Avaliações de usuários

I thought this movie was entertaining. Especially, if you like beautiful girls in sexy heels and tight dresses. It truly captures 80's fashion and hair styles and I love the 80's. The Ghoulies themselves looked incredibly life-like with grossed-out slobber and nasty sharp teeth. However, I thought the battle between good and evil could have been played out over a longer period of time. This monk comes from nowhere and saves the day in a matter of minutes. The evil guy's son was also drawn to the dark-side too quickly. He moves into his new mansion and begins practicing the dark arts in the same evening during the first party. How uncool. He yells at his guests and quits school the very next day. He should have at least heard voices for a few days first.

Jonathan Graves (Peter Liapis) inherits his Satanist father's mansion. He throws a party and starts conjuring up Ghoulies, which are sort of demonic goblin things. This is a garbage Gremlins knock-off with no humor, charm, or entertainment value. The best thing about it is that it has one of the coolest movie posters of the 1980's, with the Ghoulie coming up out of the toilet. It's just not a fun movie at all. It's nasty and cheap. Avoid this mess. See Gremlins instead. Or you can just skip this one and watch the better Ghoulies part 2. But yeah, Gremlins is better than that too. So just watch Gremlins or even Critters over this dreck.

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.

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).

Ok, I have to admit - I rented this film because of the cover of the box. It has a Ghoulie climbing out of a toilet with the caption "Everyone Gets It In The End" right above it. I thought that was sort of funny, maybe even clever and figured "what the heck - maybe it'll be funny".

Boy was I wrong. I love horror movies. From Child's Play, Wishmaster, Pumpkinhead, Friday the 13th, etc...But this was pure trash. The special effects were horrible and the plot was dull. It earns a rare 1/10.

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.

Yes indeed the 1980's when I was but a very impressionable teenager, it felt like my every waking hour was spent in my local videostore, and when I was in school, I was always thinking about what movie I was going to watch next.

As was the case back then, a cool looking cover was always the catalyst for me to hire the movie regardless of whether or not I enjoyed the movie.

So Ghoulies was to be my introduction to the cinematic world of a certain film producer Charles Band, and his company Empire Pictures. Having just recently revisited the world of Ghoulies, and just about to embark on my fortieth year on this earth, I have hand on heart began to realise that what I liked when I was a teenager, has not remained the case as I've gotten older.

No matter what the detractors think of Charles Band's riff on Gremlins, the movie does have more plus points than negatives. The overall acting is pretty spot on, Peter Liapis as Jonathan Graves truly devours his part as Jonathan Graves, heir apparent to the supernatural throne left to him by his late demented father Malcolm, Michael Des Barres.

Des Barres has never been an actor that I've been to keen on, maybe it's his accent that I find somewhat off putting, but then again if you've ever watched him in Diary Of A Sex Addict, the title pretty much summed that movie up, but let us not forget his turn in Nightflyers.

You know when your a teenager, and you just watch copious amounts of nonsense, you tens to forget what you've watched and just who was in it, back in 85, I had no idea who Jack Nance was, but then I still hadn't watched Eraserhead, but Nance participation was a bit of a shock to me, I did find myself doing a double take when I spotted him hiding behind that fake beard, but you never forget that crazy eyed stare.

But what about the movie itself. Like I've mentioned previously, viewing the movie as an adult, you still sensed the atmosphere, those pesky Ghoulies, still look as cheap and cheerful and not quite scary as ever, but Luca Bercovici does capture some pretty good stuff on camera.

Of particular mention was the scene when Malcolm rises from his grave, quite striking and very well lit.

Ghoulies was my first introduction to Charles Band, but it wasn't until I watched Trancers, that my interest in Band's output truly took hold of my teenage years, and throughout the next two decades.

Ghoulies 2 was a smart little follow up three years later, ignore the next two sequels, as really you can't hold a candle to the original.

My rating is 6/10

The rating of even a 1 out of 10 seems to high for this film. Perhaps the 1 would have been more justified at the time when the film was released, watching it for the first time nowadays however just brought a hole in my pocket for renting it and to yours as well if you do too. Its not because of the special effects (the ghoulies themselves were pretty good for the time) but because both the acting and story are so pathetically drawn its hard to find much positives such a blunder. It marketed itself as a funny horror but I didn't find myself laughing once throughout. The ghoulies take their sweet time to show themselves (many viewers wouldn't have had the staying power and would have given up), and the first death comes 3/4 through the film. The final show down was laughable in a sense that it was so lame (lightening). While the comedian for the film (a kiefer sutherland lookalike, the lead was a eric roberts lookalike) were down right annoying. You'd hardly recognised SVU's Mariska Hargitay with big hair the only cast known to me. The one bright spark was the clown which might frighten some viewers, and i think was used from this film for scary movie 2?. I guess I'm just not a fan of 80s b grade horror/comedy dark magic?

In this hilarious "Gremlins" rip-off, a bunch of little green monsters go wild in attacking horny teenagers (whether or not we see them getting it on, you know that they're doing it!). The poster shows a ghoulie emerging from a toilet, and apparently some critics said that the movie belonged there. I wish to assert that "Ghoulies" is so hilariously stupid, that it deserves as much recognition as "Citizen Kane".

Anyway, this is one of those cheap horror flicks that you just gotta love. Aside from being an obvious "Gremlins" rip-off, the clown was clearly a "Poltergeist" rip-off. Thus, the movie's a really good time. Starring Mariska Hargitay (yes, Jayne Mansfield's daughter, now of the "Law & Order" spin off) in her debut.

Yes, you can call him Dick. And I still assert that the ghoulie on the cover resembles Truman Capote, except green.

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.

A baby boy, Jonathan, is saved from a sacrifice, and years later he inherits the very house where he was to be sacrificed. For some reason, he becomes obsessed with doing rituals and conjuring spirits. And so the Ghoulies arrive - horrible little creatures straight out of hell (ugly in design as well!). By Jonathan's lack of reaction to these creatures, one can only assume he was never an ordinary child, but a wizard - or demon of some sort - instead.

Call it a darker 'Gremlins' if you will (also released in 1984), but 'Ghoulies' really is a terrible film. The visuals are typical of a bad B-movie, and the acting also wasn't all that great, except maybe Lisa Pelikan as Rebecca, the poor girl who has to endure Jonathan's obsession with the occult.

As the film progressed, it got worse...and worse... until it was just plain stupid. There was nothing scary here. It wasn't even good for a laugh - not even at how bad it is... 'Ghoulies' is a terrible film with an absolutely pathetic climax. Not worth it. Rather watch the far more enjoyable and superior 'Gremlins'.

Would I watch it again? Most definitely NOT.

Way back when there were video stores I must have walked past the box for "Ghoulies" a million times. I made fun of the box all the time. It never occurred to me to actually rent the video. Maybe I was a movie snob or maybe my instincts were right. I watched "Ghoulies" tonight and it's the pits. It's not scary. It's not funny. It's not even campy. It's just bad. Despite a very short running time (81 mins), "Ghoulies" feels really long. A little nudity would have helped but as it is there's no reason to watch this movie.

Let's see what we've got here: a big mansion that was inhabited by some Satan worshipers' sect in the past, a big party with drugs, sex and alcohol; university students that look like they're 40 years old and that are permanently on heat; some horny chicks, the typical cocky, and a few demons that look like the mutant brothers of the Muppets. Yeah!! Welcome to 80's b-series.

Well, if there's someone out there that takes this kind of product too seriously, man, GET A LIFE. This movies are only good for one thing: gather a bunch of friends together, get some beers, and have a nice time... OK, "Ghoulies" is a complete mess in every possible way, but that's something you can anticipate by having a look at the DVD cover.

God bless the 80's!!

*My rate: 2/10

This is another revisit from long ago but, instead of time having added to its luster a' la my recent screening of GORILLA AT LARGE (1954), it has only revealed it as the silly piece of junk it always has been. Sporting several of the same crew members who would later be reteamed for TROLL (1986; see my comments above), it deals with the Satanic goings-on in an abandoned Italian villa perpetrated by the long-lost son of a Cult leader (whose demise occurs at the film’s very start) to the eventual indifference of his goofy, pot-headed group of friends (including Mariska Hargitay, the daughter of Mickey Hargitay and Jayne Mansfield, who had escaped unscathed in the freak car accident which took the life of her actress mum).

Unfortunately, unlike the preceding Gremlins or the later Trolls, the titular creeps don’t have much of a personality; they are the handiwork of John Carl Buechler who later stepped behind the camera to inflict on an unsuspecting world such works of dubious artistry as TROLL (which, actually, wasn’t half-bad), Friday THE 13TH PART VII: THE NEW BLOOD (1988; which has already receded irretrievably into my subconscious) and even GHOULIES III: GHOULIES GO TO COLLEGE (1991)!!

Apart from a mercifully brief but equally embarrassing turn from David Lynch mascot Jack Nance at the start and end of the film, the cast is peopled by obnoxious characters – from the hero who turns green-eyed when in the throes of Satanic possession to the clumsy, lock-jawed Morrissey-lookalike hunk of the party. Not that it matters but, for some reason, the end of the film reverses most of the evil that had happened throughout, making this a singularly pointless venture in the annals of screen history (and its being followed by three sequels all the more baffling)!

A young couple (Peter Liapis and Lisa Pelikan) inherit a huge old house from his family. It's deserted and falling apart so naturally they move in. It seems his dad was a witch and had a coven that sacrificed people. After they move in he starts practicing black magic and doing rituals--just like dear old dad. It seems dad is eager to come back from the dead and start the coven again...

As you can see this has nothing to do with gremlins or such--it's a humans vs. witchcraft movie--and a bad one. I started realizing I was in trouble with opening credits "Empire Pictures presents A Charles Band Production". Empire made dreadful no budget horror films and Charles Band produced all of them. That should have been enough for me to grab the remote and change channels--but I kept watching.

The acting is pretty terrible--Pelikan and Liapis are bad but top honors go to Scott Thomson as their incredibly annoying friend Mike. The direction is lousy--there's not even an establishing shot of the house until 15 minutes in! The script is dull and drags along. As for the "ghoulies"---they look pretty silly and have absolutely no reason to be in the movie. They were probably added in because "Gremlins" was such a hit the year before.

There's next to no blood, no gore and the attack scenes looks pretty silly (except for one somewhat creepy one involving a killer clown). It all ends up in a silly battle between a good witch and a bad witch with sub-par special effects. Even an appearance by Jack Nance can't save this.

This was inexplicably a HUGE hit in 1985 (mostly with kids) and led to 2 sequels (which I refuse to see). This can't even be enjoyed on a bad/good level or as camp--it's too boring! Avoid.

A surprise hit in the horror film-drenched 1980s that spawned several sequels, GHOULIES was one ii a long line of puppet movies from the old Empire Pictures, the same folks who would soon bring us RE-ANIMATOR. In GHOULIES, a young man moves into an old mansion and before you know it, he is attempting to conjure up a bunch of hellish critters to do his bidding. Soon enough, he has them going after his enemies. The ghoulies themselves are hand puppets that look pretty ferocious for hand puppets. The conjurer, played by an insufferable actor named Peter Liapus, has been possessed by a dark spirit that resides in the old house. A little too much time is spent on the guy and his conjuring, but once the ghoulies get going, watch out! This comedy horror film stands out among many similar flicks from that era. It was obviously inspired by GREMLINS, but in the end it in no way resembles that now-forgotten classic. Worth a look if you can buy the idea of puppet monsters. PUPPETMASTER had the same theme and look, and was also an Empire Pictures job, if I am not mistaken.

Come on ... most of the 80's horror genre was cheesy. And yeah, most of the cast couldn't act. Especially Michael Des Barres. (Still holds true today.) But Mariska Hargitay has come a long way since then with Law & Order: SVU, so I think we can forgive her for that freakish Mariah Carey-decibel screaming she did by the fountain with Toad Boy.

This movie was also the first and ONLY time I saw an actual LIVE HUMAN BEING wearing battery-operated windshield wiper sunglasses ... and I lived through ALL of the 80's.

I rather enjoyed the rat, the cat, the bat and the green ... well, WHATEVER it was. And those dwarfs were pretty cute too, in a creepy "third cousin of Chucky" kind of way.

Not too sure about the whole tongue thing. I mean, why was his neck bleeding? There weren't spikes or sharp stuff on his/her tongue, so what was the deal? And was this just gratuitous transgenderizing?

Oops, I'm trying to psychoanalyze an 80's horror flick. Somebody stop me!!! :)

"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.