'Ghosts of Darkness' drew me into seeing it, with a cool and creepy poster, an intriguing idea with a potentially relatable central relationship and as someone with a general appreciation for horror. That it was low-budget, which from frequent personal experience is rarely a good sign due to that there are so many poor ones out there, made me though apprehensive.
Actually found 'Ghosts of Darkness' fairly watchable, if not an easy film to rate or review. Had to think long and hard about what my thoughts were and how to articulate them. 'Ghosts of Darkness' is not great, or good, has a fair share of problems (fairly big ones too) and doesn't do enough with its potential, which was hardly small. There are however a number of decent, even good, qualities in 'Ghosts of Darkness', at least it wasn't intelligence insulting or inept (unlike some films seen recently) and the potential is not completely squandered.
Lets start with the positives. The scenery is very atmospheric, likewise with the very nice way it's shot. The music is suitably spooky and quirky and doesn't distract at all from the atmosphere, while not exactly enhancing it.
Some of the acting is better than average, particularly the breath of fresh air that is Paul Flanery who really livens things up. There are some genuinely scary and suspenseful moments and the atmosphere has creepiness.
However, the story does feel over-stretched and some of it feels vague, under-explained. The more 'Ghosts of Darkness' progresses, the duller, more predictable, more senseless and less scary, and too many characters are too sketchy. Other actors don't fare so well, with Michael Koltes being a truly lifeless lead.
Dialogue can be stilted while the pace is uneven, dragging in some of the second half. The humour is also variable, parts are funny while others are cheesy and misplaced. Found the supposedly shocking moments not so surprising and the end felt incomplete and not much of a climax.
Overall, not bad at all while leaving me a bit lukewarm. 5/10 Bethany Cox
