Showing posts with label ANIMATED 80's LIGHTNING. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ANIMATED 80's LIGHTNING. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 13, 2019

Dr. Giggles




Dr. Giggles (1992)
Dir. Manny Coto
Written by Manny Coto and Graeme Whifler
Starring Larry Drake, Holly Marie Combs, Cliff deYoung, Glenn Quinn

            DR. GIGGLES is an absolutely immaculate, textbook-perfect specimen of the subspecies of horror known as the “gimmick slasher,” with only one fatal flaw: it premiered in 1992. That was way too late to present the world with a premise that should, by all rights, have shown up in 1986 along with NEON MANIACS, THE WRAITH, MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE, and FRIDAY THE 13th PART VI.* That would be the right cultural moment for a by-the-book slasher which rests its entire reason for existence on medical-themed one-liners.

1992 was emphatically not the right time. The Great American Slasher Wave which had subsumed the horror genre throughout the 80s following the success of HALLOWEEN in 1978 was by that time well and truly over, killed off by a mix of oversaturation and increasingly draconian censorship (witness the milquetoast TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE 3’s tortured attempt to secure an R rating, where its 1974 predecessor had landed a PG), and SCREAM’s bid to reboot the genre with smug self-referential irony was still four long years away. The landscape had shifted right underneath the slasher’s feet, and even more than that, the artform of filmmaking had changed. As we discussed in fellow 90’s refugee slasher THE NIGHT BRINGS CHARLIE, the 90’s brought with them an epidemic of overlit, drab realism that abandoned the appealingly ridiculously artificial aesthetic of the 80s, where the genre had flourished for a decade. This was a disaster for the genre; atmosphere mostly went out the window with the new visual style, and anything even remotely approximating naturalism was a miserably uncomfortable fit for the kind of cheerfully airheaded premise that underpins any gimmick slasher worth its salt. Acting had changed too; gone were the unselfconsciously broad stereotypes and enthusiastically bizarre line readings which had so charmed us during the heady 80’s; by 1992, heroin chic had replaced the cocaine effusiveness of the previous decade, and the square preppies and multiracial biker punks gave way to wan pretty boys with perpetually manicured five-o’clock shadows to communicate their inner torment at having to deal with your fascist reality, man.

Also, we wore a lot of denim. Possibly too much.

You could still throw a masked killer at a handful of pretty co-eds, of course, and some filmmakers did. The slasher didn’t completely die off right away, it just gradually got self-conscious and mopey and corporate. It devolved from the high absurdism of NEON MANIACS and HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME to the unambitious likes of I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER or URBAN LEGEND: slick, responsible slashers made by slick, responsible people who were going to deliver the expected product on time and under budget, and stay well away from anything that might surprise or upset anyone. These were, in other words, slashers made by people self-aware enough to understand the concept of shame, who consequently thought before they acted in the hopes of avoiding embarrassment. Some chose to embrace the genre’s inherent corniness and play into the joke (SCREAM, LEPRECHAUN, BRIDE OF CHUCKY) while others went the opposite route into the kind of self-serious grimness that would eventually give us the torture-porn cycle a decade later (STRANGELAND, RAVENOUS, MUTE WITNESS). Neither school was necessarily a dead end; BRIDE OF CHUCKY is indisputably charming, and something like CANDYMAN (arising from the latter school) is close to a masterpiece. But neither embodied the spirit of the slasher as it had existed in its heyday. For better or worse, the days of the naive, unselfconscious indie slasher flick were truly over.

Except, not quite, because here we find DR. GIGGLES existing categorically within its 1992 mileu, but with at least a toe still firmly planted in the cheerfully moronic splatter pics of yesteryear. On the surface, it’s all 90s: glossy, clean-looking images populated by generically pretty white people and their one black friend (Doug E. Doug, JUNGLE FEVER, COOL RUNNINGS) who will say something wacky and then quickly die, all acting in some kind of miserable limbo which is certainly not good but also a long way from the endearing, energetic corniness of their predecessors from a decade earlier. It’s also frustratingly short on explicit gore, and to my recollection utterly devoid of nudity. And it is certainly self-aware enough to realize that its premise is campy enough to make John Waters blush; IMDB even lists it as a “comedy” (along with “horror” and the far-less defensible “drama”).

You'll never guess what the cops say to Dr. Giggles to elicit this hilarious reaction.

 And yet, while the look and construction of the movie are resolutely bound to the decade of its birth, there’s a certain stubborn straightforwardness which is all 80s in the best possible way. What, you think the makers of JASON TAKES MANHATTAN were unaware that the series had escalated to well beyond the point of self-parody? They knew. They just didn’t feel the need to point it out to the audience, which they correctly assumed would come to that conclusion on its own, well before Wes Craven provided the cheat sheet for it. DR. GIGGLES knows the joke is funnier if it doesn’t have to be explained. So it just gets out there and presents its ridiculous premise without pretension and without comment, and you’re free to do with that what you’d like. The end credits play over Bad Case of Loving You (Doctor, Doctor) which should at least retroactively tell you definitively that the filmmakers get it, if nothing else did.**

But get out there it certainly does; whatever else it may be, it is not the kind of movie to dissemble around before getting to the point. Said ridiculous premise arrives right away, immediately, in fact. A medical-themed gimmick slasher it has set its mind to be, and a medical-themed gimmick slasher it will be from frame one: It opens with a stentorian quote from Hippocrates, followed by a an extensive credit sequence of CGI blood cells zipping around veins and eventually through the heart. In fact, we will actually enter the movie from the inside of the body, as a scalpel opens the vessels we’ve been so comfortably occupying, and we peer outside into the placid, psychotic face of the title character (Larry Drake, “Yahoo #1” in THE KARATE KID and Durant in DARKMAN, but apparently best known L.A. Law).

We’re quickly treated to the requisite backstory: It seems that one Dr. Evan Rendell, once a respected medical practitioner in the sleepy town of Moorehigh, Middle America (heheh), lost his mind in the 50’s and started stealing patients’ hearts in an ill-conceived attempt to revive his ailing (read: deceased) wife. Rendell was killed to death by an angry mob, but, we’re told, his unstable young son and accomplice, Evan Jr, vanished and was never apprehended. Or, uh, I guess he actually was apprehended at some later point, because we’re going to begin the movie proper with his escape from a mental institution, Michael-Myers-style, and we will follow his progress as he makes a beeline back to his hometown to pick up where his late father left off.



This is all great news, because Drake is perfect as the mad doctor who more than earns his titular nickname (well, the giggling part, at least; he does not graduate medical school during the course of the movie [spoiler]), giving the character a magnificent mixture of broad comic strangeness and genuine malice. A good slasher is going to live or die on the strength of its antagonist, and without a iconic mask or signature weapon to hide behind, it’s entirely up to Drake’s performance to create a memorable villain. Fortunately, he more than rises to the challenge. On this point I must defer to the words of my colleague Mr. Majestyk, who sums it up so perfectly that I consider his take definitive: 

Every single word of dialogue he speaks is a medical-themed one-liner ("I'm not really seeing patients yet, but for you, I'll make an exception," "Visiting hours are over," "Open up and say ah," etc.) but somehow, they all seem to come from within the character. They don't make him seem like a slumming character actor; they make him seem like a total fucking nutcase who has his own separate reality running in his head at all times. His façade never breaks down. He never gets angry or threatens to rip somebody's lungs out. He maintains his bedside manner and soft-spoken bemusement at all times, even when he's chasing somebody around with a hypodermic needle or fencing with one of those rubber hammers they use to test reflexes. But at the same time, there's an undercurrent of gleeful sadism bubbling just below the surface, as if, deep down, he knows this doctor persona he's concocted is all for show.

            Drake, then, is perfect, but you will perhaps not be surprised to hear that his victims will be of a decidedly less enchanting stratum. Our protagonist (Holly Marie Combs, Charmed, “cameo” in OCEAN’S 11?), for example, is a real bummer, spending most of her time before becoming a victim throwing temper tantrums at her dad for dating again following her mom’s death, and moping over her own impending heart operation. In my untrained medical opinion, she doesn’t really help matters in the latter regard by throwing her heart monitor into a fish tank and drinking a bottle of wine against her doctor's instructions (her real doctor, the non-giggling kind). The movie seems to think her stepmom is a monster for daring to suggest that maybe she’s being a bit of a drama queen, but man, the evidence sure seems to back her up. Granted, everybody was like this all the time in the 90’s, we were all insufferable crybabies, that was just what cool people did back then, for whatever reason, and I swear to you it seemed very chic at the time. Her boyfriend (Glenn Quinn, Roseanne, Angel), on the other hand, listens to this tormented soul pour her heart out to him about her anxiety over her serious medical condition and how it relates to her mom’s untimely death just a short time ago, and then hooks up with another chick almost immediately after he’s out of her sight, unable to resist the lure of a sexy saxophone lesson at a party in the school music room at the county fair (?). And he’s the hero! These kids really deserve each other. But at least you’re not going to be too torn up about watching them get killed off.



            In fact, while both the leads are unappealing deadwood of Brobdingnagian proportions, they’re nowhere near the worst offender here. That honor goes to this other dude (Darin Heames, PCU), and we need to discuss his journey. We first encounter him hilariously (?) trapping two friends in an abandoned house with no means of escape and never going back for them (and yes, they’re the movie’s only two black people), but his real moment to shine arrives later. Still basking in the afterglow of this urbanely puckish jape, this prince of a man prepares to draw another productive day to a conclusion by fucking his girlfriend (probably Deborah Tucker, DON’T TELL MOM THE BABYSITTER’S DEAD) in his parents’ bed. No one seems to think it is at all weird when he asks his consort to dress in his mom’s lingerie (which, uh, fits her), and everything seems to be going smoothly until his date offers him a condom and he looks confused and asks “where did you get that?” as if it’s some kind of mysterious alien artifact. Once he’s acquainted himself with the concept, he then immediately runs to the bathroom to apply it (even though they haven’t so much as kissed yet!) as though this is going to be some kind of elaborate operation which will require his full concentration. And then when he finally hops in bed to make use of the condom in question (which, in point of fact, he has somehow failed to correctly apply and has now lost, speculating “maybe she won’t notice?” like a real gentleman), he takes his shirt off and puts his baseball cap back on. What I’m saying is, this has to be one of the most deserved deaths in all of slasherdom.***
           
Predictably, as our heroine is being stalked by a murderous psychopath leaving a trail of bodies, no authority figure is even remotely interested in following up with her, nor does anyone seem interested in the fact that, for example, there’s a murdered body with a giant band-aid over the face stuck back there in the hall of mirrors, which both Girl and Boyfriend saw, and Giggles has made no effort to hide. And also, a veteran cop (Richard Bradford, THE UNTOUCHABLES) knows Giggles is loose, tells the whole story about his escape, and then just tells his partner (Keith Diamond, AWAKENINGS) not to worry about it. Wha? “This sure is a fucked-up town” the partner says. Yeah, no kidding. How bout we do worry about it?

            The cops’ laissez-faire attitude towards escaped maniacs turns out to be a less than ideal approach to public safety, as Giggles methodically euthanizes his way through the local teenage population one by one. Other than Drake, everybody is giving exactly the kind of bland, mopey performance you’d expect, so there’s not exactly a ton of tense drama here, but at least he starts to kill them off in a studiously on-theme manner almost immediately, and does so consistently throughout the film’s comfortable 96 minutes. There’s actually a pretty impressively high body count, a good number of them real showstopper gimmick kills (personal favorite: strangling a guy with a blood-pressure arm band monitor) and he’s got a medical themed one-liner for allllllllll of them.**** The movie is very invested in its solid gimmicky kills, of which it boasts an ample supply... but unfortunately not so much in matching them with over-the-top gore. I very much appreciate a movie that knows there should be a scene here Dr. Giggles takes someone’s temperature with a long, pointy thermometer and then rams it through her head, but why aren’t we allowed to actually see it? It kinda diminishes the impact of some of his more colorful ideas. Director Manny Coto (STAR KID and a busy TV writing career) claimed on the Killer POV podcast that the MPAA demanded most of the hoped-for gore be cut in order to secure that precious R rating, which sounds sadly feasible, but come on dude, have the artistic integrity to just release it unrated (hopefully the assumed Criterion director’s cut will add the gore back in and fulfill DR. GIGGLES’ true destiny to ascend to the highest echelons of schlocky gimmick slashers).



            If it is gore you seek, then, DR. GIGGLES will be able to meet your requirements only at the most modest levels. Fortunately, it makes up for it by being generally colorful and silly enough to at least distract you from the distressingly low volume of on-screen bloodletting. And it’s not just the humans who are willing to go boldly into near-surreal strangeness. Despite the unappealing 90s aesthetic, we have all kinds of fun visuals in there; a POV shot from inside a mouth, with Dr. Giggles peering in holding a tongue depressor, a near-psychedelic house of mirror sequence (that serves no real purpose, but why not have an Orson Welles homage in DR. GIGGLES?), even some cartoon lightning electricity and a backlit smokey forest scene lit by inexplicably sourced blue light to remind us of how much better this would have looked in 1986. The obvious standout is a flashback sequence which reveals how a young Giggles managed to escape the mob that killed his father by (SPOILERS) hiding in his mom’s hollowed-out corpse and carving his way out just in time to give an unlucky coroner a memorable night on the job. (END SPOILERS) It’s the kind of thing that takes a subtler sense of tone than you might be willing to give DR GIGGLES credit for: genuinely kind of shocking and perverse, but also outrageous enough to keep with the straight-faced silly tone of the movie. Same with Giggles’ skin-crawling but also kind of funny insistence on giggling through the pain of a gunshot. There’s a subtle kind of power generated by the confidence it takes to never outright admit this is comedy; like Dr. Giggles himself, the movie is at no time not crazy, but it is so unshakable in its insistence to the contrary that every now and then, it’s actually able to successfully become the legit horror-slasher it’s been pretending to be.

            To wit: Giggles has apparently learned surgery well enough to successfully remove a bullet and close a wound on himself (“Physician, heal thyself,” he says), which is no joke considering he’s spent his whole adult life in a madhouse. Really, this is a pretty inspiring story of triumph over adversity. Frankly, when he straps the protagonist down in his secret lair to replace her heart, I was thinking this actually might not be such a bad idea, as long as he accepts her insurance (alas, we never get a chance to find out). In retrospect, that probably was not such a feasible outcome, but both movies and people try and tell you what they are, and the two DR. GIGGLES --both the movie and the character-- are confident enough in what they are that even when you know better, it’s hard not to occasionally be suckered into going along with them. The place they’re going is an extremely silly one, but not an altogether unpleasant one for those who would be open to this kind of thing. Could use some more prurient thrills, but we can’t have everything. Even if the gimmick slasher sub-genre was on life support by 1992, DR. GIGGLES is good evidence that it wasn’t time to pull the plug quite yet.



            Also, in a completely unrelated note, kudus to Washington Post film critic Richard Harrington for blasting the film’s over-reliance on medical puns, only to indulge in the exact same vice with equally groan-worthy results. Look, I’m not made of stone either, OK? But at least I had the integrity to admit I like the puns.

POSSIBLY IRRELEVANT POST-SCRIPT:

My notes on the film contain the cryptic phrase, “Nire if rgarm okease” following the discussion of the house of mirrors sequence. Usually I can decipher my drunken initial reactions upon later review, but not this time. Hopefully that wasn’t the key to cracking this whole movie wide open, but if it was, and you can figure out what the hell I was trying to say, let me know.

POSSIBLY IRRELEVANT IMDB TRIVIA:
 

* I never really thought about this before, but isn’t it weird that the FRIDAY THE 13ths all use "Part" instead of just a number, suggesting they're all part of one vast, rambling saga that spans centuries? 
** In fact, it is not the familiar 1978 Robert Palmer recording, but a new version by Bad Company frontman Paul Rodgers.    

*** In fact, while the camera doesn’t linger on the fact, the blood evidence strongly suggests that Dr. Giggles has taken the precaution of removing this dude’s dick, which I’m sure is a real loss for the ladies of the world.

**** In fact, even the heroine gets in on the act at the end (spoilers): “take two and call me in the morning” she says, plunging two huge knives into her nemesis. Not to be outdone, Giggles turns, looks directly into the camera, and deadpans “Is there a doctor in the house?” before expiring.





Actually, "Major" motion picture might be stretching it.


CHAINSAWNUKAH 2018 CHECKLIST!
Searching For Bloody Pictures

TAGLINE
If you're from Moorehigh
and you get sick
fall on your knees and pray
you die quick.

The slightly annoying formatting which insists “and pray” should be in the third line instead of the fourth, smashing the natural poetic meter to hopeless ruin, is, of course, what appears on the poster.

Also: The Doctor Is Out… Of His Mind.

And the somewhat more labored derivative:

Sorry, The Doctor Is In...Sane.
TITLE ACCURACY
100% accurate.
LITERARY ADAPTATION?
Nope
SEQUEL?
None. The 90’s was a pretty bleak time for horror sequels, compared to other decades.
REMAKE?
No
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
USA
HORROR SUB-GENRE
Slasher, Gimmick Slasher
SLUMMING A-LISTER?
None.
BELOVED HORROR ICON?
None
NUDITY?
The only boobs are on the corpse that Giggles slices out of.
SEXUAL ASSAULT?
None
WHEN ANIMALS ATTACK!
No.
GHOST/ ZOMBIE / HAUNTED BUILDING?
None
POSSESSION?
No
CREEPY DOLLS?
None
EVIL CULT?
None
MADNESS?
Oh, certainly
TRANSMOGRIFICATION?
None
VOYEURISM?
None
MORAL OF THE STORY
Even if you name your fictional town “Moorehigh,” some people still won’t get that you’re joking, and you just have to be OK with that and make great art anyway.




Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Ghoulies



Ghoulies (1984 -- US premier 1985)
Dir. Luca Bercovici
Written by Luca Bercovici and Jefery [sic] Levy
Starring Peter Liapis, Lisa Pelikan, Michael Des Barres, Jack Nance




For most people, the sentence, “1984’s GHOULIES is a landmark, career-defining motion picture which would set the stage for three decades of a niche auteur’s long and legendary career” would sound a tad unlikely, perhaps even absurd. But for those of us who truly know the life’s work of ultra-low-budget DTV maestro Charles Band, GHOULIES is the beginning. GHOULIES started it all. Without GHOULIES, there is no DOLLS, no TROLL (and therefore no TROLL 2!) no GINGERDEAD MAN. No DOLLMAN VS. DEMONIC TOYS. No EVIL BONG. And the world would be, I dunno, slightly poorer for it in some ways. Although arguably better off in others possibly.


GHOULIES is not important because it’s the first film produced by Charles Band, nor even the first produced by the most venerable of his various production companies, the austerely monikered Empire Films. Band had been producing movies since 1973’s LAST FOXTROT IN BURBANK (edited by a pre-HALLOWEEN John Carpenter!) and Empire Pictures had produced its first film the previous year. No, GHOULIES is the beginning of a different era entirely; not the start of a career, but the inauguration of Band’s ongoing tinyphiliac period. This era  --to my knowledge first identified by Seagalogy author Vern-- is defined by Band’s obsessive focus on mean little bastards. It began with GHOULIES, but quickly spiraled out of control into TROLL, DOLLS, DOLLMAN, PUPPETMASTER, DEMONIC TOYS, DOLLMAN VS DEMONIC TOYS, SHRUNKEN HEADS, LEAPIN’ LEPRECHAUNS (not to be confused with the 1993 Warwick Davis LEPRECHAUN), SHRUNKEN CITY, and, of course, GINGERDEAD MAN. And that’s just a quick overview of this phenomenon.




Considering that pedigree, I hadn’t exactly rushed to see GHOULIES. If your movie has the name “Charles Band” anywhere associated with it, it’s a good bet it’s going towards the bottom of my priorities list, and GHOULIES has been languishing there for some time now. I’m glad I live in a universe where GINGERDEAD MAN 2: PASSION OF THE CRUST is a real movie with a funny title, but even for me, life’s a little short to spend 82 minutes on a joke title. And the world isn’t exactly hurting for 1980’s creature features for me to waste my life on, between the CRITTERSes and GREMLINSes and TREMORSes and BASKET CASEs and THE GATE and HOBGOBLINS, and somebody said something about a movie called MUNCHIES? But you know what is hurting for 1980’s creature features? Every fuckin’ streaming service. Netflix has about 90,000 no-budget zero-effort drab and featureless PARANORMAL ACTIVITY ripoffs from 2016 alone, but try to find something fun and colorful with a monster puppet or something and you’ll be running back to Pirate Bay faster than you can say “Nilborg.”


But Hulu did have GHOULIES, and after a few brief moments considering suicide as an alternative, I decided, what the heck, gotta get GHOULIES in there eventually. Might as well be now.


And you know what? I realize this might be a controversial opinion, but I would say that GHOULIES is better than suicide in some respects, all things considered. I mean, it’s hardly a real movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s not without its scrappy charms. And it’s certainly not light on ghoulies.




Our story begins with cult leader Malcolm Graves (Michael Des Barre, best known as the frontman for ex-punk supergroup Chequered Past and as Robert Palmer’s replacement in Power Station, and also as the recurring character Murdoc on McGuyver. But hey, he was also in UNDER SIEGE, PINK CADILLAC, and MULHOLLAND DRIVE, so he’s had a rich, full life) initiating some kind of baby-sacrificing ceremony like they used to do a lot back in the 1980’s. He has big scary glowing green eyes, so you know this shit is legit, he’s not just some two-bit hustler trying to get laid, he’s obviously onto something here. You’d think that alone would be enough to convince the baby’s mother (Victoria Catlin, MANIAC COP, HOWLING V) to go along with this, but apparently they never discussed it ahead of time, because she acts like this is the first she’s heard of any baby sacrificing (she’s wearing a robe and reciting the incantation, but maybe she didn’t read all the way through the brochure before joining up?) and right before the big stabby moment, she leaps forward to put a stop to everything. This is a double whammy because not only does it really kill the mood, it’s going to result in some awkward PTA meetings and stuff down the line, because Malcolm is also the kid’s father. For some reason Mom’s objection seems to do the trick, and the Malcolm dejectedly sends the baby away to live with another cultist (Jack Nance, ERASERHEAD, Twin Peaks) and contents himself with killing the mom, because, fuck it, he didn’t get the glowing eye thing going to not murder somebody.


This would seem to wrap things up pretty neatly, but this is not the story of the mother, this is the story of the baby. As the sudden narration jarringly explains, the child was raised to adulthood by Jack Nance, who appears to be some kind of mute hermit, or at least a real strong, silent type who doesn’t say anything unless he’s narrating (I think that’s him) or until the movie’s last scene. But he’s Jack Nance, dammit, so he can do whatever he damn well wants. The son, though, has grown into Nathan Fillion lookalike Jonathan (Peter Liapis, GHOULIES IV), and apparently no one ever mentioned to him about his father being a crazy cult wizard who tried to sacrifice him at birth and murdered his mom, so when he gets the word that his father has died and he has inherited his palatial murder estate (complete with on-premise grave), he sees no reason not to immediately move in and invite his intensely 80’s friends and his gal (Juilliard-trained Lisa Pelikan, JENNIFER, LIONHEART) over for a crazy party.




The longer he stays in the house, though, the more he starts to fixate on the idea of the occult, and dabble in the black arts. One day his girlfriend walks in on him in the basement, glowing green eyes and everything, conducting some sort of unholy ritual which has summoned a howling rainstorm in the basement. She doesn’t seem at all surprised to learn that magic is real, but she is super annoyed that he’s been mastering it instead of fixing up the house. She demands he stop trying to explore the furthest reaches of arcane knowledge and gain the infinite power to shape the universe to his will, or at the very least not conduct occult rituals while they’re getting busy. When he fails to clear even this low bar, he figures he’d better play it safe and put the mind whammy on her so she doesn’t interfere while he summons as many god damn ghoulies as he pleases, yes sir.


One odd thing about GHOULIES is that from the plot I’ve just described, it sounds like Jonathan is the bad guy of the story, but the movie can’t seem to quite make up its mind about that. Our hero seems to oscillate wildly between conducting ecstatic, screaming satanic ceremonies and acting like he’s just casually interested and confused and a little embarrassed that anyone would think he’s really into it. When his girl walks in on his ceremony he acts like she’s caught him jerking off in the shower; he’s embarrassed and apologetic but also seems to think she’s really making a big fuss over nothing. Baby I AM working on the house, I just thought I’d play around with the dark arts a little in my spare time. Jeez, I didn’t think it would be such a big deal. It’s really hard to tell if the house and/or his dead father is putting the mind whammy on him and also manipulating him to try and cover it up, or if he really doesn’t see the harm in dabbling in a little satanic magic in his spare time, and just lets his daytime hobby get a little out of hand.




Anyway, you don’t care about that at all, and I know that. You want to know about the Ghoulies. And you are right, that’s the only thing which is remotely important here, and I’m happy to tell you it’s also the one thing they get pretty right. The ghoulies are a motley lot of gross, slimy, furry, googly-eyed puppets created by John Carl Buechler (director of TROLL, CELLAR DWELLER, and FRIDAY THE 13th PART VII: THE NEW BLOOD, i.e. the one where Jason has some kind of demon face and fights the telekinetic chick). They look only marginally more lifelike than Kermit the Frog, but they make up for it by being numerous, gimmicky, charismatic, and frequently on-screen. That’s one great thing about puppets: once you’ve made them, the cost is already sunk, and you might as well have them in every scene after that, just hanging around. I like to look at them, and the movie is happy to generously provide that service. Can’t do that shit with CG, no sir. But no need to be stingy with your Ghoulies.


Incidentally, the same rule holds true for the “glowing green eye” magic effect which we first see on Malcolm, and subsequently on Jonathan in increasingly every scene as the movie rolls along. I first assumed that this was your typical animated 80’s green glow, but on closer examination these “glowing eyes” actually appear to be huge holographic contact lenses which covers the entire eyeball, including the white. And just like ghoulie puppets, once you’ve bought one pair, you might as well get plenty of mileage out of ‘em and have everyone in every scene try them on. They’re a pretty nifty effect, and a pretty novel one; I can't recall recall ever seeing anything quite like it before, though that might have something to do with the fact that they don’t always seem to be looking in the same direction at the same time. They also must be an absolute nightmare to use. Liapis seems to wears them pretty gracefully, but on the fancy HD version you can clearly see Des Barre’s eyes twitching and watering and looking about ready to fall out of his head, even as he dutifully hams it up. And ham it up he does, with the heart of a champion. That’s a real pro, there. That shit does not look comfortable.

Look how great that is, though.

The Ghoulies themselves are actually only a little more integral to the plot than the hologram contacts: they’re absolutely essential for this movie to exist, but in all honesty they don’t really do all that much, and are involved in what could generously be termed "the narrative" only in the most tangential ways. They have adorable expressive faces, but otherwise can’t move too much and --as hand puppets-- they don’t have legs, so most of the dramatic heavy lifting in the creature department is done by a pair of little people (Peter Risch, “Little Person #2” SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES and Tamara de Treaux, who may or may not have spent some time in the E.T. suit, and was also in DON’T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK) who make the absolute best of roles which could not, in all honesty, be described as entirely un-demeaning. But at least in the big finale, most of the ghoulies get a showpiece kill, somewhat justifying their presence. In fact, once the body harvest begins, GHOULIES can't stop itself from also throwing a showpiece kill to a rogue non-ghoulie nightmarish human-sized jester doll who pulls off his rubber face to reveal some kind of slimy, uh, thing, and to a beautiful seductress who chokes a guy with a five-foot-long tongue. None of that is really integral to the plot, but it is integral to the movie, and you can trust Band, Buechler, and director Bercovici (primarily an actor, though not in any movie I've ever heard of in 65 credits spanning nearly four decades) to understand that fact. GHOULIES is not the kind of movie that can reasonably make a play for respectability or serious-minded artistic analysis, but it’s definitely committed to being entertaining. And what more could you want from a movie called GHOULIES?


OK, fair enough, you’d want a little more Jack Nance, who has, I think, two spoken lines of dialogue (outside his sporadic attempts to turn narrator). Good thing he’s Jack Nance, so we’re still excited to see him show up at the end to save the day with animated 80’s lightning while our hero does nothing. I can’t call that a great ending, and I can’t call it great cinema, but it gets the job done. That’s GHOULIES for ya.


(And by “gets the job done” I mean it sets up a sequel with even more Ghoulies. Look, we’re not making art here. But for a low-rent meat-and-potatoes creature feature, it knows what it is and commits to the work of being GHOULIES 1 without shame. I can respect that. And that’s not a phrase I thought I’d be likely to use on a Charles Band production, so considering what we’re talking about here it’s basically a goddam miracle.)
EDIT: OH God, I just realized GHOULIES III is subtitled: GHOULIES GO TO COLLEGE, fuck, now I'm going to have to watch the whole fucking series.

EDIT 2: Oh wait, the last one is directed by Jim Wynorski, so I guess not quite the whole series.




CHAINSAWNUKAH 2017 CHECKLIST!

The Discreet Charm of the Killing Spree



TAGLINE
They’ll Get You In The End. This was originally sort of a pun, playing off the poster with one of the Ghoulies coming out of a toilet, but it’s also literally true that the only time they get anyone is in the film’s finale.
TITLE ACCURACY
There are, indeed, Ghoulies, though I don’t know that anyone ever specifically refers to them as such.
LITERARY ADAPTATION?
Absolutely not.
SEQUEL?
Ghoules II-IV
REMAKE?
None
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
USA/Canada
HORROR SUB-GENRE
Creature Feature, Tinyphiliac horror, puppet horror
SLUMMING A-LISTER?
None
BELOVED HORROR ICON?
Jack Nance? I dunno, he’s not really a horror icon I guess, but he is an icon of something. And I don’t know if “beloved” is the right word, but Band himself is something of an icon, as is Ghoulies creator John Carl Buechler.
NUDITY?
Nah
SEXUAL ASSAULT?
Nah, though there’s an awkward sex scene (under the covers) where he’s trying to do a ritual on the sly while boning his gal, and she catches him and storms out and he acts real sheepish. I wouldn’t call this sexual assault, but it’s definitely behavior I frown upon.
WHEN ANIMALS ATTACK!
None, except the ghoulies
GHOST/ ZOMBIE / HAUNTED BUILDING?
Revived Malcolm seems pretty zombie-esque, though he talks and stuff
POSSESSION?
Depends how you want to interpret why he does all this shit. But either way, his girlfriend definitely gets the whammy
CREEPY DOLLS?
Yeah! A good lifesized horror doll.
EVIL CULT?
Certainly
MADNESS?
Nah
TRANSMOGRIFICATION?
Doll into slimy monsters
VOYEURISM?
Nah
MORAL OF THE STORY
I’m basically incapable of not liking a movie with a bunch of Ghoulie puppets, regardless of the movie which surrounds them.

Also, check in with your girlfriend from time to time if you’re planning on delving into the Satanic arts in any serious way. Communication is the cornerstone of any healthy relationship.

And a pretty strong three-thumbs, falling just short of a fourth