Ghosts of Goldfield

source: Ghosts of Goldfield

Five young filmmakers go to the deserted Goldfield Hotel in Nevada in hopes of filming Elizabeth (Ashly Margaret Rae) the wife of the owner of the hotel whose spirit roams the halls looking for her lost baby. Her affair with a bartender (Roddy Piper) leads to a baby that her husband George Winfield (Chuck Zito) had killed along with Elizabeth. The crew searches the halls acting like school kids rather than a documentary crew with the ghost sliding past and all around them. Two members of the crew Mike (Richard Chance) and Keri (Amano) seem to think the reason they are there is to party, flirt and hang out being completely unaware that they are in a haunted hotel and what their mission is. Group leader Julia (Patterson) quickly realizes her Grandmother may have had something to do with the death of Elizabeth and the group can't escape outside the hotel. Decent Direction by Edwin Winfield and excellent cinematography by Adrian M. Pruett and Roland "Ozzie" Smith cannot disguise the terrible screenplay by Dominic Biondi and story by Brian McMahon. This is a shame because the filmmakers are quite talented and make the most of the location. The story is by the numbers and when you add two of the most annoying characters (Mike & Keri) a horror film has seen in a long time, the film can't overcome it. The dialog is absurd and downright laughable at times. The filmmakers create a good atmosphere only to have it ruined by stupid actions of the characters. There still manages to be a few scares and some gore thrown in but the relentlessly bad script keeps sinking any momentum the film gets going. A lot of talent behind the camera is wasted. It seems pretty clear this team could have made a good low budget horror film with real pay offs if they had any kind of script to work with.

Y'all, this is straight-up awful. The acting, the special effects, the script: just awful. Dumb characters making dumb choices. There are no redeeming qualities to this film at all. Skip it. Please.

If I was actually curious I would check out, why this was originally intended to be part of the Urban Legend(s) cinematic universe (not sure if they'd have called it that back in the day). But I am not. Feel free to roam this page or the internet if you are curious, I give you my blessings. Having said that, it was nice to see Roddy Piper and Marnette or Kellan Lutz. They still do not make up for the insanity you are about to witness. Although in one case it works in favor of the movie. That is the sex scene - or rather the aftermath of the sex scene. While the obvious dubbing of the moaning is already funny (and surely not intended to be that way), what really is pure comedy is how the characters react to the said intercourse. You could also call it bad acting of course ... and unintended to the highest degree. Still the best scene of the whole movie.

First off let me start by saying, if you're hoping to watch a scary movie than this is NOT the movie you want to watch. The plot wasn't all that terrible, but there was just to much talking. I'll admit that some parts of the movie i would zone out and than realize i'm watching it because it was so boring. The beginning was okay, It started as five friends wanting to make documentary about a haunted hotel, they go on a road trip & the car breaks down they go to a cemetery blah blah blah, then finally they get to a bar with a man who is important to the story, he gives them a key and they're off to the hotel. The ghost wasn't scary, it wasn't any nightmare on elm street effects, it didn't look real & by the end if you were looking for a scary movie you'd be disappointed like i was.

This was horrible. I expected so much more from Marnette Patterson. After seeing her on Supernatural and in a few other films, this was a letdown. Maybe she can't handle a leading role. Or maybe her supporting cast was just bad enough to sink her starring role. Or it could just be bad writing. A bit of advice Marnette- be a bit more selective in your acting choices.

The biggest problem encountered with this film is the fact that it actually makes no sense at all. If you choose to watch this pathetic excuse for a film you will be subjected to an hour and a half of painful dialogue, pathetic acting and terrible filming and still come out at the end none the wiser than when you began. It is in no way clear why they characters that are murdered are. It's a low budget film so naturally I expect bad shooting and poor acting. However, it costs nothing to think up a story that is actually consistent and makes logical sense. In the initial scene at the 'saloon', which is meant to be 'unchanged since the 1800's', you can clearly see the bar owner leaning on a Fosters lager pump. Not really in keeping with the idea that this bar has not been altered in over two hundred years. Thankfully the director does redeem himself in noticing this mistake and removing the Fosters badge for the next scene! That's about the only congratulations I could offer to whoever thought of, and produced, this atrocity. Life seriously is too short to waste on this film.

So, this was one of those movies that I just couldn't get into. Usually I can have a horror movie in the background while doing other things, and still follow along. This one couldn't keep my attention & I had to keep rewinding parts (sometimes more than once) to catch up to the plot. Basic premise: 5 university students descend upon an alleged haunted hotel to get footage of phenomena for a thesis project. A woman, Elizabeth, and her baby were murdered at the hands of the hotel owner, George, after he finds out she was not faithful, and the baby was not his. Of course the students have car problems; of course they have to go through a graveyard; of course they encounter punchy locals (with a where-in-the-hell-do-I know-this-guy cameo by "Rowdy" Roddy Piper); of course the writing is plagued with trite stereotypes - the obnoxious alcoholic sex-on-the-brain a-hole & the slutty kleptomaniac girlfriend; of course I found this on fearnet. So we have our start and back story (sort of). But, here's where things go from standard to confusingly off-track. We have a shot of the old, deaf townie presumably in the hotel after the group begins to settle in the hotel. This is never explained or followed up on. Seriously, were there scenes cut? Was it meant as misdirection that this was all a setup? The ghost - can she not decide whether she just wants her murdered baby? revenge against the lineage who wronged her? to kill everyone? to get laid? Because although most of her lines have to do with the first choice, she dabbles in all of the above. Of course the gang splits up, and amid possession and solid ghost 'hauntings' the kids are picked off one by one. Our heroine, Julie, feels responsible because it was her grandmother who snitched & started all the trouble. Julie gets most of the story through a weird mind- meld flashback. Her heirloom, a locket, actually belongs to the ghost. Will giving it back free her spirit & appease her? Nope - a trinket doesn't give her baby back, excuse her being tortured and murdered, or get rid of her bloodlust. The film gives a clear delineation of the 'good' characters versus the 'bad' ones. You pretty much figure out early who will be killed first. The good ones get it, too, because this is one angry spirit. The ending is kind of craptastic. Julie sees the fate of Elizabeth and succumbs somehow to the same torture. She is left alone in the hotel, staring out of the window, while the tetchy bartender (a lookalike descendant of Elizabeth's lover) looks on, satisfied. The movie is plagued with a nonsensical plot, bad writing, and some not-so-stellar acting. Honestly, I thought George was a Soprano's reject. The pouty princess 'friend' was kind of annoying, and even our ghost was a bit over-the-top with her expressions. But the kicker? Over the credits is this random history-lesson back story about the town that really added NOTHING to the plot or characters. The narrator isn't even credited. It was a bizarre choice that really made no sense. Maybe if it was tied in at the beginning as exposition, it may have transitioned properly. Or even if it was in Julie's voice, it may have tied in. But, this was a random, unheard-from omniscient voice-over that made it feel even more like a film school project that had to fit in required elements. Overall, not a great flick - I have seen worse, but this one definitely could've been made much better. Side notes - after reading a few of the other reviews: I had totally missed that this hotel was set in Nevada - or that I-95 reference would have clicked as well. Just goes to show how not interested I was in this film. Re: Twilight Zone feel. Actually, the summary (and voice) reminded me much more of the Outer Limits. But, I also didn't get that vibe until the ending credits. It's a semi-watchable movie, with a lot of plot holes and characterization issues to contend with. Fairly forewarned.

This movie starts out OK, but then just fails to really do anything. I purchased the movie at the local Wal-Mart because I used to live just 27 miles north of Goldfield in the town of Tonopah, NV. I hope that this isn't considered a spoiler, but ALL of the interior flamings of the hotel in this film were not filmed at the Goldfield Hotel, but up the road in Tonopah at the now defunct, Mizpah Hotel. I know!!!!! I used to work at the Mizpah Hotel and it all looked very familiar to me. The acting is barely mediocre in this film. Two pretty girls, one cute guy, and one hunk, along with Roddy Piper couldn't make this film shine. Five college students go to Goldfield, NV to study ghosts the closed Goldfield Hotel and spend the night there. I can tell anyone now that would never happen because Esmerelda County would never let anyone spend the night there. I don't believe that the hotel has actually had guests since the late 40's or early 50's. It may have opened up in the 70's for a short while, but I would have to check my facts. Don't waste your money going out and buying this DVD. Wait for it on Sci-FI or a horror channel some long snowy afternoon. Movie Grade-D+

Aaron; the Goldfield Hotel really does sit on the I95 approx 170 miles north of Vegas. I know this for a fact because I lived in Goldfield for 4 years and spent a lot of time at the hotel. I watched this movie because it was based on the Goldfield Hotel, however none of the interior was filmed there. It was filmed entirely inside the Mizpah Hotel in Tonopah, 26 miles away. It was much more fun watching the background, trying to see my old house, reminiscing with friends who I used to hang around the Mizpah with. I actually lived in room 109 of the Mizpah for a while(not the one on film, that was another part of the hotel). There are other discrepancies just with the location that it made it fun to watch. If you are from the Tonopah/Goldfield area you should watch this! Most people are not from here and would not enjoy any part of this movie. The acting was terrible, the script was full of crap that no one actually says, the story was slow, you wait and wait for something to happen, ANYTHING to happen that I'd be surprised if you were still watching when they finally do something during the crappy last 5 minutes of this crappy film.