Ghoulies

I'll admit I have some nostalgia attached to this film since I used to rent it from the video store as a kid. I also have a soft spot for any Gremlins-type knock off films, and I also really enjoy most of the output from Empire Pictures (those Richard Band scores were great). All that aside, I do recognize that this isn't necessarily a "good" movie. But you know what? It's still fun and you could do a lot worse.

I see complaints about there not being enough action with the Ghoulies themselves. This is true, most of the focus is on the rituals and spells the main character is performing, while the creatures are almost an afterthought at times. We're also treated to a couple of midget servants who don't really add too much to the story. We also have an evil clown doll (which sorta creeped me out as a kid). It's a weird hodgepodge of stuff.

I like how the film is more or less a slow burn, with all hell breaking loose in the final twenty minutes or so. It could've used more Ghoulie mayhem (a problem remedied in the far superior sequels), but I still think it's a fun enough flick for lovers of dumb 80's horror and little rubber monster movies (RIP John Buechler).

This movie made a nice sum of 35 million at the box office, yet many consider it a poor movie at best. So how did it make this much money? With a good ad campaign, that's how. This movie was the first small creature attack movie to come out after the very successful Gremlins the previous year. Critters, which most consider the better film, came out a year later and made a lot less than this one. Then there was the famous scene of the creature coming out of the toilet. It made it look like a Gremlin type movie...funny with a bit of charm to it. It fooled my parents and we saw this dog in the theater when I was ten. We knew it wasn't quite what it was advertised as though as soon as it started as it has a scene where a guy rips out a woman's heart. It isn't all bad though as there are some scenes here and there that are good, but overall this one is just bad as it is not just about little creatures, but a bunch of other satanic stuff as well as this guy throws a party and does rituals and accidentally raises this one evil guy. Sounds better than it is though as there are no stars in this one and none of the actors in this one can act. You do though get to see the little person who played ET.

As an infant, Jonathan Graves is absconded from his father, Malcolm (Michael Des Barres), the leader of a black magic cult, when Malcolm almost sacrifices Jonathan in a ritual. 25 years later, Jonathan (Peter Liapis) learns that his father has passed away and he has inherited his estate, including a large home that is now in disrepair. He moves there with Rebecca (Lisa Pelikan), and soon after begins acting strangely, instinctively following his father's footsteps.

If you're a fan of campy, cheesy horror films, as I am, Ghoulies is a must see. Everyone else should probably avoid this film. This is a Charles Band production. Charles Band means Empire/Full Moon, and Empire/Full Moon is almost a guarantee of some campiness/cheesiness. Not many of Band's films, however, approach the sublime ridiculousness of Ghoulies. We're almost in Troma territory here, but Ghoulies is played much more seriously than the typical Troma production, and in this case, it works to increase the entertainment value.

Since Ghoulies was made in 1984, it features most of the mid-80s horror film clichés. Shortly after moving in, Graves throws a party, so we get big hair, tight miniskirts, skinny ties, recreational drug use, and so on. We also get our eventual fodder for our body count, although in this case, it is worth noting that writer/director Luca Bercovici introduces a "twist" near the end that significantly decreases the body count.

Liapis is the focus of the film, though, and without him, Ghoulies might be more boring than campy. His absurd overacting, often in solo scenes, takes up a majority of screen time. Still, just the brief presence of two demonic minions, Grizzel and Greedigut, would alone make Ghoulies a must see, especially given how everyone continues their attempt to play the film seriously when they appear. And I haven't even mentioned the other ridiculous minions, which are obviously puppets and "dead props" (Band seems to love puppets), and were the beginning of a horror industry attempt to cash in on the success of Gremlins (also seen later in such films as the Critters series and Munchies). We also get zombies, a Star Wars-like battle of wizards, sunglasses as a major plot device, an evil doll, an attack with a 5 foot long tongue, and some probably unintentional homoerotic subtext. Who could pass all of that up? The film gets a 7 out of 10 from me--an 8 out of 10 would have been in order, except for the inexplicable absence of gratuitous nudity.

Note that while Ghoulies is tagged "comedy/horror", it's very unlikely that it was intended to be a comedy in any way. Even if Band applied the label to the film prior to release, it was probably because even he realized how ludicrous the film turned out. At any rate, it would be misguided to watch it expecting intentional humor.

This is an mid-1980s horror comedy indeed, except it was lacking both ingredients actually. It is, however, a very typical Charles Band movie, for good and worse. Was "Ghoulies" a memorable movie? No, not by a long shot. It was just too silly and empty to really be entertaining.

"Ghoulies" is about a young man who inherits an ancestral home. A house where black magic was used to conjure forth demonic creatures. Lured in by the dark magic, the young man unleash the demonic beings once again.

The characters were lacking personalities and depth, but fitted right into the rest of the movie though. The acting performances were nothing impressive either.

As for the creatures, well they were probably impressive back in 1984, but by todays standards not so much. It was puppets, blatantly obvious, and again typical for Charles Band. And the special effects, well let's not even go there.

This movie wasn't particularly entertaining, and I will never watch it again, that much is certain.

"Ghoulies" is said to be a "Gremlins" (1984) knock off, but many say that it was only a coincidence. "Ghoulies" was being filmed when the latter was still in production. Past interviews states its director Luca Bercovici and Charles Band's Empire Pictures were standing by this.

Bercovici's original idea was a much darker theme with the occult. At the end, "Ghoulies" morphed into a horror comedy, a signature staple seen later with Band-produced films. "Ghoulies" marketed by disfunct Empire Pictures as a horror or black comedy became a standard like Full Moon's "Puppet Master" franchise, 90s Band products.

This film's story is revolves around "Jonathan" (Peter Liapis) who inherited a mansion with a discovered connection to his occultist dead father, "Malcolm" (Michael Des Barres). Then a party of his girlfriend, "Rebecca" (Lisa Pelikan) and friends gather at the mansion for some good old fun with little creatures (recently resurrected) and a lot of gag shots. Pelikan isn't a stranger to exploitation cinema who starred in "Jennifer" (1978), a "Carrie" (1976) knock off.

Presently "Ghoulies" fan circles has given much popularity for its 80s cult status and practical special effects. Even its cast capped 80s era with Des Barres (a rock star turned actor) but the fact is it was Band's controversial ad campaign. A "ghoulie" creature popping out of a toilet graced the film posters with the tagline: "They'll get you in the end!"

Upon its 1984's release, many complained about lobby posters traumatizing onlookers. "Ghoulies" was plagued with legal disputes from its title (Warner Bros. Attempted to sue) to copyright (Bercovici vs Band).

Band can be seen as the home media mogul of schlock and other guilty pleasures made a fortune with this production. His genius can be compared to Roger Corman since many stars from Demi Moore to Helen Hunt plus directors like Bercovici got their first start with Band's productions.