User reviews

If you type in Dean Teaster on IMDb you get the page for Dean West. Mr. West produced, co-wrote the story, co-directed, and acted in Dean Teaster's Ghost Town. Not only that but the major characters in the story are named Teaster as well! So I guess I can assume that this is Mr. Teaster/West's movie. Actually it's his first movie. He had a co- director but his name is not all over the credits like Teaster's. This all leads up to an important question: Does he know anything about film and story structure? Judging by this movie I would have to say no. But don't take my word on it. Check out most of the previous comments. If you do you will notice a very common theme running through all of them. Mr. Teaster/West does not have a clue as to how a film should be assembled. If the flow of individual scenes are not rough and jarring they are too long and vapid. There are cuts in the wrong places, no cuts where there should be, and disturbingly few masters used and when they are they are not in the correct position. Take it form a film school graduate, Mr. Teaster/West and his editor need to go back to film school. This time pay attention to film basics 101. Take notes

After checking out the previous comments I see that I am not alone in my views of this movie. On the first watching I was confused and disappointed. So after watching it a second time I took some time and tried to figure out what was wrong. The comments here only helped to confirm my conclusions. Have you ever bought a plastic model of a car, opened the box and visualized what it would look like completed? Now imagine giving that model to a five year old and let them put it together unsupervised. When it's done you will have a fairly good idea what Ghost Town looks like. Each scene seemed to have all of the basic requirements to create tension, build the story, and advance the character arc. I could see all of the individual small parts just like looking at a plastic model straight out of the box. And just like that model I could envision the final product fully assembled. But for Ghost Town that is where everything falls apart. You can "see" the whole story, which is not overly complicated or deep. But it looks like it was assembled by a five year old. That creates a great deal of frustration on the part of the viewer. It is one thing to watch a bad movie. It is quite another to watch what appears to be a good movie put together with little understanding of plot, timing, or character development. Watching each scene you can "feel" where it is supposed to go, but each time the editing sends it way off track. Like a previous comment I suggest that you never let the editor near another movie again. At least not until he goers back to school and learns how a movie should be assembled. Otherwise you end up with a plastic model that doesn't quite match the box cover art!

I agree with Lawrence. I saw this at AOF. The editing was extremely difficult to digest, very D grade and amateur editing. The scenes drug on, very painful at times. They almost had a story and characters were just lost. It's a shame cause some of the shots were really, really nice and this movie could of been OK with some proper, professional, post talent. Rating this a ten is very humorous, very few ten professional movies exists, and it is very obvious that these must be people from this production rating it. That's OK, everyone wants their movie to be the best ;) but this film is far from a ten but a very good try for real amateur film makers. It looks like a first film but apparently it's not the companies first attempt. They are really going to have to step it up and make QUALITY projects if they want to compete and play with the big boys. It's a bummer to see the director also commenting on this page defending the movie, that will surely loses the integrity of the project fast. Directors should step back and let the film speak for itself and let the peoples honest judgment take play, people are smart they will tell you what they like and don't like. :) On a good note the setting was nice and the costumes looked great and some of the characters were really fun but should of been given a little more time to develop, seems like some characters had too much of the screen and others needed more. Very Confusing. Needs serious tightening and attention. Hope this is constructive criticism not to be taken to heart. Good luck on the next project! JBerg

They may have tried hard,but there is a rash of inexperience both in front of the camera and behind it that kills the film almost immediately and makes the viewer wish he had chosen something else to watch.Even the more experienced actors like Rance Howard and Bill McKinney come away looking bad because of the painfully ridiculous dialog written for them by the film's inexperienced script writers.The story is interesting enough,though,and would probably have come out looking a lot better with a more seasoned crew in charge.While it might be true that this film was not intended to be a blockbuster,it still has to be entertaining,and it comes up painfully short.

About 20 minutes into this movie you begin to wonder just what is going on. What should have been a straightforward western tale of revenge is muddied up by poor storytelling. Too many cuts back to the back story and confusing choices of shot selection constantly nag at the viewer. Just when you think you have an idea about what is going on, the editor throws something totally irrelevant on the screen and you are left wondering what happened? This is incredibly frustrating! I can "see" the story on a basic level. I can sense what the film is trying to do. But it as if the editor is purposely trying to throw a wrench into the works. I am left with a simple question: Why would he do that? Nothing is more straightforward than a western. The good guys and the bad guys are easily distinguishable. And the plot is usually quite linear. Why then would you take a simple story such as this and assemble it in such a dyslexic manner?

Having watched Dean Teaster's Ghost Town several times and carefully read the comments here I have come to several conclusions. First of all as someone else has pointed out Teaster's name is all over the movie. Yedt when you check the database here the credits have changed to Dean West. Hmmm? I wonder why? Changing your name will not hide you from the truth. The truth is this story had potential, but not with you. Watching the movie is like looking at something through thick dark glass. You can make out images, ideas, characters, plot, but somehow nothing particular. One commentator said that they were happy the movie wasn't dumbed down. That the confusing editing had something akin to Pulp Fiction in it. Pulp Fiction was never confusing in the least. While it was edited in a non linear manner, one was never confused as to the storyline. To claim that Ghost Town was edited in a like manner is a blatant attempt to give credence and respectability to what is obviously an amateur effort. I would be very surprised to find that Teaster when to film school or for that matter knows even the the basics of editing. The camera angles and shots are first rate for an independent film. The acting, while is spots is marginal, overall is quite good. But beyond this the film lacks a coherent framework that holds the story together. Some have likened it to a jigsaw puzzle put together incorrectly. But I think it goes beyond that. The lack of even a fundamental understanding of film construction points to a basic lack of talent in this area. That is not something that can be learned. You either have it or you don't. Take the critical comments here, by people who know, as overwhelming evidence that your talent does not lie here.

To the editor of this movie I offer this: Film editing is the art, technique, and practice of assembling shots into a coherent whole. Judging by this simple definition is is easy to note the lack of coherency in Ghost Town. Strike one. Deeper definitions of film editing stress pacing, balance and rhythm. They liken editing a movie to creating a musical composition. Again this movie disappoints. Ghost Town stumbles along more like a drunken sailor rather than a beautiful symphony. Strike two. Finally, other definitions note that editing, when done well, is an invisible art. If the editor has done his job well, the story will appear almost seamless. A film that tells a complete story in a logical and consistent manner, using harmony, rhythm, and appropriate pacing. By the comments listed here it is obvious that the editing job is anything but seamless. Instead we have a poorly constructed quilt that is barely held together with fraying thread of clashing colors. Strike three.

First off let me tell you I worked on this movie in a small capacity. I have worked on quite a few television shows and movies in the North Carolina area over the years. I usually don't comment on these things for obvious reasons. But in this case I feel I should point out a few "behind the scenes" items and let you come to your own conclusions. For an smallish independent movie it was quite well organized and planned out. Usually these things are often disorganized messes due to the lack of experience amongst the producers and crew alike. This was not the case. I could see that this feature was going to turn out quite well. It wasn't going to start any fires, but it should have been a decent little story. But this did not happen. I remember many days and nights on the set were miserably cold and/or wet. I also remember that the "second" director (his first time according to IMDb)was often missing on set for long periods of time. I remember this as it was noticed out by several other members of the crew as well. The bulk of the work was done by the first director and the crew, all of whom were very professional and diligent. Yet the first thing I noticed was that movie title has the "second" director's name prominently displayed above the name Ghost Town. Quite strange. Somewhere along the line what I witnessed on the set was not translated into what I just watched.

This feature is about as exciting as a plate of tripe. Overall I'd say even though an edit could possibly fix some of the incredibly draggy and droopy-dog scenes, on other hand if a film drags and drags and droops and drags and droops and droop-drags, then the director either did not direct according to the script, or there was no script, or the script is as bad as the film.

Perhaps if this was sliced to tiny bits, if each 20 minute scene is cut down to the actual 2 minutes or less of actual informational footage, then maybe we'll have a story that interests me. Now that I read a few of the oher reviews, I see I am not alone in this, and the long scenes with no cuts just does not work here.

Hitchcock tried it in Rope, but Hitchcock is Hitchcock and Rope has some astounding things in it. But as this film stands, I am not interested.

The first thing I watch, if a film has extras, are those extras. Well, the extras in this film seem to be a bunch of self absorbed people patting each other on their self-absorbed backs and making jokes which exclusively exclude the viewer.

As Viewers, we are alienated, even from the "Making Of" featurettes on the DVD release I found. One featurette was a very long clip of two guys talking to each other and we have no idea what they are discussing except that they use a few cursewords here and there.

The inclusion of greats Rance Howard (Ronny Howard's Pop) and Renee O'Conner (Gabriella from Xena Warrior Princess) does not help matters any. We really don't have any idea what is going on at all. I'd say, before editing this, first write a script and then decide on a way of filming it, because this attempt seems to be a struggle and the struggle fails. I got about 15 minutes into the film and was forced to shut it off- To quote Dennis Weaver from the 1958 Orson Welles film "Touch of Evil"

It's a Mess! It's a stinkin Mess!"

so I must say: "It's a Mess! It's a stinkin Mess!"

Independent Film is one of my interests... I would be interested in this, but for the fact that there is practically nothing there that is interesting. Nothing validates the effort I made in obtaining this film.

When I obtain a film to view, I expect it to be worth the rental fee at Blockbuster. That said, I did not rent it from there. This film may be found at Amazon.com, and I do not feel that the $18.00 price tag matches the value of the film contained in the DVD.

(Edit) Ahhh- I see at least 1 person does not agree with me. Your perogative, but that does not change the fact that this film is wanting in several hundred ways.

I hope it doesn't take a brick house to fall on you Teaster before you realize you've got a problem! Look over the comments posted here. Study them carefully. Not the ones written by your friends and family, (those are quite obvious) just the ones written by independent viewers. Don't worry I'll wait... Do you see a pattern? Do you see what it is that you did? What's the word? Let me see if I can remember it... Oh yeah, editing! Can you learn to edit? The arguments are split on this one. Some say you either have it or you don't. It's an artistic skill that can't be learned. Other's claim you can learn, but it is a slow painful process. Judging by Dean Teaster's Ghost Town I don't think we can wait the years it will take you just to come up to adequate. On the plus side you make Ewe Boll look good! Check this out if you don't understand what I mean: http://www.petitiononline.com/RRH53888/petition.html

I loved the movie... The plot was enthralling...D.J. Perry is to be commended on his captivating performance as Will Burnett..Herbert "Cowboy" Coward made you feel like you were actually reliving the past with Harmon Teaster..Robert Bradley has been a favorite of mine since we saw him for the first time, years ago as "The Apache Kid" at Ghost Town in the Sky theme park and this movie just shows another aspect of his talents...Dean Teaster as Digger was very convincing.. the whole cast did a wonderful job.. It was just an exceptional movie and I would highly recommend it to anyone that just wants to watch a good movie and enjoy themselves... I don't buy many movies but this is one that I will be proud to add to my collection...

First of all let me tell you I teach several film classes at a prominent university. One of those classes involves an emphasis on western archetypes in American film. So naturally I'm always interested in any new western that comes out. Ghost Town peaked my interest as it appeared to be a throwback to the classic western. Being as it is and independent film, obviously shot on a lower budget, it is not without it's faults, but unfortunately the major problems are not related to limited funds. The first thing you notice is that it is titled Dean Teaster's Ghost Town. This begs the question: Who is Dean Teaster? According to IMDb this is the first movie he has ever directed, and he did not direct it alone. If you are going to put your name on the title like this, you should actually be somebody. In other words it should be a selling point, not just an ego boost. Once I go into the movie I was pleasantly surprised at how it was shot. The angles, composition, and camera movement were all quite reminiscent of westerns of the 40's and 50's. As another commentator noted, I picked out several instances of whole scenes that were obviously influenced by pictures like High Noon and The Searchers. Bill McKinney, the perennial western bad guy for the last 50 years turned in a very good performance. Herbert Coward, DJ Perry, and Rance Howard all turned in credible performances that added to the classic atmosphere of the movie. The one major problem that Ghost Town had, and judging by previous comments I am not alone in this, was the lack of coherent storyline. It was, at times, difficult to follow the plot. There were so many times when the scenes were apparently pieced together with little regard for the story. The most glaring aspect of this was the constant cutting back to an image of the "dead Suzie Teaster." After several viewings and a close perusal of the credits it became clear that Suzie Teaster was played by Tammy Stephens Teaster. Yes, the main characters have the same last name as the director (who also plays Digger?) And this actress is somehow related to him as well. Confused? Nepotism in film is nothing new. Minor roles are often filled with wives, uncles, sisters and brothers. The problem here lies in the lack of restraint. Judicious use of minor characters is essential for a smooth flowing story. Unfortunately "Suzie Teaster", who does not have much of a full blooded Native Amercan look as much as a a Florida tan, appears way to often, and at inopportune times, which further muddies and confuses the plot.

Ghost Town has all the essentials for a good solid western. A better eye for editing, concentrating on the story, could make this into something very good. As it stands right now, it appears that one of the director's has an ego problem that spoiled what could have been a true classic.

Considering the screenplay was provided by a Nth-rate actor whose previous writing credits included the Skinemax-sounding "Supermodel Showdown: Costa Rica" (which appears to be a behind-the-scenes of a real photo shoot...so I'm not sure how one gets credited as 'writer' in the first place), it's pretty much a safe bet that this film is going to be a stinker of epic proportions.

It's a little sad to see Renee O'Connor involved in this. Granted, Xena: Warrior Princess would never be considered high art, but it had a sense of self-awareness and humor that allowed it to remain consistently watchable despite its camp. Virtues found lacking in nearly every project put forth by the creative team behind Ghost Town: The Movie.

You've been warned people. =)

I truly can't remember the last time I stopped watching a movie. I usually give a movie the benefit of the doubt and see where it goes. The aggravating intro with the Indian woman? Scanned through it. The absolutely poor audio in the jail cell? Scanned through it. The editing that made each cut two beats too long? Scanned through it. The dialog that should have been rehearsed and a better take selected? Scanned through it and EJECTED! I saw maybe five minutes of the film. Typing this took me longer. I quit this movie so fast and I didn't look back. Upon turning this report in, they tell me it's too short and I need to add two more lines of text. I just don't see how this movie deserves any more commentary.

Call out the editor at high noon and put a bullet through his heart. This is the most confusing movie I have ever watched.. I had to watch it five times before I was able to put things together; who was who, and what was going on. The scenes seem to be placed in a confusing manner on purpose. The line between past events and present is crossed far too often and at very inopportune times. The constant image of Suzie pops up in a random way that never furthers the story. The individual scenes are fine in and of themselves. They make sense internally. But when you put them together in this crazy quilt way you end up with a mosaic of images that when you step back to take in as a whole, becomes quite incomprehensible. My advice would be to download this on your laptop and edit it yourself. I figure a couple of hours and you would have a fairly descent story that would be easy to follow.

There is no doubt that this could have been good. You've got top notch actors and a fairly interesting backdrop. But that's where it ends. First of all the dialog is stilted and awkward. One wonders if the screenwriter has ever really paid attention to who people really talk? Second, as mentioned before so many times, this thing was put together like a five year old assembling a car engine! These two key aspects point to a failure to grasp the basics of film making. Unfortunately, this is not something that can be taught. This is something that is felt at the gut level. Perhaps, after many years of study and careful preparation , using this movie to illustrate mistakes, we might see a title that proclaims Dean Teaster's terribly average movie!

Ghost Town could have been good. You've got some good actors, a pretty good story idea, and an unusual location. Unfortunately it breaks down very quickly. First off the script. There are way too many characters taking up way too much space and time in the movie. Victor Burnett's group of hired bad guys run around the town like they are in a cartoon. When he sends them out on a "search" in the own, they laughably stay together in a tight pack instead of splitting up to cover more of the town. Watching them move through the town in a large group makes them quite feeble. How many does it take to round up one girl? And this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are way too many non-essential talking parts in the whole movie. It seems like we are introduced to as many townsfolk and henchmen as possible just for the sake of adding more speaking roles.If they don't carry the story forward, cut them. Secondly, and more importantly, this movie needs serious editing. The pacing is off, the cuts are poorly chosen, and some scenes are also non-essential if not plain confusing. Many other comments have pointed this out so I won't go into detail. Suffice it to say that this is not a trifling matter concerning a few weak spots. This whole movie needs to be re-edited with the idea of telling a story from start to finish. Cut out some whole scenes. Trim dialog. Get rid of those confusing mystical Native American scenes. You have a good idea here-just poorly put together.

I tried so hard to watch this movie, but from the beginning things went downhill. The scenes jumped from place to place without any decent dialogue tying the scenes together. I found myself fixed mainly on the ridiculous wig that Dean Teaster wore. The other characters were introduced throughout the movie at mixed intervals, again, without even a telltale sign of who/what/where/when or why they were there. There seemed to be no method to the madness in creating this film. To make matters worse, Dean's wife, Tammy, who played Susie Teaster (the ghost lady)looked every bit as goofy as Dean's wig!! Even her one screaming scene was an utter disaster. Apparently, they thought all the gunfire blazing in between scenes, would make the movie gel. It didn't work. At best, Dean's lucky he didn't throw anymore of his, or anyone else's money away on this project. It really was/is a substandard attempt at movie making.

I fell in love with the story Heaven's Neighors quite a while ago. So naturally I kept my eyes open for anything Jeff Kennedy is associated with. Heaven's was a beautifully crafted story that tugged at your heart and stayed with you, rumbling around in the back of your mind for weeks. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for Ghost Town. The plot and characters are incredibly hard to follow. The storyline suffers from horrible editing. And it lacked that special touch that brought you in to the world that was created through the lens. To be honest, Heaven's, according to the credits was written and directed by Kennedy. And on Ghost Town he was only co-director. Dean Teaster/West was the other co-director as well as being involved in the story as well as producing. So I cannot say for certain how much of an impact Kennedy had on the movie, but judging by the end product it wasn't much. If Heaven's Neighbors is an example of his film making fingerprint, then Ghost Town was clearly not in his hands.

One would hope that after reading all the comments here that it would sink in to the producer, story creator, director, and actor known as Dean Teaster, that he has a lot to learn. His name is plastered all over this movie, so hit is a safe assumption that he is one to take ultimate responsibility. There is another director mentioned, but having worked on enough sets I can spot a first time director's safety net when I see one. (i.e. he is only mentioned once, is not part of the title on the box, and has directed before) The numerous comments and reviews about Ghost Town all seem to take on a common theme, that all boil down to a fundamental lack of understanding about how a story goes together. Many comment on the incredibly poor job of editing, which is so blatant I am surprised the other editor or producers let it go out in its present form. They are either blind or lack any quality control over the final product. Many comment on the confusing storyline, which can be glimpsed at times but gets lost in the muddied organization of scenes. What I have to add to all of these comments is this: Do not dismiss them. Read them. Absorb what they have to say. Admit that you need a lot of help. Ghost Town shows us a dangerous combination. A fundamental lack of talent coupled with an overly ambitious ego.

According to IMDb this is Dean Teaster's (West?) directorial debut. Why is it everybody thinks they can direct? Yes, there are two directors listed in the credits, but since it's called Dean Teaster's Ghost Town, I'm assuming the other director (who has a few directing credits to his name) was put there by the producer's to hold Teaster's hand. The problem is he should have held it harder. Some would argue he should have squeezed it. Like so many posts that have come before, it is in the editing where everything breaks down. Yes, you are clearly working on a very small budget. But that has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with telling a good story. I have rarely watched such a poor assemblage of scenes. It is almost as if they don't want you to follow the story. Just when you think you know where it is going, the scene switches and something non essential to the story is thrown in. Teaster makes many rookie mistakes like this. He is so enamored of everything that was shot that he puts it in no matter if it works to advance the story. Plus he lacks the ability to create proper pacing within individual scenes. It is like watching a conductor, who lacks any sense of rhythm, lead an orchestra. Painful. While one can learn to cut out scenes that don't work, lack of rhythm is another matter. A good editor, and a good director, have an innate sense of rhythm. The best are usually musicians, or at least play an instrument, and can transfer that understanding of timing and tempo to the story. I would hazard a guess that Teaster isn't a musician, and probably has two left feet as well.

I went to the Eagle's Nest in Maggie Valley, NC to see this dramatic western. It was GREAT! I was shocked, I laughed, I cried twice, and I was held in suspense during the whole movie. This film does not have a typical western movie storyline. It is a historical tribute to a real person. The actors, storyline, costumes, and scenes depicted the troubled times of back then in a realistic and dramatic way. I found myself getting attached to certain characters, not liking some, rejoicing when a few got what they deserved, and crying when others did not. The beginning was a little confusing because of not knowing it was a flashback scene but I was quickly absorbed into the story. I was very surprised at the ending...and so will you! Go see this movie! I know you will enjoy it!

Went to see this one at the film festival the other night. First of all let me say I'm a huge fan of westerns. I like to think I've seen enough to know what I'm talking about. I have to say Ghost Town was beautifully filmed. The shots, while somewhat limited, take me back to some of the classic westerns like High Noon and Winchester 73. In general, it has the feel of those old westerns, both in the characters and in the pacing. The characters are truly straight out of the old school of westerns. The good guys are good, the bad guys are bad, and there are no in between shades of gray. It was nice to see Bill Mckinney again. He has to be one of the greatest villains of all time, and has cemented his legend in the western genre. The proble4ms with Ghost Twon are found in the telling of the story. It needs serious reediting. I can see the story, right beneath the surface, but it gets lost in a bewildering series of out of context flashbacks, and numerous confusing cuts back to an "native American woman" that is not central to the tale. If this problem was fixed with a bit of judicious editing I think you would have a much better example of the classic western updated to the 21st century.

Does anyone know how to tell a story anymore? So much of what comes out of Hollywood is filled with so much CGI that the story is often relegated to second place. Unfortunately Ghost Town does not even have this flimsy excuse. What should be a straight forward no nonsense western tale of vengeance becomes a confusing mish mash of bits and parts at the hands of someone known as Dean Teaster. Clearly there is basic lack of understanding about story structure, plot, and character development. It is as if each scene was put together without thought, and then each scene was placed one after another with a similar lack of thought. This is the movie equivalent of throwing everything on the wall to see what sticks. What stuck was a big mess.

While I don't profess to know much about movie making, I know when a movie follows a coherent plot or storyline. This movie does not. According to many of the previous comments the fault lies with the editing. I would have to agree. There are whole scenes and smaller bits that I really like in this movie. The cinematography and camera placement of these individual shots is just wonderful. The problem begins when the shots and scenes are strung together. At times it is just awkward, and at times it is just downright confusing. It is as if the editor put the movie together with no thought at all to telling a story from start to finish. i'm not sure if it is possible, but I think this movie could use a complete re-editing, keeping the idea of telling a story as the primary focus. I Ghost Town you often feel like you are viewing those 3-d pictures where you have to squint your eyes to see the hidden image within. I just want to squint my eyes and have the whole thing pop out and make sense to me.