Ghoulies

"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.

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

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.

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.

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.