MovieChat Forums > Ghost Town: The Movie (2007) Discussion > Very impressive

Very impressive

posted 15 years ago by Sparkle3689
8 replies | jump to latest

I was beyond impressed watching Ghost town. I thought, wow what an under taking to conquer a western with a million dollar budget. (You would never know it was a million dollar film from watching) But I was so impressed, they did such a quality, and fantastic job. The movie was intriguing and kept me on the edge on of my seat the entire time. I was wrapped up in the film, and really appreciated the fact that they made it clear what was happening with flash backs, ect, as I was concerned at the start of the film that I might get confused, but I was wrong. (The behind the scenes was such a blast to watch as well!)

You won't be dissapointed with this film. It is entertaining, and provides a good message. This film is truely a find.

[–] toappleway 15 years ago

I'm only a movie lover. I don't really know a lot about the process but I have never seen a film that looked liked this, I guess that would be the editing? I like close ups and there really wasn't any when I thought there should be to really see how they felt. That's the stuff that sucks me in and I didn't get that with this film.

It was really hard to understand the story. I actually had to watch it a few times to really understand what was going on. I saw this film before when it first came out and it was really rough and now the DVD version does seem to be better, I guess they changed the editing or something but it's still hard to follow.

I do admire anybody who can make a film though even if it is bad. There is a lot about this film we could pick apart for sure but I can watch just about anything. I love westerns and this was by far not a great western but it is okay.

I thought some of the actors in this were really good, namely Renee O'Connor, I thought her role should have been played up a lot more. I also loved Rance Howard, Bill McKinney, Fred Griffith and Paul Proios in their roles. I thought they were all very believable. I have tried to follow Fred Griffith and try to catch the things he is in. He just has the old movie star quality or something that I like. He reminds me of like a Charles Bronson, James Coburn, Steve McQueen type (the era I started watching and loving movies). I'm not sure what it is about him but his acting style (i guess that's what you call it) seems like it's from that older era or something, maybe more real or something. I saw him for the first time a few years ago and liked him and thought I would try to follow his career here on IMdb, I love this site.

I realize this film is not that good but i don't like when people are to tough on films and film makers. I love movies and want people to always make them and I will try to watch them.

BB

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] scameron0328 15 years ago

I'm sorry. I don't want to be mean, but you must have been watching a different movie than the one listed on this post. This is quite possible the worst western, no, the worst movie I have ever seen. The acting so god-awful that they couldn't have been much worse if they were staring right in front of the camera and reading lines from hand held copies of the scripts. Unforgiven this aint. And although this "movie" obviously aspires to teach the same social message as Dances With Wolves, it slumps into cliche's and drivel so often that it doesn't even do that well. If I were to describe this movie, I would say it was like taking the Neil Diamond remake of The Jazz Singer and turning it into a western. This isn't even a western. It's a movie with a bunch of morons who can't act dressing up in cowboy hats and trying to disgise the fact that they obviously know they suck. Oh yes, and it has a lot of slow motion shots, witch these days, is amatuer cinematography. It spells out "look at me, I can make a movie camera work." Just my opinion, which happens to be right. -SRC

[–] pepper_phantom 15 years ago

For a movie goer... you really seem to have a very low opinion of yourself. It takes a moron to know one. If you think you are not one... then why do you take to great lengths to write your obviously reflective opinion of yourself? Morons indeed... apparently you did not really see the movie or you really have never learned any history as there are quiet a few of the cast who have been in the business for quite a while. When you say what you have said... then you are telling others that you even think that the movie "Deliverance" with Burt Reynolds was a piece of crap as some of the cast from "Ghost Town" were in that movie as well. Funny... Both movies are award winning movies. We have to get our start somewhere... and Dean did one really fine job. The star cast under him, will work with him again and that is saying a lot for an independent movie company.

Freedom is not cheap... Quit bashing our troops and leaders!

[–] scameron0328 15 years ago

Insult me in what ever manner you like, the movie still stinks. -SRC

[–] NewHemingway 15 years ago

We have to get our start somewhere???? Thats a lame excuse.

Guys like Robert Rodriguez, Chris Nolan and Joe Carnahan started with low budget indies. All under 10k!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Doesnt matter if the budget is 1 mil or 10 bucks a good story is a good story and Ghost Town needed a lobotomy.

[–] robt-public 9 years ago

Any filmmaker who puts his damn name in the title of his film is making movies for the wrong damn reasons!

I cannot.
Yet I must.
How do you calculate that?

[–] Wuchak (8169) 5 years ago

Actually, it cost $1.5 million, which is way more than enough to make a competent movie. "Another Kind" (2013), for instance, only cost $120,000 and it's excellent for such a non-budget; you'd never know it only cost that much to make.

Unfortunately, "Ghost Town" is not a good movie despite the quality locations, sets and a few notable actors (Bill McKinney, Rance Howard and Renee O'Connor), it's not even okay; in fact, it's nigh embarrassingly bad. I wanted to quit watching after a mere 10-20 minutes but forced myself to endure to the end (speaking of which, the movie’s overlong at 1 hour, 55 minutes).

It's as if the 'filmmakers' didn't really know what they were doing. For instance, the entire first act consists of two time-lines and it’s sort of confusing. At around the 44-minute mark Rance Howard’s character explains what’s going on, which verifies what you suspected was happening, but you’re only certain at that point. The story then gets a little compelling, thankfully, but it eventually fizzles out and you can’t wait for it to end.

The locations are great and the story could have worked, but they needed to hire a screenwriter and editor who knew what they were doing. I can handle every other weakness, including the over-the-top non-acting by the peripherals, but when the story and editing are flawed it fudges up the whole production.