I have just watched this movie, and would have to say that I could think of much worse ways to spend the time it took to watch. I have seen hundreds and hundreds of horror movies in my time, from the sublime to the ridiculous and many in between. I consider this film to be an in between, but above average. The performances are fine in most cases, being that the actors are all quite new. The music helps to keep the suspense, although unfortunately, I didn't 'jump' once. The story is quite original, and it plays out at a good pace. I cannot think of any one particular moment I thought was great, yet it was compelling - I wanted to keep on watching and wanted to know how it played out. Definitely worth a watch if you have some spare time, but don't plan a whole evening around it...
22 Reviews
Underwhelming
Billybob-Shatner25 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Who's behind the hype machine? Some of the comments on the IMDb message board led me to believe this was superior to the original Ghost Watcher. While not an embarrassment for anyone involved, the movie is only a marginal improvement over it's predecessor.
After an effective opening sequence, the movie rapidly degenerates into a rather un-engaging horror/melodrama. Despite being led to believe otherwise, the acting ranges from reasonable, to... well quite bad. And where-as there are moments of solid and effective film-making, the movie as a whole, just isn't exciting, nor compelling. Technically, the production values and production design look pretty professional. If I were to guess, it looks like a $250,000 16MM production. I'm presuming it isn't, so I've got to give the film credit in that department. Unfortunately, the movie couldn't help feeling like a strange hybrid of a Lifetime drama and a generic straight to video horror movie. A very strange combination. Not an incompetent movie, nor a good one.
I find the make-up to be quite good for its budget. Unfortunately, the special FX don't quite measure up. They're never believable, and often they're distractingly... shall we say, underfunded. For it's budget, I'm sure they did what they can, but why bother if you the resources aren't there? Why even write it into the screenplay? Which bring me to The screenplay itself. Some movies make you sit at the edge of your seat, some movies don't. This, did not. I actually started thinking of other things as I was watching it. Nothing drove the story in a way I wanted to keep watching. And whereas some of the elements of the story were quite interesting, it just wasn't executed in a way that I found compelling. As far as why that is? Well, the villain is basically lifted from the recent Mummy movies. Sucking souls to become alive again. The writers also never make you believe what's happening is real, there's too much verbal exposition, scenes outstay their welcome, very few turns in the plot, and the characters... The characters are very by the numbers, are terribly generic. There's nothing really inspired about them. You've got your stock troubled teen, her overprotective father, a once skeptical GhostWatcher. They never quite came off as living, breathing human beings. Perhaps it's the direction, but it never really seemed like they were even emotionally involved in what was going on. And when they were, it once again degenerated into characterization worthy of a below average soap opera. Simply yelling banalities back and forth, whether it be sibling rivalries or otherwise. I think the acting in the "scare" moments, worked well enough, but the simple one on one character moments were really DOA. Quite often the actors looked and sounded bored, somewhat unsure of what they themselves were even saying. Yes, I have seen worse, but the acting is no better than other ambitious low budget indies such as "THE WIND" or "ADAM & EVIL".
The score ranges from quite good in moments, to generically low budget. Obvious, over the top, and terribly synthetic sounding. I did laugh out loud in certain moments where I later realized I wasn't supposed to.
Overall, whereas I can't recommend Ghostwatcher 2, it's would be terribly unfair to call it "one of the worst films of all time" (a term used WAY too frequently on these review boards). It's not bad for its budget at all. And if the director was quite a bit harder on himself he might just end up with something special.
Overall rating 2/5
After an effective opening sequence, the movie rapidly degenerates into a rather un-engaging horror/melodrama. Despite being led to believe otherwise, the acting ranges from reasonable, to... well quite bad. And where-as there are moments of solid and effective film-making, the movie as a whole, just isn't exciting, nor compelling. Technically, the production values and production design look pretty professional. If I were to guess, it looks like a $250,000 16MM production. I'm presuming it isn't, so I've got to give the film credit in that department. Unfortunately, the movie couldn't help feeling like a strange hybrid of a Lifetime drama and a generic straight to video horror movie. A very strange combination. Not an incompetent movie, nor a good one.
I find the make-up to be quite good for its budget. Unfortunately, the special FX don't quite measure up. They're never believable, and often they're distractingly... shall we say, underfunded. For it's budget, I'm sure they did what they can, but why bother if you the resources aren't there? Why even write it into the screenplay? Which bring me to The screenplay itself. Some movies make you sit at the edge of your seat, some movies don't. This, did not. I actually started thinking of other things as I was watching it. Nothing drove the story in a way I wanted to keep watching. And whereas some of the elements of the story were quite interesting, it just wasn't executed in a way that I found compelling. As far as why that is? Well, the villain is basically lifted from the recent Mummy movies. Sucking souls to become alive again. The writers also never make you believe what's happening is real, there's too much verbal exposition, scenes outstay their welcome, very few turns in the plot, and the characters... The characters are very by the numbers, are terribly generic. There's nothing really inspired about them. You've got your stock troubled teen, her overprotective father, a once skeptical GhostWatcher. They never quite came off as living, breathing human beings. Perhaps it's the direction, but it never really seemed like they were even emotionally involved in what was going on. And when they were, it once again degenerated into characterization worthy of a below average soap opera. Simply yelling banalities back and forth, whether it be sibling rivalries or otherwise. I think the acting in the "scare" moments, worked well enough, but the simple one on one character moments were really DOA. Quite often the actors looked and sounded bored, somewhat unsure of what they themselves were even saying. Yes, I have seen worse, but the acting is no better than other ambitious low budget indies such as "THE WIND" or "ADAM & EVIL".
The score ranges from quite good in moments, to generically low budget. Obvious, over the top, and terribly synthetic sounding. I did laugh out loud in certain moments where I later realized I wasn't supposed to.
Overall, whereas I can't recommend Ghostwatcher 2, it's would be terribly unfair to call it "one of the worst films of all time" (a term used WAY too frequently on these review boards). It's not bad for its budget at all. And if the director was quite a bit harder on himself he might just end up with something special.
Overall rating 2/5
Watch it for itself, not because you loved the first one.
sary10134 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This is a reasonably scary movie with some great heart-stopping moments. The only thing that wrecked it for me was that Laura Kove was such a totally different character from who she was in the first film. Yes, I'm glad she's not balled up in the fetal position on her sofa anymore, but she ought to still be chain-smoking and cussing, at the very least. And who was that totally un-charming guy? Was that the token look-we-told-you-Laura's-not-a-lesbian character? 'Cause if so, I've got to tell you, Laura had a lot more chemistry with Elizabeth than with that dude!
This movie had a bigger budget and better acting than the last one, but it didn't let the charming main character be herself, and she was one of the reasons I liked the original GhostWatcher so much.
This movie had a bigger budget and better acting than the last one, but it didn't let the charming main character be herself, and she was one of the reasons I liked the original GhostWatcher so much.
Another Clock Watcher
ghoulieguru16 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
After the horrible experience I had while watching the original Ghost Watcher, I was seriously considering just leaving this one on the shelf. I guess I was in a masochistic mood, because I rented it anyway. Thankfully, this sequel is nowhere near as rotten as the original and I was able to sit through the whole thing without falling asleep or throwing my television out the window. The bar was set pretty low after the last one, so I can't say that I'm surprised that this was a better movie, but better doesn't necessarily mean good and it still had me watching the clock to see when it was going to end.
In Ghost Watcher Deux, this Goth chick gets into a car accident with her mother in which the mom is killed, but the Goth girl survives because she can somehow heal unnaturally fast. After the accident, Goth chick starts hearing voices. She has all these nightmares during class and she's not sleeping well. Her dad is worried about her, so he calls the Ghost Watcher for help. For those of you who didn't see the first movie, the Ghost Watcher a female Ghostbuster who goes around helping people cope with their spectral issues. With the Ghost Watcher's help, the Goth girl finds out that she's actually hearing the names of people who are going to die. From that point on, this movie becomes a low budget version of the Mothman Prophecies.
This sequel is not much of an improvement from a story standpoint, and the acting is just as bad as it was in the first Ghost Watcher movie. However, the production values on this one are slightly better, and it seems like the director is learning something about how to shoot a horror movie. There were a couple moments in this movie that were almost scary, but it never really got there. And points taken off for the use of really horrible music by struggling local garage bands. If the writer/director continues to improve exponentially, maybe by Ghost Watcher 5 or 6 I'll be willing to write a more positive review. For now, the Ghost Watcher series is still lucky to scrape by with two stars.
In Ghost Watcher Deux, this Goth chick gets into a car accident with her mother in which the mom is killed, but the Goth girl survives because she can somehow heal unnaturally fast. After the accident, Goth chick starts hearing voices. She has all these nightmares during class and she's not sleeping well. Her dad is worried about her, so he calls the Ghost Watcher for help. For those of you who didn't see the first movie, the Ghost Watcher a female Ghostbuster who goes around helping people cope with their spectral issues. With the Ghost Watcher's help, the Goth girl finds out that she's actually hearing the names of people who are going to die. From that point on, this movie becomes a low budget version of the Mothman Prophecies.
This sequel is not much of an improvement from a story standpoint, and the acting is just as bad as it was in the first Ghost Watcher movie. However, the production values on this one are slightly better, and it seems like the director is learning something about how to shoot a horror movie. There were a couple moments in this movie that were almost scary, but it never really got there. And points taken off for the use of really horrible music by struggling local garage bands. If the writer/director continues to improve exponentially, maybe by Ghost Watcher 5 or 6 I'll be willing to write a more positive review. For now, the Ghost Watcher series is still lucky to scrape by with two stars.
A creepy follow up to Ghostwatcher
almaric2 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I went to the premier of GHOSTWATCHER 2 last night and enjoyed it much more than I thought I would. It's a far more ambitious story with greater emphasis on characters.
Directer David Cross excels at creating tension, something that hard for microcinema movie makers to achieve when shooting on video. He's even able to achieve a few good jump scares.
The acting is far superior than the standard shot on video horror effort, and credit needs to be given to Julia Pickens who plays Tracy Cain. Her performance stands out as she convincingly portrays the full emotional spectrum. If she's able to maintain this level of acting, she's destined for stardom.
Directer David Cross excels at creating tension, something that hard for microcinema movie makers to achieve when shooting on video. He's even able to achieve a few good jump scares.
The acting is far superior than the standard shot on video horror effort, and credit needs to be given to Julia Pickens who plays Tracy Cain. Her performance stands out as she convincingly portrays the full emotional spectrum. If she's able to maintain this level of acting, she's destined for stardom.
The Directors eyes were bigger than his stomach
amichaelrivera803 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This film was very ambitious but it failed to live up to the goals that the director set for it. It had some interesting Ideas, but the dialog seemed wooden, The principles particularly the actresses playing the sisters did considerably well considering what they were given to work with, but the end result looked like a high school theater club. The special effects were shoddy at best, CGI shouldn't be done unless it's being done by professionals like ILM or WETA. The Donny Darko plot twist at the end was just uninspired, and it seemed like the director killed off half the main characters to fill the gaping plot hole at the end. What started off with promise ended in an uninspired and anti-climatic mess. The one highlight of the film was Seregon O'Dassey, She's the only person I saw in this film that has the right combination of looks and talent to actually go somewhere, hopefully some better projects will cross her path.
All good reviews of this movie must come from the makers themselves! AVOID!
Pitus11 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Almost a total waste of time, unfortunately ... What I find most annoying is the positive comments I've read at IMDb - who wrote them? 10-year olds who were happy to see bare breasts for a few seconds and were drooling so much they couldn't remember or see the rest? Seriously, I understand this is a low budget "movie", but if I were to take a camera and make a movie, I'd at least attempt to make it realistic while this one was just pathetic, most of the time.
For example (I don't think these are spoilers but keep reading at your own risk) - has anyone making this movie ever tied someone to a table? I mean, gosh ... bend your knees girl and your feet will be released from the rope, no matter how tight it is, and why is she not able to move her hands tied by wrists? Well, at least at first as she can later easily get untied ... how pathetic :( Or the guy who's filming a girl with crutches - even a total moron who's never had a video camera in his hand would do a better job, I don't even think it's possible to get a picture so much out of focus, shaky, zoomed in on parts of body not on the entire person ...
Oh well, I just finished watching it and had to vent at this terrible waste of time - other comments already cover the acting that just sounds and feels like a few guys reading from cheat-sheets ... "special" effects are really special - if they were made on a Commodore 64 ;) There you go, if you were planning to watch this movie based on the few good reviews here, DON'T - read the negative reviews first, then, if you still think it's worth to have a good laugh at this thing go and waste your time as I did :( Peace!
For example (I don't think these are spoilers but keep reading at your own risk) - has anyone making this movie ever tied someone to a table? I mean, gosh ... bend your knees girl and your feet will be released from the rope, no matter how tight it is, and why is she not able to move her hands tied by wrists? Well, at least at first as she can later easily get untied ... how pathetic :( Or the guy who's filming a girl with crutches - even a total moron who's never had a video camera in his hand would do a better job, I don't even think it's possible to get a picture so much out of focus, shaky, zoomed in on parts of body not on the entire person ...
Oh well, I just finished watching it and had to vent at this terrible waste of time - other comments already cover the acting that just sounds and feels like a few guys reading from cheat-sheets ... "special" effects are really special - if they were made on a Commodore 64 ;) There you go, if you were planning to watch this movie based on the few good reviews here, DON'T - read the negative reviews first, then, if you still think it's worth to have a good laugh at this thing go and waste your time as I did :( Peace!
Fair to Moderate Sequel
aesgaard418 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
From the start, one really has to suspend belief and what they already know about the paranormal to watch this movie. It starts with a opportune car accident and a wood pole that falls over way too easy. (Does the writer know how indestructible they really are?) The rest of the movie proceeds with little knowledge of the paranormal and what so-called "facts" are fictional and unlikely - just feasible to make the movie make sense. The film does have its scares and its moments. Jillian Byrnes is back as Laura Kove, this time as as the ghost hunter, a much stronger role for her than as the victim. As much as I'm a fan of the Ghost Watcher series, I just see better moments that could have been used and instances that just don't. The movie has too many parallels with the original Ghost Watcher in that it tries turn a ghost movie into a serial killer movie instead of just staying a ghost movie.
A big disappointment
HEFILM21 October 2005
A confusing and must be said rather dull sequel to a very good, if very very low budget original. It is a bit better made on a technical level but the story is confusing and lacks most of what made the film so good. A protracted and pointless sequence in a dance club and a number of other "song" interludes distract and the ending, which is really stolen from THE EYE and MOTHMAN PROPHECIES, is too cheaply done to be effective. The basic premise of the first film is mostly forgotten and the ghostwatcher elements here have ultimately not much to do with the plot. Creepy moments and few and far between this time.
This film does feature a short TV horror movie spoof which is funny and features brief if memorable nudity for those looking for that. But I just have to say this sequel doesn't really merit sitting through all the way through, though I did out of respect for how good the first film was.
The director still has potential but should have struck out and make something other than a sequel as a follow up. All the CG in this one is pretty weak and take up time that was better spent in the first film with good makeup Fx. It's not worthless the opening car crash scene is smartly done and seems like a good setup to a film but the rest of the film gets less and less tense. Acting is eh. Real problem is that the story isn't exciting, is a bit confusing and ultimately is just routine. Better luck next time, just don't make Ghost Watcher 3.
This film does feature a short TV horror movie spoof which is funny and features brief if memorable nudity for those looking for that. But I just have to say this sequel doesn't really merit sitting through all the way through, though I did out of respect for how good the first film was.
The director still has potential but should have struck out and make something other than a sequel as a follow up. All the CG in this one is pretty weak and take up time that was better spent in the first film with good makeup Fx. It's not worthless the opening car crash scene is smartly done and seems like a good setup to a film but the rest of the film gets less and less tense. Acting is eh. Real problem is that the story isn't exciting, is a bit confusing and ultimately is just routine. Better luck next time, just don't make Ghost Watcher 3.
Had my doubts; but was wrong.
michaelRokeefe16 June 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Could this be any worse than the original? Better, but not by much. Dialogue choppy and acting hesitant. At times the screen seems busier, but then this was harder to follow. Tracy Cain(Julia Pickens)survives a car crash that kills her mother. Residual trauma is that her mind is flooded with strange voices that drives her into seizures. Her passive, but caring father decides to call a Ghostwatcher. And who answers the call; Laura Kove(Jullian Byrnes), the victim of the original movie. Laura and her friend Glen(Steve Polites)seem to have things set up to find the cause of Tracy's problems. The investigation is almost tainted from the start by Tracy's attractive sister Melanie(Seregon O'Dassey). Tracy begins spewing names and one is of special interest, Darius Blake(Vince Eustace). Nightmares are hurried thanks to a very nasty ghost. Director David Cross manages to succeed in providing suspense, tension, anxiety and fright.
Gore, violence, disturbing images, language and partial nudity helps garner an R rating. A few dollars more were found for the budget compared to the original and camera angles and special effects provide a weirdness factor. Supporting cast includes: Ariana Almajan, Donna Sherman, G.R. Garza and Marcus Dreeke.
Gore, violence, disturbing images, language and partial nudity helps garner an R rating. A few dollars more were found for the budget compared to the original and camera angles and special effects provide a weirdness factor. Supporting cast includes: Ariana Almajan, Donna Sherman, G.R. Garza and Marcus Dreeke.
Be afraid... of how bad this is.
caiphn27 October 2005
After reading a few reviews which stated this film was worth watching, I had high hopes for this film. What a let down.
It's very hard to watch, the acting sways from borderline watchable to down right terrible. Bad production, which sometimes has a charm of it's own, definitely does not here. You will groan at the corny dialogue, the bad acting, the both unprofessional and uninteresting camera work. After seeing the first 'soul sucking' scene or whatever that was supposed to be, I had enough. (I stuck it out, watched it all. I wish I didn't.) Avoid.
If you don't find the final scenes so incohesive, ludicrous and nonsensical that you either want to giggle or just shake your head, you are a better person than I. Again, avoid!!
It's very hard to watch, the acting sways from borderline watchable to down right terrible. Bad production, which sometimes has a charm of it's own, definitely does not here. You will groan at the corny dialogue, the bad acting, the both unprofessional and uninteresting camera work. After seeing the first 'soul sucking' scene or whatever that was supposed to be, I had enough. (I stuck it out, watched it all. I wish I didn't.) Avoid.
If you don't find the final scenes so incohesive, ludicrous and nonsensical that you either want to giggle or just shake your head, you are a better person than I. Again, avoid!!
Make another one NOW!!!
joannafannadanna28 October 2005
How in the hell does a movie like this go straight to DVD and a piece of mummified crap like THE FOG gets delivered to theaters?! Talk about unfair. Hacks like Rupert Wainwright and Uwe Boll-the worst director ever in the history of the entire world-continue to be able to make big budget films and people who actually know how to make horror movies get pushed to the back of the shelf? At least the Ghostwatcher movies are original and actually care about scaring the audience. If the original Ghostwatcher was remade with a big budget and some stars it would be the biggest horror hit of the year and at least that would make sense. Why has no one thought of this? Well, at least someone is still making movies for the horror audience and not a bunch of teenyboppers. The makers of this movie really came through this time.
Laura takes over the Elizabeth role and tries to help a teenager who is hearing voices. What those voices are and where they're coming from was a total surprise to me and makes for the best scene in the whole movie. The ending is pretty downbeat but works because it is so well done.
The thing I liked best about this movie is that the director didn't feel the need to throw in an African-American caricature who runs around screaming like an idiot (again, see THE FOG). Is anyone besides me sick of seeing that? And he doesn't spell everything out for the audience but instead lets them figure some things out for themselves. He uses classic scare tactics to get the audience on the edge of their seat instead of jamming it full of crappy CGI (there is some of that too but it actually looks really good in this one). In short, this is the kind of horror film they used to make back in the 70's when horror films were actually good and were more about story and character than how much we can make the first weekend because the newest TV star is in it. If you're as sick of the new wave of horror as I am, check this one out. I don't think you'll be disappointed.
And a plea to the director-please continue to make horror films in the future. You're the only one who seems to know what we want.
Laura takes over the Elizabeth role and tries to help a teenager who is hearing voices. What those voices are and where they're coming from was a total surprise to me and makes for the best scene in the whole movie. The ending is pretty downbeat but works because it is so well done.
The thing I liked best about this movie is that the director didn't feel the need to throw in an African-American caricature who runs around screaming like an idiot (again, see THE FOG). Is anyone besides me sick of seeing that? And he doesn't spell everything out for the audience but instead lets them figure some things out for themselves. He uses classic scare tactics to get the audience on the edge of their seat instead of jamming it full of crappy CGI (there is some of that too but it actually looks really good in this one). In short, this is the kind of horror film they used to make back in the 70's when horror films were actually good and were more about story and character than how much we can make the first weekend because the newest TV star is in it. If you're as sick of the new wave of horror as I am, check this one out. I don't think you'll be disappointed.
And a plea to the director-please continue to make horror films in the future. You're the only one who seems to know what we want.
The Acting...how do these people get work?
chrishaz3626 November 2006
I just don't get it, how do these people get work? The acting is deplorable. The storyline is boring and really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Most of the characters say their lines as if just learned them and are doing a very poor cold reading. All the characters display poor facial affect in response to situations occurring around them. The movie is disjointed, with an evil ghost character popping up in odd places.
I just can't believe films like this find backers and are able to release them to the public. I find much better written/directed/acted pod casts on itunes.
Most of the characters say their lines as if just learned them and are doing a very poor cold reading. All the characters display poor facial affect in response to situations occurring around them. The movie is disjointed, with an evil ghost character popping up in odd places.
I just can't believe films like this find backers and are able to release them to the public. I find much better written/directed/acted pod casts on itunes.
Poor quality production with mediocre acting
jmbovan-47-16017311 December 2021
Girl becomes plagued by noises and voices. Turns out to be spirits. A ghost hunter comes to help. Plot is weak and doesn't make much sense with contrived happenings to push plot forward and seek resolution. Boy, I did finish it, but why did I?
A great movie for Halloween
apocalipspow28 October 2005
Ah, yes, it's Halloween once again and time for the onslaught of "scary" movies to flood the multiplexes and video stores (or Netflix if you swing that way). We've already been subjected to THE FOG (garbage) and at the time of this writing SAW 2 is poised to hit theaters (this time the killer will lay on the floor for 22 hours just to prove how crazy he is, and was anyone really begging for a sequel to that movie anyway?). If you're like me, you want something scary to watch this time of year and you've already exhausted your DVD collection and don't want to trek to the theater because you can watch commercials at home for free. If this sounds familiar, you're in luck.
Ghostwatcher 2 is a great movie to watch this year (I don't know how it would fare the rest of the year, but I'm definitely adding it to my annual film festival on that night of nights). It's an unusual and ambitious horror film that doesn't treat its audience like a group of mongoloid idiots and has more than a few good scares to goose you when you least expect it.
Short synopsis: Tracy Cain suffers trauma from a car accident and soon after begins hearing voices which drive her to the point of seizures. Exhausting all other avenues, her father hires the Ghostwatcher, Laura Kove, to investigate and find out what's what. That's all you should know before you watch this movie because the fun is in discovering the source of the voices along with the characters. I will tell you that a very nasty ghost is involved (and if you don't already know that, you're really not paying attention) and that more lives may be at stake than just Laura's.
So, if you're in the mood, turn down the lights, pop this one in on Halloween night and go along for the ride. I will be. And hopefully next year Mr. Cross will give me another one to add to my collection.
Ghostwatcher 2 is a great movie to watch this year (I don't know how it would fare the rest of the year, but I'm definitely adding it to my annual film festival on that night of nights). It's an unusual and ambitious horror film that doesn't treat its audience like a group of mongoloid idiots and has more than a few good scares to goose you when you least expect it.
Short synopsis: Tracy Cain suffers trauma from a car accident and soon after begins hearing voices which drive her to the point of seizures. Exhausting all other avenues, her father hires the Ghostwatcher, Laura Kove, to investigate and find out what's what. That's all you should know before you watch this movie because the fun is in discovering the source of the voices along with the characters. I will tell you that a very nasty ghost is involved (and if you don't already know that, you're really not paying attention) and that more lives may be at stake than just Laura's.
So, if you're in the mood, turn down the lights, pop this one in on Halloween night and go along for the ride. I will be. And hopefully next year Mr. Cross will give me another one to add to my collection.
Finally, a horror movie worth watching...
DJStevieWayne29 October 2005
I have to admit, I wasn't expecting a whole lot when I picked up this movie off the blockbuster shelf. I thought the first one was pretty bad but was curious to see if they had improved themselves. And besides, everything else I wanted to see was rented. So I got it, took it home and prepared for a crappy looking but marginally scary low budget horror flick. Boy was I wrong.
Ghostwatcher2 is one of the best horror movies to come down the pike in a long time and I've seen most of them, folks. I've only watched it once so for all I know there are lots of things to pick apart but I was so wrapped up in it that I didn't notice a one.
The first movie looked like it cost all of $10.98. But someone must have seen potential because the new one can stand side by side with anything that has been released on the big screen and that takes a budget and people who know what to do with it. The danceclub scene alone is better looking than anything in the first film and that's one of the reasons why this one is so much more enjoyable. Instead of being locked in one room for almost the whole movie (even though that did have it's claustrophobic charm) the sequel moves out into the world and delivers more scares (one character being sucked into a closet really got me) and allows for greater things to happen to the characters.
The acting is definitely of higher caliber than your usual horror movie acting. My personal favorite was the actor who played Glen, Steve Polites. Although not a major character, he plays it with just enough charm and comedic timing to make him completely believable. In the movie's most crowd pleasing moment, his reaction to getting hit is priceless. I think we should expect to see bigger things from everyone in the cast in the future.
And kudos to the filmmakers for pulling off that ending. Could it have benefited from more money? Sure but I didn't care because I was so happy that the director had the balls to not chicken out and go all the way with his idea that I was willing to overlook it. Great job all around.
Ghostwatcher2 is one of the best horror movies to come down the pike in a long time and I've seen most of them, folks. I've only watched it once so for all I know there are lots of things to pick apart but I was so wrapped up in it that I didn't notice a one.
The first movie looked like it cost all of $10.98. But someone must have seen potential because the new one can stand side by side with anything that has been released on the big screen and that takes a budget and people who know what to do with it. The danceclub scene alone is better looking than anything in the first film and that's one of the reasons why this one is so much more enjoyable. Instead of being locked in one room for almost the whole movie (even though that did have it's claustrophobic charm) the sequel moves out into the world and delivers more scares (one character being sucked into a closet really got me) and allows for greater things to happen to the characters.
The acting is definitely of higher caliber than your usual horror movie acting. My personal favorite was the actor who played Glen, Steve Polites. Although not a major character, he plays it with just enough charm and comedic timing to make him completely believable. In the movie's most crowd pleasing moment, his reaction to getting hit is priceless. I think we should expect to see bigger things from everyone in the cast in the future.
And kudos to the filmmakers for pulling off that ending. Could it have benefited from more money? Sure but I didn't care because I was so happy that the director had the balls to not chicken out and go all the way with his idea that I was willing to overlook it. Great job all around.
Great Film with New Stars!
therealjettaman11 October 2005
I saw this movie in the theatres and was genuinely creeped out. Having never saw the first Ghostwatcher, I wasn't sure what to expect--did I need to see the first one to know who the characters were, was I going to be able to follow the storyline?, but director David Cross allows the film to be understood and flow for people not familiar with his first film. The actor that stood out the most to me was Vince Eustace who played the Darius Blake character. This guy gave me the creeps the same way Michael Jackson did when he was a zombie in the best music video ever made--Thriller (you remember music videos right, kids? Those things that used to play on MTV?) My ear drum is still recovering from my wife screaming in my ear when the Darius Blake character popped out of nowhere. This is the first "scary movie" that gave me a nightmare. The actors in this film, especially Vince Eustace, are bound to become big movie stars. I definitely recommend getting this movie when it comes out on DVD so that when these actors are huge Hollywood stars, you can say that you remember when they were in indie films
Much better than Hollywood films
steelethedeal28 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The state of current horror movies is in bad shape. Current Hollywood horror movies suck. Thank god for DVD since it gives an outlet to movie makers who understand why we watch these damn things in the first place. Yes, most of the DVD horror movies suck too but every once in a while you're able to come across one that really does it well. Last year, it was Ghostwatcher. This year its Ghostwatcher II.
Expanding on the original idea, this movie is enjoyable even if you haven't seen the first one. Most of the characters are new save for Laura Kove who returns to help a girl who is going through a problem similar to the one she herself experienced in part 1. Instead of the slow buildup of the first movie, this one starts off with a bang as a young girl , Tracy, experiences a terrible car accident and is then stabbed as she sits bleeding on the side of the road. Flash forward three months and Tracy has undergone a change for the worse, becoming a delinquent who regularly disobeys her father. When she starts hearing voices that become so loud they are physically crippling, her father hires Laura to find out whats going on. This is all that I will reveal since going along for the ride and trying to figure it out along with Laura is half the fun. I won't give away the ending but its not what I expected and thats a good thing. Not everything is tied up nice and neat. I watched the movie twice and found things on a second viewing that pointed directly to the ending that I didn't see the first time. The fact that the movie is not going to have a happy ending is basically braodcasted at the very beginning if you're paying attention so don't expect one. Once you know it and watch the movie again, you'll have a different appreciation of some of the conversations and clues that are dropped.
The film has less jump scares than the original but it is able to maintain a feeling of dread that sort of petered out in the first movie. By the time the climax comes, mirroring the beginning of the movie, you're totally invested in these characters and what their fates will be.
The acting is top drawer from start to finish. An argument between Laura and her boyfriend turned out to be one of my favorite scenes and Tracy and Laura have more than one emotional scene together including one where Laura recounts what happened to her in the first film that is very well acted. The ghost is also more of a character this time, interacting with the characters and taunting them as he unspools his plan. I found that more than a little unsettling since the villain in these kinds of movies usually remains mute throughout.
All in all, this movie is well worth the time, especaially when most of the other so-called "horror movies" out there suck. And make sure you watch the special features for a hilarious take-off on a really bad horror movie called the Last Halloween part 2. With our luck, that movie will be opening at your local cineplex and garner 20 million on its first weekend. As bad as it is, its no worse than the stuff thats out there now.
Expanding on the original idea, this movie is enjoyable even if you haven't seen the first one. Most of the characters are new save for Laura Kove who returns to help a girl who is going through a problem similar to the one she herself experienced in part 1. Instead of the slow buildup of the first movie, this one starts off with a bang as a young girl , Tracy, experiences a terrible car accident and is then stabbed as she sits bleeding on the side of the road. Flash forward three months and Tracy has undergone a change for the worse, becoming a delinquent who regularly disobeys her father. When she starts hearing voices that become so loud they are physically crippling, her father hires Laura to find out whats going on. This is all that I will reveal since going along for the ride and trying to figure it out along with Laura is half the fun. I won't give away the ending but its not what I expected and thats a good thing. Not everything is tied up nice and neat. I watched the movie twice and found things on a second viewing that pointed directly to the ending that I didn't see the first time. The fact that the movie is not going to have a happy ending is basically braodcasted at the very beginning if you're paying attention so don't expect one. Once you know it and watch the movie again, you'll have a different appreciation of some of the conversations and clues that are dropped.
The film has less jump scares than the original but it is able to maintain a feeling of dread that sort of petered out in the first movie. By the time the climax comes, mirroring the beginning of the movie, you're totally invested in these characters and what their fates will be.
The acting is top drawer from start to finish. An argument between Laura and her boyfriend turned out to be one of my favorite scenes and Tracy and Laura have more than one emotional scene together including one where Laura recounts what happened to her in the first film that is very well acted. The ghost is also more of a character this time, interacting with the characters and taunting them as he unspools his plan. I found that more than a little unsettling since the villain in these kinds of movies usually remains mute throughout.
All in all, this movie is well worth the time, especaially when most of the other so-called "horror movies" out there suck. And make sure you watch the special features for a hilarious take-off on a really bad horror movie called the Last Halloween part 2. With our luck, that movie will be opening at your local cineplex and garner 20 million on its first weekend. As bad as it is, its no worse than the stuff thats out there now.
Wow, what a difference
quintanobay28 October 2005
An agoraphobic girl finds out her house is haunted and finally comes to terms with the ghost who is stalking her. Three years later, cured and building a life for herself, she comes to the rescue of a teen with a similar problem and finds out that a lot more may be at stake than she thought.
Why do I find these movies so interesting? I think it's because Laura, the main character, IS interesting. And just as Laura has gone through a change, so has the sequel. I had to look at the box three times to make sure this movie was directed by the same person. At this point, director David A. Cross could probably set part 3 on Mars and make it interesting and believable. The best way to describe the difference between Ghostwatcher and Ghostwatcher 2 is to compare the first to freshman year. It was awkward and unsure of itself, but showed promise. The sequel would then be sophomore material, showing more maturity and a surer sense of the film-making process. The way I figure it, he's got two more in him before he's ready for the big time. And then I think he's going to scare the living crap out of all of us.
Why do I find these movies so interesting? I think it's because Laura, the main character, IS interesting. And just as Laura has gone through a change, so has the sequel. I had to look at the box three times to make sure this movie was directed by the same person. At this point, director David A. Cross could probably set part 3 on Mars and make it interesting and believable. The best way to describe the difference between Ghostwatcher and Ghostwatcher 2 is to compare the first to freshman year. It was awkward and unsure of itself, but showed promise. The sequel would then be sophomore material, showing more maturity and a surer sense of the film-making process. The way I figure it, he's got two more in him before he's ready for the big time. And then I think he's going to scare the living crap out of all of us.
Great Sequel! Refined but still Raw
LifeAsASuffix15 December 2005
I rented this last night at the local blockbuster, i knew it was coming out, but no one told me when. This movie was a Great improvement from the first movie. Not to say the first movie wasn't great, but this movie was much more refined. True, the production values were higher, there are Computer Graffics in this movie, but also the actors all seemed more mature in the art. The first movie had a grass roots, gritty, feel. This movie is shedding the gritty, and replacing it with a real scary Professional movie. It's hard to say the acting was improved from the first movie because the only returning Actor was Jillian Byrnes, and she was brilliant in the first movie. But she has definitely grown in her character. I Really enjoyed Vince Eustace as Darius Blake, the character was Scary, and the actor seems to have a great understanding of the character. As a whole i was always recommend this movie to everyone who enjoys a good scary movie, and wants to be on the leading edge of up and coming actors and filmmakers. Look for these actors down the road they are all going far.
Actually gave me a scare!
mugwort1314 November 2005
It's been a very long time since any movie gave me any type of scare at all. This movie actually gave me chills that made me uneasy the rest of the film (which, despite current efforts at horror, is what the genre is SUPPOSED to do!). Anyway, I enjoyed watching this and am glad I bought it. Money well spent. The acting was overall much better than the first movie. The plot seemed to take a different path than the first one, buy hey, it's a sequel! I think Julia has great acting abilities and has potential for stardom. Also the visual effects in this one are very well done.
If you haven't yet, see it!
If you haven't yet, see it!
Not that bad...
starpreston21 January 2006
Honestly, I'm not sure why not more people like it. It seems there are a lot of jealous people out there that want to attack a pretty girl just because she's attractive. Maybe the role called for the way someone acted? Oh but that would make sense! I do agree the film could've done a little better, but let's not forget Jennifer Aniston's first movie was a crapper named Leprechaun! and look where she is today...Also remember it's not pure talent that gets you far in this business, but the whole package. So it was low budget. It really wasn't the worst movie ever. Everyone working on it tried as hard as they could I'm sure. And it's quite possible that any of the actors could've done better, or worse, depending on the role. they weren't the best roles out there, but only means they can get better. Same goes for the director. There were some decent scares, and to say the least it was entertaining...
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
