Ghoulies II

A dying carnival haunted house gets a needed boost when demons help haunt the place.

This 1987 sequel stars Damon Martin, Royal Dano, and Phil Fondacaro. It was written by Dennis Paoli and directed by Albert Band.

What makes a meh movie? I watched Ghoulies II here the night after watching Phantasm and it’s really got me thinking.

Quick synopsis: A troubled carnival act makes an unscheduled pitstop at a closed garage. As it’s driver and his drunk magician uncle fiddle with things to get back on the road, a gaggle demons, freed from their owners, sneak a ride with them. When the carnival opens the next day, the expected murder and mayhem begins. Well, in dribs and drabs at least.

Now at the start I was making a rather nasty mental note about how all Charles Band Movies look a like. Wrong, too, as, if you check the General Information Box, you’ll note that his father Albert did the job here.

Nonetheless, there is a certain familiarity here that’s unshakeable. Despite never watching this flick before I’ve seen this flick before. A lot.

And I’m not saying this because this is a Gremlins rip off, either. Though that doesn’t help.

If I might be a bit more critical before moving on the main point, I thought the script could have used another rewrite. The cultists in the opening were superfluous. You could have had the drunk magician summon them accidentally, or the yuppie who’s taking over the carnival do it on purpose to drive up business. There also should have been more fleshing out of the carnies. Make us care more.

The demons themselves (never once referred to as Ghoulies) are immobile puppets part of the time and on all too rare occasions stop motion critters. They had a charm to them, and it should come as no surprise that I’ve seen worse (Hello Hobgoblins, the restraining order is still in effect, keep back.) The trouble is we see too much of them. Way too much.

It also might have helped if it wasn’t clear from the get go that there were only five of them toddling about. Their rampage through the carnival would have made more sense that way. Seem less like they were teleporting around the place.

We can carp about the script a little more, too, and make some rude comments on how it could have used a bigger budget, but it really doesn’t matter. Before the halfway mark, though, Ghoulies II charmed me. I rather liked it through the run time. Thought it even gave a thrill, which was nice considering how same old, same old it all seemed. It entertained.

But at no point did I think it was a good movie. In fact, I’m pretty certain its a meh one.

And being the dim bulb that I am, I couldn’t see why at first.

Which leads us back to Phantasm.

No spoilers here, for the record. However by rights it’s the lesser of the two films. The script for Ghoulies 2 is more coherent. I think the acting is better here. There’s no feeling of certain shots. All said and done, this should beat Phantasm in the Horror stakes.

Why doesn’t it?

What makes a movie meh?

After some thought, I came up with an answer: Heart.

This flick has no heart. No soul, no drive, no desperate need to prove itself. Not simply because it’s a sequel. All the scenes seem static. Dry. Lifeless. While the acting is competent, professional, it isn’t boss.

I like the movie, but this is, at the kindness, a meh flick. Perhaps right on the edge of being bad, if not over.

I dunno. Wish it could have been better.

Honest to God, I was writing “bad” instead of “meh” and only at the end went back to change it (1.0 point). Because, as I’ve said, I’ve seen worse movies than this. Still, I had fun and don’t regret seeing it (1.5 points)