Ghoulies

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

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).

Ghoulies was a crazy adventure which I would only admit to watching after I'd had a load of alcohol to drink. It's rubbish...but it's good rubbish nonetheless.

I won't pretend that I've ever understood the plot. But who needs a plot when you've got crazy little creatures running around causing havoc?

The movie is very 1980's and suited that era very well. Most of the people I've spoke to have had good things to say about it. It is one of those films where you leave your brain at the door before watching it. It was quite funny but scary in parts (there's this evil clown doll which gave me the creeps).

All in all, I would recommend Ghoulies to those who don't take life too seriously. If you liked Gremlins, you'll like Ghoulies.

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.