Andariel Halo This is an odd little film, further oddened by the fact that apparently it wasn't properly transferred to Amazon Prime in terms of aspect ratio, because it's supposed to be in widescreen, but for some reason comes out in full screen, with the black bars on top and bottom, so it's only taking up like 2/3rds of the screen.At first I thought it was supposed to be in full screen, as it begins with an inexplicable murder sequence set in 1982 yet supposedly filmed on some kind of 1950s or 60s style reel camera. As the camera repeatedly cuts to multiple shots, including some impossible ones like several feet behind a solid wall, it's increasingly unclear what the point of this footage is or what it's supposed to be in-universe. No mention of this footage is made ever again and it's completely unnecessary. They could have used it the way they do later on, splicing fragments and clips in like "visions". Once it gets to the real film itself, it turns to a more conventional camera, though with a rather odd framerate that, mixed with its introductory style, makes it look and feel like a Forensic Files-style re-enactment documentary. They go with this style for about 20 minutes before dropping it and going for a purely conventional style movie... but continuing in the odd framerate/shooting style of a true crime re-enactment, complete with a solitary piece of repetitive music that is used and re-used in every spooky scene that sounds like it was pecked out on a casio keyboard. the film itself covers a paranormal investigator named Carter who is investigating a house owned by an inexplicably successful 28-year old who inherited it from his father, who in turn inherited it from his brother who was murdered with his children by his wife, who then apparently drowns a baby. This is the murder we see at the beginning of the film. Inexplicably, the guy wants her to work with two other people; a cameraguy friend of his, and a writer. Once they all meet and come to the house, they're met up with a woman, Mary Young Mortenson, for whom I give credit to the actor for not portraying in the stereotypical uptight Christian conservative zealot but making her somewhat believable, willing to curse and talk about guys and actually be reasonable when confronted with non religious people instead of constantly jabbering about god. The flip side of this potentially "realistic" portrayal is that it may just be so terribly written and acted that it is only accidentally believable. The acting is indeed terrible, yet ironically it is about the exact same caliber of stilted, awkwardly wooden acting that you get from true crime documentary re-enactments. If that were the intention, it would better explain the bad acting, while throwing in the potential mystery of what the hell happened in the editing room to edit out the "documentary style". The plot is a boring foray into this group scouting out a supposedly haunting house and experiencing spooky ghosty events using some of the worst little visual effects and clumsily spliced in backmasked audio. Virtually nothing happens other than some scattered, unconvincing "ghost" appearances while the people involved all bicker and fight constantly, mostly with Mary Young. These encounters are hilarious for all the wrong reasons, and culminate in the obvious revelation that Mary Young was not originally invited by the owner of the house as she'd said, but just a crackpot member of the murder victim's church who occasionally shows cult-like devotion to him and his memory. While the group finds mounting evidence that the original man of the house was a bad and devious man, Mary Young refuses to hear of it and has a freakout that leads to her leaving. She then calls in to a religious radio show complaining about them, and then comes back to wear a weird religious box-helmet thing, then kill them all, or something. It's not entirely clear what was happening. After that, we get an extremely long sequence, filmed even more in true crime documentary re-enactment style, with Mary Young's voice-over narration. Turns out the original man of the house was a very bad man, as he takes in a moronic couple's teenage daughter who they say has been a "whore", and chains her up in the attic and rapes her repeatedly over several weeks. The wife is fully aware of all this, and the husband also has sex with her, while making her wear the religious box-helmet contraption. The girl gets pregnant and gives birth, and the wife finally loses it and the murder we saw at the beginning is revealed in full, and it's then revealed the baby didn't drown in the bathtub and was rescued by a police cop named Mortenson, and it's revealed that baby was Mary Young Mortenson, who then comes out of the narration and kills herself in the same way as the wife did. Rather than ending now, the film goes on painfully to apparently show Carter as a ghost in the house now, and by this point the story has long since ended and what unfolds here is a sad epilogue to a poorly-made film lamenting the fate of a character no one cares about.

flitz35 This is the only b horror movie with sub par acting that scared the tar out of me. There are several types of horror movie fans. I am the type that wants to be scared and quite frankly slasher films don't do it for me. I want to see a ghost. I want a good story behind the scares as well. The story was there for this film as well as the low budget editing showing the little girls ghost which was the creepiest thing I've ever seen. Now I watched this movie on my tablet with ear buds in and I will challenge any horror fan that likes ghostly type movies to watch this one the way I did then review Death of a Ghost Hunter based on how creeped out you were. To bad a major movie company didn't grab the script. But I'll tell you you'll be shocked with this Saturday night horror flick.

NiklausJK I can forgive the terrible acting, and the horrid special effects, even the incredibly predictable plot. But the "Christian" character in this movie was **offensive**, and I'm not even Christian! It was the equivalent of having a black character who does nothing but talk about fried chicken and commits rapes, or a Jewish character who does nothing but pick the other character's pockets. Obviously the writer/director had some bad experiences with religious people in his past, and decided to use this movie as a way of "getting back" at everyone. It's a sad, pathetic propaganda film disguised as something remotely entertaining. I would not recommend this film to anyone, except people who were diddled by priests and are looking for a comedy.

yellowtoad This film...this film....this film. :/ By now I'm sure you've read that the acting wasn't great. True. It seemed very unrehearsed and totally on-the-fly in most of the shots.The sound editing was horrible. (FAIL!) Very frustrating and unprofessional. One minute I'm struggling to hear the dialogue, a few seconds later I'm grabbing the remote and adjusting the volume by at least 50% because of the loud volume. It was VERY annoying to say the least. (Seriously, how can a film be edited like this?)The Story was a bit unusual - not very predictable (although some reviews her have argued otherwise) and the ending was strange. I had questions during the film, but I wont beat up the story for it. I think the film would have been better off without the cameraman and the reporter. Although the best line of the movie was from the cameraman... "From now on - I'm only doing weddings!". (I chuckled).The scenes were awkward and didn't blend or transition well for the most part, and the actors in the film didn't have very much chemistry for the viewer to feed off of. Everything seemed force-fed. In my opinion the story, the scenes, and it's players needed to breath a little bit...give it some space. It never happened. Lindsay Page was interesting. I'm still not sure what to think about her - but I was intrigued by her characters strange personality. I would liked to have seen her character become a bit more developed in the story, as she added a creepy sense of uneasiness to the whole vibe (maybe instead of the wacky ending).The simple special effects were effective, and well placed. If they'd have used more simple video camera shots - I think it would have covered up the low-end production that was so obvious from the start (as Blair Witch or Paranormal Activity did.) That's a turn-off for many who will probably never give this film a chance once it begins.The music was excellent! Simple piano notes gently tapping a well timed eerie melody. This was the best element of the film for me.:/ (Sigh......) I can understand why anyone would HATE this film....but I liked it. I think the nature of the story, combined with the music sucked me in.I do think this movie fell short of what it could have been. That's what's most disappointing.I give it a 6 out of 10, or a C-. (I feel like I shouldn't be so nice....meh....I'll consider the source.)