true story?


Does anyone know if this is true? Like, was Carter Simms a real person or is this all just *beep*

reply

I've looked all over the internet and can't find anything about it.

The story seems to be inspired by the DeFeo murders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_DeFeo%2C_Jr.

I'd love to know if there is any truth to the story, though!

reply

I've looked all over the internet and can't find anything about it.

The story seems to be inspired by the DeFeo murders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_DeFeo%2C_Jr.

I'd love to know if there is any truth to the story, though!




"The case (the Defeo murders) is notable for being the real life inspiration behind the book and film versions of The Amityville Horror."

I don't see much of a parallel, other than one member of the family killing the rest. The dynamics, otherwise, are completly different imo.

"Shot in documentary fashion with voice over narration, it tells the story of what happened when a team of investigators entered the Masterson home hoping to provide explanations for the disturbances occurring within."

source: http://deadlydvd.com/?p=194


"Shot in documentary fashion" would indicate that this is not an actual documentary and may lead one to conclude that it isn't based on a true story. That alone, however, could still leave it open-ended in some people's minds, I suppose.

Yet, there are no credits given to anyone involved in the making of the film that may have supplied a "ghost-hunters journal" or anything else of the like to base the story on.

There is also nothing anywhere on the internet that indicates that any of the events in this film took place, or anything like it. If it was actually based on a true story, no matter how loosely, I assure you it would state that in blazing red colour's somewhere - as the attraction of authenticity always entices more people to watch.

The fact that you are wondering if it is true, though, indicates that the movie at least partially achieved what it set out to do.

"There is a difference between truth and fiction: fiction has to make sense." Wilhelm Wexler

reply

It's not real because ghosts aren't real.

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm2339870/

reply

Of course it isn't real.Its like Blair Witch Project. The whole make a movie look like a documentary is getting old.








Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

reply

The best part of this movie was the little girl. The rest of it moved too slow to really keep my interest. I hated the fact that some scenes were so loud that you had to turn your TV down, but some were so low that you had to turn the damn thing all the way up.

reply

I also hated that crap. Especially with that annoying static music they kept playing.





Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

reply

Ah, i thought that problem with the sound was just the version i was watching. That was really annoying.

So this has no truth to it? Well that's pretty stupid. I mean it's one thing to copy Blair Witch (which was an original undertaking at the time), but then to make statements about the paranormal community and how they see it as proof that there is life after death - that's borderline slander.

As for the movie itself: There were some decent parts to it, but there was so much post-production modification that it got impossible to tell what was part of the current story and what wasn't (for example, when Carter would call out to the ghosts, you'd hear answers even though you're only supposed to be able to hear ghosts via EVP). And all the reversed speech and annoying flashes made some parts painful to watch. Not to mention the fact that the movie was so much longer than it needed to be, and the whole spoonfed explanation at the end really makes you feel like an idiot.

As bad as the acting was in St. Francisville Experiment, and as slow as the build up was in that movie, i though it was better because it had the verité style to it, which made it creepier, more tense, and more realistic (the latter kind of made up for the poor acting because it was more realistic).

Well if there is any hint of truth to the story, i hope us logically-minded individuals will take it as an example of how dangerous religion can be when it's wielded by the gullible and the simple-minded, because that's what i took away from this.



http://www.last.fm/group/Bring+back+the+old+Last.fm

reply

I agree - the sound was all messed up. Couldn't hear the dialogue but everything else was way too loud.

I feel the acting is what brought this movie down the most. Bad acting.

~*We were born to love one another*~

reply

I agree with everything you wrote gstlvr!

reply

Exactly - cannot stand when movies do this. That alien recent alien abduction movie did the same thing - with fake documentary footage. There are STILL people who believe it's real.

reply

Yeah, I thought they were at least going to weave "real footage" in with "re-enactment" footage, since they said something about it being based on videos they found of hers or some such (I think). But then she was the same person (Patti Tindall) on the in-house footage as she was driving across the country, so that kind of annoyed me as well.

Agreed on the spoonfed ending. I think most of us had figured most of it out by that point anyway, and this way there's not much left to talk about after the movie is over.

reply

I believe it said at the beginning of the film that it was a re-enactment, and they were using Carter's journal entries as source material. Plus, their claims about how the house is regarded in the 'Ghost hunting community' also points to the direction that it's based on real events.
If it is based on true events, I'm sure they changed the names of everyone involved, since there is a big part of speculation. I'm more convinced it is an amalgam of different hauntings/killings rolled together for a good story.

reply

It's all just *beep.* A cheap, low tactic that's supposed to lend credibility to a "film" whose artistic "merit" is damaged beyond repair.

For fellow boardies, the question of "real" that matters has less to do with the subject matter than the alleged source materials. It's okay to have *characters* "find" a journal or whatever and make a movie about it, but it's not okay to say to your viewers, as a filmmaker, "I have a journal/video/what-have-you" when you DON'T. We all know the truth of the "true events" movies like this get based on is debatable. That doesn't mean it's acceptable to just INVENT "sources" to substitute for your cast's lack of talent and your own lack of editing skills. It was done in bad taste, simply put.

reply

I agree with above remarks that to say it's a documentary to make up for bad acting, bad sound, filming technique is a rip off. You can tell it didn't cost much since the same guy wrote, directed, and had family members involved if you watched the ending credits you can see what I'm talking about. I didn't see the normal disclaimer "The characters in this film are fictitious...
and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental"


At least the movie The Fouth Kind looked and sounded alot better, maybe better film used? Although I was highly annoyed when I found out that was all fake too.

reply