Argemaluco Ghoul is an absolutely execrable pseudo-documentary "horror" film with hateful characters who videotape every second from their useless lives and have never-ending arguments in order to fill in the time between "terrifying" moments which don't generate any terror, suspense or even surprise. The only positive thing about this piece of junk is that it lasts for only 86 minutes, so the holy end credits don't take too long to show up. And the least I say about the actors, the better... their performances make their characters even more hateful than they already are. The screenplay is a confusing parade of unconnected ideas which desperately try to wake any interest on us; in other words, we have a cannibal, ghost appearances, demonic possession, spiritualist sessions, dark catacombs, a post-Soviet witch and videos from a serial killer... anything to fill in the time and unnecessarily complicate the awful screenplay. Might we have reached the lowest point in "found footage" cinema? Might things get better after this vomitive film? I don't think so. In fact, it seems that things can always fall lower in this type of cinema. "Hope is a mistake", like Max Rockatansky says in Mad Max: Fury Road. If you excuse me, I'm going to rewatch that masterpiece in order to erase Ghoul from my memory.

SashaDarko Yes, it's a clichefest, but very well-made, entertaining and scary one. If you know the culture, the language, the way Ukranian people speak, behave and live, you'd know how realistic everything is in this movie. The characters are also not as dumb as you usually see in everyone's favourite Hollywood horrors.If you're found footage fan, I can definitely recommend this movie. I think I already watched at least a half of all digitally/physically distributed found footage movies in the world, and I can say it's a really good one.There are at least 3 fake reviews on IMDb for this movie at the moment, one positive and 2 negatives (accounts registered only to post a review for this movie). One of these fake ones says "worst move of all time" and doesn't even say why, so connect the dots for yourself.

ltproductions I don't like watching movies that are 95% dark. This one of many pictures with that feature. Just like Area 51. Please make movies to watch not a dark screen Very bad camera technique. Reasonable actors Storyline is not good but the performance very bad Stop making films that are 95% dark. Watching the movie make me dizzy because of the erratic camera movement. Its a pity because I like the story.But makers think making dark movies is artistic. Its the baddest technique for viewers. If they like this technique then must use it in your own family film and don't bother the public with dark and moving camera pictures. Using light is not a sin

krismerrett I do not recommend you see this. See the other reviews telling you not to see it? I read those reviews and then I was like... well... I'll see it anyway.Don't be me. Me just wasted an hour and a half or her life. You are better than that. Be better.The found-footage subgenre is polarizing enough, but this movie didn't even put any effort into doing it right. 1) I think we have all agreed that the movie has to be watchable. The camera work was so shaky and out of focus, that it was difficult to follow the action at all. Long scenes were done in darkness (which is an old suspense-building trick that. feels. old. stop.), and all of the classic empty-room shots were of the camera Glitching in a Spooky Manner.This is not spooky anymore. (was it ever though.)2) What was the plot?? I was going to post a spoiler notice, but unclicked the little box because I honestly don't know what just happened. Was it about the Famine? The acquitted Boris? The kid from the story? The serial killer? His brother? What was this documentary even supposed to be about? Serial Killers in general?? Because the interviews were all over the place. As the premise of the entire film, that could have actually been hashed out, because I was side- eying the whole things skeptically from the get-go, and that's never a good footing to start out on.3) I was also lost as to the POINT of much of the action. So, I accept they're making a movie, even if the focus and the purpose is a little, well, nonexistent. But, (oh, there will be spoilers, btw) but if the serial killer could possess people, then why use the Ouija board? He could literally possess the characters and make them bite their tongues out, or rip their flesh off, but he spent 60 minutes making them run around in the woods to... do just that. The entire movie was this confusing plot of the ghost when he could have had what he wanted right from the beginning, and that was MADE CLEAR TO US almost as soon as they were in the house. Everything that happened after they entered the house was pointless. 4) IF YOU'RE MAKING A FOUND FOOTAGE FILM YOU NEED TO HAVE A WAY FOR THE FOOTAGE TO BE FOUND. goddamn it. Did the serial killer-ghost- possessed-killer-not-killer-wtf-is-HAPPENING submit it to their producers after he ate their faces? There is no way this footage was found. Also, on a similar note, who... added in subtitles? A soundtrack? The point of found-footage....sigh.Nevermind.OH AND ANOTHER THING. JUST IN CASE I DIDN'T HATE THIS MOVIE ENOUGH, and I did, we have blatant pro-life prop., and a man battering a woman to death for being "useless" since she's infertile. :/And this is all so he could be born again actually literally born again?????? I still don't really understand anything, ever.