The Ghosts of Edendale

2003 "Some people are dying to make it in the movies."
3.8| 1h30m| R| en| More Info
Released: 19 February 2003 Released
Producted By: Mixville 02
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

A young couple moves into a neighbourhood obsessed with the frightening silent movie history that took place 80 years before. As the boyfriend also becomes obsessed, it becomes apparent that something more is happening.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Mixville 02

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Micitype Pretty Good
Limerculer A waste of 90 minutes of my life
Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.
Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.
ksf-2 Rachel and Kevin (Paula Ficara and Stephen Wastell) move into a house in the hills of silver lake. What they DON'T know is that the history and the former residents are still there, and still are not ready to go away. The whole Tom Mix storyline, history of Hollywood, silver lake area is really good. With the right actors, director, and photography equipment, could be a great film. The weird, slow-mo, low budget film quality just made it cheesy. The special effects in the kitchen sink were also pretty lame. I DID like how parts of the film were made in faux-sepia, almost black & white filtered light... like a Tom Mix film. Check out Edendale, Los Angeles in wikipedia. pretty interesting stuff. Written and directed by Stefan Avalos. Reading his story, it looks like he has performed as crew in many different areas of Hollywood film making. It's okay. it's out on DVD from Warner Home Video. have at it.
krickett56 well yet again i have given another low-budget film a try. this one was extremely dull and the girl that played Rachel? yeah...she sucked. none of the other characters rocked my world either. the special effects were really cheesy and i found myself shaking my head in disbelief. thank god i didn't spend money on it! how do people get away with putting this crap out to the masses? the ONLY reason i am even giving it a "2" is because i think it made me do one of those suspenseful/scary movie "jumps" that you do when something happens you don't expect. otherwise it was a total waste of time...take my word for it.
konajinx Yeah, I loved Avalos' The Last Broadcast, but The Ghosts of Edendale is one big stinkpile of a rotten movie. Where the digital look did well in Broadcast's faux documentary style, it completely debilitates Edendale. It's like watching a really bad soap opera (are there any good ones?), or a porn flick minus any of the sex...boring, in other words.The acting is beyond wooden, the story beyond "who cares?", and my patience worn thin that my wife and I turned it off halfway through, and I've made myself sit through some bad horror flicks before. But there you have it. The Ghosts of Edendale is frightening only in that it was green-lit in the first place. Why Warner Brothers decided to distribute this train wreck is beyond me.Avalos would be better suited giving up his desktop horror shows and just joining a film studio that cranks out cheesy horror flicks with gore that might look fake, but not as ridiculously fake as the crap he's coming up with on his computer. Oh, and the director's commentary on the DVD for this is hilarious. Listen to Avalos get super excited about starting a scene with the back of Wastell's (Wastoid) head. Dude, if you get that excited over a simple shot like that, then I suggest you just stop making films altogether.Please Stefan, you did just fine, if not great, with The Last Broadcast, but please don't make any more garbage like The Ghosts of Edendale. I saw on your website where you're tying to get an equally lame-o screenplay underway to be turned into another film. Here's a hint: work with someone who can actually create suspense and write good dialogue.
JawsOne Paula Ficara is a talented actress, but it's unfortunate that she was given such a weak, stilted script to work with. The remainder of the cast were just cardboard cutouts of what the characters should have been. Granted, the ghost story that is tied into the early days of Hollywood is quite interesting. The cinematography looked like poorly lit mini-DV with blown out shots and poorly framed subjects, with edits being loosely done making shots appear as if they dragged on too long, needlessly. The one saving grace, aside from Ms. Ficara, were the special FX which were very well done indeed. The film did get better about 1.25 hours into it, but by that point you couldn't care one way or the other what happened. Then it was, thankfully, over.