My first thought as the opening scene greeted my eyes: "I hope this is part of the introduction for a belated studio logo, and not the beginning of the movie. Oh. It's the beginning of the movie." My second thought, during the sequence that followed: "Jazz hands!"
I'm not sure if the problem is a lack of all subtlety, nuance, and tact, or an active abjuration of it. The dialogue, scene writing, and characters all immediately inspire a bewildered, skeptical "what?" - and much of the plot is scarcely a step behind. Narrative focal point Jennifer, for example, is a stereotypical American girl who inquires about shopping opportunities during a tarot reading, but then is peculiarly accepting of everything she's told as the story advances. The editing, cinematography, direction, and much of the acting readily seem similarly overcooked, bereft of any delicate hand (though some instances of acting are just simply underwhelming, instead). While the blood, gore, creature design, makeup, and costume design all mostly look great, if a little too self-indulgent - and practical effects, too! - on the other hand, any computer-generated imagery is pretty much an eyesore, less than seamless with the rest of the feature. Ah, and of course the story is rather predictable.
In fairness, 'Ghouls' is a TV movie, and it unquestionably looks and feels like it. Where else could William Atherton look so pained in a production, as though by participating in each scene he was losing his soul, while at the same time James DeBello has the appearance of trying so hard to act (and failing) that he might give himself an aneurysm or sprain a muscle? The feature sits at the intersection of horror and dark fantasy, with the familiar thrust of an innocent unwittingly being thrust into extraordinary circumstances of which they are somehow the keystone. Save for the heightened blood, gore, and otherwise violence, this wouldn't feel out of place airing on NBC instead of the Sci Fi Channel (now SyFy) where it premiered. The intent was nothing more than to have some genre fun in a particular medium, and for all the bluntness, that aim was achieved - this isn't half bad, actually. I had a good time watching. Only, by golly, I wish there were more mindful care applied in any regard, or that all involved were allowed to wholly lean into the darkness and the best potential.
Though it's nothing remarkable (just standard genre fare), I like Alan Howarth's original score; I'm less enthused about the bursts of rock music that pop up at a couple points, and at the end credits. Though it's perhaps not saying much, I think the cast (including recognizable names and faces) make the most of the material and direction they have to work with; I'd like to think that under other circumstances, in a different movie, they'd make a better impression. The production design and art direction are actually pretty great, and I adore the filming locations. Beyond being a somewhat ham-handed genre romp, there are actually some specific worthwhile elements here. I understand why this doesn't seem to have been received very well; I also think, all things told, it's better than folks seem to give it credit for.
When all is said and done the question to ponder is how much one enjoys TV movies - love them, hate them, abide as necessary, watch because "why not." For all the gaucheness, I think 'Ghouls' is suitably entertaining in its blend of horror and fantasy - though I also freely admit that I tend to be more generous and open-minded than not when it comes to cinema. By no means is this something you need to go out of your way to see, but if you happen to come across it, or if you're just really curious, there are worse ways to spend ninety minutes.
I'm not sure if the problem is a lack of all subtlety, nuance, and tact, or an active abjuration of it. The dialogue, scene writing, and characters all immediately inspire a bewildered, skeptical "what?" - and much of the plot is scarcely a step behind. Narrative focal point Jennifer, for example, is a stereotypical American girl who inquires about shopping opportunities during a tarot reading, but then is peculiarly accepting of everything she's told as the story advances. The editing, cinematography, direction, and much of the acting readily seem similarly overcooked, bereft of any delicate hand (though some instances of acting are just simply underwhelming, instead). While the blood, gore, creature design, makeup, and costume design all mostly look great, if a little too self-indulgent - and practical effects, too! - on the other hand, any computer-generated imagery is pretty much an eyesore, less than seamless with the rest of the feature. Ah, and of course the story is rather predictable.
In fairness, 'Ghouls' is a TV movie, and it unquestionably looks and feels like it. Where else could William Atherton look so pained in a production, as though by participating in each scene he was losing his soul, while at the same time James DeBello has the appearance of trying so hard to act (and failing) that he might give himself an aneurysm or sprain a muscle? The feature sits at the intersection of horror and dark fantasy, with the familiar thrust of an innocent unwittingly being thrust into extraordinary circumstances of which they are somehow the keystone. Save for the heightened blood, gore, and otherwise violence, this wouldn't feel out of place airing on NBC instead of the Sci Fi Channel (now SyFy) where it premiered. The intent was nothing more than to have some genre fun in a particular medium, and for all the bluntness, that aim was achieved - this isn't half bad, actually. I had a good time watching. Only, by golly, I wish there were more mindful care applied in any regard, or that all involved were allowed to wholly lean into the darkness and the best potential.
Though it's nothing remarkable (just standard genre fare), I like Alan Howarth's original score; I'm less enthused about the bursts of rock music that pop up at a couple points, and at the end credits. Though it's perhaps not saying much, I think the cast (including recognizable names and faces) make the most of the material and direction they have to work with; I'd like to think that under other circumstances, in a different movie, they'd make a better impression. The production design and art direction are actually pretty great, and I adore the filming locations. Beyond being a somewhat ham-handed genre romp, there are actually some specific worthwhile elements here. I understand why this doesn't seem to have been received very well; I also think, all things told, it's better than folks seem to give it credit for.
When all is said and done the question to ponder is how much one enjoys TV movies - love them, hate them, abide as necessary, watch because "why not." For all the gaucheness, I think 'Ghouls' is suitably entertaining in its blend of horror and fantasy - though I also freely admit that I tend to be more generous and open-minded than not when it comes to cinema. By no means is this something you need to go out of your way to see, but if you happen to come across it, or if you're just really curious, there are worse ways to spend ninety minutes.