The Ghouls (2003) User Reviews

Midnight Meat Train, but with no budget and less talent.

[krachtm · 4/10 · 8 March 2013]

The plot: A parasitic bottom feeder stumbles into a horrific world, hidden inside the darkest alleys of the worst slums.

The Ghouls is basically a rehash of Clive Barker's 1984 short story Midnight Meat Train (which was adapted into a pretty good movie), but there are echoes of many other influences. Indeed, it seems to revel in making references to cult horror. Unfortunately, there really isn't all that much going on beneath the surface. This sort of story has been told many times. You get some despicable, scum of the Earth photographer/reporter, throw them in with a monster, compare and contrast, and then let the audience decide who's worse. Stephen King did it in The Night Flier, which used a vampire, and Clive Barker did it in The Midnight Meat Train, which used ghouls. I'm sure someone out there has done zombies or demons. Probably Poppy Z. Brite.

When I saw Trent Haaga and James Gunn were involved, I knew it was going to be low budget, but I didn't realize it was going to be quite THIS low budget. It was distracting at first, but I eventually got used to it. The directing, acting, and cinematography were all amateurish, but I guess I got used to that, too. The gore was actually kind of competent.

Unfortunately, much of the movie focuses on long, drawn-out scenes where nothing much happens, characters have repetitive flashbacks, or somebody ingests their drug of choice. I guess it sets the mood, but it's also a bit boring. Probably half of the movie feels like it's moody filler. Shaky, hand-held shots take up another chunk of the movie's runtime, as the film's protagonist is a cameraman. That doesn't leave a whole lot of runtime available to tell the story. Luckily, the story isn't really all that complicated.

In the end, the themes end up being more interesting than the story, and the gore effects maintain your interest more than anything else. If you're able to enjoy guerrilla filmmaking and indie horror, and you aren't looking for much more than a splatter movie with some interesting themes, then this movie can actually work for you. It's dark (metaphorically and literally), grim, and moody. However, it's also inept, amateurish, and kind of boring. It reminds me of Shatter Dead. If you found Shatter Dead exciting, different, and full of spirit, then you should give The Ghouls a try. If you hated Shatter Dead, then don't even think about trying to watch this.

low budget done right...

[purban · 5/10 · 1 April 2005]

I can't say enough for this movie. You can tell it's low budget, but it doesn't disappoint. The acting, cinematography, editing and the directing never strike a false note. How many films can you say that for? I rented this movie at Blockbuster, and even though I'm a horror fan, I have to say, Blockbuster has become a maven for low-budget bad horror films. And, for some reason, horror fans seem to accept less than other movie-going audiences would accept in terms of budget, plot, direction, cinematography and character (maybe because gore is a category in and of itself, as is being bad in all above mentioned categories). Anyway, this movie has it all...good character development (give the first 30 minutes time), good acting (dispicable characters that you somehow feel for), good editing (flawless, actually), good cinematography (wait for that alley car scene), a good script to unite it all and, to make it all come together, I have to give credit to the director. Really an excellent, although low-budget, horror film.

From a Zombie/Monster Movie Fan . . .

[RhunDraco · 3/10 · 13 March 2005]

To be fair, there was a lot of potential in the story. I am a major fan of zombie movies, and I thought that this was a zombie movie from how the description on the box read (I know, I know, never read those. I'm slowly learning that lesson). But, be warned, it is not a zombie film, and I feel that the box text and artwork suggested it was.

Trimmed down and streamlined, the story would have been much better. There was just too much focus on the negative aspects of the protagonist's personality. Half of the movie seemed to be invested in telling us that the guy is a slime-ball with major personal issues. Again, too much time devoted to this.

This movie had one of the worst, and by that I mean Bad, soundtracks that I have ever heard. The music did not enhance the story at all, it sabotaged the tension. Better music would have improved this film greatly. Plus, the inner dialog of the main character at some points was too faint, which I think would have been more effectively done as monologue.

The camera work was not horrible, and it had a live, COPS-like or Blair Witch style to it. Whether that is good or bad is up to the viewer. I found the bouncy, running-with-the-camera-pointing-at-the-ground shots to be disorienting and distracting. Plus, I do understand that it takes practice to understand placement and lighting for film, but this film was just too light. The atmosphere was truly hampered by this. The scenes that needed shadowy gloom simply did not have it.

Probably worst of all was that I felt no sympathy for or connection with the main character. If the director's intention was to show that cynical, apathetic, soulless people can sometimes decide to do good deeds for humanity without much motivation (despite some supposed life-changing revelations that were so clichéd I think that I actually moaned when I saw it), then he succeeded. I just found myself wishing for the movie to end so that I could do something else.

All in all, I believe that the director has a lot of potential, and this is just a stepping stone to greater projects. I could nitpick (I really, really could), but I won't. Just be wary. If you want to critique it as an example of low budget horror, then go ahead, but if you are looking to be entertained and feel that your time and money should not be spent on something amateur, avoid this film.

Bearded man smokes the ghouls out

[Dr. Gore · 11 March 2005]

*SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT*

Never before in the history of cinema has a bearded man smoked so many cigarettes. Even Silent Bob would be put to shame by how many cigarettes this guy sucks down. Every time he was on camera, (which was for most of the movie), I kept waiting for him to light up. I felt relief when he went for his lighter. First, he would suck the smoke back into his mouth and then blow it all out. Dude, let me tell you. This guy can smoke. Cigarettes and smoking is what "The Ghouls" is all about. This is what they knew how to film and they did it very well.

So our smoking, bearded hero is a ghoulish cameraman who likes to take pictures of death and destruction. He cruises through downtown L.A. and stumbles across some real ghouls. Seems the homeless like to chow down on whatever idiot happens to be around. Soon our hero must face the ghouls in a bloody showdown.

"The Ghouls" is a very low budget flick. It looks like something that was filmed with a bunch of friends over a couple of weekends. They found a few empty parking lots in L.A., scored some police and fire footage, smoked a lot of cigarettes and made a cheap horror flick. Most of "The Ghouls" is pretty predictable stuff although I did like the last twenty minutes. It was disturbing enough for me.

Overall, there's a feeling of sincerity that runs through this flick which stops me from taking a baseball bat to it. What I'm saying is, they tried. Can't say it was a total success but any movie with intestine eating and bloody entrails can't be all bad.

Scenes of Timothy Muskatell smoking are the highlight of this film.

[MBunge · 2/10 · 21 March 2011]

Instead of making this movie, writer/director Chad Ferrin could have saved himself a lot of trouble and just worn a big sandwich board around his neck and wrote on it "I have no idea what I'm doing". This is the sort of painfully cheap film that when characters try to walk across the street, they have to stop and let actual traffic go through the scene, so it's already got a couple strikes against it. The inept drudgery of Ferrin's storytelling adds another 87 strikes, sending The Ghouls not just down and out but deep into some nebulous underworld of sucky cinema.

Eric Hayes (Timothy Muskatell) is a drunk and a four-pack-a-day smoker trying to eak out a living as a freelance video cameraman. Now, it's immediately obvious when Ferrin wrote this script he had no idea how the TV news business works or what news cameramen actually do, so he basically casts Hayes as some kind of news paparazzo who wanders around Hollywood hoping to get good footage to sell to the highest bidder. That's not what happens in the real world. I know it's a little thing, but failing to do even the most rudimentary research on what he's writing about really symbolizes Ferrin's sloppy efforts here.

Anyway, in between obsessing over his ex-girlfriend and trying to sponge off everyone he meets, Hayes stumbles upon the story of a lifetime. He discovers the mean streets of Hollywood after dark have become the hunting ground for albino cannibals. Recruiting a fellow "news paparazzo" for help, Hayes sets out to get video of these ghouls. The rest of the tale is essentially just a bunch of bang-your-head-against-the-wall stupid stuff happening before an ending where it appears Ferrin is working out a grudge against a retarded cousin he never liked.

There's so much crap to go over with The Ghouls. At least 30% of the movie appears to be random footage that Ferrin shot in downtown LA at night and then edited together to make his script stretch out to 81 minutes. There's a series of flashbacks where Ferrin displays a clear nipple fetish. A character wears a wig for absolutely no reason. There are several points where Ferrin obviously finds Timothy Muskatell smoking to be the most fascinating image he's ever seen. Eric Hayes is portrayed as a worthless scumbag and he's the "hero" of the movie. There's a character who's supposed to have his skin ripped off but as Ferrin pans the camera across his crotch, you can unmistakably see the outline of the guy's genitals underneath the bodysuit he's wearing for the scene. He looks like one of those anatomically incorrect Ken dolls with tomato paste smeared over him. Again, I know that seems like a little thing, but all Ferrin had to do was pan the camera 5 inches higher or lower to avoid shattering the suspension of disbelief. Of course, to suspend your disbelief for longer than the first 48 seconds of this film, you'd have to be too drunk to walk.

The marketplace is flooded with cheap, cruddy horror flicks. However, The Ghouls is several rungs lower than the average cheap, cruddy horror flick. There's some bargain basement gore and violence without any genuine horror or shock. Ferrin makes albino cannibals as exciting as the slides from his grandparents' trip to the Grand Canyon.

Don't watch this. Even if you like cheap, cruddy horror flicks, don't watch this. Even if you've seen every other horror movie ever made, don't watch this. You'd be better off watching The Sound of Music on mute while listening to Black Sabbath.

Worst Thing Ever Stamped Outta Plastic

[davcrist-1 · 1/10 · 23 July 2006]

Zero! From just plan bad filming (it's called light) to filming yourself? Acting (did dadaist start making movies?) - This was the worst thing I've seen or heard. Take the worst thing you can imagine - you know, 3rd graders with Dad's camera make a spook movie! This little beauty make it look like the entire extended Coen family mated with the Coppalas to sire it. You'll find it in those places where movies are sold by covers. I found it at Blockbuster during my "see everything for 15 bucks" month. It is REMARKABLY bad thought. You should not pay for the priviage (out of priciple) - but there's so much to learn from enduring it! Gots 2 wonder where they find people to package crap like this? Also check out Chad's (Ferrin) other listings - they all seem to have glowing reports at IMDb - what's up there? Well I would have let it go but I saw Uwe got a 2 for "House Of The Dead" and next to this 4 rating that just seemed way too harsh.

I don't understand how this title wound up on the shelves at Blockbuster.

[velocitylady · 1/10 · 8 July 2006]

This is the worst movie I have ever paid to see. I love horror flicks, zombie movies in particular, but this wasn't bad in the good way, it was just bad. The cover for the DVD made it look pretty cool. I saw no creature like the one on the cover in the movie. The zombies were not scary at all. They danced about like the flying monkeys in the Wizard of Oz. The acting was abysmal. The periods without action were so tiresome that we ended up fast forwarding through the last half, stopping only to watch the ridiculous action sequences. The camera work was sloppy and you can tell that the equipment used was purchased on clearance from Mom and Pop store X a decade ago. Just look at the camera the reporter used to shoot his stuff! My aunt had one of those in 1991. This movie reminds me of the work of some kids flunking out of film school, or perhaps who are still in high school would do for fun. I am honestly surprised that ANY video store carries the title. They must not have watched it first.

ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE!!! COMPLETE CRAP

[lukem-52760 · 1/10 · 5 May 2019]

WHAT A TERRIBLE AMATEUR FILM that was!!!! Well it wasn't a film it was a cheap camcorder following a fat guy around who smokes alot & that's basically the film oh & a couple of hobos with abit of fake blood on their clothing jump out of an ally or something it was really one of the worst pointless wannabe movies I've seen EVER!!!

UTTER CRAP

Realistic feedback

[dibenga · 1/10 · 21 February 2006]

Bluntly , Chad Ferrin does not deserve the feedback, time, or thought for this movie. He is a 33 yr old who was done odd jobs as a production assistant on several 'productions' (AKA fetching coffee while a friend of a friend shoots bad student films) who has now found a taste of success with this film. I like to think it hasn't gone to his head and is humbled by it instead of hanging out in star-bucks in a black turtleneck with his nose in the air.(generalization cliché acknowledged)

It is not a good film, it is not original, clever, or insightful.

The dialog, acting, effects, plot , lighting, camera work are extremely amateur. It is a shame that Blockbuster tries and saves money by space-filing their shelves with this kind of cheaply obtained fare.

However , My utter disdain for this movie would be all but gone if I had caught a viewing of this as part of a series of student films projected in a local Indy theater. I would have laughed and cheered at the sheer silliness of it.

Don't waste your time with it. IT is not camp or classic simply because it is of poor quality. Just let Chad Ferrin drift into obscurity and hope in 20 years they aren't releasing a directors cut.

Powerful and insightful... rare in a zombie film....

[PhilosophicZombi · 7/10 · 14 June 2005]

First and foremost, the distributors fooled me. The box implied that this was a large scale zombie movie and that there would be a handful of survivors in a ravaged city. This was simply not the case. However instead of being angry as would generally be the case, I was taken aback. This movie is no zombie fest, but it was a very dark and thought provoking movie. I was pondering it long after the very odd and fitting credits rolled. Ghouls, is about a sleazy paparazzi reporter who makes his pseudo-living by filming scenes of crime, murder, and tragedy. The gruesome sights never bother him until he finds himself on the receiving end of the horror. Ghouls come in two varieties here: the flesh-eating type and the social type. There are some powerful themes running throughout this gem, largely about the media but also some other ideas, like smoking, identity and overall moral standings in our society. I had some trouble warming up to the "hero", but I realized we aren't meant to like him. You might pity him, sympathize with him, even feel concern for him, but you never truly like him. Much better than I would have expected, but this IS a thinking movie-goer's zombie film, action isn't the real point. If you're thinking about buying this solely to see scads of the undead, look elsewhere.

Zombie movie utterly without any value, scary or otherwise

[egeddes · 1/10 · 12 June 2005]

This movie was the biggest waste of money and arguably the worst movie I have ever seen. Not "worst" in the endearing Ed Wood sort of way but appallingly bad in ever respect. So bad, I resented the 50 cents or so the filmmakers will get out of my rental fee. When I came online to check out other comments and saw the rave review by one person I was more than astonished, or dumbstruck. I almost needed to turn off my computer, restart it and see if the review was still there. Name any element of a movie you can think of it and its bad here. The music reminds you of a bad '70s porno. The sound effects are almost as bad. The cinematography is so obviously reaching at "arty" but looks like the efforts of a guy thrown out of a junior high school photography class. The acting is beyond bad and the script is cringe inducing. The plot is full of convenient coincidences to cover up huge gaps in logic. The attempts at deep psychological meaning are puerile. I will agree with one thing though, the Down's Sydrome guy was good, in fact, when he steals Eric's camera it is about the only good scene in the whole movie.

I cannot see how anyone can have had any experience with even run of the mill zombie movies to say this scared the s**t out of them. It was boring and tedious and a complete waste of time and money. Warning to others – don't even bother watching it for free.

Brutal at times but mostly well worth watching.

[stormruston · 8/10 · 31 March 2006]

This is the best amateur effort I have watched in a very long time. It is not great, but it is very good for what it is...some stock footage of fires/crimes.. news reel stuff ..to open up on a very interesting story and a few ugly characters.This is low budget , but the stabbing scene was horrific and strong, as was the "rape" that turned out to be cannibalism. WOW.

All the Characters are unappealing and the zombies , tho not the worse I have seen , are not too believable. This does not mean it was poorly acted, it is not, and I was quickly drawn into this quirky movie.

It is not for everyone, movies like this never are, but if you tolerate average filming, interesting characters, and some disturbing scenes of violence and a simple but cool story line, give this a try, what is 3.00 bucks for a rental anyways? If you do not like it, turn it off. Personally, I was impressed with this low budget effort.

Not zombies but there's enough zombie flicks anyway

[Whitetygrr · 6/10 · 2 March 2013]

Yea so apparently the DVD case has misled viewers into expecting yet another living dead infected bloodbath filled with gore as we have seen many times on land sea and air and has left the viewers unsatisfied with what they saw. I saw this on crackle....for free...I don't remember exactly what the description was but I didn't let that effect my opinion. The movie is obviously very low budget however that seems to add something to finished product which is not another simple zombie attack but an insight on the lower class types and their lifestyles in the city......with some flesh eating ghouls thrown in. I was entertained.

Swing and a miss

[rave_rd · 2/10 · 22 June 2005]

A lot of attention has apparently been drawn to THE GHOULS thanks to its decent showings at horror festivals; truly the reason that I picked up a copy from blockbuster. Being an indie film maker myself I love watching other work to see what's going on out there, and I'm truly a sucker for "zombie" movies. Kudos to Ferrin on getting this distributed (truly a near-impossible feat) but after watching it, I kind of wonder why.

The story itself had a promising opening, an abnormal hero with an (hopefully) abnormal profession. It created a picture of a believable/real man in Los Angeles who stumbles across something extraordinary. The acting, albeit very flat, was not horrible...but truly needed to be a lot stronger to save the plot...

Now the problem, it seems to me at least, would be that the plot proceeded in a fairly straight-forward...dare I say tiresome/old manner. There were few surprises (if any) and I found myself not paying attention to the story or the characters and more towards the technical follies of the film:

1) SOUND- THE GHOULS should prove to everyone why you need to actually pay attention to sound...I can hope that it was just the copy I rented, but in all honesty after being to most of the festivals around here I'm thinking it was just that bad... 2) CONTINUITY- I loved watching our hero's car window go up and down between shots. 3) SHADOWPLAY- This would be a great THE GHOULS drinking game: "Drink every time you see a crew-members shadow!" 4) SHOT CHOICE- Hey guess what? You can actually tell when you're shooting through a windshield and when you're not...might want to deal with that one next time...And I think Mr. F may need to take a look at the purpose of an establishing shot in a good old film text book before we get another 10 seconds of traveling car...before the car is in the shot.

THE GHOULS did have a few bright spots: The makeup/gore was quite good (particularly near the end), the dialog had a few bright spots and some of the actors genuinely seemed to belong there.

In conclusion...if you've ever wanted to make a movie rent this one and it shows you what you could do with DV....or watch 28 Days Later (shot on the XL1 series of cameras) to see what digital can do with a horror film

Effective and scary DV horror!!

[avjoe · 12 December 2003]

THE GHOULS review

It's hard to fully immerse yourself in the latest low budget trend of DV filmmaking. Unless painstaking measures are taken to mimic the cinematic conventions of film, like depth of field and the crispness of the image, one can easily lose focus on the story and be distracted by the the quality of the picture, which is more along the lines of a cop corralling a perp or a father getting kicked in the balls by his kid. However, Chad Ferrin's latest offering (I saw his first film UNSPEAKABLE at Sundance in 2000) uses the DV format not in an aesthetic gimmick (like BLAIR WITCH) but to further the dread and grit of his subject matter...for what it's worth I was appalled and enthralled...and it scared the shit out of me.

THE GHOULS follows a down-on-his-luck video muckraker (Ferrin sets up the main characters moral decent in a shocking prelude that will be a true litmus test for any viewer...not giving anything away but if you can survive the opening moments, you're in for a ride) as he prowls the streets, a stringer looking for a lead to both pay the bills and support his crank habit. To be frank, our protagonist Eric (Timothy Muskatell) is a piece of s**t that Travis Bickle would scoff at; We see him drown his sorrows in drink after coercing a man to murder while he shoots the "exclusive" footage, moments before the cops burst in. Yet with the over-saturation of media bloodhounds also scanning the street looking for a good lead and a juicy shot to sell, our hero is mostly plopped in a bar booth, killing brain cells and wallowing in his inner pain.

Nice horror in-joke: Cast as the TV news producer who sometimes buys Eric's footage but mostly berates our hero, Joe (DAY OF THE DEAD) Pilato is in fine form and, with Ferrin being an obvious Romero fan, gives the actor great lines and exploits Pilato's ability to make the word "fuck" seem evil again, like it was when you weren't allowed to say it in public when you were a kid.

However, things change suddenly as Eric drives into the depths of Downtown L.A. one lonely Christmas eve, where he stumbles upon a gruesome, cannibalistic murder that happens right before his eyes in an alleyway, and from here the film goes full tilt boogie. Using his camera and the help of another video freelancer/"vulture" (Trent Haaga, who is by and large one of the best actors in the low-budget horror scene right now and used effectively as both comic relief and the "young sage competition" cliche), Eric returns to the scene of the crime to hopefully capture another murder, which could be the shoot of his career, but of course, like every good horror film, our hero is pulled into the darkness...and comes face to face with THE GHOULS, and himself.

Honestly, I don't want to give anything else away mainly because when I was watching this, it was hard to take in, especially since the main character is so unlikable. But as the plot progresses he is faced with strange phone calls at night, bodies piling up around him as well as his own demons. Plus, the film boasts the most disturbing performance from a Down's Syndrome actor EVER.

On that note, along with Pilato mentioned before, all of the performances are effective in a low-key way. There is little "acting" here, mostly reacting and silence that says so much. Haaga is great as the "sidekick" but doesn't use the usual trappings to illicit a laugh; rather he serves as a humorous light is the depths of scum that surround this film

The film, shot on digital video, looks very good for it's limitations, and Ferrin knows where the camera needs to go to feel "real", and once the film gets into gear I never once got taken out of it because of the medium. However, the sound design and the sets, for example the ghoul's lair and the cavernous pipelines and sewer systems, are AMAZING, especially after finding out there were mostly created and not found locations! The sound effects, which most filmmakers either take for granted with "scare stings" or neglect all together, make this film SCARY. The makeup effects are also effective and are a notch above TROMA quality but Ferrin is not afraid of a little splatter (thank god).

I wish i could say something negative to balance out this review but I was very happily surprised with this. When I heard Ferrin was doing a digital feature, I was dismayed because I tend to not have the ability to enjoy a film on video unless it has an obvious contextual reason. Yet THE GHOULS inspired me to say "fuck film" and tell a story with whatever you have available, and Ferrin scares and disturbs with great style.

Crap or Artsy? Um probably the former

[zoompook · 4/10 · 4 June 2005]

Although this movie might have been a lot better with a real budget, it suffered from a lack of cash, original subject matter, decent acting and a real storyline. The story had a lot of promise but just never got going, the ending was a little pathetic. The box cover is much better than the movie itself. Zombies in makeup, bandanas and pillows for hunchbacks. Seems like it was shot on video, horrible sound editing. I haven't seen this producers other flicks which also got similarly high ratings but for myself, this movie was a dud. It did have one somewhat gruesome and scary moment in it but that wasn't enough to redeem the movie unfortunately. I'm surprised I found this flick at blockbuster though, they usually edit out the gore, as if they think they are doing us a favour!

Ghoulishly bad

[TheLittleSongbird · 2/10 · 13 September 2015]

From the very cool and quite freaky DVD cover and the intriguing ideas and themes, The Ghouls really did have potential to be good. Unfortunately it was just a very messy movie where the low budget very badly hurt it.

The best thing about The Ghoul is the performance of Timothy Muskatell in the lead role. It is not a perfect or great performance by all means, the character is somewhat of a despicable one and Muskatell does fail to bring any empathy or humanity to him and there are a couple of times where he does play hard-nosed a bit too low-key. The good news about the performance though is that it is a commanding and brooding performance with a good deal of assurance and intensity, managing to bring some watchability to the movie. Joseph Pilato also brings some gravitas but isn't used enough to shine properly. The rest of the acting is very amateurish, being so low-key that there doesn't seem to be any acting going on, and the stock and unsubtly one –dimensional characterisation and incredibly stilted dialogue disadvantage them further.

What stuck out as particularly bad with The Ghouls was the production values, or lack of, it was made on a very low-budget and it shows through painfully. The sets are basically parking lots and dimly lit sparse rooms, and the continuous shaky camera work not only is distracting in how dizzy it makes one feel, it makes it hard to work out what's going on. A lot of it feels like very random footage hurriedly edited together with little care or coherence. The very poorly recorded (very muddied) music is jarring in style and really distracts from the mood, even overwhelming the dialogue at times. The story had some interesting themes and ideas but unfortunately little is done with them, parts are mentioned and then skipped over or things are under-explained which makes it not an easy movie to follow sometimes, and it drags badly constantly with too long being spent on less-important or irrelevant scenes.

The Ghouls doesn't succeed as a fun or scary movie either, it's too tedious and too bleak to be fun (taking the seediness to extremes with gratuitous nudity and even cheaper-looking gore, and the harrowing images and horror elements are so in your face, at times too random in placement and done with the subtlety of a sledgehammer that it becomes too much after a while) and the dull pacing and low-budget severely hurt the atmosphere. The titular creatures similarly make no impression, they are not used anywhere near enough and are poorly made-up, looking more goofy than menacing, also exuding no personality let down a sense of threat.

All in all, despite the DVD cover/case and the ideas it had, The Ghouls is a ghoulishly bad movie with Muskatell's performance being the only thing that it has going for it. Some might like it, but this did nothing for me. 2/10 Bethany Cox

Late Night in the City

[jfgibson73 · 4/10 · 6 July 2010]

The Ghouls is a shot on video horror film about a man who freelances for local news stations. He drives around at night and films whatever terrible things he can find, then sells the footage. We see that this life is taking its toll on him, but we don't learn until later just how far he has gone.

I was lucky to discover this movie without knowing much about it. I can understand how some of the reviewers who saw the DVD box at the store would feel misled. This movie was done on a very small budget, and the horror element (in this case, zombie-like creatures) does not play as big a role as some may have hoped. It is more about this man's torment. He is barely making a living, he witnesses the worst things that go on, he can't keep a relationship, and he has zero respect from his peers or employers. Even the paparazzi don't have this bad an image.

When the cameraman happens to stumble on a woman being attacked by the sewer dwelling creatures, he sees it as his big chance to capture an exclusive. Supposedly, footage of one of the attacks will lead to a big payday and a better life. He tries to get his ex-girlfriend involved, but we find out she wants nothing to do with him: she discovered a tape he made of two children trapped in a fire. He continued filming but did nothing to help them.

Eventually, while trying to find the creature again, his camera is stolen by a mentally challenged man who uses it to record a murder. The man gets his camera back and the footage left by the special needs killer makes him a success.

For me, the movie was successful at creating an atmosphere. The scenes of L.A. at night felt more realistic to me because it was shot digitally. The soundtrack, which was full of ambient noise and some sort of freaked-out jazz, helped the mood along. There isn't much gore because that isn't the point. It's more about what a bottom-dweller this guy has become. I would compare it to the Tony Curtis movie The Sweet Smell of Success. It might not be as well made, but for me, it was just as effective at transporting me into the life of a man who makes his living off of other people's misery.

poor very poor

[david-frenchasco · 1/10 · 10 August 2007]

Cannibal dead,yes it sounds a interesting title for a horror fan until you sit down and watch this movie,it was not good at any point in this film,time should of been taken out to re-think the plot and action.as we all know making a movie isn't about how much money you have to start,i'e evil dead was a low budget movie and look how that turned out,that was a classic,this pales and falls so short.

yes the movie has some gore,but blood and guts on a film doesn't always make it good.i would like to say something good about this movie but i would be fooling you all if i did so.

horror fans don't waste your money on this film.

the worst movie i have ever seen.

[braden424157 · 1/10 · 14 January 2007]

Who in the world was able to view this horrid mess and walk away from the TV satisfied? This movie sickened me. i didn't think it possible to make a movie worse than the Death Tunnel, but i was wrong. I want my 5 bucks back. I knew it wasn't going to be Oscar worthy (it's shot on digital camera) but i didn't expect it to be the most atrocious thing ever to assault my eyeballs! This film has no likable characters, a paper thin plot and s***ty effects. The director (who should be jailed for making this train wreck) had to sell his car in order to get the 25 bucks it took to make the film. i'm not making that up. a 0 out of 10. and i thought Ulli Lommells Green River Killer was bad

this moonshine mental, membrane-slinging murder movie is the snuff of low budget legend!!!

[Weirdling_Wolf · 7/10 · 6 February 2022]

Independent fear-maker Chad Ferrin's, low-fi, high die, superlatively-splattery, gut-swingingly grisly subterranean snuff sensation 'Cannibal Dead: The Ghouls' is certainly not for sensitive Sally's, timorous Timothy's, or the frequently faint of fart! Something far worse than a City Load of septic sewage fulminates evilly beneath the mean streets of L. A. And preternaturally perverse paparazzi Eric Hayes (Timothy Muskatell) shall certainly grue the day he deigned to opportunistically film these deranged denizens of the dark that cavort cannibalistically upon the ferociously flayed flesh of all those who foolhardily descend into their diabolically dank domain! Old school ghouls, sinister splatter mad-hatters, gruesome gore gourmands, morbidly-minded morgue maniacs, grisly graveyard gawpers, and brain-dead zombie freaks will dig gravely upon the gloriously ghoulish, salaciously sick-headed shenanigans of Ferrin's locomotively lurid, voluptuously visceral, deliriously dismembering blood feast! Like Gorefather H. G Lewis hungrily buzzed on high grade hydroponic hemp, this moonshine mental, membrane-slinging murder movie is the snuff of low budget legend!!!

This is not a zombie

[PacManSTL · 1/10 · 28 July 2007]

!SPOILER ALERT!

This movie is about a lowlife who scrapes a living by filming crimes and tragedies to sell to television stations. One night he witnesses what he thinks to be a rape, only to find out that the would be rapers are eating the woman alive. After narrowly escaping, he goes in search of these deformed men. A homeless man tells him that they are 'ghouls,' and he tracks them down in the sewers. He shoots a bunch of them, and gains a different perspective on life. Then it finally ends. If this movie had a study of this character, it may have been interesting. It wasn't. The DVD case purported zombies emerging from below the streets and eating people. These creatures, while they had some sort of problem, were not zombies. 1. They were not the undead. 2. They could be killed in other ways other than having their brains damaged (being shot in the chest.) 3. They were not infectious. These creatures may have been mentally ill, or possessed. Who knows? They weren't zombies. The DVD case outright lied. I expected a run of the mill bad zombie movie when renting this. What i got is a run of the mill bad movie WITHOUT zombies. I was disappointed.

Chad Ferrin does it again

[justinc79 · 10/10 · 1 December 2003]

After his debut film, Unspeakable, Chad Ferrin has returned with a film that's much less shocking, but definately more effective: The Ghouls. Following an interview I did with Chad Ferrin, he sent me a review screener of The Ghouls, which is one of the most original horror films I've seen in recent years.

The Ghouls stars Timothy Muskatell(who also was featured in Unspeakable) as Eric Hayes, a "stringer": one who videotapes various police chases, amubulance runs, and random street violence and sells their tapes to the highest bidders. After a falling out with a local news broadcaster(played by Joe Pilato from Day of the Dead), missing out on a big police chase, and unsuccessfully trying to reclaim his love interest(Tina Birchfield), Hayes solves his problems with glass after glass of alcohol. On his way home, he sees a couple of bums who look like their about to rape a young woman. He follows them into an alley with his camera running, shocked to discover that they weren't bums at all, but flesh eating ghouls who have torn the woman apart. Narrowly escaping them, Eric flees to take the news office, only to discover in his drunken stupor, he had forgotten to put a tape in the camera.

Determined to find out what he saw, he enlists the help of another stringer named Cliff(Trent Haaga). Each armed with a gun and their cameras, they head out into the streets to investigate and find out what these ghouls really are. But when Eric gets the footage he desires, he's also lead to realize what kind of horrible things he's documented and how dispicable he is by doing so. However, maybe he can use his talents for good by warning the public of what is lurking in their streets... if only he can get the footage.

The Ghouls is a horror film that features a great cast, with many familiar faces to Troma fans (Troma released Ferrin's aformentioned first film, the shocking and overly disturbing Unspeakable). Besides the aforementioned cast members, James Gunn, Stephen Blackehart, and Tiffany Shepis also appear in the film. Though being shot on MiniDV, it does not distract the viewer from the film and actually fits it better, due to the film regarding someone who videotapes violence. The gore and other special effects are top notch and there's not really too many negative aspects about the film.

If you'd like to see a film that gives an original edge to modern horror films, check out The Ghouls when it finally makes it's way to your local video store.

Extremely Gruesome Low Budget Perspective

[pete1-2 · 6/10 · 25 June 2009]

The stylishly produced zombie face on the DVD box fooled many viewers into thinking this ghoul fest would be a polished production. After about 30 seconds one can see that this is not the case. This movie feels like a student project on a 100 dollar budget at times. Also there truly is no hero to cheer for and that bugs the hell out of some folks here. The producers of this movie definitely cut against the grain of typical films of this genre by giving our main protagonist the personality of a scoundrel. His motivation was clearly based on his own personal greedy ambition to be famous & rich. I loved the originality here & I was thoroughly engaged by the story. However the dialogue & acting was dreadful at times & the pacing & editing needed much more work. But overall the handy cam view point feel worked for me, poor sound & lighting included. The soundtrack was bizarre but it fit the mood of this movie. Unlike the bigger budget variety of zombie flick this movie was not predictable and I liked the sleazy city & sewer settings. Curiously all the movie props looked like they were from the late seventies right from the cars to the rotary dial phones to the huge video camera our schmuck reporter was dragging around. I'm not sure what time frame this film is supposed to take place in. Overall the suspense was good and the ending was satisfying. The downs syndrome punk really cracked me up with his Robert Deniro " Taxi Driver " impression. That was classic stuff. If you want something original that will stick in your head long after you watch it, this movie is it. You may love or you may hate this video but I bet you won't easily forget it! "Are you talking to me cuz I don't see anyone else here!" LOL

A Perfectly Fitting Movie For A Perfectly Awful Day

[Large_Soda · 1/10 · 27 July 2005]

My Tuesday started off like most, wake up, shower, eat a balanced breakfast and head to work. My day was somewhat routine, no ups or downs, just......typical. I left work a little stressed and while driving home, I got a flat tire and was forced into 30 minutes of extra work that I had not intended. I got home late, and then attempted to wind down. What would I do? Watch some TV? Eat a snack and take a nap? "Hey man, do you wanna watch this movie, The Ghouls?" my roommate asked. "Hmmmmmmmm" I thought, this could be a pretty good idea.

Man was I right! I quickly forgot about the ills of my day quite quickly as I was cast into a world of depravity and horrible film-making. I was blown away at all the talent bursting from the seems in this picture, from the A+ acting, to the directing, most likely helmed by a retarded 7 year old, or the inane pacing that made my life feel so much better than anyone else's associated with this movie.

It's a really comforting feeling to seek satisfaction through the misfortune of others. Kind of like watching someone fall and spill their drink on themselves. This movie was like watching a really arrogant skate boarding teen brag to his friends about the 720 he's sure to pull off, only to break his face on the unforgiving pavement.

I cherish the thought that I may ever get the chance to meet the makers of this film, perhaps at a low caliber festival they are sure to play, so I get the opportunity to belittle their amateur efforts. Hey I'll even make my own festival and fly them right to me just for that chance.

You remember when you were a child and you wanted to do something that your Father said you weren't old enough for, like hold your new baby cousin, or help carve the Thanksgiving turkey? All to spare you the obvious misfortune of failing. Well Father Filmmaker should have told everyone involved that "You are not old enough, mature enough, competent enough or talented enough to make this movie". The childish filmmakers would have sighed "Awwwwwww but I want to!" and then stomped their feet as they left the room. But it would have spared them the massive rejection that they must be feeling now.

If I had tried to ride a bike for the first time and bailed as badly as this, I surely would have learned to jump rope instead. Makers of The Ghouls: Please for the love of anything decent and proper; seek another form of employment, because you will only get hurt if you continue. Film-making doesn't like you.