Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:58:11 AM
713397 Posts in 53059 Topics by 7725 Members
Latest Member: wibwao
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  GHOULIES/GHOULIES II: Another fine release from MGM « previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: GHOULIES/GHOULIES II: Another fine release from MGM  (Read 1817 times)
Chris K.
Guest
« on: September 06, 2003, 01:11:15 AM »

GHOULIES Plot: Jonathan Graves inherits a mansion and discovers that it was used for black magic. He then decides to try it out and brings some evil creatures to help him out. But his long dead father returns to take claim of his pet creatures and his son.

GHOULIES II Plot: The evil creatures have become comical goofs as they hide out in a run down Horror Show in a carnival. Carnage and mayhem spread abound, while the creatures laugh it all up.

I have a soft spot for GHOULIES: I think it's a nicely made little feature. I grew up watching this film and to this day I still enjoy it. I have fond memories of watching this movie in my garage with my friends, and we all had a great time. When I watched GREMLINS after GHOULIES, I still felt that GHOULIES was alot better than GREMLINS.

And I must say that most critics out there are quite wrong about the film being a GREMLINS rip-off. However, the backstory of how GHOULIES came about is interesting. When producer Charlie Band made PARASITE in 1982, Band came up with the idea to make a film called "Beasties", which would be about gremlin-like creatures conjured up via black magic. Band told effects artist Stan Winson, who was doing the effects work on PARASITE, and both planned to collaborate together to make the film. Yet, both ended up splitting up and going their own ways. Then in 1984, Band teamed up with effects artist John Carl Buechler and Luca Bercovici (who also played a role in PARASITE) to make "Beasties" for Band's early film company Empire Pictures. At the same time, Stan Winston and screenwriter Chris Collumbus were working on the Joe Dante film GREMLINS. One wonders if it was Winston who stole Band's original idea and if so, we now know who the real theif is.

Even so, for a so-called GREMLINS rip-off Band's film was able to become a box office success as it earned a $32 million gross in it's 1985 theatrical screening. Considering the other successful Charlie Band/Empire Pictures films produced and distributed during that year (i.e., TRANCERS, RE-ANIMATOR), GHOULIES must have been a revelation for Band. And quite honestly, I still feel that GHOULES really deserved that $32 million bucks. The film doesn't pretend to be a low budget film trying to disguise itself as being a grand film. Rather, the film seem's to come across as quite honest with itself and reveals that yes, it's a low budget film. But then, do you go to the movies because of a film's budget? No, you go to the movies to be entertained. And thus, GHOULIES does manage to entertain. And to top it off, GHOULIES spends more time focusing on the main characters rather than the gremlin-like creatures. This comes across as a good move on Band's part: if the film ended up focusing on the mischevious creatures and very little on the characters like GREMLINS did, then GHOULIES would have really come across as a GREMLINS rip-off than one would imagine! More than that, apparently their was an additional 15-20 minutes that had some additional character development and more sequences involving the creatures. The 15-20 minute footage has appeared on the syndicated television release (and taken from an obvious 35mm workprint and rough cut material), and while the additional character development gave more depth to the film, it also contained way too much sequences involving the creatures. Removing most of the creatures screen time was a wise move on Band's behalf, yet it was a mistake to take out the main character development angles that would have made the final cut of GHOULIES better. Yet, GHOULIES still isn't a total loss as the acting is not bad, Mac Ahlberg's camerawork is good, John Carl Buechler's creatures are nicely done, and the music of Richard Band and Shirley Walker is memorable (I might add that most of Richard Band's musical cues would also show up in THE ALCHEMIST, another Empire Pictures film from Charlie Band who directed the film as 'James Amante').

GHOULIES II, on the other hand, does focus more on the creatures and less on the characters. This might be a good thing to those who were disappointed by the small appearences of the monsters in the first film, but then it doesn't help as much. The first film played itself straight, now the sequel pretty much is played for a laugh. The results are okay, but not very effective. Dennis Paoli, co-writer of RE-ANIMATOR, delivers a less appealing script that doesn't dwell into any background details. The only thing the script does is focus on the creatures dark-humored comic motifs, which is fun to see. Now if only the execution would have paied off more.

But again, their are some suprising upsides to GHOULIES II. The creatures, created once again by John Carl Buechler, are pretty good. In fact, they are better designed than they were in the first film as they are given more detail. And for an added bonus, we get to see some of them in stop-motion animation form brought to life by David Allen. Damon Martin, Royal Dano and Phil Fondacaro deliver good performances, but agin if only Dennis Paoli would have given us more info on these characters it would have been so much better, while Fuzzbee Morse's music is quite catchy, if not overly sporadic (Morse's score would also show up in GHOST TOWN, another Empire Pictures produced film). And to be honest, when I saw GHOULIES II on video years ago I wasn't to impressed. Now after all those years, my opinion has changed a bit. But still, GHOULIES is far better than GHOULIES II.

MGM presents GHOULES and GHOULIES II in their Original Theatrical Aspect Ratio of 1.85:1, enhanced for 16x9 widescreen televisions. MGM's presentation of the two film's are alot better than their olf Vestron Video releases. Vestron's release of GHOULIES was not too bad, but their transfer was quite dark and annoying reel change marks were abundant on the print; MGM's release of GHOULIES has better color, a bit brighter and less grain saturation. Vestron's GHOULIES II had a faded color palate transfer and was too flat; MGM fixes all that as the color is vibrant and the dark scenes are more visible to the viewer. Kudos MGM for delivering a great transfer of two underrated films.

GHOULIES is presented in it's original Mono soundtrack. First off, I have to give a big thanks to MGM for this solid Mono soundtrack. The old Vestron Video release had a terribly muffiled soundtrack: you had to crank up the volume real loud to hear the dialouge and music, and even then it was terribly distorted. MGM's Mono soundtrack is 10 times better than before: I can finally hear the music and the dialouge for the first time! GHOULIES II is also presented in it's original Stereo Surround track. The old Vestron Video release was in flat Mono; MGM is able to present the film in it's original Ultra-Stereo track for the first time ever since it's theatrical release. But unfortunately, it's a disappointment. I can hear the dialouge and music quite well through the front speakers, but the sound comes across as distorted and hissy when hearing it from the back speakers! Certainly MGM could have fixed this problem a bit, but then this film is part of their back catalouge and it seems that no huge sound restoration was in order. Overall, a so-so sound transfer that's not too big of a deal.

Extras are space: only the theatrical trailers for both films are presented. MGM could have at least gone all the way and presented the 15-20 minutes of deleated footage that was used in the syndicated television release. And, MGM could have gotten a video interview with Charlie Band as he would have explained his case about how the original idea for the first film came about. But then, the Empire Pictures films are just a back catalouge for MGM and nothing else. It's sad, but as long as MGM is releasing the films in their original aspect ratio and presenting the original trailers then it's okay.

Overall, GHOULIES is a fun little film while GHOULIES II tries to be a GREMLINS knock-off. And honestly, GHOULIES is a lot better than either GREMLINS or GHOULIES II.
Logged
StatCat
Guest
« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2003, 11:56:30 AM »

The first ghoulies to me was a bit boring and I always prefered the second. The 2nd was just fun overall while the first concentrated on the story more. Personally I'd go for the 2nd just because it has what I came to see monsters wreaking havoc and I liked the carnival setting. There's a 3rd and 4th one also which are utterly horrendous. I actually orded this dvd from deep discount dvd recently, received it in the mail yesterday but the box was empty and it only had an invoice. Someone must've have stolen it out at some point in the mailing. Had to request another one which is a bummer because I'll have to wait a bit before I can actually see them again. First time that's ever happened to me out of at least 30+ orders over time.
Logged
mike
Guest
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2003, 01:09:27 PM »

dammit, last night I did a review of Ghoulies 2 because it was on Space at around 2am. I thought that movie was so funny, and they did such a good job on the muppets...er...Ghoulies. You could tell so bad that they were puppets...except at the one part when it shows them walking, they're quite obviously claymation. Well, nothing will ever be as bad as Teenage Caveman. A movie that makes Zaat look like a classic. Bye Bye.
Logged
Mofo Rising
Global Moderator
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 460
Posts: 3222


My cat can eat a whole watermelon!


WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2012, 03:51:21 AM »

Bringing up this old thread to talk about Ghoulies, mostly because the write-up by Chris K. is loaded with information.

I disagree with his assessment, I thought Ghoulies was terrible. Somehow I avoided ever watching this movie, even though the cover is a classic from the old days of VHS video stores. It's currently available streaming on Netflix, and at 81 minutes I decided to give it a whirl.

This movie confused me because I didn't understand it's purpose. Are we meant to be scared? Is it supposed to be funny? Did somebody think this would be entertaining?

Well, it's kind of entertaining. Entertaining if you have a high tolerance for '80s cheese, which I do. It has all the tropes of low-budget '80s horror used to ill effect. The story is basically a really, really dumbed down version of "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward" with some terrible puppets, a couple of incredibly small midgets, and Jack Nance for some reason.

The bizzaro factor was probably my favorite part of the film, because it really is very strange. Unfortunately, the majority of the film focuses on the main character's forays into the occult. This mainly consists of the terrible lead standing in his basement and shouting at the Ghoulie puppets while lights flash in the background. Kind of boring, unless you're fascinated with overacting.

The backstory Chris K. brought up kind of explains the film. This was a more kid-oriented affair until it was rewritten to "appeal" to teenagers. I guess this did wonders for Charles Band's career, for better or worse. That guy really has an inordinate fascination with puppets.

Okay, I didn't hate it, I got what I expected out of the movie, so I can rate it 3 out of 5 stars. In my personal rating system, that means I'm ambivalent about the film. It's terrible, but I didn't not like it, so take that how you will.

One major pitfall for me, the much vaunted toilet scene is one small shot in the entire film and isn't used to any effect whatsoever. The sequel made better use of the idea, a movie I've only seen bits and pieces of. I have seen the entirety of Ghoulies III: Ghoulies Go to College, but I honestly have almost no recollection of anything that happened in that movie.

So... check it out? I guess?
Logged

Every dead body that is not exterminated becomes one of them. It gets up and kills. The people it kills, get up and kill.
Andrew
Administrator
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 0
Posts: 8457


I know where my towel is.


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2012, 09:22:38 AM »

I haven't watched this in a few years, but the awkward story is also stuck in my memory.  A number of Band's films display (sometimes suffer) from this - they're just all over the board.  Hard to tell if the effect is intentional, but I'm willing to bet that it's not.  It just happens to be a byproduct of both the direction and the editing applied. 

The sequels are the normal rule of diminishing returns in my book.  They didn't have the same weirdness factor, and were just massive displays of sophomoric horror and humor.  That sort of stuff just doesn't work for me.  One of the reasons I find the "Gingerdead Man" movies so painful.
Logged

Andrew Borntreger
Badmovies.org
tahrgat
The Black Swordsman
Dedicated Viewer
**

Karma: 5
Posts: 45



WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2012, 11:03:47 AM »

Charles Band just produced this so you really can't lay the blame on him. That would be like blaming Sam Raimi for Priest or 30 Days of Night. I can respect Band because he is always willing to take risks on almost everything he produces with little pay off most of the time.
Logged

My current project: The Dead Are Watching
Mofo Rising
Global Moderator
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 460
Posts: 3222


My cat can eat a whole watermelon!


WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2012, 04:52:14 AM »

Charles Band just produced this so you really can't lay the blame on him. That would be like blaming Sam Raimi for Priest or 30 Days of Night. I can respect Band because he is always willing to take risks on almost everything he produces with little pay off most of the time.

I didn't notice that. I was caught up in the stories about the pre-production. So Charles Band's baby that he didn't actually direct.

Don't get me wrong, I'm something of a fan of Band. His later production company Full Moon Studios was a major driving force in the budding direct-to-video revolution of the '90s. That company was really ahead of the curve and fostered a lot of goodwill by including makings-of and previews after the movie on their video releases. Now it's de rigeur on every DVD release. It was inclusive fun for those Full Moon movies, even if I didn't think most of them were very good. It reminds me of early Sierra computer games, where if you registered the games they would send you their free magazine. Just great communication between the company and the end user.

That being said, Charles Band really does have an inordinate fondness for puppets.
Logged

Every dead body that is not exterminated becomes one of them. It gets up and kills. The people it kills, get up and kill.
tahrgat
The Black Swordsman
Dedicated Viewer
**

Karma: 5
Posts: 45



WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2012, 12:06:07 PM »

That being said, Charles Band really does have an inordinate fondness for puppets.

Yeah, you should see his private multifunctional doll collection from Japan... But in all seriousness I'm kinda happy he does. Nobody else seems to be using the puppet angle.
Logged

My current project: The Dead Are Watching
Pages: [1]
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  GHOULIES/GHOULIES II: Another fine release from MGM « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.