercy, this one sucks indeed.

  • Sep 21, 2007

    great story and great acting for an independent flick but unfortunately not nearly enough ghost action or any other kind of action occurs in this movie. just to slow. some people might enjoy it for the story but it was a little to slow for my taste

    great story and great acting for an independent flick but unfortunately not nearly enough ghost action or any other kind of action occurs in this movie. just to slow. some people might enjoy it for the story but it was a little to slow for my taste

  • Jul 02, 2007

    I hated the ending and the way it was directed. However, the story itself is not terrible and the special effects is not bad either. The lead actress is and unknown to me, but pretty good in her role!

    I hated the ending and the way it was directed. However, the story itself is not terrible and the special effects is not bad either. The lead actress is and unknown to me, but pretty good in her role!