Thirteen Ghosts

Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: October 26, 2001

6.4	USER SCORE Generally favorable reviews based on 450 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

Trev29Aug 27, 2012

The movie made no sense at all, but the premise wasn't completely retarded. It wasn't scary, but seeing the ghosts made it sort of entertaining. If taken seriously, this movie could have has something going for it.

1 of 17 users found this helpful116

All this user's reviews

HaithamBSep 10, 2014

13 Ghosts is surprisingly original with a lighthearted tone that is bloody fun. But the movie is just horrifically bad it is entertaining, it is that type of movie and only that.

0 of 24 users found this helpful024

All this user's reviews

SnowwDec 7, 2014

Creepy Ghosts? Check.
Not enough people dying? Check.
People that somehow survive something they shouldn't? Check.
Funny at certain points, boring as f*** at other points. Its OK....

0 of 53 users found this helpful053

All this user's reviews

Rcavey92212Mar 18, 2020

There's alot I like about this reimagining. The set is amazing, the ghosts are incredible and some of them deserved their own individual films. And conceptually it's truly a unique and appreciated cinematic experience. That being said it's aThere's alot I like about this reimagining. The set is amazing, the ghosts are incredible and some of them deserved their own individual films. And conceptually it's truly a unique and appreciated cinematic experience. That being said it's a bad movie with a goofy screenplay and awful performances. Only Matthew Lillard manages to rise above the material. The film centers on a family that's given an ultra stylish glass house by a rich, deceased relative. The bad thing is that it is filled with some of the world's worst ghosts and the house is a machine that releases them one at a time to wreak havoc as part of an ultimate ritual. The movie is dumb and exploitative but it is fun. And the gimmicks mostly work. In the end it feels more like a ride or product than an actual film, but it's a decent way to pass a cold evening.

Budget: $42m
Domestic Box Office: $42m
Worldwide Box Office: $68m

3.25/5… Expand

0 of 11 users found this helpful011

All this user's reviews

FilipeNetoJul 7, 2018

This film is the remake of a film with the same name directed in 1960 by William Castle. The plot is similar: Arthur Kriticos is a modest man embittered by the death of his wife when he receives the news of a great inheritance left to him byThis film is the remake of a film with the same name directed in 1960 by William Castle. The plot is similar: Arthur Kriticos is a modest man embittered by the death of his wife when he receives the news of a great inheritance left to him by a uncle, Cyrus, who was very rich. In the inheritance is included a huge and very modern house that Arthur doesn't know to be haunted by a collection of evil spirits that his uncle hunted and imprisoned. The film has a truly frightening opening sequence that shows us how this man hunted and trapped the most cruel spirits. But then the film calms down, takes on a more cadenced rhythm and builds the ending, on a plot simpler and more psychological than one might expect. Suspense isn't effective as it should, some script solutions are forced and unnatural, even resorting to obvious clichés. There are several scenes of graphic violence somewhat shocking but this is not scary, it's disgusting. In contrast, the film is visually pleasing, with proper cinematography, good special effects and sound and an extraordinary setting. The house is something like I've never seen, combining tradition and modernity with a sinister touch, and the subplot around it was a plus point for the film. Tony Shalhoub (who still remembers this actor in Monk?) did a good job as lead actor and F. Murray Abraham also pleased me. I didn't like Matthew Lillard, overly theatrical and exaggerated to the point of being humorous when he shouldn't. The rest of the cast was OK and did their job without surprising, disillusioning or highlighting.… Expand

0 of 33 users found this helpful033

All this user's reviews

Sosmooth1982Jul 31, 2023

Pretty sweet movie. I'm glad they remade this movie. They have a lot of crazy spirits locked in there. I liked it!

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

BrettT.Feb 20, 2008

eh, it wasn't SO bad, I've seen better, but seriously some of the reviews it got were terrible and it wasn't even that bad of a movie. I give it a 6 out of 10 and a thumbs up.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

AlanF.Oct 26, 2006

Ok the special effects were great but apart from the token comedy black character and the lame story (the concept was great but it got silly after a while) the actual facts are wildly inaccurate...for one no ghost can physically harm a human Ok the special effects were great but apart from the token comedy black character and the lame story (the concept was great but it got silly after a while) the actual facts are wildly inaccurate...for one no ghost can physically harm a human being, they can scare you and make you think they can (nightmares, visions etc) but they cannot do physical harm as shown in many movies including this one...this movie is just going to spawn a whole new generation of 'devil worshipping' goths with the newe arcana of the tarot made for this movie....i was sorely disappointed after all the hype.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful