User reviews

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.

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.

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.

Whether you love Andy Milligan's films or hate them everyone is in agreement; they are a genre unto themselves! You know you are in some paralell universe in the opening minutes of this film when a mad killer attacks a couple having a picnic on a private island. The maniac gouges out the eye of the man and then turns to the camera holding up a tennis ball sized object that is meant to be the eye! If you listen carefully during the murder scene you can even hear Andy Milligan's voice calling out "Cutting away, move!" to the actors! When I met Andy in the late 70's he confided to me that whenever an enucleated eye was needed he found Hostess Sno-Balls not only filled the bill nicely but also provided an impromptu snack for his performers. The plot involves the gathering of heirs on a lonely island to hear the will of the rich, eccentric father. Andy knew that plot had a long white beard well before 1969 so he loaded his movie was sado-masochism, marital rape, homosexual incest, a hooded killer that you'd have to be deaf and blind not to know was stalking you, and of course the bargain basement gore that made him so (in)famous to the people who gathered at drive-ins to watch his movies. THE GHASTLY ONES was his first gore film. After doing soft core movies like THE NAKED TEMPTRESS, GUTTER TRASH and FLESHPOT he saw the market movie away from soft to hardcore and decided to move into the terror genre. Actually this film offers some interesting things. Neal Flanagan, one of his stock company, plays a withered ancient lawyer who appears to have stepped out of a Charles Dickens novel. Haal Borske,a writer and director of several plays, plays the first of many idiot characters in Andy's films. His character of Colin appears to have been the killer in the opening scenes and he looks perfectly normal (apart from being a total sociopath, that is) yet later in the film he has becomes a hunchbacked, snaggletoothed halfwit who eats raw meat. Maggie Rogers also appears in SEEDS OF SIN and TORTURE DUNGEON and her acting is actually several notches above what is expected in a Milligan film. Gore is very . . .well . . .unusual. Bloody scenes include a pitchfork to the throat, a man cut in half with a bandsaw, a hand chopped off, a head in a roasting pan and wait'll you see what happens to the killer at the end! Andy remade this movie a few years later as LEGACY OF BLOOD with a different cast but the same plot and effects. To further confuse matters there is another movie called LEGACY OF BLOOD that stars John Carradine, Faith Domergue and Rex Reason that offers a similar plot but more sex and better effects. Don't worry it will be impossible for you to confuse these movies; an Andy Milligan film is like no other. Back in '69 THE GHASTLY ONES played on a double bill with Kent Bateman's HEADLESS EYES. If I had not been only 4 back then I sure would have paid to catch a programme like that!

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.

Three sisters travel to their late father's mansion where they are to spend three nights together with their respective husbands, before they are eligible to hear the will (read to them by a man wearing make-up to rival Ramses' from Blood Feast (1963)). Also there are the two housekeepers, Martha (Veronica Radburn) and Ruth (Maggie Rogers), and Martha's deformed and dim-witted son Colin (Hal Borske), who we see murder two people at the beginning of the film. After a night of pompous partying, one of the couples, Veronica (Eileen Hayes) and Bill (Don Williams), find a dead rabbit in their bed (which was previously seen being eaten alive by Colin) with a note attached reading 'blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit."

Directed by exploitation and horror hack Andy Milligan, The Ghastly Ones (titled Blood Rites in the UK and placed on the Video Nasty list) is a fine example as to why he is considered one of the worst directors of all time, commonly placed in the same category of Edward D. Wood, Jr. and Herschell Gordon Lewis. He began his career in small-time off- Broadway production during the 1950's, and his experience in that medium is evident here as, unlike most trashy horror films, the film is almost unbearably wordy, as the main characters have their mundane conversations between the brief moments of gore. Saying that, I would much rather be listening to conversation than watching overlong stalking scenes or disco dancing which was so prevalent as running-time-filler in Grindhouse movies.

However, the movie is a massive bore, and even with the slender running- time of 70 minutes, I checked how long there was remaining at least three or four times. The awful, clunky camera-work, added to the fact that the film stock was so poor I could barely make out faces, gave me a headache. When the moments of inevitable gore come, the film is given a little relief, as the scenes of pitch-fork impaling and disembowelment are so bad it does give the film a little charm. It would work quite nice as a double-bill with the aforementioned Blood Feast, as they are both short, amateurish, and most notably, s**t.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

This film was released in the UK under the name Blood Rites. It was banned outright and never submitted again for release.

As The Ghastly Ones, it was supposedly a hit with the horror hungry denizens of New York City's famed 42nd Street Grindhouse circuit. If you are looking for some bloody horror, then you will find it in this film.

Unfortunately to see the developmentally disabled Colin (Hal Borske) chomp down on a live rabbit, you have to put up with shaky 16mm camera work that makes Ed Wood look positively marvelous.

Three sisters are to spend three days in the family homestead with their husbands before the old man's money is disbursed. Naturally, in such a situation, people start dropping dead. Family secrets are exposed and lots of blood is spilled, especially during a gruesome dismemberment.

Maybe it was the bunny bit that the Brits objected to, I know I did.

Well well, at last a view of this underrated flick. But you can't find a good copy of it, terrible copy full with green drops, the editing isn't syncronized, the sound do has sometimes that terrible hiss and sometimes you even can hear the camera recording. Overall it's too dark, a waist of time you should say but it isn't. It's a bit slow, the first half part of the movie it's all talking and making love to each other. It is even still weird that the girls in movies from the 60's never wear any bra's. When they enter the sleeping room it's full glory. Anyway, banned in the UK since 84 and still on the video nasties list. The reason is simple, it's gory for their time being. It really has some nasty dismemberement's and it's creepy in some way due the fact that it is filmed handycam way. So every shot the image is moving, things they do these days with the steadycam. The Ghastly Ones could have been better if the quality of the film was better but still better then other films of the time like Schoolgirls In Chains.

The Ghastly Ones (1968) is a shocking film.Still banned in the United Kingdom to this day, the film remains a spectacular horror story. I watched the film many years ago when it was shown on TV, and I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed it.A very gory and horrific, violent film it is, but very enjoyable.I would recommend this film to anyone who is looking for a goodnight scare.

I saw this film purely based on the fact that it was on the DPP Video Nasty list, and while I'm glad I saw it because it's now 'another Video Nasty down' - on its own merits, Andy Milligan's film really isn't worth bothering with. There are, of course, far worse films on the infamous list; but that doesn't make the pain of viewing this one any easier. The film was obviously shot on an extremely low budget, and that has translated into the script; as Blood Rites works on an idea often seen in horror cinema, and doesn't do anything new with it. Basically, the plot centres on three couples who find themselves at a house awaiting the results of a will. It's not long before they start getting picked off...blah blah blah. For most of the film, nothing happens; and then when we finally get down to the scenes that justify the movie being banned, they're so amateurish and silly that they're impossible to take seriously on any level. It's a very good thing that this movie doesn't have a very long running time as otherwise it could have been used as a particularly nasty method of torture. It all boils down to a fittingly tedious ending, which also succeeds in being a non-event of epic proportions. Apparently, this movie is still banned here in the UK; but somehow I doubt it's because of its shock value. Basically, Blood Rites isn't worth seeing and I personally can see no reason to recommend it. Unless, of course, you've made it your business to see everything on the Video Nasty list...

For years I have been trying to watch as many of the 72 movies that made up Sections 1 & 2 of the British Video Nasties list, some are easy to find, others less so. I have just watched Blood Rites (UK title) for the first time, I also believe it to be my first Andy Milligan movie. Victorian set film but the 1960's underwear and wallpaper certainly give away the low budget and utterly amateur production values. Shot entirely on 16mm the camerawork is possibly the worst that I have ever seen. The lighting, sound, acting, special effects, all incredibly bad. The director can be heard given instructions to the "actors". We get a double murder early on, gory but difficult to see much, then there is about 50 minutes or so of sheer boredom before the final 20 where the vast majority of the deaths or gore happens, this does go some way in redeeming what went before. The fact that this got banned just show how ridiculous the whole Video Nasties saga was. Despite being an appalling movie I will certainly be seeking out more of the director's other works!

THE GHASTLY ONES is a brainboiler of a cheap horror film. The plot involves three sisters and their husbands travelling to their isolated childhood home to hear the reading of their late father's will, but someone is willing to kill to keep the money all to themselves. Director/producer Andy Milligan attempts a 1905 setting for his film despite something like $20.00 for a budget, although its highly unlikely that women from that era wore see-through black negligees to bed. Along with the wobbly period details, there's stabbings,decapitation, mutilations with hacksaws, and live rabbit eating. Ole! Ten years later, Milligan remade this flick as the somewhat more competent(and narratively coherent)LEGACY OF HORROR. If you're looking for a laughable, confused mess, go with THE GHASTLY ONES. If you want a more understandable film that offers characters whose motives are revealed during the course of the story, go with LEGACY OF HORROR. Calm me old fashioned, but I prefer the latter, because the reasons revealed for some of the characters' behavior makes the resulting carnage all the more chilling. And the simpleton brother is show as an abused, sad waste of human potential, not a ghoulish geek. The scene where he sits in his dank basement room, battering a teddy bear while grunting the word "stupid" over and over is more chilling than a dozen disembowelings--something that I think Milligan was not conscious of. Okay, so maybe I overanalyze, but I like to see the psychological underside of these characters. After all, a psycho doesn't make himself crazy, does he?

Following the death of their estranged father, three girls are summoned to their childhood home (still maintained by the servants) for the reading of the will. Per the deceased dad's request, the women are supposed to stay in the house for a "night of love" with their respective husbands before the opening of a mysterious trunk the next day. Naturally, someone wielding a big clever wants to mess up the plans.

Despite watching some of the worst films known to man, I had never seen an Andy Milligan flick before. I decided on this one as it was recommended as his best work and now I fear for my cinematic safety. My initial thoughts were, "Finally, Nick Millard has some competition!" This has the similar hypnotic/wonky camerawork and choppy editing. But Milligan trumps Millard when it comes to unfulfilled ambition. Adept at costuming according to the DVD liner notes, Milligan does do well in creating a Victorian era look and the central location is impressive, even if we never get an establishing shot of the house. The movie is actually doubly entertaining with a raucous audio commentary provided by actor Hal Borske (the film's hunchback) and cult director Frank Henenlotter. The Something Weird DVD offers a co-feature of Milligan's SEEDS OF SIN, but I'm just not ready for that yet.

My first taste of Andy Milligan and I think I liked it. This has lo-fi regional filmmaking written all over it and it feels like a bunch of friends rented an old house for the weekend and decided to borrow some costumes from the local community theater and make a movie.

Every character is somewhat hateful, the performances range from alright to awful, but some of the gore effects aren't half bad including one nasty severed hand bit.

Definitely one of the very worst movies I have ever seen, and probably one of the worst "movies" ever made. I have seen patchworks by some very bad sleaze directors in my day, but talentless hack Andy Milligan takes the cake... his movies make Ed Wood's films look like Alfred Hitchcock's. I mean, Wood, Al Adamson, Jerry Warren and Ted V. Mikels got nothing on this character. Here we have some sporadic gore moments, but mainly a lot of talk between a group of obnoxious people gathering together in some house. Terribly boring in addition to being technically pathetic.

0 out of ****

A UK video nasty, which is of absolutely no consequence because the UK film board were a load of old farts ... Anyway....when i first started watching i had high hopes , the first kills were really good and the gore looked good .

Pretty much the next ten minutes involes saggy breast, a lot of snogging and semi naked hairy bodies The next 50 mins is a horrendous and boring Crap deaths ,no nudity ,bad acting , bad cinematography, horrible music .

I wanted to fast foward but i always watch a film to the end no matter how bad ..and believe me this was bad.

The picture quality is also terrible i cant see anyone cleaning up the print or remastering this rubbish .

Shot on Staten Island NY, premiered in Charlotte NC, changed name twice, this is undoubtedly one of the cheapest movies I've seen, but considering all the budget restraints, surprisingly effective. Should be called "The Horny Ones", with all the shots of naked couples in single (guess they couldn't afford doubles) beds., sexy but without much gratuitous nudity (sorry guys). What struck me most was, maybe because of the very dark and damaged print I saw, but using of quick shots and cutaways, and eschewing the use of phony plastic prosthetics, the horror clips were some of the most genuinely horrifying I've seen. Meantime,in most slashers, cameras dwelling on obviously artificial effects have reduced horror to humor. Nothing's really scary anymore. Considering the overall cheapness, not quite 7, but definitely a solid upper 6. Can hardly believe it myself that I'm recommending this, but I am!

This takes place in the early 1900s (for no earthly reason I can think of). Three sisters and their husbands go to their late fathers estate located on a remote island. They all seem to get along but soon a masked killer is going around and killing everybody but who and why? Believe me this film is so badly made you won't care! Terribly directed film by the "legendary" Andy Milligan. He was known for making no budget horror films with threadbare scripts, terrible actors (most of who never made another movie) and gore effects that are so bad you won't believe what you're seeing. For some reason this man has a following. Why?????? The films aren't bad enough to be good (like Ed Wood films) and the acting and gore is just laughable.

Anyways this film is, as I said, terribly directed. The camera wanders all over the place not seeming to know where to go. Most of the film is shot in tight closeups--probably to cover up the cheap sets. The production design is threadbare--the costumes actually looked pretty good but the rooms are small and cramped. One room has wallpaper (which I don't think existed back in the early 1900s) that will make you dizzy! The script is OK but full of things that don't add up. Early on it's made clear that two characters--Richard and Walter--were lovers...and then NOTHING is done with it! Then why tell us??? The acting is surprisingly not bad. No one is fantastic but no one is really bad either. They all say their lines with conviction. There's a few flashes of female nudity and some pointless sex scenes. Still this is a bad film with terrible direction, threadbare sets and gore that is so lousy it staggers the imagination. Stephen King said this was made by morons with cameras. Mr. King is 100% right. A 1 all the way.

As far back as I can recall, going to the drive-in was a real treat as a little kid back in the late '60s and early '70s. And 1968's "The Ghastly Ones" was the first horror flick I remember: Of course, I was only 6 years old. So the plot was really lost on me, but I do remember three scenes that have been ingrained in my head all these years later even as I'm closing in on 61 years of age: 1. The murderous simpleton hunchback was carrying a large trunk and dropped it when he saw a fluffy white bunny in the snow, picked it up, and bit into its belly - blood all over his face; 2. A woman's severed head was discovered in a pot at the dinner table; 3. The estranged and murderous older woman wielding a meat cleaver.

It's not as if my parents only took us to horror movies: There was "Planet of the Apes," "Escape From Planet of the Apes," "Easy Rider," "CC & Company," "Herbie The Love Bug," "The Apple Dumpling Gang," the Poseidon Adventure," "The Laughing Policeman," and "The French Connection" among the lot that readily come to mind.

After 54 years since seeing it for the first time as an impressionable little boy, I finally came across "The Ghastly Ones" on a streaming service online recently. It was dreadful to watch - terrible dialogue and a plot that was weak and predictable, though the three memorable scenes were as clear as day (hunchback biting into the bunny, the severed head in the pothead in the pot, and the meat cleaver-wielding murderous old woman).

I found myself fast-forwarding through much of it. What a major letdown after all these years of searching for it (without the benefit of remembering the title and only recalling the three ghastly scenes)!

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.