This is an odd little film, further oddened by the fact that apparently it wasn't properly transferred to Amazon Prime in terms of aspect ratio, because it's supposed to be in widescreen, but for some reason comes out in full screen, with the black bars on top and bottom, so it's only taking up like 2/3rds of the screen.At first I thought it was supposed to be in full screen, as it begins with an inexplicable murder sequence set in 1982 yet supposedly filmed on some kind of 1950s or 60s style reel camera. As the camera repeatedly cuts to multiple shots, including some impossible ones like several feet behind a solid wall, it's increasingly unclear what the point of this footage is or what it's supposed to be in-universe. No mention of this footage is made ever again and it's completely unnecessary. They could have used it the way they do later on, splicing fragments and clips in like "visions". Once it gets to the real film itself, it turns to a more conventional camera, though with a rather odd framerate that, mixed with its introductory style, makes it look and feel like a Forensic Files-style re-enactment documentary. They go with this style for about 20 minutes before dropping it and going for a purely conventional style movie... but continuing in the odd framerate/shooting style of a true crime re-enactment, complete with a solitary piece of repetitive music that is used and re-used in every spooky scene that sounds like it was pecked out on a casio keyboard. the film itself covers a paranormal investigator named Carter who is investigating a house owned by an inexplicably successful 28-year old who inherited it from his father, who in turn inherited it from his brother who was murdered with his children by his wife, who then apparently drowns a baby. This is the murder we see at the beginning of the film. Inexplicably, the guy wants her to work with two other people; a cameraguy friend of his, and a writer. Once they all meet and come to the house, they're met up with a woman, Mary Young Mortenson, for whom I give credit to the actor for not portraying in the stereotypical uptight Christian conservative zealot but making her somewhat believable, willing to curse and talk about guys and actually be reasonable when confronted with non religious people instead of constantly jabbering about god. The flip side of this potentially "realistic" portrayal is that it may just be so terribly written and acted that it is only accidentally believable. The acting is indeed terrible, yet ironically it is about the exact same caliber of stilted, awkwardly wooden acting that you get from true crime documentary re-enactments. If that were the intention, it would better explain the bad acting, while throwing in the potential mystery of what the hell happened in the editing room to edit out the "documentary style". The plot is a boring foray into this group scouting out a supposedly haunting house and experiencing spooky ghosty events using some of the worst little visual effects and clumsily spliced in backmasked audio. Virtually nothing happens other than some scattered, unconvincing "ghost" appearances while the people involved all bicker and fight constantly, mostly with Mary Young. These encounters are hilarious for all the wrong reasons, and culminate in the obvious revelation that Mary Young was not originally invited by the owner of the house as she'd said, but just a crackpot member of the murder victim's church who occasionally shows cult-like devotion to him and his memory. While the group finds mounting evidence that the original man of the house was a bad and devious man, Mary Young refuses to hear of it and has a freakout that leads to her leaving. She then calls in to a religious radio show complaining about them, and then comes back to wear a weird religious box-helmet thing, then kill them all, or something. It's not entirely clear what was happening. After that, we get an extremely long sequence, filmed even more in true crime documentary re-enactment style, with Mary Young's voice-over narration. Turns out the original man of the house was a very bad man, as he takes in a moronic couple's teenage daughter who they say has been a "whore", and chains her up in the attic and rapes her repeatedly over several weeks. The wife is fully aware of all this, and the husband also has sex with her, while making her wear the religious box-helmet contraption. The girl gets pregnant and gives birth, and the wife finally loses it and the murder we saw at the beginning is revealed in full, and it's then revealed the baby didn't drown in the bathtub and was rescued by a police cop named Mortenson, and it's revealed that baby was Mary Young Mortenson, who then comes out of the narration and kills herself in the same way as the wife did. Rather than ending now, the film goes on painfully to apparently show Carter as a ghost in the house now, and by this point the story has long since ended and what unfolds here is a sad epilogue to a poorly-made film lamenting the fate of a character no one cares about.

Overall, the film did decently with setting up an atmosphere.I do have a few points of critique: 1. Very repetitive background music. Those notes on the piano ended up bugging me a lot, since they were in every scary scene.2. Other sound issues - some scenes very obviously had all sound cut, the film could've used a "noise" track so these scenes wouldn't stand out so much. There was *some* nice music scores, but I feel that starting them out at a lower volume (and keeping them lower) would've drawn less attention to them.3. Some sequences - particularly the end - could've been shortened down a bit. With the fluff overall, I'd say the film could easily have been 20 minutes (and maybe even 30 minutes, if you're good at killing your darlings) shorter.Overall, I'd say the film shows some nice ideas, and at times a good execution of said ideas.

Another alleged true documentary of a paranormal phenomena. "Death of a Ghost Hunter" proves to be entertaining, but I didn't buy this to be true for even a moment. The whole thing was just to staged for that.Now, don't get me wrong, "Death of a Ghost Hunter" is good entertainment, and it does have an interesting and somewhat creepy story. And it does well at building up suspense. However, this is a movie meant to entertain, so take this movie for what it is, not for what it is intended to be.The setting of the movie is quite good, because it is set in a well-kept house that looks good on the outside, but has a very dark and brooding feel once inside. You should know that the movie is shot mostly in the dark, with either night vision camera or very little lighting, so don't expect a well-lit movie where you see everything. This lack of lighting does work well for the movie, as you are kept in suspense and kept in the dark (duh!)."Death of a Ghost Hunter" tells the story of a family killed in a house, and now the house is apparently haunted. The owner of the house hires a paranormal investigator, a reporter and a film man to do an investigation into the activities within the house. They are joined by a young girl from the church, and slowly, events start to happen at night, revealing the tragic events that occurred. However, not everything is as it seems... There is a nice twist to the story, though it wasn't all that difficult to figure it out before it was initially revealed in the movie.The acting in "Death of a Ghost Hunter" was actually good enough, and the cast was all unknown faces, to me at least. People did good jobs with their given roles. You should know that the movie is limited to a short list of cast and characters, however it doesn't hinder the movie in any way."Death of a Ghost Hunter" is in the likes of "Paranormal Activity" and "The Blairwitch Project", so if you liked those types of staged documentaries, then you might want to give "Death of a Ghost Hunter" a chance as well.

Yeah, well......yes...some of the acting is a textbook example of the fact that some folks got it, some folks don't.....I thought Patti was good...she is an actress, she passes basic training, and she has beautiful legs---that scene where she was writing her log in bed wearing a man's white shirt, took my breath away....yikes! The 2 other gals really don't have the chops---they are community theatre stock and oughta stay there, even tho the journalist gal certainly has the sex factor going for her.....the guy, the videographer, he was OK......he delivered his lines as if they were the first time he was saying them, and seemed natural enough.The story was good....very interesting....and maybe I'm a dullard, but the major plot point of the "religious expert" and her origin escaped me and was a surprise at the end. I enjoyed the film, overall, and the blurred image effects were creepy....we are overdue for a major film about these cheesy TV ghosthunters getting keel-hauled by something very far beyond entertainment, legend and speculation.BTW.....the special effects were SPOT-ON......admit it.....the little girl peaking around the door freakin' nailed me.......