Ghosts of the Ozarks

I watched this movie just for David Arquette, the plot seemed interesting as well but sadly I didn't like it. It took me too long to understand what was going on through out the film and that's why I couldn't enjoy it. Even when I finally understood I didn't like what I saw. It was super boring as well and I'm sad it turned out that way for me.

A very odd movie indeed. Very low production values, it looks incredibly cheap. Most of the cast would struggle to get work in TV commercials but what on Earth are Tim Blake Nelson and David Arquette doing here? Are they close friends of the director or were they blackmailed into it? Although the acting is wooden, the script stilted, the plot bizzare and the aforementioned negative production values this movie has a strange attraction. I can well see it becoming a cult classic especially among those keen on mind expanding fungus.

Right, well I hadn't even heard about this 2021 mystery thriller from writers Sean Anthony Davis, Jordan Wayne Long and Tara Perry before now in 2022 as I sat down to watch it. So I had no idea what I was in for here, but I have to say that I found the movie's cover and title interesting.

Directors Matt Glass and Jordan Wayne Long sort of manage to deliver a good enough movie. I liked the build up and the staging of the entire storyline. However, the reveal and the actual truth as to what was going on sort of felt very anti-climatic. And for me, once it became clear what was going on, I felt like I had essentially just wasted about an hour and a half of my life on the movie, as the reveal was sort of a slap to the face.

Initially then I was rather impressed with the cast ensemble that were in "Ghosts of the Ozarks", with the likes of Thomas Hobson, Phil Morris, Tim Blake Nelson, Angela Bettis, David Arquette and more. So there definitely were some talented people involved with the movie.

Visually then "Ghosts of the Ozarks" was good. It wasn't an over-the-top special effects movie, and with good reason. But I will not reveal the ending or what was going on. You have to experience that for yourself. But I will say that the effects were brooding and definitely added a good atmosphere to the movie.

"Ghosts of the Ozarks" was sort of a slow paced movie, but the building up of the entire scenario and atmosphere was well-deserving of a slow paced narrative. Just a shame about that atrocious reveal.

I was adequately entertained by "Ghosts of the Ozarks", but this is hardly a movie that I will be returning to watch a second time. Nor is it a movie that I would recommend anyone to rush out and get to watch.

My rating of "Ghosts of the Ozarks" lands on a bland five out of ten stars.

The people being purely negative about this movie are not being fair. Anyone who has watched it knows that a lot of time, talent, heart, and soul went into it. It isn't by any means a "bad" movie at all, but it is however a really slow burn, and suffers from several scenes that could have been condensed a bit. At over 1:45 minutes, some padding could have been stripped.

The acting is pretty solid across the board, and the overall look and feel is well crafted. The special effects aren't terrible, but aren't groundbreaking either. Aside from the plodding pace at times, the ending is sadly an M. Night Shyamalan style brow-raiser disappointment for me. While I would never call this a film unworthy of a watch, it isn't one I'll be adding to my collection either. It's a great story with a lot of potential, but one that sadly doesn't live all the way up to it.

Can be somewhat o.k. But really nothing special. It lacks personality and feels extremely generic like so much of what is being done these days. Its a very "run of the mill" movie but still can be an o.k. Watch if you're bored and have nothing else to do but there is by far much better stuff to watch out there.