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.

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.

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!

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!