The Poltergeist of Borley Forest


Action / Horror / Mystery / Thriller

Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Spilled 19%
IMDb Rating 2.5 10 415


Uploaded By: LINUS
Downloaded 13,527 times
February 04, 2016 at 09:53 PM


720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
738.84 MB
23.976 fps
1hr 42 min
P/S 0 / 2
1.55 GB
23.976 fps
1hr 42 min
P/S 0 / 6

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by aloysius_predato 1 / 10

Unwatchable... GOD AWFUL!!!

Don't pay attention to any review that paints this catastrophe on film in a positive light... these were mostly likely written by one of the morons involved in its production. It boasts horrid acting, horrid cinematography, and horrid writing with barely any creativity. The best part of this... I won't even call it a film... fodder-ridden, straw-stuffed horse **nt is the title sequence, which kept me in the movie for five minutes before the pervert in me found the FFWD button to see if this $#!t fest had any redeeming value in the form of nudity... big surprise there... NONE! *yawn* The acting is laughable as is the contrived nature of the story, but not enough to warrant you or anyone on earth watching it. Your time is more valuable than that even if mine isn't... trust me on this if on nothing else. God, we should just outlaw low budget horror distribution and work on getting every horror film from the 80's digitally remastered and redistributed... I've had enough of crap like "The Poltergeist of Borley Forest" sitting on shelves in the fleeting number rental shops in America. Do they even know what a poltergeist is? It's evident through the movie that they do not. Did they figure they covered their tracks by having the ghost throw Paige's ridiculous paintings all over the room and randomly rearrange flowers? I'm sure that d-bag professor who turns into a cartoon just before he's dismembered comes up with some half-cocked explanation in that scene I watched on >> x8. Stupidity begets stupidity, and I suppose I am proof of this.

Reviewed by ravenhair702 1 / 10

Just walk away...

I gave this movie a 1 only because there is NO 0. Couldn't even finish watching this movie....halfway through my wife just got off the couch and said "I can't take anymore." She was right, of course...I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt, but the bad acting, the low budget's a true wonder how this piece of trash got the green light in the first place. When I rented it out of the Red box, it said new...but when I looked it up on IMDb, it said the movie was made in 2013. What gives? Was this movie so hot back in 2013 that it just couldn't be released until now?! Lets also discuss the 3.7 rating it got....WOW. Generous IMDb. All in all...I lost a whopping $1.60 to watch half of this awful...AWFUL movie. Please take my advice and just walk away. So not worth it.

Reviewed by Bernard Lee Crawford 1 / 10

A who cares, slow, plodding nodfest.

A cast of character that one could not identify with nor care about. I think there is a plot here that could make fifteen minute short perhaps. Let us elongate that pain into almost two unbearable hours and one attempting to view said film could find themselves at their stove attempting to boil their own head.

This constant preoccupation with one frame? Digital video runs 25 frames per second so a 1 frame anomaly would not be noticed. Plus cleaning up 1 frame that has an artifact for complete clarity would be impossible. I am a digital editor as a living.

It is amazing that everyone these days can be in movies and NOT everyone is an actor. Just do not watch it unless you need a catalyst to put you to sleep.

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment