Specters (1987) User Reviews

Demonic dreck.

[BA_Harrison · 4/10 · 23 August 2015]

This cruddy, late-80s, Italian supernatural/demonic horror sees horror icon Donald Pleasance slumming it as archaeologist Professor Lasky, who, as the result of tremors caused by subway drilling under Rome, discovers a pre-Christian tomb full of pagan carvings, including an inscription which warns that "evil will come". And come it most certainly does, in the form of an ancient demon that proceeds to attack those involved in the excavation.

Italian horror films of the 80s often displayed little regard for logic, but made up for their general incoherence with a sense of style, enthusiastic gore, and—if possible—some nudity from a good looking babe or two. This one tries on all three counts, but fails spectacularly on the first two, director Marcello Avallone's overuse of his smoke and wind machines hardly qualifying as stylish, while the splatter, most of which is saved for the film's closing moments, is frustratingly brief (blink and you'll miss it). Thankfully, Trine Michelsen as Alice, sexy girlfriend of archaeologist Marcus, is on hand for the gratuitous T&A, obligingly stripping off a couple of times in order to keep the viewer awake.

The bulk of Specters, however, consists of lots of dreary dialogue and numerous supposedly scary scenes that rarely amount to much (with the best moment being blatantly ripped off from A Nightmare on Elm Street); as such, the film proves extremely tedious and delivers little in the way of genuine frights. The demon (created by Italian FX expert Sergio Stivaletti) remains hidden until the final moments, and, to be honest, isn't really worth the wait.

3.5 out of 10, generously rounded up to 4 for the hilariously bad computer graphics used to track Marcus as he explores the tomb, and Alice's hub-cap sized earrings.

Spettri: A swing and a miss with big fake looking rubber demon arm

[Platypuschow · 3/10 · 6 January 2018]

This disastrous Italian horror brings the late great Donald Pleasence along for the ride and surely didn't do his career any favours.

With not only a low rating but barely 250 ratings on IMDB this clearly fell into obscurity and I can see why.

Italian horror during the 80's was generally fantastic, this was a rare miss and quite a big one at that.

It tells the story of a crew investigating unexplored catacombs and the ancient demonic evil that they unleash.

With a messy plot, shoddy audio and camera work and a forgettable cast this is pretty bad stuff saved to a degree thanks to Pleasence and an interesting setting.

If you seek Italian horror look elsewhere.

The Good:

Donald Pleasence

Neat setting

The Bad:

Poor sound editing

Donald Pleasence looks like a big fish in a small pond here

Awful ending

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Donald Pleasence must have been short on cash

Boring eighties trash

[The_Void · 3/10 · 11 May 2008]

I wonder if, back when he was wowing audiences with great performances in films such as Cul-de-sac and The Flesh and the Fiends, Donald Pleasance ever thought he'd be starring in dross like this? Anyway, I have to say that I wasn't surprised to find that Specters is basically the film I thought it would be; namely, a poor Demons-style trashy eighties horror flick with little in the way of redeeming features. The plot is just common horror fare and features a bunch of researchers digging into places they shouldn't be digging and revealing a load of ancient catacombs that warn of impending doom. Naturally, the evil is unleashed. At the very least from this, I was expecting some decent gore; but all we actually get is cheesy crap which is matched by the trashy atmosphere and typically cheesy eighties soundtrack. The plot is a complete mess and I found it very easy to get bored. Donald Pleasance was obviously bored too, and that's not surprising considering the talent of the people he's working with; naturally, Specters features some awesomely terrible acting. It all boils down to a typically pointless ending and overall, this is one of the few films that is bettered by the lamentable 'Demons 2'!

Lovable eighties Italian cheese

[Bezenby · 29 September 2011]

I'm guessing you've got like late-era Italian films to enjoy this, but I liked this film a lot more than anyone that's reviewed this film here.

Why? For all the reasons listed as negatives elsewhere, that's why! Sure, the plot doesn't make much sense, and barely exists. Sure, there's bad eighties hair, bad eighties music, and bad eighties everything else, but come on, these are good points! I had a good laugh with this one. I loved the way the first guy they sent down the tomb had to crawl for ages to get to it, but by the time Donald Pleasance et al got down there, it was as easy as walking into your back garden! Brilliant.

It's suspenseful in places, with a good atmosphere and setting. I've been down to the catacombs in Rome and they really do warn you not to wander off. I thought that was because they were so large, but after watching this film, I guess it was to stop me falling foul of a demon.

Good stuff, if you know what to expect.

Specters

[Scarecrow-88 · 5/10 · 10 January 2009]

"Whether evoked, or not evoked..evil will come."

During a routine archaeological study, a secret door is discovered leading to an undiscovered tomb. What lies within this tomb, a demon, if able to escape the tunnels, could threaten the lives of everyone above ground. It'll be up to Marcus(John Pepper), a member under renowned archaeologist Professor Lasky(Donald Pleasence)to seal the tunnels and stop this powerful demon who has designs on his temperamental actress girlfriend, Alice(Trine Michelsen).

That's the best I can do to provide a reasonable synopsis for such a difficult film. It seems director Marcello Avallone and his co-writer Andrea Purgatori were more interested in flashy visuals than creating a decent story which we can follow.I kind of reacted to Specters the same way as Soavi's The Church. I think Avallone wishes to depart from following a narrative structure, freely using the premise of an evil resurrected from it's place of entrapment, to unload bizarre sequences such as the importance of wind which disrupts the characters and often leads to the presence of the monster somewhere within the proximity of those destined to perish. I was disappointed in the lack of gore, because there seems to be opportunities to show gruesome violence. I will admit that I think it's got some incredible atmosphere, especially the tunnels which lead to the demon's tomb, and the Roman catacombs. I'm not sure why the film was called Specters, though. I guess it sounded cool and those Italians, God bless them, love a catchy title. There were, to me, striking uses of light(..the dark silhouette of characters from afar in tunnel entrances as light shines from behind them, the demon opening it's arms after rising from under earth with light grandly presenting it to us, barely visible but still ominous enough, the great scene where the demon's green eyes blanket Lansky, his face full of fear at what he has just encountered), and a nifty tourist trip through the Roman catacombs. Didn't care for the Marcus character or his girlfriend, Alice(..although, she's hot in a man's shirt)and too many scenes end abruptly just as they were on the verge of getting really good. I loved the first time Marcus follows the tunnel which eventually leads to the demon's tomb and that marvelous sequence where Lansky is engulfed in darkness, his flashlight pointing out statues in his dead employer's cavernous "tropy room". There's a scene very reminiscent of Nightmare on Elm Street where Alice is sleeping, with the demons hands exploding from the mattress, pulling her into it(..many will consider this an outrage, I imagine).

The main flaw, among many, that bothered me the most was the fact that Lasky informs Marcus to close the tunnels so that the demon can not escape, yet the beast attacks victims on the outside of the tomb. I think the feeble plot serves as an excuse for the demon to prey on those who were involved with it's discovery. Repercussions for those who are responsible for unearthing evil seems to be the point of emphasis, if there is one. The creature is flimsily established by the filmmakers with artifacts such as a dagger buried into a wall, pagan symbols, skeletal remains and a sarcophagus all tied to the demon terrorizing folks. The demon does rip the flesh of victims' faces and there's this neat jump scare involving a destroyed corpse. Enter with caution because Specters is not an easy nut to crack. Oh, and Donald Pleasence fans will probably find his character and performance rather disappointing. There were times when the poor guy just agreed to work in anything and Specters certainly doesn't display Pleasence at his best..he was sleepwalking all the way to the bank to pay his electric bill.

This is a totally incoherent mess of a film.

[Whovian · 3/10 · 26 December 1998]

Poor Donald Pleasence! He's been in a lot of really awful films, and this is one of the worst. He was known for putting in good performances even when handed a bad script, but in this disaster, he doesn't even try. In addition to the apathy of the cast, the scriptwriter obviously didn't care too much since this film makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There are fissures bursting open at random, men running around in Creature from the Black Lagoon costumes, a gratuitous song, a mysterious dagger, lots of tunnels, but no logic.

wasted opportunity

[Kabumpo · 4/10 · 24 September 1999]

There is never any mention of a "specter" in this film. The creature we finally do see (other than Universal's Gill Man) is an ugly beast not unlike the She Creature. If it weren't for the ridiculous horror clichées, this film might have worked, as the set design is fascinating and some scenes are actually suspenseful, and the archaelogical dig is exciting. Unfortunately, a lot of it deals with stupid teenagers, gratuitous pop songs, sex, and topless scenes, and predictable junk make much of the film annoying. When wine bottles start spraying and catacombs are collapsing, it's interesting, but it has the cliché horror it's not really ending, no one survives by the main fornicating couple, and girls panicking from little mice. The blind man's beating heart getting ripped out is the ultimate in gratuity, since it lacks all the significance of Evan pulling out his own heart in Michele Soavi's _La Chiesa_. It could have been better than _Demoni_, but at least it's not worse, nor as disgusting.

Italian monster horror is too heavy on the dialogue

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 29 December 2016]

This is a disjointed, sometimes confusing affair which spends an inordinate amount of time with people wandering around in dark tunnels. If you've seen Michele Soavi's THE CHURCH then you'll be well prepared for this film's structure as the two films are very similar. Both have confusing editing and plot strands which don't make sense. At least with THE CHURCH, Soavi had some style and pleasing religious imagery on show. When it boils down to it, SPECTERS is simply a monster-on-the-loose movie with some ancient mumbo-jumbo thrown in for good measure.

Strangely enough, I actually enjoy films which have people wandering around ancient tombs and catacombs, so for me a lot of this film was pretty eerie. A single low note on the soundtrack helps add to the spooky atmosphere of the crypts, which certainly look impressive, being littered with skeletons, Latin inscriptions, rats, and mysterious artefacts. There's a sense of brooding menace and "eeevil" (as Pleasence would say) lurking in the shadows and, as is nearly always the case, it's what you don't see that's most frightening. When, at the end, the makers let their demonic creature on a rampage in the tunnels, a lot of the tension is dispersed as we realise it's just a man in the suit. At least the guys here were wise enough to figure that quick glimpses of the monster were enough instead of dwelling on it for a long time and totally shattering the myth.

Donald Pleasence lends a welcome face in what otherwise is a completely Italian production (crew, cast, whatever). Pleasence gets all of the best lines here and gets to say the word "evil" in his own inimitable style about a dozen times. Aside from Pleasence, the acting is uninspired with boring leads who have the 'designer' look and not a single drop of charisma between them. A lengthy sex scene helps to pad out the running time but to serve no other purpose, while the film's best shock scene has been stolen from another film (the hands reaching out of the bed and dragging the victim down moment is a direct reprise of Johnny Depp's demise in A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET).

There's a predictable twist ending and some mild gruesomeness to enjoy (a skinned head jutting from a wall), but only two major gore sequences. The first has an old duffer, who happens to be an antiques hoarder, get his head crushed against a tunnel wall - an exceptionally unpleasant moment. The other shows a blind man having his heart pulled out, but some rushed editing ruins the impact of this one and just makes it look rubbery. SPECTERS is okay, but a little too light on the horror and a little too heavy on the dialogue for me.

Spect-(ers)-Acular Crap!

[Coventry · 4/10 · 28 July 2009]

Well, what do you know, they do make horror movies in Italy that do not appeal to me after all. The Italians were the undeniable masters when it comes to horror, especially during the seventies and eighties, but obviously not all films can be winners. Just like "Manhattan Baby" and "Zeder", which more or less revolve on similar themes, "Specters" is an incredibly incoherent and painfully tedious film.

The basic premise holds a lot of potential, for sure, but director Marcello Avallone - as well as his three (!) fellow writers - couldn't turn it into a compelling script. Several of the story lines are underdeveloped, the film wastes far too much time on irrelevant sub plots and insignificant supportive characters, the evil's true nature remains a mystery even after the film has ended, the lead roles aren't convincing, and the production incomprehensibly doesn't take full usage of the marvelous filming locations and scenery! Here they are shooting a film in one of the most beautiful cities in the world, below ground as well as on the surface, but all we get to see are pitiable images of some lame ruins.

There's something evil lurking under the city of Rome... The acclaimed archaeologist Prof. Lasky and his crew have been searching for a 19 centuries old tomb for many months now, but it seems that the nearby subway construction works have finally exposed the entry. The discovery might not be such a triumph after all, since the occupant of the sarcophagus - a bizarre type of feline monster - is awakened and promptly goes on a rampage. Well, at least I think it goes on a rampage, because that's the point where the "Specters" really stops making sense.

Many sequences, like the "Nightmare on Elm Street" similar suck-into-the-bed death scene, are played like they are hallucinations whereas other ones, like the head crushing sequence, are reality? There clearly is some sort of (spiritual?) link between the monster and one of the archaeologist's girlfriend (played by the former Miss Denmark Trine Michelsen who recently passed away as a result of bone cancer) but that story aspect is never at one point clarified. You get used to that, though. What's the deal with the blind tour guide in the catacombs? What inflicted the veto between Prof. Lasky and the exaggeratedly gay-behaving elderly antique dealer? Why does literally everybody in this film insist on having extended conversations with themselves? Why isn't the couple from the beginning of the film mentioned anymore?

Never mind all that, it's a silly and lackluster film; - let's jut keep it at that. As usual with the productions he was involved in, special effects wizard Sergio Stivaletti delivers the finest piece of work. The budget was clearly minimal, but he nevertheless still managed to provide some pretty cool and engrossing effects. The always reliable Donald Pleasance, who regularly appeared in Spaghetti horror at that time ("Phantom of Death", "Nothing Underneath", "Nosferatu in Venice", "Phenomena"...) is on auto-pilot, but he always remains a joy to behold.

Gotta love 80s Italian horror

[Mister-Creeper · 7/10 · 26 March 2014]

...and I mean that sincerely. I don't truly understand all the hate this film has received. It honestly puzzles me. I have found it much better than the low rating it has garnered here. Maybe I just have a soft spot for 80s horror (or a hard-on, whichever way you want to perceive it).

I won't discuss the plot. It's already been dissected on here, so there really is no need. I will say this however; it is not nearly as inept as some would have you believe. The film does move at a slow pace and it is cheesy. I'll give them that, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it is that lovable 80s charm that makes this film worth watching. I will also admit it could have used a good dose of gore, but the lack of it really doesn't hinder the film as a whole.

So if you're a fan of 80s horror, specifically Italian in this case, then give it a shot. It's not a bad way to pass 90 minutes. If, on the other hand, you aren't very fond of 80s horror, then by all means give it a pass. Your loss.

Slumbering Catacombs

[Vomitron_G · 4/10 · 10 January 2009]

I saw this one back in the early 90's. I vaguely remember thinking it wasn't very good. But since there was a time when I first saw Fulci's CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD and just dismissed it as B-movie rubbish (Hey now, don't give me that look -- what did I know back then?), I decided to give the Italian SPECTERS another try. Turns out I was right the first time: It's not very good.

Man, this movie had so much potential: Catacombs setting and ancient mythology about demonic mumbo-jumbo, some cool death scenes, Sergio Stivaletti doing the make-up and monster-FXs, Donald Pleasance, a sporadically present ominous drone-like soundtrack, obligatory sex-scene (boobies!) with the blond leading lady,... And the movie even has a cool title.

But it's a hot-damn friggin' total mess of a movie! Practically nothing makes the slightest bit of sense in this one. None of the cool ideas are properly worked out. People just shift from one location to another without explanation. Donald Pleasance had no business in this film, except for playing a tired, old professor mumbling about stuff that nobody's able to follow anyway. Even the frozen shock ending is totally torn from the loo (sorry, that's a Belgian expression in which "loo" is British English for "toilet").

I sighed immensely after this second viewing... This could have been great 80's horror stuff. Yet, it might still be considered a worthwhile one-time-only viewing. Mainly for the noteworthy elements I mentioned in my second paragraph. Plus there's a scene that resembles (ok, use the word rip-off if you desire so) another scene from ALIEN a lot (think: when Skerritt goes searching for the alien in the air-ducts, with someone watching his moves on a monitor). And Johnny Depp's death-scene in A NIGHTMARE ON ELMS STREET clearly served as a major influence (again: rip-off) for a similar (much briefer) scene in SPECTERS too.

SFXs maestro Sergio Stivaletti does manage to convince again, for the most part. The "head crushing"-scene was nice (though they cut away just a second too soon). There's a gooey corpse popping up at some point. The one death-scene that starts off in the wine-cellar was well crafted. And even his demonic creature at the end seemed nifty. Though that one was hard to tell, as we're merely offered a few glimpses on it.

So in a way, this is typical 80's Italian horror of the supernatural kind. But it's about three times more incoherent than what we're used to from these guys. Then again, if you've managed to sit through Fulci's lesser supernatural efforts (ex: MANHATTAN BABY), then you'll do just fine sitting through SPETTRI too.

Beautifully made and extremely incoherent.

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 6/10 · 5 January 2010]

First of all I enjoyed Marcello Avallone's masterpiece "Maya" from 1989, because it was stylish,well-produced and gruesome."Specters" is his first acclaimed horror film. While a team of archaeologists lead by Donald Pleasence are digging through some ancient ruins the subway being built above causes some cave ins and new catacombs are found.This leads to the burial ground of a legendary demon who then rises to the occasion and starts dispatching his victims in gruesome ways."Specters" is obviously influenced by Lamberto Bava's "Demons".The plot is silly and offers many annoying sub-plots which lead absolutely nowhere.The photography is beautiful,but the action is slow and there is almost no gore.Only for Italian horror completists.A very generous 6 out of 10.

Poorly done, imitative Italian horror

[lor_ · 20 April 2023]

My review was written in May 1987 after a Cannes Film Festival Market screening.

"Specters" is a disappointing shaggy-dog Italian horror film, technically okay but not delivering any scares and hardly any action until the finale. Helmer Marcello Avallone gets the technical side right but has a lot of stylistic (and pacing/construction) lessons to learn from the maestros of horror.

Story is similar to Nigel Kneale's classic "Quatermass & the Pit" (a/k/a "5,000,000 Years to Earth"): work on the subways in Rome disrupts an archaeological dig nearly run by Professor Lasky (who else but Donald Pleasence), opening an ancient vault. It takes a full hour of red herrings until the monster shows up, a barely shown imitation of the tacked-on crfitter in Jacques Tourneur's "Night of the Demon".

Topnotch lenser Silvano Ippoliti provides some nice travelling shots through the catacombs but pic is all buildup and no delivery. Pleasence hams it up as the only cast member whose English language voice fits his mug.

Mediocre (4.0-5.0/10.0)

[jplenton · 19 May 2001]

**SPOILERS**There is a tendency for Italian horror films to draft in British and American actors to broaden their international appeal. Easy examples being John Saxon in Tenebrae and Rupert Everett in Dellamorte Dellamore. Specters (which should have been distributed in the UK as Spectres (lazy)) ropes in veteran horror actor Donald Pleasance. It marks the second Italian film I've seen in him, the first being the rather mediocre thriller Nothing Underneath. Optimistically I reckoned that Specters would easily be the better film and it is, just, although that isn't much of a commendation.

In an undisclosed Italian city a group of archaeologists led by a Prof. Lasky (Pleasance), are exploring a series of ancient catacombs beneath the remains of a Roman bath system. Their ‘dig' is augmented by the local construction of a subway, the tremors from which cause a new series of chambers to be revealed. Unfortunately archaic writings in the first new chamber warn of an ancient evil that will be invoked. Of course, this being a horror film, the etchings are no idle threat…

Most Italian horror (and perhaps horror films in general) emphasise style over content and Specters does not deviate from this tradition. Alas, the style aspect of the film is below par and fails to redeem it from its meagre content and any potential is lost. Part of the problem is that the film consists of too many inchoate strands, another that the killing scenes are mostly rushed and could have been easily improved (N.B. wind and fissures in the ground are not particularly scary).

Most horrors incorporating archaeology either involve Ancient Egypt or a long-buried UFO. The use of Ancient Rome (and paganism) in this film is refreshing and one of its initial strong points. The baths, catacombs, zoology department of a museum, and other locales are well realised and created with some attention to detail. A big problem however is that little is made in terms of dialogue, backstory etc. of the Roman angle. The bloody history and mythology of Ancient Rome should have been emphasised a lot more to add flavour and atmosphere to proceedings. Instead, we have banal one-liners, an annoying ‘hero' figure, and not much explanation for anything. Even the ‘monster' itself is given scant explanation or detail; nothing transpires about what it is or its motivations.

*spoilers to end*

Another gripe is the on screen realisation of the said ‘monster'. (The title should be Specter or Spectre as there is only one of the blighters!). The film takes the classic method of slowly and tantalisingly revealing the creature scene by scene, i.e. firstly from the monsters line of sight, then a glimpse of its claws, then its eyes in the darkness, and so on. No complaints there. But at the finale, when it should be revealed in all its glory, it only gets a few seconds of screen time. In the dark. It leaves the viewer with no impression of what it looks like (unless you play around with the VCR controls). I suppose this approach hides any limitations in the SFX and make-up but it is a rum deal for a film that relies on its monster.

The ending itself is pitifully executed. It is rushed, involves no real confrontation with the beast and over in seconds. A character who could offer some explanation for the events makes an appearance only to be butchered instantly, whilst the main characters run around avoiding the scary cracks in the earth and the oh-so-frightening gusts of wind. The reasons why the beast haunted and abducted one specific character are also given no explanation either.

Now I shall mention some of the films good points (there are some thankfully) aside from the aforementioned Roman setting. The film briefly touches on the matter of whether history and artifacts should be the domain of private collectors or museums (or the dead!). The scene where Lasky shines his torch over a series of ‘emotionless' Roman statues to finally reveal … is impressive and invokes a sense of doom connected with a centuries dead civilisation. Finally, a character gets his head squelched against a wall (it was great!).