The Ghosts of Edendale (2003) User Reviews

Hey, kids--let's make a horror movie!

[chuckc · 5/10 · 24 July 2005]

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).

Bleh.

[alansmithee04 · 3/10 · 30 October 2008]

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.

OK thrillah... could be GREAT... Spoilers

[ksf-2 · 5/10 · 25 February 2016]

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.

Doesn't stand a ghost of a chance

[WarpedRecord · 1 November 2007]

As much as I would love to give the cast and crew credit for this independent effort, I can't recommend it. In fact, in many ways this is the epitome of what's wrong with most indie films: bad acting, clumsy direction, poorly developed characters and a threadbare script.

"The Ghosts of Edendale" has an interesting premise. A couple, hoping to strike it big in the entertainment industry, moves into a neighborhood where Hollywood history was made during the silent era. They encounter quirky neighbors who seem to know a bit too much about them. The man becomes increasingly strange as his obsession with his script grows, while the woman becomes increasingly alienated by his coldness, frustrated by her modeling career, and spooked by the visions she sees in the house.

Unfortunately, the execution leaves a lot to be desired. "The Ghosts of Edendale" fails to build any suspense, the actors lack passion for their roles, and the script is burdened with clichés about Hollywood being a "tough town." When the filmmakers run out of ideas about where the story should lead, they pile on embarrassingly bad digital effects in a failed attempt at dramatic tension.

I will continue to support independent efforts — especially in the frequently disappointing horror genre — but films like this really try my patience. John Cassavetes made remarkable indie films 30 years ago, but it seems today anyone with a camcorder, a handful of friends and a free weekend is becoming a filmmaker.

To the independent visionaries with ideas, I say: More power to you. To the cast and crew of "The Ghosts of Edendale," I say: Better luck next time.

Shoot me Please!!

[eamus_catuli · 1/10 · 6 December 2004]

The AWFULNESS of this movie alone prompted me to register for IMDb.com. I do not consider myself a critic, but the HIDEOUS acting job by the male lead (Stephen Wastell) led me to believe that my grandpa could do a better job in the role. oh, and did i mention, my grandpa's been dead for 12 years???

I beg someone else to go see this movie, just so that you'll know you could play the part better. You'll sleep well at night knowing that YOU could get a male lead in a film, even if you are an 87 year old woman.

The script was slow.... the dialogue even slower. It was like I was watching day one of a high school drama class.... the female lead did her best with the wet fish that was tossed to her, but even she couldn't pull it off. My heart went out to her during the kissing scenes in the hot tub. YOu could tell she was repulsed by his weird mouth and complete lack of commitment to the role.

How this turdpile ever ended up at my Hollywood Video, I have no idea. I am only thankful that i am on their unlimited rentals plan and didn't have to shell out any money for this empty shell of a movie.

What did I just rent?

[jiggityjay789 · 2/10 · 3 March 2005]

About 10 minutes into the movie, as the handyman started working on the hot tub... my friend turned to me and said "Wait a minute, is this movie a porno?"

I opened my mouth to say "No", but I hesitated. I rented this movie without knowing anything about it. The rental store DID stock pornos. All I could say was "I'm... I'm not sure. I thought it was a ghost story."

After about 20 minutes my friend started eyeing the clock saying "Hey, come on, 'Alias' is about to start."

I said "Shhh.. just give it a chance." This was the second rental I had brought to my friend's house. The first one had bombed, I wasn't ready to give up and declare myself 0-for-2 so quickly.

Then the two lead characters disrobed, and climbed into the hot tub. *Egad!* I thought. *It IS a porno!* But after a two minute sexcapade in the hot tub, and not a single flash of explicit nudity, the lead actress spotted an evil face ON the fence behind the hot tub.

That's when it all sank in. This movie was actually trying to be scary! I sighed, suddenly I was far less forgiving of all the shortcomings of this movie. Sure, I can excuse a cheaply-filmed and flatly-written movie if it's a porno, but this was a legitimate attempt at serious film-making.

Oh, and on to some real gripes about the movie: If the special effects are not the strong point of your film, why feature them so prominently? Particularly throughout the climax? If anyone was taking the movie seriously up until then the deluge of effects would have killed it for them. Fortunately for me and my friend it provided some much needed laughs as a reward for sticking it out through this entire movie.

0-for-2. Thanks "Ghosts of Edendale"!

And P.S.: I'll try and keep this part vague, so it doesn't act as a spoiler... but come on! She left her sister to go get BOXES?!? Are you kidding me?

Watching paint dry is more entertaining

[JawsOne · 1/10 · 3 November 2004]

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.

So Painful

[konajinx · 1/10 · 10 January 2005]

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.

pretty damn awful

[krickett56 · 2/10 · 15 May 2005]

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.

less is more

[jryan-4 · 6/10 · 28 January 2005]

I've seen worse, for sure. Watching the director commentary of deleted scenes, I've come to the conclusion that the cuts that were made strengthened this film. Less in this case is definitely more. The movie as originally envisioned would have been a waste of money indeed but the twist at the end propels Edendale into the ranks of underrated mind game attempts. Yeah, it's cheaply shot and the actors look alike except for the two leads who kinda resemble Willem Dafoe and Keener from Malkovich. The fake Dafoe guy will never be seen again but the fake Keener actress who plays rachel throws in a disquietingly sincere performance and may be heard from again. Thank God, the disappearance of Rose is not ex-positioned which lifts Edendale from the trash heap to the garage. Always like a Tom Mix reference. I'm going to keep my eye on this director. I'll definitely rent his next especially with the Hollywood Video MVP deal which enables me to rent films like this for free. If you can get this for free, give it a try. I've seen a lot worse.

Horrifying.... film-making that is

[kfaulk211 · 2/10 · 16 May 2005]

I rented this film on a whim. I've seen a lot of movies and I really try to avoid the stinkers. Often I get enthralled in a particular genre and recently horror/suspense movies have been my thing. I carefully consider reviews from both fans and critics before jumping into a film I know nothing about. But sometimes, every so often, I'll pick up something based on nothing but intuition. Let's call it the movie version of "judging a book by its cover."

First of all, I understand that this is an indie film. I've seen plenty of them. I've read, after viewing, that the acting in this was "mediocre" or "not bad" for an indie film. I'd have to disagree. It was atrocious. The plot labored along so slowly it was nauseating. The hour and a half I spent watching seemed like an eternity.

When it was all said and done, and I had finally sat through the film in its entirety, all the way to the ridiculous, predictable, uninteresting and totally un-scary climax, I was exhausted. Sometimes, when the credits roll in a movie, regardless of what I think of it, I have feelings of happiness, horror, interest or questions regarding the intricate plot. When the credits rolled in this film, I felt nothing other than relief.

I promised myself before that I wouldn't view a movie without knowing what the common consensus was regarding its quality. Now I know for sure that i'll never go by intuition again. It's not so much the money I spend (which I hope never finds its way into these filmmakers' pockets so they can make another lousy movie) but it's the time taken away from my life, time that could have been spent on much more fulfilling activities like picking my nose or scratching my ass, that I can never get back thanks to horrible films like this one.

Edendale

[forspam-4 · 10/10 · 18 January 2005]

I grew up in the Hills of the Silverlake area. I study the history of the old red cars and movie studios. Let me tell you there is more to this movie than meets the eye. I really enjoyed the way it was done. Spirits of hard working men and women really do exits. There is something about old Hollywood. The Movie really stirred up memories of my childhood. Digging up old artifacts, and getting spooked out by things in those dark hills. Not to mention the crazy homeless people. Don't be fooled by some of the things that a bigger budget could have fixed. I think to many people miss a good premise if they are so quick to criticize a movie based upon it's shortcomings. Although this movie is low budget I really had a nice evening of it. So sit back, get some popcorn, and just enjoy a little bit of Hollywood history done in a clever fashion.

It looked like more money was put into the poster than the movie

[jordondave-28085 · 3/10 · 22 July 2023]

(2003) Ghosts of Edendale HORROR

Low budget, straight to rental via-camcorder, edited, written and directed by Stefan Avalos which mixes a real life incident with fiction turning it into a horror film. Story centers, young couple move into a particular part of LA, Hollywood to get away from a current relapse with it's goal to make it big in Hollywood, only to be subjected to more of the same with the rest or most of the neighborhood acting qeer/ odd which 're somehow linked from an 'urban legend' about an actual actor by the name of Tom Mix who was originally killed on an automobile accident and once lived in the Edendale household. Anybody who don't mind a much lower budget version of Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining" might like this, otherwise it's rather predictable, slow, and illogical.

a moody, creepy ghost story

[st18901 · 10/10 · 14 November 2004]

It's amazing how people see the same movie and think such different things. I think that people who don't like this movie were expecting something different - maybe a slasher movie? From the first "BOO" - and did I jump! -- to the end, the movie had an eerie feel to it that I recall when I saw The Changeling. It's definitely a low budget movie, and you can feel it, but it still worked for me. The acting, especially the two leads, was great, way beyond what you typically see in a low budget movie. I think she could go on to be a big actress. The effects were good and the music also was great. I'm also happy to see horror movies taking a turn away from gore gore gore. I don't like many horror movies because they're so childish. This one is definitely for adults. If you like The Others, you'll probably like this.

Now I want to see a Tom Mix movie. That bit of history was very interesting.

Well done- Congrats to all involved

[stickler-2 · 8/10 · 5 January 2005]

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

resourceful skid-row film-making

[EyeAskance · 1 February 2005]

Accepting the idea that any film is only as good as its final product, "Edendale" more-less misses the mark...but there is definite potential in the mix. Clearly this film, a ghost story taking place in Hollywood environs, had a VERY meager budget. Fortunately, there are enough interesting ideas in play to keep this watchable despite obvious funding limitations and the usual shortcomings of amateur film-making (comparing this to a major film is unrealistic...if your tastes lean toward a more polished, technically adept film, don't bother to knock here). Some definite moments of creepiness in this little film make me wonder how the guys behind it might fare with some financial aid..."Edendale" is by no means grand-scale entertainment, but how many films this low on the totem ARE? I'm relatively impressed with the results of this project, and have high hopes for many of those involved for the future.

4.5/10

good if you're not into a lot of blood and things.

[rebel_slave · 8/10 · 13 May 2006]

I've seen a lot of people saying how bad this movie is... I think I understand why they didn't like it.

1. It doesn't contain the special effects most people take for granted.

2. It doesn't have an ending where there is a definitive winner per se... thus it can leave the viewer unsatisfied as they only want set answers.. usually where the bad guy wins.

3. Not all That much happens.. the movie is based on you the viewer trying to work out what is going to happen and when...

You end up while watching this movie trying to figure out how much is real and how much in the imagination of the female lead.

You are given the information quite early on that she "sees" things after she sees a little boy in the cupboard who just runs away.

The movie progresses from there with the turning point happening as she goes away for 5 days to a shoot which you know the husband isn't keen on.

From there on hubby gets more and more wooden acting as though he were not quite sure how to react or respond to anything save for being mean.

It does appear at first as though the guy doesn't know how to act, but in actual fact, watching it carefully you can see where he has taken on the role of the character who is supposed to be possessing him.

There is only one definite murder in the entire film, and the ghosts themselves hurt no one... as with the rumours of ghosts, the only thing their role is for is to scare the hell out of the lead female who grows more and more paranoid up to the climax.

The special effects are used nicely showing only as much as is necessary to make you jump if you're concentrating on it. With a nice trick of using the scenery to make it appear as though she is imagining everything still.. and apart from the death itself that Does happen.. you are left wondering even after the final credits roll...

How much is in her mind...

How much is real.

I'd recommend watching this but don't expect to see tons of blood.. in fact.. don't expect to see Any blood. For someone who doesn't watch horror films to get grossed out... this film was fantastic.

Rebby.

More grass roots shudders

[Poe-17 · 4 November 2004]

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.

Pleasant surprise!

[Vampenguin · 8/10 · 12 March 2006]

Found this one in a bargain bin, and decided I might as well give it a shot. Well, I certainly wasn't disappointed! Though it did have the overall feel of an ultra low budget film, the actors weren't bad and all things considered the effects were pretty good. Interesting storyline, added in some partially true Hollywood history which I enjoyed. Methinks Ill have to watch this one a couple more times to try and figure out the ending though. Overall, if you see this in a bargain bin, I say pick it up! Might take awhile to get your head around, but definitely better than a lot of recent low budget garbage.

8/10

I've never written one of these before...Sarcasm ahoy!

[blairgun · 10 March 2005]

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.

Great Follow-Up to "The Last Broadcast"

[digitalevolutionproject · 9/10 · 22 September 2004]

A friend of mine managed to get a screener of this film. It's by Stefan Avalos, one of the creators of "The Last Broadcast". While still working on a very small budget, Avalos manages to inject some great scares in this super atmospheric Ghost Story. Other than the budget (and it still cost quite a bit more than Last Broadcast's $900), it is a complete departure from "The Last Broadcast", with a straight forward narrative driving it through some very freaky moments.

And they also pull off some AWESOME special fx. And I do mean awesome... freaky ghosts, inanimate objects growing faces, and a very scary... very dead cowboy.

For anyone who likes a good ghost story, or interested in the early history of Hollywood, this film is for you.

Also, just a side note on their DVD. It is easily one of the best dvds I've seen in a while... lots of extras, and we found a bunch of Easter Eggs, including one for a contest to win a trip to haunted Hollywood. Whoever did the DVD, GREAT JOB!

Great Ghost Story!

[chekedahurricane · 24 October 2004]

There's much to be said about a ghost story that comes along today in a different way. Without all the gore and violence subjected to so many horror movies now, this film will be a mom pleaser. It starts out with some slow acting, but immediately picks up with some clues of how the plot will go. Great visual special effects combine with unusual color patterns for the setting. Be sure and turn your volume up on the TV, as many sounds need to be heard. Except for a very loud telephone ring every now and then. I was impressed with the ghosts turning up at a moments notice when you least expect it. The ending leaves you hanging, and makes you wonder just who the heck the good guy was in this movie. Other than that, it kept me entertained without having to look at any blood or guts like so many movies now a days.

A little gem!

[hapistar · 10/10 · 7 December 2004]

This was really a treat of a ghost story that combines Hollywood paranoia with some wild history from the silent movie era. I really enjoyed its staying on the subtle side, and all the extras were great! As a filmmaker myself, the "Re-making of a Scene" was really insightful. I'm going to buy The Ghosts for my nephew this Christmas. I want him to learn that in the horror genre, less is often so much more.

I loved the first scare -- which came after lulling me into a sense of strange calm -- and I really liked the open ending -- which allowed me to ponder what I think happened in the end. The movie reminds me of the great old films like "Let's Scare Jessica to Death."

Great work!

Two Thumbs Up!

[samililja · 10/10 · 8 December 2004]

Stefan Avalos outdone himself this time. Spooky as hell 'damnit :D This movie was full of "what's that" moments, which added nicely to the mix. Commentary rocked also, gave an nice little insight for the movie, and made listener feel that both director (Stefan Avalos) and producer (Marianne Connor) really enjoyed to make that commentary, which I'm sure they did :) DVD was full of extras, like deleted scenes, and lots of featurettes, so don't miss out the DVD-release! Two Thumbs Up! Ghosts of Edendale is a must-have for every ghostmovie-buff out there .

Haunting Surreal Ghost Story

[hhbooker2-1 · 10/10 · 26 December 2004]

This haunting surreal motion picture takes place in Edenville in East Hollyood on the former ranch of Tom Mix, a famous cowboy actor of the silent era of the silver screen. Prior to the untimely death of Tom Mix, he and the studios were attempting to transition into sound films after 1929, but they and the makers of Westerns were having a tough sell of cowboy genre. In this tale, a young couple move from back East to make a new life in the West and get into a different lifestyle for the sanity of Rachel played brilliantly by Paula Ficara who appears to see ghosts along with her husband Kevin portrayed by Stephen Wasteall who has dreams of fitting into the Hollywood scene. They first encounter a neighbor named Andrew who does not quite fit in and then he mysteriously disappears leaving behind a vintage automobile and his possessions. Rachel starts seeing ghosts in the closet starting with a little boy who appears to have aged and rotted while being recognizable as a child and then she saw a ghost who looks like her husband Kevin dressed in cowboy costume like that worn by the late Tom Mix and as the apperation pulls away the kerchief over his face, it suddenly rots away and turns into dust. Later Rachel is watching an old black and white Tom Mix motion and notices Kevin's face on the cowboy in the scene, after that she falls apart and tries to leave and she herself becomes a ghost, the ghosts of those who just did not make it in Hollywood who haunt Edandale Hill! Although the film was shot in colour, it is like experiencing a black and white movie complete with shadows in the style of Orson Wells' "Citizen Kane" and ranks in my personal opinion as a soon-to-be CULT FILM and a must have DVD or VHS video for you and your friends. Sarge Booker