Ghoulies (1984) User Reviews

This is worth watching

[markarice · 5/10 · 9 January 2005]

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.

If You've Seen the Movie Poster You've Seen All the Fun Ghoulies Has to Offer

[utgard14 · 3/10 · 2 December 2013]

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.

I miss the 80's...

[JoeB131 · 4/10 · 18 July 2012]

This movie was made by Charles Band, before he retreated into bad direct to video and then straight to DVD movies, he did theatrical releases.

This film means to capitalize on the popularity of "Gremlins" by showing small, mischievous puppets doing terrible things to people. Only two problems. Not as much money for the animatronics, so they really looked more like cheap puppets, and a plot that made not a lick of sense.

A baby is saved from a Satanic cult, and grows up to inherit the house of the cult leader. He then proceeds to repeat Dad's ritual magic, summoning small demons to do his bidding.

Look for a young Mariska Hargitay of "Law and Order:SVU Fame", playing one of the Interchangeable Big-Haired Bimbos the monsters proceed to pick off. I'm sure she's really proud to have that on her resume.

Bad. Just bad...

[paulclaassen · 2/10 · 19 July 2020]

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.

Bait and Switch

[stmichaeldet · 5/10 · 4 February 2006]

Ghoulies kinda threw me for a loop. For years, I had seen the old VHS box moldering away in the backlist at the video store, with the li'l creature popping out of the toilet, and I thought, Gremlins rip-off, figured I'd know the whole plot from scene one, and never bothered. But I finally caught it, and found nothing like I expected. Not that that turned out to be a terribly good thing, but at least it gave me a moment of hope.

Jonathan Graves inherits the old ancestral mansion, and discovers that he apparently comes from a long line of satanic occultists. Of course, he can't help but pick up the old family tradition. His friends think this is eccentric, and his girlfriend Rebbecca thinks he's a worthless slacker who's wasting time he could be spending fixing up the house. But he gets results, and soon the mansion is populated with a startling number of tiny demon puppets and two helpful midgets that only Jonathan can see.

Rebecca finally puts her foot down and demands an end to all the Satanism, so what does Jonathan do? He mind-controls her, which not only ends her criticism, but allows him to dress her up in slutty outfits. (This is where any remaining sympathy I had for Jonathan went out the window.) Then he invites all his friends up so that he can use them in an occult ritual which he believes will grant him vast power, but which actually resurrects his dead, Satanist ancestor (dad? gramps? I was never really sure), who shows up spoiling for a fight.

The puppets go (mildly) berserk, everyone dies, and Jonathan and Gramps have their showdown. Of course, good triumphs (if you can consider a guy who's been summoning demons, bargaining for occult power, and mind-controlling his girlfriend, the good guy). Then, everybody comes back to life in one of the biggest cheats in all slasherdom. Have they no shame?

What a great ad campaign can do.

[Aaron1375 · 3/10 · 26 March 2003]

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.

If you like Troll 2...

[aidanratesmovies · 1/10 · 8 March 2021]

Throughout my life I have seen dozens of bad movies, and Ghoulies certainly ranks up there with the worst of them. From beginning to end you will be wondering where this film will go, and it never truly tells you what it's doing or why it is doing it. Besides the plot making no sense, and truly having a lack of a clear story whatsoever, the film also suffers on a script level with all of its characters being nothing but over exaggerated stereotypes- that are truly so forced, you have to see them to believe it. The special effects are god awful, as to be expected, and the ghoulies themselves are hardly on screen enough to make a presence, and when they are you will simply ask why they are there at all to begin with. The film, simply put, is a disaster on all levels. I have not watched a film with so many WTF moments since I first witnesses the miracle of bad movies Troll 2 quite a few years ago. Ghoulies tries so hard at being nothing, and it honestly hurt my brain to watch this film. My Rating: 1/10

A brutal watch.

[pmtelefon · 2/10 · 15 October 2019]

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.

God Bless The 1980's

[jamesbourke59 · 6/10 · 30 August 2012]

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

boring, not great even for a B-film

[Mileskolehmainen · 4/10 · 21 June 2014]

GHOULIES

🌕🌕🌑🌑🌑 1.9

This was a full moon production, and I've heard they've made worse, but I've seen them make better, so I wasn't satisfied with this boring movie. Not all of it was terrible, but much of the middle is. Which is too bad because the conclusion were the Ghoulies finally come out and do some damage has some cool effects and entertaining kills. The acting isn't great, and neither are all of the unnecessary side characters added in the second half of the film. I didn't actually find the PG-13 rating restricting, as there was still some blood and gore. I would only recommend this to hardcore full moon fans.

the one on the cover looks like Truman Capote painted green

[lee_eisenberg · 10/10 · 29 August 2006]

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.

A must-see for fans of campy, cheesy horror

[BrandtSponseller · 7/10 · 12 January 2005]

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.

Pure Garbage

[Tony-386 · 1/10 · 3 July 2000]

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.

cast a spell to rid yourself of any knowledge you saw or wanted to see this film

[films_viewed · 1/10 · 23 February 2006]

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?

Not particularly great...

[paul_haakonsen · 3/10 · 15 December 2015]

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.

Not enough Ghoulies!!

[Matthew-therault · 3/10 · 3 March 2016]

If the cover of your movie has a creature popping out of toilet. I your movie, you better have a creature popping out of a toilet. It's Chekhov's gun. There was no ghoulie that ever popped out of a toilet. I was waiting the entire movie for a puppet to pop out of a toilet, and never got it!

Aside from that this movie is still pretty bad. The main actor has some weird green eyes that glow when he "invokes" them (I guess). I don't really know, because they don't explain it, and they show up when he is "more" menacing than he normally is. I also didn't understand why they had to wear sunglasses towards the end. He could turn his weird green eyes off when he wanted. He didn't need the sun glasses. I also didn't get why the main character decided he had to quit school to clean up a house. Why wouldn't you just clean up the house after school??? It didn't make any sense.

The movie is filled with pretty subpar acting. For some reason a female costar that seems like she was already in her fifties, but her actual age hadn't caught up to her yet.

The ghoulies were the best part, but you only see them for maybe, maybe, 10 minutes out of the whole movie.

There were also these two dwarfs that showed up for no real reason except to drink some liquid, and fight against their original master (maybe?)

Silly nonsense from Empire Pictures' 80's knock-offs

[kclipper · 5/10 · 24 July 2011]

This is one of the first of the low-budget direct-to-video from Charles Band's Empire Pictures of the 1980s' VHS craze, and its about as silly and illogical as anything you'll see from that era. Peter Liapis (Kyle Mclachlan's evil twin perhaps?) moves into an old house, and in his attempt to restore it, he becomes obsessed with ceremonial black magic. In his rituals he manages to conjure up personifications of the demons; Vepar, Procell and Astaroth in the form of bogus-looking, puppet-like goblins. This is hopelessly contrived and laughable as the ghastly dwarfs hang around and wreck havoc on a group of unlikable, snobbish idiots after Liapis fulfills his final master ritual. Its typical Charles Band stuff as the cast takes the ridiculousness seriously, and one can only suspect that the idea was loosely ripped off from the incomparable hit, 'Gremlins' Its fun if you like to watch slimy, rubbery toys attack people, and some will get a laugh out of the most absurd and incoherent of plot-lines.

GHOULIES (Luca Bercovici, 1985) *1/2

[Bunuel1976 · 2/10 · 5 October 2008]

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)!

Puppets with teeth

[ctomvelu1 · 6/10 · 2 September 2009]

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.

Not The Best Of The Ghouies Series

[TEAQUIEMORO · 3/10 · 12 July 2006]

When I saw this I thought it was going to be great sense I saw Ghoulies two first than three and than this. I saw the whole thing and boy did this movie stink so much it made part four better than this.This movie does deserve to go in the bottom because it was pointless,stupid and not much blood in the horror scenes.Although this was a cruddy movie,at least in this Ghoulies it showed horror parts than the others.But besides that good thing the rest of the movie was so boring I couldn't bear to watch more of this movie. Who ever made this movie possible deserves to die because that company doesn't know good movies and bad ones.All I'm saying is do not ever watch this movie or you will be very bored.

Give This Film A Chance!

[sidekickllb · 8/10 · 7 April 2006]

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!!! :)

They'll get you in the end.

[Hey_Sweden · 6/10 · 16 May 2015]

The camp and cheese levels are off the charts with this effort from Charles Bands' Empire Pictures, one of a few movies (and subsequent franchises) to jump on the "Gremlins" bandwagon. This means combining comedy (which, in this case, is never really that funny) and horror (although the movie sure ain't scary at all) and trying to go for a playful approach. The result is a movie that does have some fun moments, but nothing special enough to make it compare to its inspiration.

Eric Roberts lookalike Peter Liapis stars as Jonathan Graves, who moves with his girlfriend Rebecca (pretty Lisa Pelikan of the "Carrie" ripoff "Jennifer") into the mansion he's just inherited. Turns out his dad Malcolm (pop singer Michael Des Barres, in a hilariously unsubtle turn) was one of a group of Satan worshippers, and the mansion has been home to demons in the past. As any moron character in this type of genre movie would do, Jonathan lets his curiosity get the better of him, and he becomes obsessed with wearing robes and performing rituals. The title creatures show up to create mayhem, followed by an endearing pair of little people (Peter Risch, Tamara De Treaux).

The Ghoulies themselves don't get to do all that much; they would be brought more to the forefront for the sequels. The human cast - including Scott Thomson ("Police Academy"), Ralph Seymour ("Just Before Dawn"), Keith Joe Dick, and Mariska Hargitay in her film debut - is amusing, but it's the Ghoulies who are the most fun. Jack Nance of "Eraserhead" fame is wasted as the wise old caretaker of the mansion. Bobbie Bresee ("Mausoleum") has a bit as a temptress. Special effects and makeup by John Carl Buechler and his company are generally pretty good. The score, credited to both Shirley Walker and Richard Band, is catchy.

"Ghoulies" is indeed pretty ridiculous, but this viewer doesn't see that as necessarily being a bad thing. Just don't go in expecting anything resembling a serious genre film.

Six out of 10.

Only for die hard 80s addicts

[superprincevince · 3/10 · 2 May 2008]

Having read a number of positive reviews on this movie, let me be brutally honest and say that this is a pretty poor effort. The plot is nonsensical, the acting, though not all awful, is shoddy, the special effects look very dated nowadays, and the ending is truly ridiculous! I'm not even sure why the movie is called 'Ghoulies' seeing as they do so little throughout the film! Okay, for nostalgia fans of the 1980s there are some awful haircuts, and amusing cloakroom choices, but that is not a reason to watch a film. This spends huge amounts of time building up to the ending, which is a total let down. honestly, how films like this got made I don't know - surely the actors must have been sat on the set thinking, 'Why am I talking to a moving piece of snot' (which is in large part all that the ghoulies look like - about as menacing as my nan without her teeth in - no hold on, she's far scarier!). Reviews might compare this film to Gremlins, but they are in a totally different ball-park - don't watch this movie, watch Gremlins instead... or even 'Critters' for that matter.

God bless the eighties!!

[rainking_es · 2/10 · 15 February 2006]

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

Not a "Gremlins" ripoff--and pretty awful

[preppy-3 · 1/10 · 26 June 2004]

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.