The Ghastly Ones

Now, this is the type of wonderfully bad B-Movie I like - It's glorious. Even the poster is superb in its ambiguity. Because what you get in this motion picture is a pretty decent whodunit with plenty of red herrings to keep the audience guessing.

Don't get me wrong, this is a bad movie. Shaky camera work, terrible direction, the acting ranges from poor to average, and the special effects at times are laughable. But in some strange way, this only adds to its likability.

I should have hated it but just couldn't, because everybody who took part in the movie really did their best. Neil Flanagan who played Lawyer Dobbs is obviously much younger than his portrayed character, though this didn't stop him from doing his best with the part, even though the makeup people only covered his face in white talcum powder and put a raggedy old scarf over his head, to make him ancient.

What little budget they had for the film was spent on the few 1800's dresses. However, when they get frisky, especially Vicky (played pretty decently by Anne Linden), then they take to wearing see-through nylon teddy's.

The most endearing thing about the film is the feeling the actors being real-life friends who had an idea to make a movie.

This isn't the best but it does have heart. At least worth a viewing for all the lovers of bad movies. Who knows, maybe it will find a place in your heart.

A couple frolic in the countryside just outside an abandoned house. They are stalked by a monstrous-looking man. The man attacks the couple, ripping out the man's eyeball. As he rolls around on the deck with the man, finishing him off, we hear director Andy Milligan shout "cutting away, move". And so begins "The Ghastly Ones", a dismal splatter-attempt from infamous director Andy Milligan. Shot on a budget of around $2,000, the film is widely loathed and was even described by Stephen King as being "morons with cameras". Old Stephen wasn't far off there. The camera work is absolutely shocking. It shakes up and down and looks for all the world like found-footage. Milligan was extremely inept when it came to making films. He hadn't a shred of talent. There are a few gory scenes that got this the credit of being a Video Nasty, but the aforementioned camera work is so bad it's a wonder that the censors could even make out what was happening. The story sees three sisters and their husbands invited to hear their late-father's will. In it, he instructs that they are to live in "sexual harmony" - seriously? - on the island where the house is situated for a couple of days before it is revealed what they inherit blah blah blah. While there they become the next victims of some crazed lunatic going around chopping people up. Milligan, for reasons I can't understand, remade this film in 1978 and titled it "Legacy of Horror" or "Legacy of Blood" as it's also known as. I actually seen that one before the original, which is why the rather generous rating of three stars. He somehow managed to make a nearly scene-by-scene remake worse than this amateurish, back-yard shoot. That was so bad that when I watched "The Ghastly Ones" I felt like I was watching a better film.

People who totally dig micro budget see-it-to-believe-how-bad-it-is schlock will probably enjoy Andy Milligan's "The Ghastly Ones". Supposedly a period piece, it brings together three couples in an old house for the reading of a will, where they will exist "in sexual harmony" for three days. Unfortunately, a brutal psycho has other ideas - first "marking" them by painting X's in blood, and then offing them. While technically quite a short movie (running approximately 72 minutes), it feels longer than it is, with a lot of talk. It may require some patience on the part of some viewers, therefore, in order to get to the good stuff, such as it is - with oh so tacky bargain basement gore (A Sno ball stands in for an eyeball!), a dose of (rather tame) sex, a priceless supporting character in the form of Hal Borske's half wit hunchback Colin (whose idea of fine cuisine is amusing, to say the least) and a not particularly compelling "Who is the killer?" mystery, which some people may well figure out early on. The characters are insipid and inspire appropriately insipid performances. (It's worth noting, though, that one actor in this bunch had a pretty good career for himself after this: co-star Richard Romanus's next film was Scorsese's "Mean Streets"!) That doesn't mean, however, that they aren't entertaining in their own way. Neil Flanagan, the star of Milligan's subsequent movie "Guru, the Mad Monk", is a riot as the aged, gnarly old lawyer. The movie itself is likewise inept enough to prove itself a real hoot. In fact, one can even hear Milligan calling out directions in the background; when a character is set afire, he can be heard saying, "Get down!" Milligan himself supplied the costumes, having ran his own clothing store named Raffine. Even while somewhat sluggish, this movie does deliver some good entertainment for bad movie buffs and some real laugh out loud moments. Five out of 10.

Ghastly Ones, The (1968)

1/2 (out of 4)

Three couples spend the night in an old dark house so that they can collect an inheritance but a killer is running loose. This is my first Andy Milligan film and it's really no worse than countless other exploitation films that were out at the time. Everything about the film is bad, especially the sex scenes, which are probably the worst I've ever seen in a movie. The director does try to build suspense but this here comes off rather laughable but then again, everything here comes close to laughable.

Milligan period piece about murders for an inheritance. Shot in that tight Milligan style where people seem to hug each other so they remain in frame (due to his camera being beyond poor). This is a dreadful movie that has a certain amount of brain dead charm. Its a bad movie in the I can't believe they actually released this sort of way. Again as with most Milligan films, little more than a home movie (stuff I shot looked like this and I couldn't release it) this is the sort of thing only masochists and bad movie lovers dare watch. Certainly better than Seeds of Sin, the color and the period nature some how defuses the desire to put this on the unredeemable list. Come on how can one not enjoy-as with most Milligan period films- the desire to see the errors in continuity with objects from different eras mingling as if there was nothing wrong. There's a drinking game (and alcohol helps these films) in spot the error.