Ghouls

My first thought as the opening scene greeted my eyes: "I hope this is part of the introduction for a belated studio logo, and not the beginning of the movie. Oh. It's the beginning of the movie." My second thought, during the sequence that followed: "Jazz hands!"

I'm not sure if the problem is a lack of all subtlety, nuance, and tact, or an active abjuration of it. The dialogue, scene writing, and characters all immediately inspire a bewildered, skeptical "what?" - and much of the plot is scarcely a step behind. Narrative focal point Jennifer, for example, is a stereotypical American girl who inquires about shopping opportunities during a tarot reading, but then is peculiarly accepting of everything she's told as the story advances. The editing, cinematography, direction, and much of the acting readily seem similarly overcooked, bereft of any delicate hand (though some instances of acting are just simply underwhelming, instead). While the blood, gore, creature design, makeup, and costume design all mostly look great, if a little too self-indulgent - and practical effects, too! - on the other hand, any computer-generated imagery is pretty much an eyesore, less than seamless with the rest of the feature. Ah, and of course the story is rather predictable.

In fairness, 'Ghouls' is a TV movie, and it unquestionably looks and feels like it. Where else could William Atherton look so pained in a production, as though by participating in each scene he was losing his soul, while at the same time James DeBello has the appearance of trying so hard to act (and failing) that he might give himself an aneurysm or sprain a muscle? The feature sits at the intersection of horror and dark fantasy, with the familiar thrust of an innocent unwittingly being thrust into extraordinary circumstances of which they are somehow the keystone. Save for the heightened blood, gore, and otherwise violence, this wouldn't feel out of place airing on NBC instead of the Sci Fi Channel (now SyFy) where it premiered. The intent was nothing more than to have some genre fun in a particular medium, and for all the bluntness, that aim was achieved - this isn't half bad, actually. I had a good time watching. Only, by golly, I wish there were more mindful care applied in any regard, or that all involved were allowed to wholly lean into the darkness and the best potential.

Though it's nothing remarkable (just standard genre fare), I like Alan Howarth's original score; I'm less enthused about the bursts of rock music that pop up at a couple points, and at the end credits. Though it's perhaps not saying much, I think the cast (including recognizable names and faces) make the most of the material and direction they have to work with; I'd like to think that under other circumstances, in a different movie, they'd make a better impression. The production design and art direction are actually pretty great, and I adore the filming locations. Beyond being a somewhat ham-handed genre romp, there are actually some specific worthwhile elements here. I understand why this doesn't seem to have been received very well; I also think, all things told, it's better than folks seem to give it credit for.

When all is said and done the question to ponder is how much one enjoys TV movies - love them, hate them, abide as necessary, watch because "why not." For all the gaucheness, I think 'Ghouls' is suitably entertaining in its blend of horror and fantasy - though I also freely admit that I tend to be more generous and open-minded than not when it comes to cinema. By no means is this something you need to go out of your way to see, but if you happen to come across it, or if you're just really curious, there are worse ways to spend ninety minutes.

This is one of those rare horror films that I find absolutely no enjoyment in whatsoever. I say rare because I am a huge horror fan, and even really bad horror films almost always hold my attention. I have spent many a Saturday just soaking in the glorious cinema the Syfy channel has to offer. The average movie-watcher's terrible horror film usually equates to a decent watch from my perspective. And more often than not, even the ones that are truly atrocious have moderate to exceptional comedic value. I'm afraid such cannot be said for 'Ghouls'.

It's biggest and most obvious flaw is the terrible plot. We know there are ghouls who are trying to reclaim something or another, and in doing so cross the plane from the spiritual world into the physical world. Beyond that, I'm not really quite sure what was taking place, or why. Speaking of that, I'm also a little confused as to what exactly was left to be accomplished for these ghouls as far as crossing over into the physical world, seeing as they actually feed on people's flesh, and can (somehow) be mortally wounded by gunshots and grenade blasts. Can't really get much more physical than that.

James DeBello is not a bad actor. No, he's really not. This was just not a role meant for him I guess. He was great in 'Detroit Rock City' as a goof ball stoner. He was even good in 'Cabin Fever', because even though that was a serious role, the film had its comedic elements, and his character was a huge part of that. He was just flat here. No emotional range at all. It was pretty rough to watch actually. Except that part on the horse and carriage where he grunted a lot. That was really funny.

The ghouls themselves were actually kind of cool to look at. That's about all that can be said for the film as far as positives. It is evident they had SOME budget to work with. The ghouls themselves weren't a total embarrassment. Effects otherwise were well above Syfy original-type standards. Other than that, this was pretty god awful boring. I see no reason to recommend anyone watch this film. Often even really bad films offer something. This offers nothing. Just a really dreadful film that you probably won't even make it all the way through before giving up and turning it off. (My ESPN the magazine on the coffee table eventually drew me away.)

Next time you're in the mood for some horror involving druids, human sacrifice and worship of Satanic beings, do some reading on George Bush and friends and Bohemian Grove. It's really much more interesting.

Honestly, I wasn't expecting much, but Ghouls actually turned out to be worse than expected. The only redeeming values were the acting of Kristen Renton and Erin Gray and the locations. But nothing else works, and as decent as those components are the overall standard of the film threatens constantly to cheapen them. The editing is as far from slick as you'd go and the effects are poorly constructed and fake. There is also a lazy script, relying on cheesy dialogue, scares that have a very deja-vu feel to them and stilted line delivery, and the story is dull in pace and predictable in storytelling. The characters manage to not only be clichéd but also not very likable. The acting other than Renton and Grey is terrible, and this is including William Atherton, a good actor wasted by sleepwalking through his role. Overall, ghoulish schlock of the highest order, nothing interesting or scary to be seen here. 2/10 Bethany Cox

Gary Jones' directorial debut, 1995's MOSQUITO, is a perfect example of an entertaining, purposely cheesy genre film. You want wacky? It features the titular insects dining on alien corpses, growing to obscene sizes and then attacking a humdrum forest community. Much blood is splattered, Gunnar Hansen robs a bank and now, DVD copies run over 100 bucks on eBay. Now, lucky 13 years later, Jones (who also directed The Asylum's enjoyably inane JOLLY ROGER: MASSACRE AT CUTTER'S COVE) has teamed up with no less than three scriptwriters for his first foray into the realm of Sci Fi Channel cinema. One could only assume that given his talent for goofy horror, GHOULS would end up a fun supernatural romp.

But we all know what happens when we assume, and GHOULS sadly makes an ass out of you, me and anyone else foolish enough to watch this terrible mess.

When college cutie Jen (Kristen Renton) finds out that her estranged Romanian grandmother recently passed away, it's the perfect excuse for her and her father (GHOSTBUSTERS' William Atherton) to visit the old country. What she doesn't know is that a cult of "Ancients" have actually sacrificed her granny to a foursome of poorly animated CGI ghouls, using the power of jazz hands. Soon, oblivious little Jen is meeting her sleazy uncle Vlad (Dan Bararau), second-guessing her dad's seemingly sweet girlfriend (Erin Grey) and catching the eye of the local Druid ghoul hunter (CABIN FEVER's James DeBello). Yes, in a groan-inducing twist, her uncle is indeed named Vlad, and her new boy-toy uses grenades and shotguns to fight ghosts.

The creatures, which defy all dictionary definitions of actual ghouls, are a mixture of atrocious digital work and actors traipsing around in bargain-bin Halloween costumes. A number of gratuitous close-ups, in which they shamelessly mug for the camera, showcase solid special makeup work, but it's simply not enough to save the film. Even the gore, which doesn't really get gushing until the one-hour mark, is cut together so quickly that we never really feel like we're seeing anything too nasty. Aside from some gut-munching, silly blood sprays and a few gouges, we're not catching much.

As Jen wanders around the emptiest town in all of Eastern Europe, one gets the impression that there is something other than its citizens that's amiss. Side plots abound, although none of them seem to really pay off. Our heroine almost discovers a creepy crate hidden under her bed, but never opens it. Dad's girlfriend loves giving tarot-card readings (improperly), but never actually uses them for anything. Even the early loss of monster hunter Thomas' father offers nothing but an extremely drawn-out filler sequence in which the two prove how bad they truly are at ghoulbusting.

A few minor twists precede GHOULS' final act, but they unfortunately fail to take the film in a new direction—and certainly don't hit their intended marks. Atherton, who sadly looks quite haggard, is sorely underused and doesn't offer us a memorable character, instead stirring up memories of far better roles he's taken (DIE HARD, anyone?). The same can unfortunately not be said for DeBello's Thomas, who is so lacking in personality that it took nearly 40 minutes of screen time for this reviewer to even notice he was playing the role. Only the women, both with significant TV credits under their belts, shine through this mess. Regrettably, neither Renton and Grey (of DAYS OF OUR LIVES and SILVER SPOONS, respectively) can rise above the quality of the production, with even the talented young lead falling victim to the absolute hilarity of the film's outrageous finale. The Sci Fi Channel's 2008 roster has been across the board, offering up the dreadful-but-fun HEATSTROKE, the surprisingly decent COPPERHEAD and the only moderately entertaining duo of ROCK MONSTER and AZTEC REX. GHOULS, however, has set new standards in how poor its films can get. Unless you've got friends who truly love tepid horror and an extra case of beer lying around, GHOULS is, sadly, a must-miss. Better luck next time, Sci Fi. You know I'll be back for more.

In the 21st century with all the technology we have, we made this piece of s..t called movie...Worst visual effect ever and a idiot story... I don't recommend this movie for anyone!!!! My personal opinion is that this movie had a verrrrrrryyyyy limited budget, about 1000 dollars... You don't see not even a punch when they fight... I think they are fighting with the "FORCE IN THEM". They show you the punch and you drop down dead as hit by a lighting... Awful MOVIE!!!! In the year of 2008 this movie is a shame for the cinema and for the actors that played in it... If they will play in another movie, they have been blessed with a second chance... AWFUL MOVIE!!!