A different way of telling a story

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

I gave this film a 9 out of 10, because it was exactly what I expected it to be.

Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Or an episode of "Night Gallery," with some swearing. Yes, "Ghosts of Edendale" plays like an extended episode of Rod Serling's last TV series, mixed with a bit of "The Shining," Clive Barker's "Coldwater Canyon," and David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive." Call it "omlette Du homage," I guess.Actually, this is a fairly standard "Hollywood" story tarted up as a horror flick. It's not the ghosts that are scary (Wha? The head ghoul is Tim Mix?), but the fear of not being one--that is, of being excluded from the "right" parties and the "right" neighborhood. And exclusion is horror in Hollywood.This low-budget flick manages to achieve a shock or two, but shooting on videotape hurts. It's tough to create the foreboding atmosphere a good horror movie needs on videotape without resorting to photographic effects that make it look like a "Dr. Who" episode from the 1970s. The pace is set a bit too slow--too many shots of people giving meaningful looks at things or people--and too much reliance on ghost-story clichés (for example, faces appearing in woodwork and creepy, whispering children's voices).

I agree with the previous comment, save for a couple main points that managed to aggravate me. The first was that two of the characters (neighbors) looked nearly the same, which just shouldn't happen unless the movie is called Double Impact, or has some other word(s) in the title along the lines of "Twin, Again, Doppleganger, or The Baldwins Strike Back." Anyways, the second hole was that creepy child. The movie never stated his purpose or why he told Rachel that "It's not nice to be an Indian giver"...or something. The sound effects were also lacking, as I believe that could have done better with the dinosaur equipment that's been sitting in my house for ages. HOWEVER--since film is an art, and each artist has their own intentions, I do commend anybody that has the courage to go forth with their vision, regardless of budget implications, and a lack of two actors that don't look the same. Thank you.

Reminds one of "The Shining" and "Rosemary's Baby" and, NO, not of that high caliber production. This is bootstrap film making. The thing about slogging through the ground covered by the two films mentioned above is that it's such rich ground to go slogging in. It's no shame to target those same "feelings". It's a rich mine and can be returned to time and time again without becoming pale and impotent. It's a powerful niche of our psyche and this film nudges those fears and suspicions into the light with a very slight hand. The ending wobbles off into non-closure but that evasive ending is a tool to wield in this kind low-keyed film. Not a whole lot new here (except that OHMYGOD kid in the closet and the skin-crawl faces in the fence) but this isn't new territory. As so often in low dollar productions, the unpolished mannerisms of the film add rather than detract. This would never work as a high-dollar movie. The overdone FX, required in a large budget film, would reduce effect.EDENDALE isn't in competition with anything. It's a favor for those of us who don't mind re-entering familiar territory that owns a lot of landscape. So much of horror is "tell me the same story I love so much but change it up just a bit, play with me...and give it an edge".Not new stuff. Not great stuff. The actors are really good bad ingredients. The wife has the heaviest role and, for 99% of her screen time, nails it. Husband has the hardest role; so delicate the lift of an eyebrow can be overdone. The "neighbors" were overripe - the audience gets it already, we're not stupid.I like movies that "creep" at you instead of "leap" at you.A horridly disfigured and over-sized figure screaming out of the dark and swinging an axe is one kind of fright.A noise in the corner of a dark room where nothing is supposed to be is another kind of fright.The first is over in a moment. The latter may haunt you for weeks.EDENDALE has a low terror count, but a high "creep" count.It doesn't matter this a well trod trail. We'll gladly trod it again when someone else chooses to takes us by the hand and lead us there.

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.