What makes it different from others?

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

'Ghosts of Darkness' drew me into seeing it, with a cool and creepy poster, an intriguing idea with a potentially relatable central relationship and as someone with a general appreciation for horror. That it was low-budget, which from frequent personal experience is rarely a good sign due to that there are so many poor ones out there, made me though apprehensive. Actually found 'Ghosts of Darkness' fairly watchable, if not an easy film to rate or review. Had to think long and hard about what my thoughts were and how to articulate them. 'Ghosts of Darkness' is not great, or good, has a fair share of problems (fairly big ones too) and doesn't do enough with its potential, which was hardly small. There are however a number of decent, even good, qualities in 'Ghosts of Darkness', at least it wasn't intelligence insulting or inept (unlike some films seen recently) and the potential is not completely squandered.Lets start with the positives. The scenery is very atmospheric, likewise with the very nice way it's shot. The music is suitably spooky and quirky and doesn't distract at all from the atmosphere, while not exactly enhancing it. Some of the acting is better than average, particularly the breath of fresh air that is Paul Flanery who really livens things up. There are some genuinely scary and suspenseful moments and the atmosphere has creepiness.However, the story does feel over-stretched and some of it feels vague, under-explained. The more 'Ghosts of Darkness' progresses, the duller, more predictable, more senseless and less scary, and too many characters are too sketchy. Other actors don't fare so well, with Michael Koltes being a truly lifeless lead.Dialogue can be stilted while the pace is uneven, dragging in some of the second half. The humour is also variable, parts are funny while others are cheesy and misplaced. Found the supposedly shocking moments not so surprising and the end felt incomplete and not much of a climax. Overall, not bad at all while leaving me a bit lukewarm. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Just watched a great possessed house movie "Ghosts of Darkness", where two men are hired to stay in the house for three nights, and prove it is safe even though many many people have died in it over a long period of time, and nobody has lasted more than three nights. IMO, this is one of best such movies I've seen for a while. The makeup and special effects are awesome, and it is filled with some great jump scares. Really good script, outstanding performances, and about all you would want. I highly recommend this dandy.

It still amazes me how people involved in a film can manage to mangle it so bad that it comes off as a joke. Such is the case for "Ghosts of Darkness." I rarely go on about a movie this bad, but I'm going to make an exception here because this movie had potential--the house and its back story. However, given what was put on the screen, you'd never know it.Two paranormal researchers are contacted by a mysterious man who offers them each $50,000 if they can stay in a house with a gruesome history. Jonathan is a medium; Jack is the "I'm-not-going-to- believe-anything-unless-it-bites-me-in-the-ass" dude. If that isn't bad enough, he also has the personality of a fence post. Mystery man takes their cell phones and car keys and tells them they will be locked in for the next 36 hours. They are each given $25,000 up front and told they'll get the remaining $25,000 upon completion of their "project." This is where the film went off track completely, and if you're smart, you'll realize what I'm talking about. For a movie to rely on two people, those people should have some kind of chemistry. That is nowhere to be found. Jonathan acts as though the entire project is a joke. Jack acts as if he's just been hit in the head with a brick. The director couldn't make up his mind if he wanted a comedy or a horror movie and although you can have elements of both in a movie, you need to know how to blend those elements. It also would help if your characters could ACT. It was pretty evident to me the guy cast to play the "tortured soul", a/k/a Jack, couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. The character of Jonathan looked eerily like Gary Oldman's character of Sirius Black (from the Harry Potter movies). Another suggestion is to STOP with this crap of CGI demons. They are not scary and give me an impression you're too lazy to hire real makeup artists. Rated "R" for violence, disturbing images, and language.

The is a UK low budget horror movie so when I say surprisingly good I am referencing the word budget from many angles.The two relatively unknown actors carry virtually the whole film between them... No mean feat... And they do it very well.The story isn't bad, the suspense is good, the creepiness is well timed and the scares are well launched.I would go as far as to say I would watch it again in time and I would certainly recommend to friends.