Ghost Lake (Video 2004) Poster

(2004 Video)

User Reviews

Review this title
54 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
2/10
A Complete Mess
claudio_carvalho2 April 2007
Rebecca Haster (Taturn Adair) blames herself for the death of her parents and decides to spend sometime alone in the lakeside cottage of her parents in Rushford Lake. She meets Stan James (Timothy Prindle) on the road and gives a lift to the stranger. Later they become friends, while Rebecca sees supernatural events with drowned people in the lake. While searching the accidents in the library, she finds that mysterious deaths happen in the spot every thirteen years.

I bought this DVD without any previous reference and only based on its creepy cover, since I love zombie movies. Unfortunately, this film is simply awful, with a messy and flawed screenplay. I have no problems with low budget movies with simple special effects, but with good story, direction and performances and this is not the case of "Ghost Lake". Further, I am not moralist but the lead character Rebecca has the behavior of a slut, having casual sex with two strangers in a couple of days and while grieving the death of her parents. My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): "O Retorno dos Mortos" ("The Return of the Dead")
17 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
What??? It's not a parody???
steffenml3 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
As some have mentioned, this is, well, not a good movie. The only good part are the scenes at the beginning and at the end in which our hot lead actress Tatum brings out the twins - and nice twins they are. I would NOT, however, care to see them again if that means watching the whole damn movie - it was THAT bad.

Fine, so it's low-budget. And yes, i've seen Eclipse and I've seen Back From Hell, and I enjoyed them! I've even ANALYZED Black Woods. These films are all fine examples of cult-like films that have done the most out of their budgets. I'll give you another example of low-budget horror: "Blair Witch" ring a bell? True, it didn't need as much special effects as this move would need, but every single actor in that film was better than every single actor in Ghost Lake - and for one hell of a lot less money. For Nick, who wrote that the acting was more done "like in real life" instead of exaggerating - please watch the movie one more time. I could never in my life have talked anything like any of those actors. They talked like they were reading from the script during the whole film, from start to finish. In fact, I found myself thinking several times, "what the hell? Didn't they get time to memorize their lines properly??".

This movie is one I would not want to watch again unless my life depended on it. Let's say we forget about the acting that makes Coolio look like Oscar material for a minute. Let's say that we didn't notice the make-up that is supposed to make the actors look like zombies but instead makes them look like they dropped buckets of various paint over their heads, or when water came out the "zombies'" mouths like when you put water in your mouth and talk - you know, like when you were in kindergarten. Let's say that just for a minute, the story wasn't utter rubbish, and didn't contain almost exclusively script flaws and logical errors. Let's then say that we would be able to overlook ALL of this at ONCE, in an attempt to find other good things about this movie. The what would we have?

We would still have a bad movie.

The first thing that struck me was that this was actually a comedy! My thoughts wandered off to "Scary Movie" or "Dawn of the Dead" - in other words either an intentional parody or, well, another kind of intentional parody. I was sad to see that I was mistaken.

Never mind the laughable scene in which our boobalicious Tatum is PUSHED out to the party by her parents; never mind the scenes where it switches between her driving, her letting the nice, big twins out for some air and some lickin' - it's the plot.

First of all: For a horror movie, something happening every 13 years is way too often. A curse is not something happening twice every generation. I can not for the life of me figure out how anyone in their right mind will even CONSIDER the plot or the storyline in any way anything but awful.

Secondly, I can say the same thing about the directing - yes, he does film very well at night, fine. But he's using amateurish cutting and ways of quickening the pace. It seems to me that he's rushing the production to make the suffering shorter.. I don't think even Jay Woelfel really knew what the explanatory mathematics at the end meant, and our poor Tatum and her twins looked just like a teenager pretending to understand when being presented with the Theory of Relativity - "Ah, so THAT'S what's happening! Of course! I KNEW that E wasn't good for you, but i never knew why!"

And thirdly, and this is the worst part of the whole movie: The beginning. And i'm not even talking about the laughable way Woelfel is cutting the memories into her driving, or the humorous "Days of our Lives"-wannabe expressions on Tatums face when she tries to act on the cuts, either. No, i'm talking about the way her parents dies.

This is a major spoiler for you who haven't seen the movie yet, but it's a fun one, and the reason why I thought this movie was a comedy at first: Her dad wakes up in the master bedroom, coughing - he smells the gas and yells something like "honey! *cough, cough* I think there might be a gas leak! *cough *cough' Honey?!", with no response. So he crawls (yes, CRAWLS) out of bed, and KEEPS crawling, actually, across the floor and to the stairs - from which he falls down and dies. And how does her mother die? From the gas as well - as she is sitting right next to the stove. Now hold on, I'll say that one more time: Her MOTHER dies next to the stove without noticing the gas leak, but her FATHER not only notices the gas, but he notices the gas IN HIS SLEEP and WAKES UP! Not only is it highly unlikely that the father would even be much affected in the second story of such a big house - he would CERTAINLY not wake up from the smell! There are so many logical flaws at the beginning of the film that I could not see how this could be anything but a parody. I even told my girlfriend as we started watching, "oh, cool, it's a parody! I thought it was a horror flick!" - and sadly, I was mistaken.

I rank this among the two worst movies I've seen along with "Dracula 3000".

However, I still just can't bare to give this a one. After all, Tatum ARE letting her twins out. Twice. That, to me, doubles the value of this film.
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Not scary, not good
oskhen31 March 2006
I'm one of those who really get easily scared by movies, and especially horror movies, of course. I'm so easy scared that it's almost embarrassing. It doesn't even really have to happen anything; if the mood is at least done almost right, I can sit in intense suspense and wait for something to happen.

So the strange thing about this movie is: I did not get scared. I mean - I probably jumped a bit in the seat one or two times, and I think I felt a bit, and only a bit, of suspense maybe three or four minutes together, during the whole movie.

That must mean that they hardly did anything right, right? And that's right - they hardly did anything right: Most of the supposed-to-be-scare-stuff happened in broad daylight. I mean, how scary is broad daylight? And the mentioned stuff was for a big part filmed from far away, and how scary is stuff that is filmed from far away? Another thing: what did they do with the screen all the time?!? That division-stuff - disturbing!!! And I still wonder how the lead-lady figured out the secret of "now is the 13th year, so they are going to kill 13 people", for instance. Much of the plotting was completely not understandable.

Okay, one cool thing to end with: the start really freaked me out - with the place-to-place- and time-jumping.

Oh, did I mentioned that much of the acting (though not all) was completely laughable? The bad-guy-laughter from the three Zombies by the lake near the end was probably the most artificial (both concerning acting and directing) I've ever seen - and I've seen my share of oldies.
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Oh. Sweet. Jesus.
Obliviax9 April 2006
There are very few horror films in which I can find no redeeming quality - and "Ghost Lake" has the dubious honour of being one of them. Although it doesn't feature the same level of technical ineptitude as, say, "666: The Demon Child", its unspeakably annoying "actors", awful dialogue (which, I'm sorry to say, is perfectly audible at all times), and pitiful visual effects all add up to a thoroughly reprehensible waste of an hour and three quarters.

Add to all that the fact that the plot was gaffed entirely from a Matthew Costello novel entitled "Beneath Still Waters" (which, as luck would have it, is being adapted by the lovely Brian Yuzna) and you have a film that you simply can't like for any reason at all. Really.

Well, that's not completely true. In the picture's defence, the scenes involving forcible expulsion of water from the mouths of various people are awfully amusing... for entirely the wrong reasons, of course. Please avoid this dreadful thing.
27 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
drowning in ghost tears
BrianSingleton15 June 2005
This is just another STV "horror" movie that plagues video stores everywhere. There is nothing I want more than a resurgence of good horror movies, but films like "Ghost Lake" do everything possible to ensure this never happens. The movie is garbage from start to finish; horribly written, shot, acted and edited. Even the minimal zombie make-up can't save it. I wasted $6.50 at Blockbuster with this one, and I've done the same thing countless times before out of desperation and a faint hope than someday, somewhere, someone will make a horror movie we've all been waiting for. As a horror filmmaker myself, I say give me the budget for Ghost Lake and I'll show you how it's done.
22 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
An hour and 44 minutes of my life I can never get back!
randyfee22 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Oh where to begin! This movie was so ridiculous I'm almost ashamed to admit that I paid $5.99 to see it. This movie set an all time record for showing the lead characters boobs the quickest (approx. 2 minutes) and they're not even that great. The scene at the bar where the suave dude picks her up is incredibly lame. It's quite clear throughout this movie that nobody in it has ever acted before....except for possibly bit roles in Anal Paprika 3: Menage-a-Death (it's a real movie). The little girl might be the best actor in the whole movie....and considering every time she spoke you couldn't tell what the hell she was saying that doesn't bode well for the rest of the 'cast'. One area that was surprisingly decent was some of the makeup on the zombies...it wasn't great...we're not talking George Romero here...but it was good considering the quality of the rest of the movie. The end of the movie made absolutely no sense....it made my head hurt and my girlfriend still has a confused look on her face the next morning ;) I would recommend this movie to anyone looking for examples of no talent....otherwise...curl up on the toilet with a nice magazine and you'll probably be more entertained.

Best Actor: Little Girl - can't comprehend what she's saying...but somehow that's a good thing.

Tatum Adair's boobs - they have more scenes than several zombies....and no lines...so that's good.

Green Ball - no matter how many times the little girl bounces this ball it always comes through...look for it in the sequel!

Worst Actor: Mother - no acting ability....terrible...just terrible.

Dad - bad...but at least acted paralyzed fairly well.

Sheriff - not sure what movie he was supposed to be in...but most of what he says doesn't relate to this movie. Seemed very robotic, monotone....."Bueller.....Bueller.....Bueller"

If the goal of this movie was to make you laugh...then in a way it's very successful....but I don't think it was the goal. It was just lame....sad....pathetic.....worst movie in history.
11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Very Poor Movie, Would NOT Recommend
angryninja-18 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
What a terrible film, it looks like neither the visual effects staff or the sound staff have any experience in the industry. The acting was "satisfactory* but the zombies and dead bodies where out of date, as in they looked like they were borrowed from a film made in the 70's. The visual effects look like something off a scary 80's series. The storyline doesn't make sense and is no way original as it babbles on about some sort of curse where unless they kill someone they will die on the 13th hour or something.

The cover image of the DVD looked good but when i finished the film i realised that quote; "never judge a book by its cover" is true

To be honest, i got half an hour in and skipped through the rest. I also understand why this never made it to the big screen.
24 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's not for everyone and it really isn't that great but the film has alittle charm to it and does what it sets out to do.
crueltwistoffate1 June 2005
Low budget horror. What else can I say...some are good and some are just plain bad. Now there are different levels of bad...there's the bad that's good (like House of the Dead)and then there's bad that should be shot into the sun (like Home Alone 3,Good Boy). I've always been a big fan of low budget horror and I've been lucky enough that all the films I've checked out have been a real treat. I've only been burnt once and I was afraid that Ghost Lake might be like that one. I wasn't really in the mood to watch anything, but I heard the Ghost Lake started with the lead going topless and I decided to at least watch that part until I figured out something else to watch. Well, I ended up watching the whole movie and liked it very much.It's a good little film with a good plot,some good effects and good music. But the only real problem is that some of the actors seemed off at times which really annoyed me at times.Some of the plot seemed to get lost during the explanation scene and while you trying to figure out what the hell they're talking about they're already moved on. If they would cleared up alittle more on the history of the lake(which is a real place) then I would have saved me some stress.Now the movie does have a lot of story to it, there's no real ACTION to speak of so those who expected a non stop action ride better go watch Dawn of the Dead (04) again. Because this film is more about the story, the history and the ghost are really there to serve the plot then being the plot. But if you stick it out and forgive afew laughable moment, the off acting moments(I swear all of the old people in this movie were dreadful), then you'll like this one. A big plus for for me is having the lead,Tatum Adair, naked is always a big plus for me. Could it have been better? Yes. But I think they did good with what they had.
13 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Ghost Lake...Not just a clever title ?
Zaphod_4217 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of those films my friend calls a Potential Sleeper. Meaning that its one of those films that you have never heard of and have no idea who the actors are. Never the less the film might surprise you and be good. This film was not! The overall feel of the film was that it had been made by a 7 year old. However the film did keep me riveted to the screen. I kept watching and waiting to see what muck was going to appear on the screen next.

The acting was terrible, the cinematography as already stated was amateurish, and the makeup and special effects were unbelievably bad. The corpses looked like they had covered a toy skeleton in jelly. When the first corpse spoke I almost wet myself with laughter.

The opening scene in which her parents die from a gas leak, told me all I needed to know about the production values of this film. The main plot involved some kind of curse, at twin girl who pretended to be one of the dead people living in the lake and people getting killed every 13th something or other. The story was badly structured and made no real sense.

The only saving grace, is that the main actress exposes her two bouncy friends. If this is a ploy to keep you watching in the hope that she will do it again, then it worked. I was rewarded for my 90mins of agonising pain when she did it again towards the end.

I feel sorry for anyone who has to watch this film, and I feel sorrier for anyone who actually liked it.
14 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
For those who enjoy the acting in pornos
torturechamberlain2 July 2007
Once in a while, you watch a movie where you can just immediately tell that the directors mother is also his aunt. One such movie is Ghost Lake. As a no-/low-budget filmmaker, I generally sympathize with others in this end of the field. One has to cope with annoying editors and actors who, in various strange ways, convince you that they can actually act and sign on to the point where it's too late to replace them. But much of this can be forgiven if the general intention with the movie is good or just honest. Not so the case with Ghost Lake. It repeatedly rips off one horror movie after the other, all the while setting new lows in acting, shooting and musicianship (yup, the score was awful to boot).

That being said, I did laugh my ass off watching it. Watching this movie was the equivalent of reading a list of cinematic don't's. And I don't mean "don't" as in "Don't use voiceovers" and similar snooty filmschool bs. I mean "don't" as in, "Don't do this, because it looks like you can't tell your ass from your elbow, anyway you slice it". If you're in any way into films (just being an avid moviegeek will do) this movie will provide literally dozens of laughs-per-minute with it's machine-gun like barrage of ineptitude. You're going to want to show this to your friends just to see their bewildered expression that simply says "Wtf were they thinking?!" like nothing else.

If your idea of awesome cinematic experiences is films like Death Tunnel or Kaw, well this movie is too shoddy for even that. No person living could possibly like this dreck, and the mere possibility is downright offensive.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Lake of Ineptitute
movieman_kev22 May 2005
Rebecca leaves for a night of drinking wanting to be home by ten but her mom essentially says, and I might be paraphrasing here "no hon go whore around, we don't want to see you back till late". Of course she gets the message and sleeps with the first guy who gives he a kind of semi-compliment. As she'staking it all like the slut she is, her parents die of a horrible acting um.. I mean a gas leak. She goes to the cabin by the lake to get rid of her guilt, not before picking up a hitchhiker that she'll later screw (her parents would be proud) A mixture of bad and TERRIBLE acting, as well as some crappy split screen. What had the chance to be a perfectly good mediocre movie crashes and burns.

My Grade: D-

Eye Candy: Tatum Adair gets topless
14 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Evil Rises, I fall asleep, wake up due to friends laughter
Titus136 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I enjoy a good horror movie and read a review for this one by some fellow who recommended it. Ghost Lake starts out with the Haster family, consisting of Rebecca, ma, and pa. Pa is in a wheelchair, and ma looks as though she had just been dug out of a hole which she had been intentionally placed. These two actors appear to have just discovered the English language, and are now putting it to use in Ghost Lake. ButRebecca is our main focus in this tale. She takes care of her parents,and does not go out to the local pub or dance club as much as she might like. Well, this night she's going out. She puts up mild refusals, but ma and pa aren't having anything to do with it. They demand that their daughter go out and have fun. As Rebecca is out dancing the night away with some goofy boy, the parents fall victim to a gas leak in the house. They die, and Rebecca blames herself for going out and having a good time. Rebecca then goes out to a summer home, where she meets a guy, falls for him, people start dying because of some lake, and ghosts/zombies begin to appear.

Aside from the storyline, which may or may not make sense (and I don't care to find out) the biggest problem in this picture is the acting. American pictures mostly seem to follow the same guidelines. Cast pretty, and everything else will fall into place. This one is no different, as the people who made it obviously chose looks over talent. The 3 main characters are tragically awful. Rebecca shuffles around the picture with one eye raised (the entire time) and part of her lip curled (the entire time) all the while keeping that distant "oh dear what's going on" look on her face. It doesn't work. Not for an entire film it doesn't. She's stale as ever, and not good looking enough to make up for any of this. The love interest in the film, Stan, may be worse. He tries to put into use every Hollywood cliché I've seen (the actor squint, the low whisper) but it just comes off as laughable. Not to mention he's got a somewhat rugged appearance at first, which is completely waved away when you hear his effeminate voice. Then there is the character of the sheriff, and I swear to you I thought we were going to find out that he was a robot. There actually is no other explanation for him. I first thought, good, this character here is much like the character Yul Brynner once played. They're both gun wielding robots. Same emotional range and everything. Nope. There's also a part towards the end where he changes his voice to seem more imposing and evil...I won't go into it....but a touch before that I had fallen asleep, and my flatmate woke me up with side-bursting laughter from this section. When Sta and the Sheriff get together, it's time for a smoke break. There's a little girl in it too, and her character, I suppose, it actually very important to the story, but I couldn't understand a word she was saying. The other characters sort of mingle around, and there are two of note. The only two people in the picture that one could derive any enjoyment out of. First there's the doctor, who keeps it light throughout and fills his screen time with nice little touches. The other is the nasty younger fisherman that Rebecca meets first. His part is divided into two actually, as he's a bit of a jerk when Rebecca first meets him, then dies and comes back as this gooey, evil fisherman thing. He was the first one to grab my attention during a scene between him and Rebecca, both on the other side of a screen door, where he turns the film up a notch, and he supplies the only actual scares throughout the movie. There is an older fisherman, but he's barely in it, and with good reason.

This will bring me into the next problem I have with the movie....the special f/x. They vary from bad to terrible. Makeup f/x to computer. The younger evil fisherman's on screen time is hampered by shaky makeup f/x, and it's really a shame. There are quite a few zombies in the film and most have a pale, ghostly look to them (although there are two that come out of the lake to get two sunbathers that look pretty cool) and some talking skeletons that range from decent to obviously fake. There's actually very little blood, if any, in the picture. It relies more on performances, atmosphere, makeup f/x and music. Unfortunately, really none of these work. I haven't seen any of this director's previous work, and unless he changes his ways, I will not seek out anything else.
16 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Extremely underrated low/no-budget horror
BrandtSponseller8 July 2005
First a word of warning. If you're not a regular viewer of low/no-budget horror films, you need to approach Ghost Lake with caution. Does Sub Rosa mean anything to you? Are you familiar with Brentwood/BCI Eclipse? If you're answering "yes" to these questions, I strongly recommend that you see Ghost Lake. It is one of the better films in its class. If not, I don't suggest starting your low/no-budget horror education here. The genre takes a fair amount of acclimation. There's a good chance that you won't like the film, at least until you've seen a number of films like Back Woods (2001), The Seekers (2003), and Back from Hell (1993).

Ghost Lake is the story of Rebecca Haster (Tatum Adair). As the film opens, Rebecca is attending the funeral of her parents. We learn through a flashback that her parents died accidentally, and that Rebecca blames herself for their demise. Circumstances were such that if she had been home sooner--when she had promised her mother that she would be home, she probably could have prevented the accident. After the funeral, she begins to think that she's seeing the ghosts of her parents. So she decides to head up to the family cabin at Rushford Lake in upstate New York. Driving near there, she almost runs into a young man, Stan James (Timothy Prindle). She ends up giving him a lift, as his cabin in close to hers.

But the getaway isn't stopping Rebecca's possibly supernatural experiences. In fact they're getting worse. Just what is going on at "Ghost Lake"?

In disagreement with the consensus view of this film, Ghost Lake features decent performances. Again, that has to be contextualized. You can't expect Shakespearean acting here, or even Lord of the Rings-styled acting. Who would want that, anyway? That kind of acting in a horror film makes me think of something like Interview with the Vampire (1994), a film I don't care for very much. Yes, most of the actors in Ghost Lake come across as occasionally amateurish, but most of the time, the principal cast members do a remarkably good job. Adair, James and two other actors--Gregory Lee Kenyon as Sheriff Dobbs and Azure Sky Decker as Flora/Saundra Thompson--have to carry the film and they do so convincingly. The performances are as good as those in many high budget horror films. Horror isn't exactly a genre with a reputation for fine performances, but if you're a fan of the genre, you probably like that style of acting a bit.

More remarkably, director/writer/composer/editor Jay Woelfel creates and sustains a very effective atmosphere throughout the film. He evidences a great understanding of, knack for and love of the horror genre. The beginning of the film is unnerving right off the bat, especially with its relatively unique approach to juxtaposing sex and death. Woelfel quickly establishes Rebecca as a bit odd and emotionally off-center. His early "ghost" scenarios are creepy, and once Rebecca gets to the cabin on the lake, the atmosphere gets even better. Woelfel knows how to light his locations for maximum eeriness. He knows how to effectively shoot at night (something very rare at this level of film-making). He has excellent pacing, and again, his construction of creepy scenarios is consistently high quality. He also effectively increases the intensity and suspense levels. I suppose Woelfel's skill shouldn't be surprising in light of the fact that this is the 41st film he's worked on in some capacity.

The story exhibits an interesting combination of influences, although insofar as it is a ghost story, it's remarkably unique. There are no Amityville Horror (1979) clichés here. Instead, the precursors range from In Dreams (1999) to the Friday the 13th (1980) series to George Romero-influenced zombie films. Woelfel also has more purely stylistic influences, including Dario Argento. There's even a strong early 1970s European horror influence in the music.

Unfortunately, the Argento influence seems to have carried over to Woelfel's script. The first two-thirds of the plot are extremely engaging--there's almost a Stephen King vibe happening--with a couple minor glitches that are easy to overlook, but the plot becomes increasingly incoherent during the last third. It seems as if Woelfel may have rushed to finish the story and/or left the last section of the script in a rough draft stage and/or made a lot of changes to the story while filming. By the end, I was fairly confused about just what was going on, about the "rules of the game", and especially about the metaphysics of the supernatural stuff. If if weren't for this late game script misstep, Ghost Lake would have ended up with at least an 8 from me.

Another commonly criticized element of the film has been the effects. That seems completely out of line to me. Many films at this budget level solve the problem by just not having any effects. That's not the case here. Woelfel gives us plenty of well-done, superbly integrated practical, special make-up effects, "creature" designs and computer-generated effects. The CGI is rougher, but the balance works well. Of course, many of the effects look "fake", but that's the case with all effects to me, even in The Lord of the Rings. The point isn't to fool us into thinking what we're seeing is real. If you know how effects are done, you won't be fooled. The point is to present something artistically effective. Woelfel does that with no problem.

This film deserves a serious look from viewers who appreciate the full range of filmic artworks. Despite the few flaws, Ghost Lake is very enjoyable and shows a lot of promise from all involved.
16 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Low budget horror crap.
poolandrews13 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Ghost Lake starts at the funeral of Ruth (Linda Brown) & Richard Haster (Raymond Suriani) as their distraught daughter Rebecca (Tatum Adair) looks on, not feeling that good about things Rebecca decides to head to her parents cottage in a small town near Rushford Lake. On her way Rebecca picks up a hitchhiker named Stan James (Timothy Prindle) who also lives near the lake, they quickly become friends as Rebecca still feels bad about her parents & needs a shoulder to cry on. However, things take a turn for the worse as a terrifying set of events happen to Rebecca, first she finds the body of a dead fisherman in the lake, she sees zombies walking around & a strange girl keeps popping up. Sheriff Dobbs (Gregory Lee Kenyon) reveals that Rushford Lake has a dark & sinister past that Rebecca feels is the cause of her troubles. As Rebecca unravels the truth about the ghosts, zombies, bodies & the Lakes history she discovers great evil...

Written & directed by Jay Woelfel who also appears in the film as a 'shadowy figure' & if that wasn't enough he also composed the music, is there no beginning to this mans talents?! OK, maybe that was a bit harsh but I personally thought Ghost Lake was a pretty dire film all round. The script takes itself extremely seriously & to be fair starts off alright as it builds reasonably well, it has a certain something about it that kept me interested but once all this nonsense about the 13th month, 13 victims & various other things that contain the number 13 kick in it all starts to become confusing, muddled & far too complicated. I don't think Ghost Lake makes itself particularly clear & that has to be down to the script & Woelfel, I don't think Ghost Lake comes across as a straight horror film as instead of going for scares & gore it tries to develop a complex mystery which just isn't that interesting or engaging, imagine a low rent The X-Files (1992 - 2002) episode. There is a good film trying to get out but unfortunately it fails, it's different & tries to surprise but I think it's predictable & I think twists need to be clever & relatively simple to work & be effective, Ghost Lake's twists are none of those things. Forget about any hordes of zombies rising from the lake as suggested on the DVD/video artwork, it doesn't happen as this is a straight faced ghost story rather than a zombie film.

Director Woelfel was obviously working on a low budget so I'll cut it a little slack. Having said that it still looks cheap, bland, forgettable, flat & extremely dull. Forget about any scares, atmosphere or tension as there isn't any. There isn't any gore either, there's a few ghost/zombies & a few rotten corpses but nothing else, this is really tame stuff all the way.

Technically Ghost Lake isn't too bad considering it's low budget shot-on-video origins, the best thing I can say about it is that it's competent. The acting didn't impress & I didn't like any of the character's particularly.

Ghost lake is a pretty bad film overall, it has virtually no horror elements, the various twists are dull & just don't work out in any sort of satisfying way & the artwork on the box really is very misleading. Not recommended.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Great story rapped around poor acting and no budget.
stormruston9 October 2005
I got this one because of the cover art on the DVD box.

I had to watch this in 3 sittings. I could not get into the characters due to generally poor acting with the exception of Tatum Adair who was pretty good and has nice boobs. Still the little girl Azure Sky Decker was the best actor in this movie.

This movie I am guessing had almost no budget.In spite of that they did pretty good with what they had, the effects were generally poor to med, but got across what was necessary to get across in any giving horror situation.

The story was very good, but the dialog execution of it needs work.

It is not scary at all but they managed some mood. So in a nut shell...for the budget not bad.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Dammed if you do
Cemetarygirl3 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
What a plot. What nice parents. What a quickie. Sex to die for. Hum! This film started off confusing enough. She felt she had killed her parents so she sees the ghosts of them. Would they have done this? The parents I mean. They loved their daughter and didn't blame her for anything. So her guilt was her own and she runs from the cemetery leaving her car behind. Sees her dead parents in the house and runs out of the house and into her car. Where did that come from? She drives from home miles and miles (how interesting-Not!) Then she picks up a stranger and chats and forgets to drop him off and gives him a hug. He was a Hitch-hiker when do hugs come into it. The then poor guy (Oh how things change) had to walk home after all. Oh and the rain that fell just in front of them without them getting wet (someone with a watering can in front of the camera?). So the story develops. This is deadsville with more corpses than you can poke a stick at. Someone said that they reminded them of the '70's but then for me the whole film did. Actually the film got a wee bit better and I did stay with it until the end. I guessed the dead bits (it wasn't hard) and I liked the idea of the sheriff being supportive (young though. And I like the idea of the drowned town and the death/hauntings. Look I was generous giving this 3 but it did have some endearing qualities. Naff lines like, killing people. Marvelous! The little girl was quite creepy on her own. And why do all dead children of the female persuasion look like her? I loved the dead getting up in the town hall. The deaths where interesting, but never really made clear. One more thing. When she drove away to go home the scene was exactly the same as the one when she was travelling in the opposite direction. Didn't they think we would notice? Watch this if you want and if you don't expect much you will not be disappointed but be warned it is z grade horror Cheers Furdion
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
An original premise that is polluted with the stench of lost potential
thegrimmsleeper-122 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I noticed this film while browsing at a local Blockbuster, and the DVD cover and story premise on the back were good enough to make me want to rent it. I went back and picked it up a day or so later. It was one of countless low budget horror films, and I wasn't really expecting a Hollywood blockbuster with it. In that regard, I can't say I was disappointed. I don't buy the, "It's low budget, don't expect LOTR" argument; I don't ever expect such a thing from any film. Hell, when I saw LOTR I wasn't expecting LOTR, so that's a non-issue.

What I was hoping for was a film that lived up to its compelling premise. Did Ghost Lake deliver? Sadly, no.

The story begins interestingly enough - Rebecca's parents have just died thanks to a gas leak in their house, and Rebecca (who was out banging some stranger in her back seat at the time) blames herself. Upon returning home after the funeral, she is plagued with ghostly visions of her parents that drive her to eventually retreat to her family's summer cabin, near an enormous lake. En route, she nearly runs down a guy named Stan, who begs for a ride. After a bit of character development and the nascence of a romance, Rebecca discovers a dead body in the lake, which vanishes as soon as the authorities are called in. The sheriff relates the story of how the lake is artificial and that an entire town was flooded to create it. This apparently has some truth to it, if IMDb's trivia is to be believed; however, it seems highly bizarre and impractical to destroy a town simply to create a lake. Rebecca is caught up in a series of increasingly confusing events where we find that the dead are able to look, act, and interact like the living. The number 13 plays a pivotal role in a cycle of death that has been operating at the lake since the town was destroyed. Rebecca escapes with her life and breaks the cycle.

The story starts off promising, but it becomes very convoluted and confusing as it progresses. Repeated viewings might help clear things up a bit, but that works against the film. You should want to re-watch it for the fun of it, to catch things you might have missed - not just to understand the plot. Admittedly, this concept is original and a breath of fresh air in the genre. But the narrative falls apart at the end, and there are too many gaping holes in the mythos to really appreciate the story in its entirety. On the other hand, there are some fabulous observations about the nature of death and the operation of the two key components of human beings: body and soul. Sadly, this seems thrown in and doesn't mesh well with the story at large. Had it been a recurring theme, it might have made for a stronger film.

The acting is what you'd expect from low budget, worse for the supporting cast. The sheriff and doctor were both woeful. Tatum Adair was decent, but the character was fairly bland. Her psychological turmoil was interesting but poorly handled. Rebecca comes off as something of a slut from the get-go, willing to have sex with a guy she's only just met. On the upside, she's quite beautiful so the gratuitous sex scene is pretty easy on the eyes.

Her parents seemed too good to be true. Certainly within the context of the situation - her mother seems a bit off, and her father is wheelchair bound, and she has been taking care of them - it's understandable that they would want her to go out. I think it's mostly bad writing that makes them come off a bit too Cleaver-ish.

The supporting players - the little girls, the doc, the sheriff, and Stan - were all replaceable and completely forgettable.

As for direction, this film suffers in that department. The camera angles are all straightforward - no risks are taken There was also a drastic over-use of split screen panels that was extremely distracting. It was a stylistic choice, but a poor one, as the film seemed to be edited by a rookie wanting to play with their editing software than someone interested in cutting together a good film. What few "action" sequences there were, were also poorly shot, with no tension whatsoever. I don't mind a purely psychological film with little action - it worked wonders in "The Others" for example. I'm talking about dramatic tension - it just wasn't there at all. Not when she ran into zombies, not when she was being chased... nowhere.

The audio was likewise at the standard low budget level. Most of the score sounded like it was put together on a keyboard. The quality of audio capture was also poor - some scenes it was just hard to hear, and throughout the film it just sounded poor. Again, though, with low budget films it is to be expected to a certain extent. Still, I'm a videographer and own a number of mics that capture better quality sound; they aren't that expensive.

Overall, Ghost Lake is a great concept that suffers from extremely weak - darn near amateurish - execution. From mediocre writing to a lack in even basic technical and editing skills, the film comes across as the lowest of low budget. The special effects are actually pretty good comparatively, and I'm not quibbling over those. It's the basics - good cinematography, good lighting, good audio... these are all lacking, and combine to weaken what is already a weak script with a strong concept.

It might be worth a rental because it IS entertaining in its own way. But mostly, it's not in the same way the director likely intended it to be...
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Whoa!
Boba_Fett11384 April 2007
Maybe a bit naive to think but I thought that amateur movies like this weren't made anymore in this era- and most certainly didn't received a global release.

The movie really surprised me how incredible amateur looking this movie was. Not only with its acting and visual style but also with its technical aspect, such as the editing, camera-positioning. Especially the editing is extremely lacking at times. It makes some sequences come across as disjointed and confusing. Also the weak camera-positioning most certainly doesn't help all of the sequences. At times the movie really looks and feels as if it was being made by a couple of high school students who decided to pick up a camera and start shooting an horror movie.

The movie just isn't ever tense, scary or mysterious, were also lies a big problem of the movie obviously. For a genre movie it just does basically everything wrong to reach a good enough and effective end result.

The musical score is also quite horrendous. It's a very simple typical kind of movie score, that is too prominently present at times when nothing is happening in the movie and not present at all- or not good enough at the tense or scary moments of the movie. The music has some huge misses in the movie, it could had truly enhanced some of the scare moments and tension of the movie at times.

Of course the story also doesn't help much. The movie doesn't have the most incredible pace and story-flow. The movie also tries to be more clever than it really is, by putting in many plot twists and making things seem different than they truly are. Without doubt they also did this to make the movie original. The result however isn't much good, since it makes the movie unnecessarily difficult to follow, especially toward the end, when twists and false twists follow each other rapidly. Through the many twists the movie also starts to make less and less sense. The movie is filled with some gaping holes and the more you actually start thinking about the story, the less sense it starts to make. Not only are there many improbabilities but also many things that just plain good old fashioned plot holes, mistakes and other things that don't make much sense.

Judging by looking at this movie Mr. Woelfel (is that even a real name?) watched a bit too many Japanese horror and John Carpenter movies. In its style it mostly tries to impersonate Japanses movies and in its story, storytelling and characters it mostly tries to impersonate John Carpenter horror movies. Nothing wrong with impersonate different styles and applying them to your own style film-making but the style just doesn't work out, mainly due to its poor budget, weak editing and story-flow. It's perhaps even a bit sad to see at times how hard they tried, without a good result.

I had no idea who Jay Woelfel was before this but looking at his filmography he seems like a regular B-horror movie maker, who just isn't the most talented or visionary person around, no matter how hard he ever tries. He is one of those typical persons who thinks he can write, direct, produce, edit and compose all of his own movies. And does he think he is Brian De Palma, with using all those redundant and completely pointless split-screen shots that don't add anything at all? Yep, I think I'm going to watch more Woelfel movies alright.

Yes, it's true that the movie is so bad at times that it becomes good. It's unintentionally funny at times, due to how clumsy it is made and how bad the acting and dialog are. Who ever told those persons in this movie that they could act in movies? Granted that the script with its many weak and often pointless dialog also doesn't help them much but honestly, it's obvious as well that the actors just don't have the talent for the job.

On a positive note, the make-up effects are quite good looking. Same goes for the simplistic but effective special-effects.

With the same story material but more money and real professionals involved this movie possibly could had been a perfectly good genre movie to watch. But not now.

2/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Don't watch this one alone!
bigfatsteamingporridge30 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This film has to be a candidate for scariest of the century. I felt truly overwhelmed with fear throughout this gut wrenching horror. The special effects were exemplary and really brought the film alive - at one point, where one of the ghosts from the lake kills an innocent picnicker with a ferocious blow over the head, I almost went over and wiped the blood from the screen as blood splattered over the camera lens. One of my friends said it looked unreal and like it had been drawn onto the tape with felt tip, but it sure had me fooled. Also, the use of Vaseline on the dead (or undead?) bodies really gave me the creeps - I've always been paranoid about getting near the stuff! The film was directed with true talent and precision - all the shots were called right and the camera transitions were just great - it really took me back to the seventies! The running scenes were a work of art, the actors choosing to jog rather than run from their attackers as they were gripped with too much fear to use their legs properly.

The acting is some of the best I have seen in years and I'm really surprised that none of the actors received any Oscars after these convincing, truly inspirational performances.

Overall, I thought the film was a worthy addition to gleaming hall of horror fame - a real gore treat that will leave you bricking it!
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
wide range of production values
finetunes20 December 2005
Cinematography - 8 - very good for a low budget production. Special Effects - 9 - excellent for a low budget production. Acting - 0 - 6 -with 6 for the lead actress; supporting roles include some actors that are embarrassingly bad. Even with the few lines they had, the couple that survived a plunge in the lake were so bad I cringed every time they opened their mouth, especially the man. The doctor's voice was so loud, it was more startling than any of the zombie scenes. Audio - 3 - a number of indoor scenes had a distracting hollow/reverb sound. Plot - 4 - would be higher if not so confusingly told. Dialog - 1 - at many points it is totally amateurish and would have been as well written if it had been outsourced to a 5th grade class.

The saving grace for me was the lead actress, Tatum Adair. I found her somewhat compelling and she kept me watching the whole movie instead of bailing out. Sad that the weak points of this movie could have been easily fixed, because otherwise much of the production was very good.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
"Understanding it doesn't matter. Surviving it does."
EllenRipley11228 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Becky's comment to Grandpa Tomson's question of "Why is all this happening" pretty much sums up my feelings about this gosh-awful flick, which rips off so many other decent movies it's hard to keep track. The cover had me fooled--perusing through the rental store, I thought I'd stumbled upon a zombie flick I hadn't seen yet (always a good thing), but it's NOT a zombie flick at all--zombies EAT people and traditionally don't talk, and that didn't happen here, so it can't be a zombie flick. Rather, it seemed to want to be a version of the far-superior "The Fog" (1980--not to be confused with its abominable wanna-be 2005 version). I'm a big one for an engaging plot and characters I can understand--this had neither. Even the guilt trip that Becky had as a result of her parents dying the ONE night she goes out in how long, made no sense. And about understanding it--I couldn't follow the line of logic, if it even HAD one. OK, the ghosts come back every 13 years--why?? Oh, wait, that one guy killed his dad 13 weeks after the little girl drowned, which was 13 months after someone else died...???? And the "death sequence" got totally messed up--OK, the dead couple dragged the young couple off the beach, then the young couple took the car-crash couple?? Does the newly dead person get to take another live person right away, or do they have to wait 13 years, or WHAT??? By the time the cop died, I stopped caring and just wanted to see how it played out. I should have listened to my DVD players, which started skipping about 1.5 hours into the flick. I finally got it to play to the end. Boy, that was a relief (insert sarcasm) here. The awards should all go to whoever designs the video covers--THAT was scarier than the entire film.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Hahahaha
lagriff0516 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Seriously, how does this even exist. It doesn't suck in the sense that it makes you angry and want to kill those who made it, but it does suck in the sense that it's almost funny to watch this absolute nonsense. The acting is awful except by our lead actress, and the movie seems way too long. The flashback and guilt-trip scenes are really annoying in the beginning. Our lead actress's breasts get more screen time then the zombies at the end of the movie.

But where this one really falls apart is the directing and storyline. Jay Woelfel was obviously eager to get his "movie" out, but where he failed was putting time into making it. The storyline becomes a convoluted mess once we get into the whole "thirteen victims, thirteen months/years" crap, and it's very hard to keep track of it all. And then at the end of the movie we have Stan (love interest guy) saying that the little girl was the thirteenth victim, when the lead girl was supposed to be? Let's not forget about how Stan turns on our lead girl in about two seconds and is revealed to be a bad guy for utterly no reason, along with the Sheriff. Just...wow. The directing is equally bad and confusing, but I've seen worse. It's just cheap and tacky.

But aside from why this is technically bad, you just can't stop watching it! That's the worst thing, it's stupid and shallow, and very lame, but it's also really funny, and you end up stuck to the screen waiting to see what happens next! It's a right conundrum, I've never seen a movie like this. The bad acting, lame script and storyline, and hilarious images of zombies retching around with water spewing out of their mouths may have come together to form a movie that is actually worth watching for comedy fans.

Let me just re-iterate something before I end the review: You're watching a movie about people that come back from the bottom of the lake every 13 years and drag more people down with them. There's also some mumbo jumbo about a little girl and her twin sister who's dead, and a green ball. And breasts. But not a lot of real horror. Not recommended to anyone who doesn't want a good laugh.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A creepy, atmospheric little ghost story
JamesLisk6 March 2005
Ghost Lake is director Jay Woelfel's attempt to revisit the spook story of old. He doffs the customary practice of most modern horror, and the standardized contention that the telling of a situation (that can often be telegraphed a mile ahead) is much more coveted, than the telling of an actual story. This should bring a smile to the face of those who long for a return to the days of classic American film, where movies featured narratives which unfolded and developed, the way they were meant to.

Woelfel has toned down the non-linear, experimental edifice prevalent throughout his earlier film work, this time hoping to integrate a more modernized story concept. Not to say that Woelfel's fans will be disappointed, because they won't. The director's vision is still there, and still very clear. He remains the master at deploying an atmospheric amalgam of abstracted horror archetypes, including an evil little girl, zombies and a beautifully serene lake which, despite its tranquil visage, might just be the gateway to Hell.

Tatum Adair, in her first film role, plays Rebecca Haster, (a name Woelfel cleverly borrows from one of HP Lovecraft's literary works The Whisperer in Darkness), retreats to her parents abandoned cottage in the scenic upstate New York area. The cottage resides along a large lake in a little out-of-the-way community known as Rushford.

In the opening minutes of the film, Rebecca is revealed to be a deeply unsettled woman, who quietly blames herself for the accidental death of her parents. Her guilt-ridden conscience has begun to play havoc on her very soul, as she is constantly confronted by her deceased parents, who appear to her as chilling and accusatory ghostly apparitions. Feeling she is losing her mind, Rebecca withdraws emotionally from everyone and everything, eventually, packing up her things and leaving home. She seeks solace in the isolation that the small lakeside community seems to promise. Little does she know the secrets that the lake hides.

At first, the residents seem to be just the typical lot you might find inhabiting any rural community in any town in the world. Though, as the film progresses, things begin to take a on a much darker tone, and, to borrow a much used phrase; "Things are not what they seem to be." Almost right away, Rebecca begins to see and hear strange things, all of which seem to emanate from the surrounding lake. She notifies the local sheriff Dobbs, when a late night swim turns up a dead body. However, the subsequent recovery effort fails to turn up said body. Later, Rebecca has a run in a with a strange little girl in a library -- a little girl that nobody else can see. There is also a frightening boat accident involving a family, which again, Rebecca bares witness to. Like before, nobody else sees it, and no bodies turn up.

As with Woelfel's other films, ambiguity is constant, in that we are never sure whether Rebecca's paranoia about the various phenomenon is grounded in reality or a figment of her disturbed imagination. Midway into the film, the audience will be questioning whether or not Rebecca is simply going mad, or if these things are really happening. The story slowly descends into a whirlpool of paranoia and fear, as the main character attempts to discern what is really going on in the small town... and in her own mind.

Rebecca methodically begins to unravel the terrifying secrets of Rushford Lake and its surrounding region. Indeed, something is odd happening, including a slew of strange accidents, bizarre deaths and murders, dating back to fifty years along the lake. Adding to the confusion is chilling story of the lake itself, which sheriff Dobbs relates under a moonlit night. Apparently, in 1928, a Power Dam was constructed to back up the water and flood the local valley. When they did this, they submerged a small town in about forty feet of water. A few of the locals who were reluctant to leave, perished. Rebecca discovers that every thirteen years, on the thirteenth day of the month, since the lake was created, a person has died -- equal to the number of victims who perished when the small town was flooded out. With the recent unusual death of a fisherman, she discerns that the cycle should have ended, but strangely, something has gone awry.

There are mercurial alteration in mood and atmosphere in the film. There is also a constant and recognizable dualism at work, as the true motivations of the various characters become apparent as the film moves forward. Unlike most movies, where the bad guy and good guy are distinguishable from the opening frame, Ghost Lake doesn't give up the ghost (please, pardon the pun) until the final frame. Woelfel offers clues, but is smart enough to know that the best endings are the ones that you can't telegraph an hour ahead. The little girl, Azure Sky Decker, who Rebecca befriends during an early morning jog, might not be as sweet and innocent as she seems, or is she? The troubled guy, Stan James, played by Timothy Prindle, that Rebecca falls for after nearly killing him, seems to have her best intentions at heart, or does he? Like her, James is working through the tragic loss of a parent, but like all the other characters in the film, it's hard to decipher whether or not he's telling her the whole story, or why he is really helping her. Lastly, there's sheriff Dobbs, played by Gregory Lee Kenyon. Behind his doggedness and investigation, lurks another person, who seems to be hiding something, just one more thing in a town seemingly filled with deep dark secrets.

By combining mystery and a creepy atmosphere, Lake is sure to entertain those who love a good ghost story. I highly recommend!
11 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
worked batter as a mini series
Tibbletoad8 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
great movie.but they want to tell the story in to short a time. would this movie be made a miniseries it would have got better. 4 part mini series or even a two part miniseries with the combined length of 6 hours would have made the story much more like able. also i think that they did not enough with the sunken city. i for one would have loved a a diving scene within in the sunken city. this does not mean it is a bad movie. the things they did with the Lil twin girls was sublime and very surprising. the end was also a thing i could smile about because i did not expect it to be that way.

movie is bad for popcorn only ate half a microwave bag during the movie.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Cute but doesn't cut it.
queensway15 January 2005
This movie is quite cute, because it is so bad that it is funny.

I enjoyed it very much, and the storyline has potential in a bigger budget remake. Let's say it had been in Finnish, and then a Hollywood getup decided to throw money at it and make it in English, that kind of thing, but too late for that! It simply fails on the fact that it is done with too little money: bad acting, bad filming, and bad make-up. Nevertheless the end result is hilarious, I would recommend it to all my friends just for a laugh.

If you have a fascination for low-budget movies, kind of like wearing a home-knit sweater, you know the kind of movie that you and your friends could film yourself, then you will enjoy this movie, I certainly did! It is exactly the kind of movie that I wish I had made! In fact I will go right now with my handycam and make a sequel!
5 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed