Ghouls

One of the first signs that a straight-to-DVD film is in trouble is that it settles on a title that lacks creativity like a natural-born Arkansan lacks teeth. You know, something along the lines of Ghouls. Yet another warning bell sounds when your first reaction upon seeing the film's "lead star" is, "Where have I seen that douchebag before?" then you realize you've never seen him; he's just the homeless man's answer to Brendan Fraser.

But the real kicker that a straight-to-DVD film has failed is when the best thing about it is that one of its special features is a trailer for Stephen Baldwin's upcoming Sharks in Venice! Which, shockingly, looks entertaining in a "this is about as good as the Sci Fi Channel can be expected to do" kind of way. But back to Ghouls...

In all fairness, it's a Sci Fi Original that had much working against it - a very low budget, no-name actors, and a tight shooting schedule. We simply have to respect the confines within which a film of this nature is working. So rather than beat the film to a pulp, I want to offer constructive criticism. Here's the main problem - it fails to make the most of what's at its disposal. Come on, guys. You'd be surprised at what can be accomplished with little more than passion and creativity.

Compensate your lack of funds with a strong, compelling story. OK, so you're a movie about weird creatures called "ghouls" ... perhaps a strong story is out of the question. Well, in that case, how about you absolutely layer this puppy with cheese! Give me bad one-liners that will make me groan. Have Brendan Fraser Jr. blast one of the ghouls and then exclaim, "He didn't stand a ghost of a chance!" Is it cringe-worthy? Sure. But that's what lovers of bad cinema desire. It's more effective than a character complaining that Romania doesn't have a Starbucks.

Unfortunately, a large portion of Ghouls' runtime consists of characters running around the woods, shooting at badly-rendered CGI ghouls. Although, the ghouls weren't as bad as I expected. The transition from CGI-flying creature to hitting-the-ground running "dude in an outfit" is fairly smooth.

But overall, the film takes itself too seriously to work as campy fun (and doesn't give me much fodder to make fun of!), but the story's too weak to be effective on that level. For example, there was a subplot where Kristen Renton (whose acting range consists of making scrunched up faces with a wide variety of smiles and eyebrow raises) finds a mysterious box under her bed. We're led to believe she'll find some deep, dark secret hidden within, but she's interrupted before she has a chance to explore it. Well, you know what? That little storyline is dropped completely. It's as if they just forgot to go back to it.

Here's my rule of thumb when deciding whether a Sci Fi Original is worth recommending as a rental on "bad movie night" - are the one-liners, bad acting, and deliciously cheesy special effects so over-the-top and outlandish that I don't even notice the gaping plot holes? I want to be left shaking my head in mockery, not scratching it due to confusion.

Come on, Sci Fi. I don't mind you making bad movies; all I ask is that you make them entertaining. Unfortunately, Ghouls doesn't deliver, and I can't helping feeling that it'd have been better if everybody involved had just given it a little more spirit...

*ahem*

Are you shaking your head? Good. Because THAT'S what I'm talking about!