loomis78-815-989034 Five young filmmakers go to the deserted Goldfield Hotel in Nevada in hopes of filming Elizabeth (Ashly Margaret Rae) the wife of the owner of the hotel whose spirit roams the halls looking for her lost baby. Her affair with a bartender (Roddy Piper) leads to a baby that her husband George Winfield (Chuck Zito) had killed along with Elizabeth. The crew searches the halls acting like school kids rather than a documentary crew with the ghost sliding past and all around them. Two members of the crew Mike (Richard Chance) and Keri (Amano) seem to think the reason they are there is to party, flirt and hang out being completely unaware that they are in a haunted hotel and what their mission is. Group leader Julia (Patterson) quickly realizes her Grandmother may have had something to do with the death of Elizabeth and the group can't escape outside the hotel. Decent Direction by Edwin Winfield and excellent cinematography by Adrian M. Pruett and Roland "Ozzie" Smith cannot disguise the terrible screenplay by Dominic Biondi and story by Brian McMahon. This is a shame because the filmmakers are quite talented and make the most of the location. The story is by the numbers and when you add two of the most annoying characters (Mike & Keri) a horror film has seen in a long time, the film can't overcome it. The dialog is absurd and downright laughable at times. The filmmakers create a good atmosphere only to have it ruined by stupid actions of the characters. There still manages to be a few scares and some gore thrown in but the relentlessly bad script keeps sinking any momentum the film gets going. A lot of talent behind the camera is wasted. It seems pretty clear this team could have made a good low budget horror film with real pay offs if they had any kind of script to work with.

Naly Shawnda First off let me start by saying, if you're hoping to watch a scary movie than this is NOT the movie you want to watch. The plot wasn't all that terrible, but there was just to much talking. I'll admit that some parts of the movie i would zone out and than realize i'm watching it because it was so boring.The beginning was okay, It started as five friends wanting to make documentary about a haunted hotel, they go on a road trip & the car breaks down they go to a cemetery blah blah blah, then finally they get to a bar with a man who is important to the story, he gives them a key and they're off to the hotel. The ghost wasn't scary, it wasn't any nightmare on elm street effects, it didn't look real & by the end if you were looking for a scary movie you'd be disappointed like i was.

Peppered_Productions So, this was one of those movies that I just couldn't get into. Usually I can have a horror movie in the background while doing other things, and still follow along. This one couldn't keep my attention & I had to keep rewinding parts (sometimes more than once) to catch up to the plot.Basic premise: 5 university students descend upon an alleged haunted hotel to get footage of phenomena for a thesis project. A woman, Elizabeth, and her baby were murdered at the hands of the hotel owner, George, after he finds out she was not faithful, and the baby was not his. Of course the students have car problems; of course they have to go through a graveyard; of course they encounter punchy locals (with a where-in-the-hell-do-I know-this-guy cameo by "Rowdy" Roddy Piper); of course the writing is plagued with trite stereotypes - the obnoxious alcoholic sex-on-the-brain a-hole & the slutty kleptomaniac girlfriend; of course I found this on fearnet.So we have our start and back story (sort of). But, here's where things go from standard to confusingly off-track. We have a shot of the old, deaf townie presumably in the hotel after the group begins to settle in the hotel. This is never explained or followed up on. Seriously, were there scenes cut? Was it meant as misdirection that this was all a setup?The ghost - can she not decide whether she just wants her murdered baby? revenge against the lineage who wronged her? to kill everyone? to get laid? Because although most of her lines have to do with the first choice, she dabbles in all of the above.Of course the gang splits up, and amid possession and solid ghost 'hauntings' the kids are picked off one by one. Our heroine, Julie, feels responsible because it was her grandmother who snitched & started all the trouble. Julie gets most of the story through a weird mind- meld flashback. Her heirloom, a locket, actually belongs to the ghost. Will giving it back free her spirit & appease her?Nope - a trinket doesn't give her baby back, excuse her being tortured and murdered, or get rid of her bloodlust.The film gives a clear delineation of the 'good' characters versus the 'bad' ones. You pretty much figure out early who will be killed first. The good ones get it, too, because this is one angry spirit.The ending is kind of craptastic. Julie sees the fate of Elizabeth and succumbs somehow to the same torture. She is left alone in the hotel, staring out of the window, while the tetchy bartender (a lookalike descendant of Elizabeth's lover) looks on, satisfied.The movie is plagued with a nonsensical plot, bad writing, and some not-so-stellar acting. Honestly, I thought George was a Soprano's reject. The pouty princess 'friend' was kind of annoying, and even our ghost was a bit over-the-top with her expressions.But the kicker? Over the credits is this random history-lesson back story about the town that really added NOTHING to the plot or characters. The narrator isn't even credited. It was a bizarre choice that really made no sense. Maybe if it was tied in at the beginning as exposition, it may have transitioned properly. Or even if it was in Julie's voice, it may have tied in. But, this was a random, unheard-from omniscient voice-over that made it feel even more like a film school project that had to fit in required elements.Overall, not a great flick - I have seen worse, but this one definitely could've been made much better.Side notes - after reading a few of the other reviews:I had totally missed that this hotel was set in Nevada - or that I-95 reference would have clicked as well. Just goes to show how not interested I was in this film.Re: Twilight Zone feel. Actually, the summary (and voice) reminded me much more of the Outer Limits. But, I also didn't get that vibe until the ending credits.It's a semi-watchable movie, with a lot of plot holes and characterization issues to contend with. Fairly forewarned.

krystinapilkington The biggest problem encountered with this film is the fact that it actually makes no sense at all. If you choose to watch this pathetic excuse for a film you will be subjected to an hour and a half of painful dialogue, pathetic acting and terrible filming and still come out at the end none the wiser than when you began. It is in no way clear why they characters that are murdered are. It's a low budget film so naturally I expect bad shooting and poor acting. However, it costs nothing to think up a story that is actually consistent and makes logical sense.In the initial scene at the 'saloon', which is meant to be 'unchanged since the 1800's', you can clearly see the bar owner leaning on a Fosters lager pump. Not really in keeping with the idea that this bar has not been altered in over two hundred years. Thankfully the director does redeem himself in noticing this mistake and removing the Fosters badge for the next scene! That's about the only congratulations I could offer to whoever thought of, and produced, this atrocity.Life seriously is too short to waste on this film.