A paranormal investigator (Patti Tindall) is hired by the heir to the old Masterson house to investigate some supernatural forces that supposedly reside within caused by the murder of a God-fearing family. Once the investigation begins, however, the group of investigators begin to uncover some secrets to the house previously unknown. . . and there may be more of a threat from the living than the dead.
Over the years, countless films have been made regarding paranormal investigation and ghost hunting (yes, they are two different things). From Poltergeist and the attempt to RID spirits to White Noise and the attempt to FIND spirits, it's pretty much all been done. Since Death of a Ghost Hunter really isn't anything new, it had a lot of ground to make up if it wanted to be memorable. Although it was interesting, the lack of originality left it as mostly forgettable. Technically, as a film, it's not great. The typical low-budget errors are obvious: it's cheap-looking from the low-end video equipment, the acting isn't very good, the audio is muffled and out-of-sync at times, etc. However, as a paranormal investigation film, it's not that bad. I didn't think it would be, seeing as the film starts immediately with two factual errors involving definitions of phrases: 'Ghost hunting' is when a hunter goes to an area where no paranormal activity has been noted in hopes of finding something while a 'paranormal investigator' goes to supernatural hotspots where activity has been witnessed (or at least BELIEVED to be witnessed). The film mixed them up repeatedly, which was a bit annoying as the lead character was a professional investigator. But, it's a common error so fairly forgivable. Ignoring that, the rest of the film is nicely researched. The writers did well to make Carter a believable investigator (though her acting didn't make her seem as much). The character knows what she's talking about and goes about it in a believable way. I've worked with both skeptics and believers (myself falling somewhere in between based on my own science) during investigations, and she was a realistic skeptic. The 'findings,' though a bit over-the-top at points, weren't as exaggerated as some films get (like the far-too-clear EVPs that Michael Keaton discovers in White Noise (we wish they were that good)). There are some creepy moments and the backstory works well with the 'modern' events. It's a film that should satisfy someone looking for a rational look at paranormal investigation, but it's not the type of film that will ever live as one of the 'great ghost stories' of our time. I still enjoyed it on both the levels of an investigator and a horror fan.
Final verdict: 6/10.
-AP3-
Over the years, countless films have been made regarding paranormal investigation and ghost hunting (yes, they are two different things). From Poltergeist and the attempt to RID spirits to White Noise and the attempt to FIND spirits, it's pretty much all been done. Since Death of a Ghost Hunter really isn't anything new, it had a lot of ground to make up if it wanted to be memorable. Although it was interesting, the lack of originality left it as mostly forgettable. Technically, as a film, it's not great. The typical low-budget errors are obvious: it's cheap-looking from the low-end video equipment, the acting isn't very good, the audio is muffled and out-of-sync at times, etc. However, as a paranormal investigation film, it's not that bad. I didn't think it would be, seeing as the film starts immediately with two factual errors involving definitions of phrases: 'Ghost hunting' is when a hunter goes to an area where no paranormal activity has been noted in hopes of finding something while a 'paranormal investigator' goes to supernatural hotspots where activity has been witnessed (or at least BELIEVED to be witnessed). The film mixed them up repeatedly, which was a bit annoying as the lead character was a professional investigator. But, it's a common error so fairly forgivable. Ignoring that, the rest of the film is nicely researched. The writers did well to make Carter a believable investigator (though her acting didn't make her seem as much). The character knows what she's talking about and goes about it in a believable way. I've worked with both skeptics and believers (myself falling somewhere in between based on my own science) during investigations, and she was a realistic skeptic. The 'findings,' though a bit over-the-top at points, weren't as exaggerated as some films get (like the far-too-clear EVPs that Michael Keaton discovers in White Noise (we wish they were that good)). There are some creepy moments and the backstory works well with the 'modern' events. It's a film that should satisfy someone looking for a rational look at paranormal investigation, but it's not the type of film that will ever live as one of the 'great ghost stories' of our time. I still enjoyed it on both the levels of an investigator and a horror fan.
Final verdict: 6/10.
-AP3-