It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

I'd love to report that The Ghosts of Edendale is a little gem of an no-budget indy horror film. But if I were to make such a comparison, the gem in question would be a garnet. Sure, it's kinda pretty. But it's also a dime-a-dozen.Technological advances always drive independent film making and there's always a market for cheaply made horror films. That's the only two reasons I can think of why Ghosts of Edendale exists. Calling it "woefully underdeveloped" is the most charitable thing I can think to describe this effort. Calling it "a mediocre waste of time" is the most honest.

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.

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.

This is a good little horror movie- Those who praise it seem to understand it more than those who think it's so bad. The acting is pretty good all around- Yes, Paula Ficara is a stand out as the lead, but her husband Steve Wastell is very good as well- along with the rest of the cast. If you don't find the film spooky at all then I think you've become desensitized by all the overblown gore on the market these days. Subtle scares are sometimes more powerful. I prefer film stock, but there are budget restraints sometimes and it's a lot easier to get the performances out of the actors when film cost is a non-issue.Again, Cheers to Stefan Avalos and all the cast and crew of GOE