Ghostkeeper (1981)
1/10
Quite possibly the worst film I've ever seen.
9 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This film is poor. VERY poor.

My brother and I got this film going cheap and decided we like Z movies, so why not give it a shot? There's a few very good reasons.

Firstly, the cast cannot act. They can't do surprise, fear, love, hate, or any other expression except the one of a pleading animal in pain that wants to die. They clearly didn't enjoy doing the movie, and the acting is so poor Chuck Norris would have improved this film tremendously, and I'm not a fan of his.

To say the plot was flimsy would be an understatement, and frankly an insult to other flimsily plotted films. It's barely existent, let alone flimsy. There doesn't seem to BE one. Some people who are characterised so little that to call them 2D would be an insult to drawings arrive at an abandoned lodge deep in somewhere with lots of snow for no apparent reason. Some ski holiday or something, because as everyone knows the best ski holidays are in the middle of nowhere so no help can come if you get injured.

What then follows is a shoddily hammered together monstrosity that's only spine tingling in the sense you won't believe someone put money up for this god-awful mess. Then again, all the money seems to have been spent on locations, and the props. These are two elements where the film actually did fairly well. I'd better stop the praise before someone thinks this film might be redeemable and not burn every copy they find.

The people die in exceptionally stupid ways. The worst of which is the woman who dies twice. Yes, that's right, TWICE. Shes drowned in the bath and dragged away, then has her throat cut. She's still alive for the throat cutting of course, because otherwise there'd be no point. Much like the making of this movie....

The Wendigo, which is in fact a not very tall man in one of the worst monster suits I've ever seen (and I watch Doctor Who) is in the film for around thirty seconds, meaning the time spent on his inclusion was oh so worth it, because it wouldn't have made sense to have made this a serial killer film instead.

The ending. Ah, the ending, one might think that when this came I jumped for joy. I didn't. What ACTUALLY happened is I rewound the tape because it ended so suddenly and pointlessly that I couldn't believe my eyes. The very short credits had indeed rolled up as the last survivor sat in a chair sipping a drink. Apparently she became the keeper of the beast, because thats EXACTLY what you would do after all your friends, a mad old woman and her son, and some bloke who owned a shop nearby (this was the only other building shown, there wasn't even any outside his shop)were killed by each other, or in one case apparently going mad and being covered in engine oil.

This film isn't good in any way. It's not so bad it's good. It's not even so bad it's funny. It causes actual physical pain to watch.

Incidentally I have an alternate cover for this film, which shows a South American jungle (it clearly is in South America, what with the ziggurat) and piles of skulls and such, with a large picture of a bad monster (although far better than the one in the movie) that had nothing to do with the film whatsoever. It wasn't even like the film monster was a poor attempt at the box one. It was totally different, as was the setting, seeing as how I know of no jungles of pine trees covered in snow. Maybe I just haven't looked?
5 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed