User Reviews (81)

Add a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    In a film deeply reminiscent of the myriad 1930s old dark house horror flicks – in which a group of diverse characters found themselves collected in a haunted mansion, only to die mysteriously one by one – but with the up-to-date addition of special effects and bloodshed, SPOOKIES is a surprisingly enjoyable movie that is difficult to criticise. Sure, it is a low brow film, with lots of annoying '80s style humour and overacting leads, but nevertheless the fast pacing of the movie and the plethora of weird and wonderful creations and effects is what makes it worthwhile. As part of an unfinished film was also edited into the proceedings, this is in addition a confusing watch in which the plotting is sometimes all over the place; no matter, because there are guaranteed chills and monsters just around the corner, so don't focus too much on the storyline.

    Production values are invariably low (with the exception of the super-quality effects work) whilst the acting leaves a lot to be desired – just the typical badly-dressed '80s crowd you always see in horror movies like this. The scripting is basic in the extreme, and, rather annoyingly, it rips off THE EVIL DEAD no end, including one female possession who looks just like a character in Raimi's film. The music is almost classic and weirdly suits the film – to much greater effect than the usual '80s pop/rock that you usually here in this sort of thing. Anyway, the best thing in this is the diverse range of monsters, ranging from squelchy muck-men in the basement to a real-life Grim Reaper, complete with sharp scythe; possessed people; an Asian spider-woman; little GREMLINS-style critters; and, at the frenetic, effective climax, a whole graveyard full of zombies. Mix in blood and lots of corpses (and, on one sour note, an exceptionally annoying demon henchman with a hook for a hand, who doesn't do a thing the whole movie except creep around) and you have the perfect ingredients for a chilled night's viewing.
  • Someone recently added a trivia comment which says, "Actually comprised of two separate, unfinished films and edited together." This is completely untrue. I wish people would actually read the message board notes before bothering to make such comments. Spookies is comprised of the original Twisted Souls (finished save for some post production work), and new footage added months later (which was NOT from an unfinished, separate film at all, but was footage shot to add into Twisted Souls). I know some of the people who made this film and visited the set many, many times so I know what I am talking about. Where do people come up with these things? I know it has a confusing history, but read the comments from myself and others, it will help clarify matters.
  • This is bad, deliberately bad but bad nonetheless. The farting basement monsters was a particular highlight. It's not especially gory or funny or scary and takes obvious inspiration from The Evil Dead (1981) but doesn't pull it off. Large portions of the film don't make sense from a character or story perspective but that goes with the deliberately bad vibe nicely.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Best summary of this movie I've ever heard, "There's no plot to get in the way of the story."

    Saw "Spookies" on 'The Last Drive-In' and I'm glad I did because the show explained why this mess of a disaster exists and knowing what went on behind the scenes of this movie makes it easier to enjoy. (kind of)

    The original movie was fraught with problems due to an overbearing executive getting in the way. After most of the scenes were shot, the director quit.

    A different director eventually came in and shot entirely new scenes with different actors and a different story in mind. Then the new and old scenes were cut together in an attempt to create a single 'coherent' movie.

    Did they succeed? I guess that's up to the individual to decide.

    While the movie itself is a mess, there's no mistaking the talent behind the special effects. Solid, well done practical effects are the only consistent thing about the movie.

    This was fun to watch as an offering from a hosted horror show but I wouldn't have watched this movie otherwise.

    Two stars and they both go to the effects artists.
  • This is one good horror flick. It really should have a better reputation than it does. Of course, it's silly and stupid... that's part of the fun! One of the things that makes this movie pretty unique is it has many scenes that are pretty serious and intense, while others are laugh riots on purpose and on accident. Perhaps the greatest thing is how creative these filmmakers got with the monsters. They go all out with nearly everything that you can (or CAN'T) think of: zombies, a spider woman, farting muckmen (hilarious!), a cellar hag, lizard monsters, the Grim Reaper, a half-cat weirdo in biker books with a hook in place of a missing hand, a tall, ugly monstrosity with an exposed heart and tentacles, etc., etc. Man, it's wild! There's also demonic possession, and a scene that has much in common with the first (human) possession in "The Evil Dead". "Spookies" also has an interesting story behind the movie: It was begun around 1984 as a horror-comedy called "Twisted Souls". That was unfinished, but they added more stuff in to make the paste-up movie that became "Spookies". Amazingly enough, "Spookies" doesn't look like remnants of separate movies. It was all put together very well, and the results definitely deserve more respect and recognition. I really want to see the uncut version, because it probably has more gore and would also probably clear up confusion about what happened in gory scenes that were obviously cut right out of the US version with an R rating. If "The Evil Dead", Lamberto Bava's "Demons", "Night of the Demons", and others were able to get by with how goofy they are, I think that "Spookies" (a movie just as equally goofy and creepy as any of the others) should be able to also. In my opinion, "Spookies" should be legendary.
  • If Spookies feels like the result of two separate unfinished movies badly edited together to create a full length feature, there's a very good reason for that: it is. The film was patched together from an incomplete horror entitled Twisted Souls and some unrelated footage shot at a later date.

    However, despite this fairly valid reason for being crap, one can't help but feel that, even if Twisted Souls had been completed according to its creator's original vision, it still would have been total garbage: the acting is dire; the basic set-up is highly derivative, being very reminiscent of several much better films such as The Evil Dead and Night of The Living Dead; and the effects are extremely amateurish.

    Attempting to follow the story amounts to a fairly pointless exercise, since nothing really makes much sense: the muddled plot sees a group of revellers travelling to a creepy old manor house where they inexplicably find themselves battling for survival against zombies, monsters, a lovesick ghoul, his man\cat pet thing, farting muck-men, a possessed woman, a grim reaper with red eyes, a spider/woman, and a couple of ugly kids. Furthermore, what sounds like it might still be a lot of fun, despite the iffy narrative, is actually incredibly dull.

    For some reason, this film seems to have gathered something of a cult following, and has some surprisingly positive comments here on IMDb. It's a strange old world.
  • You don't rent a movie like Spookies if you are looking for a quality horror film. Anyone can tell you that. The only reason I rented this was to see the pretty 80s monster effects, and that's what I got. Pretty and rustic 80s horror. Unfortunately, the movie has a ridiculous plot with the sole intention of showing off the monsters created for the film. There are mud monsters, a reaper, a spider woman, lots and lots of zombies, random creatures, and my favorite, little gremlin-esquire lizard monsters. There are no exciting death sequences. Die hard Horror fans should check this out. You'll enjoy the cheesy effects. There isn't much else in this movie to enjoy.
  • IMDb readers are in luck: some of the production team behind one of the two films combined into the feature called SPOOKIES have been posting to the message boards for the film, and their insights into this really odd, enjoyable little flick are quite eye opening.

    Unless I am mistaken in reading what they have posted, SPOOKIES began in 1983/1984 as a film slated to be called TWISTED SOULS -- credited to directors Thomas Doran and Brendan Faulkner -- about a group of people who travel to a secluded mansion in the middle of nowhere for some sort of party: The place is haunted or possessed by poltergeists who saw THE EVIL DEAD (amongst other films given visual nods) and the cast is killed off in entertainingly gruesome ways by a host of early FX horror meanies -- My favorite is the statue of the Grim Reaper that comes to life, scythe and all, though most fans seem to prefer the Muck Men, who pass gas uncontrollably while trying to maul their victims. "Farting mud men" or whatever.

    For reasons I am still not 100% clear about the film was shelved for two years or so until 1985/1986 when a hack director named Eugenie Johnson was brought in to try and create a finished feature length film out of the well-produced but unused footage, shooting some additional scenes and editing them into the body of TWISTED SOULS in the same way that one might make a quilt on a loom: The two films are now inextricably interwoven into one 85 minute feature called SPOOKIES, which unless my notes are incorrect, was released theatrically & on home video in 1987/1988 to a certain amount of popular acclaim.

    Put quite simply, the scenes with the group of people in the haunted mansion with the Ouija board possessed chick are what is left of TWISTED SOULS, the remaining footage with the goofy made-up kids, the Angus Scrimm like old man, and the young goth babe in the white dress are what Ms. Johnson added to round out the runtime. The result is even more confusing than it might sound because the film abruptly changes gears & tones in mid-scene as cutaway reaction shots by the weird monster kids are edited to make them appear as extensions to scenes which they were never meant to be in. The problem is that the production design and texture of film stock used for the SPOOKIES add-in scenes are notably different than the by then 3 years older TWISTED SOULS scenes, giving the film a discontinuous & disjointed feel to it that one might mistake for clumsy editing. One minute you get a terse haunted house scene with 20 something adults panicking as they have to fight off animated killing fiends, the next minute you get stuff that looks like a nightmare sequence from "The Wonder Years". The film comes off as a cross between a horror farce like DEADTIME STORIES and a grim little effects thriller like SUPERSTITION aka THE WITCH, which may also have it's own grim sense of humor but is hardly played for laughs.

    The final film known as SPOOKIES doesn't make sense as a linear narrative, and yet there is still something going on here that is pretty darn interesting. The bottom line on the film is that NO UNCUT VERSION OF IT EXISTS, unless you want to use Duchamp and say that Ms. Johnson's re-defined film with the added footage counts as a finished, single discreet object. It sort of kinda does, but only until you learn the story behind what you're seeing. And once you know the story behind the production -- and how to tell the two aggregate parts from each other -- it's hard to enjoy it as a single finished piece of art anymore, which is too bad. SPOOKIES doesn't suck but yet it doesn't exactly rule, and as Beavis & Butt-Head teach us, stuff should either suck, or it rules ... By failing to achieve even that basic standard the film becomes a big, exasperating, confusing tease that looks great without managing to say a damn thing about what it is supposed to be. Here is a film that requires background reading.

    That the original material from TWISTED SOULS is lost to time (or legal considerations, at least) is a travesty: This could have been one of the best haunted house movies of the 1980's, and instead exists only as a sort of incomplete, disorienting mish-mash filled with genuine dreck breaking up some of the most interesting horror scenes from that particular period of time. I find the film as it exists today as a fascinating example of how the worst intentions of even the most talented people can be used against their own better judgment: I'd love to even see a 40 minute cut of what's left that excludes the SPOOKIES additions, even if the film wouldn't have an ending. What ending there was tacked on isn't much to begin with, and sometimes trimming the fat from a steak helps one get to the meat a bit quicker without having to saw through all the chewy, wasteful gristle. If Ms. Johnson was not under a contract compelling her to do the work she has no excuse, because no matter how clever her additions were they only served to muddle up & confuse what should have been a lean, mean little movie.

    7/10: Someone call in a butcher next time.
  • I wanted to like this movie but there are several problems with it:

    1. It is basically two separate movies spliced together as one. The runaway kid and the party goers were never meant to be in the same film.

    2. The characters are all one dimensional, 80's morons. Even the kid is a dumb ass. The drifter was the smartest character telling the kid to go home and is then killed right after which feels like the movies way of saying NO SMART CHARACTERS OR ONES WITH ANY KIND OF SUBSTANCE ALLOWED!

    3. There's no backstory whatsoever. It feels like the film starts out in media res. Billy already ran away, the party goers are already driving, etc. Would have been good to see any kind of development in terms of a plot.

    4. Some of the effects were good but for the most part they were sub par. By the mid eighties effects, while not as advanced as today, were still able to be so much better than what was shown here. This was an independent film so I can understand how money can be part of the problem.

    5. Everybody dies. I hate horror movies where everybody dies. I'm in no way suggesting that every horror movie has to have a "We survived" happy ending. But someone surviving makes the experience all the more worth it (at least for me). Otherwise it's like, "I just watched a movie where no one survived till the end...okay."

    Spookies is a film that could have been so much better if it had better writing and did not have issues between its creators and financial backers. That is the problem independent films often face. If the person(s) paying for the film to be made, who rightfully should have a say in the creative process, and the creators themselves do not get along it will effect the product.

    Moustapha Akkad financially backed the movie Halloween and thus became part of the creative process. However, he wanted the film to be the best it could be as did Trancas and John Carpenter. I'm sure there were rough spots in that partnership but in the end everyone worked together to create a masterpiece that has withstood the test of time.

    To sum up that last paragraph, Halloween is the success story of when financial backers and creators work cohesively and Spookies is the failure that occurs when the opposite happens. And to this date Spookies has not even received a DVD release and we're already in the 4K market. Even Troll 2, the best worst movie of all time, got a Blu Ray release.

    Spookies, while it tries, ultimately does not hold up.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    A fun, but not scary horror movie. While the plot may not be all that great (basically some college kids looking to party find an old haunted house filled with evil monsters.) While the "haunted house" idea has been done to death, this movie seems a little different. The thing that really makes this movie stand out in my mind is the fact that 75% of the movie is basically a special effects showcase. There's more different creatures living in the house than real actors in the movie! We get zombies, carnivorous lizard mutants, mudmen, mangled corpses that pop out of closets, a spider woman, a killer with a hook-hand, a cyborg thug with drain-snakes for hands, and even a glow-in-the-dark grim reaper! Many people on this board said that the film was amateurish with bad special effects. Come on now, it was the mid-80's when this movie came out! Spielburg didn't write this movie! For WHEN it was written, and WHO wrote/directed/did the makeup effects it's pretty freakin' good! Bad special effects don't bother me, only the lack of them. This movie, while definitely not being a candidate for the Hair and Makeup department Grammy, is FILLED with all different kinds of effects. Makeup, monsters, costumes, stop-motion, transformations, and transparency effects are just a few different types you'll find here. The only movie I can compare to this one in terms of the sheer variety of bizarre effects is maybe Beetlejuice or Street Trash. The effects on "The Spookies" may not be as good as, say, Poltergeist or Indiana Jones, but the overabundance of them really makes me think, "Man, those FX artists must have put a LOT of time into that!!" Think of this movie as a form of art, and it's pretty good and lots of fun.
  • Well where can I start when there is so much bad stuff in this movie, there is the farting zombies, the dodgy spider woman, the unconvincing evil muppets, duke the horny ghost. I'm just getting carried away with specifics here. Suffice to say honestly the worst movie I've ever seen apart from the scene in the wine basement filled with farting zombies who's only apparent weakness is they can be killed by wine. Good place to hide fellas. From the start it is unapparent why the characters go into this "spooky house" and when they go in what their motivation is to keep hanging around I mean it isn't even their house, why are they surprised when bad things happen when they break into a spooky looking mansion that is built on a graveyard. Well all I can say is that it is no shock that most of them have ever worked in that industry again.
  • I half to say I really loved this movie. I have been watching this movie for many years and have never grown tired of it. The movie jumps around so much at times it seems like a horror soap opera. There are many random characters and random creatures throughout the whole film. The only downside is the story really dosen't go anywhere, but who cares about story when a have about 15 different monsters killing and terrifying everyone in the movie. Apparently, this movie was meant to be much more than it was. Originally titled "Twisted Souls" there was I think two or three different directors directing this movie. It would be very interesting to see what would have been done with the original idea of the movie. But nonetheless, the movie turned out very fun and very silly. Check it out if you can find a good copy as I am still looking for a version that may have extra footage.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Two-line summary : a group of people spends the night in this mansion near an old cemetery and encounter all sorts of strange, horrific beings. There are zombies resurrecting outside, demons arise from an ouija-board and all these creatures are ruled and controlled by an old Frankenstein-like fella in the attic. Other than these we have an authentic red-eyed Grim Reaper, mummies, giant spiders, little gremlins and huge monsters. Don't be fooled, however, because this 'Spookies' is a lot less silly than it actually seems. It contains several very efficient shock-effects and the make-up achievements easily outshine 90% of all the other low-budget 80's horror movies. I'd even go further and claim that this is a very underrated little flick and it deserves more praising (and a DVD-release!!). "Spookies" received the Delirium-award for best Special Effects at the international SF and Fantasy films festival, so you see I'm not the only one who likes it. If it only had a little more plot, it would enjoy the same status as films like 'The Evil Dead', 'Demons' or 'Re-Animator'. No plot, no depth, no logic nothing but tremendous fun! That's the best way to describe this film. Check it out, horror fans, and unleash your most monstrous appetite!!
  • Spookies has enough weaknesses for two movies, which is fitting given that it is really two movies edited together into one. Although the resulting "film" is far from the worst example of this type of project (e.g. anything by Godfrey Ho), it highlights the weakest aspect of both films.

    One plot line follows a group of friends who get caught in a haunted house populated by nightmarish demons. This plot thread is the better of the two, as it boasts some impressive make up effects and creature puppetry. A spider creature represents a particular highlight.

    However, none of the characters are really fleshed out, and no protagonist emerges. Furthermore, the characters are so disparate that it is hard to imagine why they associate with one another. The group boasts a middle aged man and what appears to be a fifties juvenile delinquent.

    The second plot, tangentially related to the first through some dialogue, but never intersecting, involves a sorcerer trying to resurrect his wife with the help of his werecat and some human sacrifices. The special effects in these segments are much weaker, with make up on the level of a children's Halloween costume.

    The overall product is also weakened by mostly failed attempts at comedy, mostly consisting of the characters acting even more stupid than the typical horror victim. The film is worth watching, if at all, for some of the more interesting creature effects.
  • Spookies is shy and unsure of itself at first but its confidence grows and shows us what its got starting with Duke's "What's behind this door?!" and subsequent chair smashing. All it needed was a little encouragement, encouragement that other reviewers are denying it!

    Farting muck monsters in the basement! A Grim Reaper made out of oily rags! (apparently) An un-dead Winona Rider lookalike! A zombified Michael Jackson impersonator! More movies should be like Spookies! The movie doesn't take itself seriously and so neither should the audience. The American public can only take so much terrorists at sporting events-world being saved by greasy wife beater shirt wearing hung over Bruce Willis-Nicolas Cage types from Brian Depalma until our souls are empty, minds numbed, and we become zombies. Wait! If that happens we can make more movies like Spookies! My optimism and hope for the world has been renewed!
  • An almost completely impossible film to review since it was so heavily re-shot and re-tooled after its initial production, muddling the original creator's intentions so you're never really sure what most scenes are going for. That said, there are several inventive effects sequences and it's entertaining in a trainwreck sort of way.
  • I thought Troll and Troll 2 were bad but this is in the same area of bad and those two movies together. Stupid people doing stupid things throughout the whole movie. That is not entertaining at all. I survived the whole thing but not enough to keep seeing it more than once. I am surprised people actually like this dirt. Night of the Demons 1988 is way better by 10 times.
  • A group of people get trapped in an old house and are taken out one by one by a various monsters , zombies and even the grim reaper and nearly all of these ghouls look terrible, i understand that i have to take into consideration the era but you can see the puppeteer for christ sake.. I am not sure if i watched the cut version of the film but there is not a great deal of gore and there is no nudity , it almost seems like a pg13 movie All in all this film is still pretty entertaining I love the spider woman death scene And it has the 80s charm but i feel it falls just below the average horror from this time.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    So this film was a low budget project that was shelved and patched up by someone else with additional footage. The acting is standard, the effects are old school but you know what it has atmosphere and its weird as hell.

    So I like it, even more than all those crappy Michael Bay remakes, even better than the Paranormal Activities and the Paranormal Entities and the Devil Insides etc.

    The story is sparse to say the least, also it doesn't make much sense. Think Phantasm or City of the Living Dead and you get the idea.

    A kid is alone in the woods, its his birthday and his parents forgot so he has run away from home. He talks to a weirdo who hangs around in trees, once the boy goes the man is murdered by what appears to be some sort of blue cat man in a strange dinner suit, who proceeds to follow the boy. The basic plot revolves around an old man who lives in an old house in the woods, trying to revive his dead wife with people souls, only to find when she wakes up, she doesn't want him. What a bitch! ha

    So then we meet a motley crew of people looking to party pull up outside an old house, why these people decided to hang out together I have no idea, they are so random.

    So the boy finds the house and finds a room set out as a party for him for his birthday, he is delighted but finds a head in the cake box and runs off to the woods, only for the blue cat thing to catch him and bury him alive... weird and a little disturbing.

    So we are left with these party goers who don't really have a party. What follows is a series of set pieces that are weird, funny and not at all predictable. There's the mud men in the basement, a disgusting mutant that fires electric currents, the witch in the caverns, the little vampire kid and most memorable, the spider lady.

    So if you like some old school 80s weirdness I would recommend.
  • Okay, this movie has a reputation as having been completed as a film, when the producers realized that they didn't have a long enough film to release to theaters. So rather than call the original cast together for reshoots, as they might want more money or something, just write a bunch of scenes with unrelated characters, somehow shoehorn them into the story, and then hope it doesn't turn into an incoherent mess.

    Oh, wait, no, it turns into an incoherent mess, anyway. The spliced scenes are so bad, they look like they have no business even being in there. Most of it involves mugging by a werewolf henchmen, who was holding all the doors shut when the doors suddenly closed. That actually made the movie less scary. None of this really worked, and that no one had the guts to say so is kind of sad.
  • The first time I tried watching "Spookies" was on a rough looking ex-rental video tape and I barely got through the opening sequence due to its bad quality. So in the bin it went, and my hunger for seeing it only grew. Until recently I luckily happened upon a DVD copy of it.

    A group of young adults driving around looking for a place to party stumble across old mansion in the woods. Unknowingly to them it's occupied by an evil sorcerer and one by one they're picked off to help revive his dead bride.

    "Spookies" is downright crazy, senseless and spontaneous low-rent 80s sludge, which is so goofy it's too much fun to pass up. Everything about it is hysterical. I guess you just have to go with its unhinged tone and take it as a creaky haunted house ride, where you don't know what awaits you at every turn. Since it's a patchwork of two films, some executed passages might be clunky and never truly capture its imaginative concept and ideas, but at least the original (but not perfect) screenplay makes for an enjoyable, if confounded monster mash. While heavy on things going on, the short running time breezes by until it comes to it's somewhat eccentric, but dragged out climax. Also it breathes some striking atmospheric touches and positional placements -- especially the use of lighting within the creepy rundown mansion. What I did like is that while it can seem silly, still it has a cruel, grim side that's perfectly pitched by the opening sequences involving a young teenage boy.

    Although where it actually caught me off guard, was with its use of visual effects and make-up FX. The low-budget shows within the set-designs and props, but the creations (a whole bunch of ghouls) and effects (optical lights and splitting heads) are vividly creative and extremely well delivered. Not so the erratic music scoreÂ… talk about random and kooky. But then again it should fit its style. The performances are gawkily over-the-top (with Felix Ward taking top honours) or woodenly blank with the typical character fodder evident, but the script while amusing remains muffled and daft.

    Cheapjack, but mindlessly entertaining 80s horror comedy, where anything goes.
  • Tikkin1 September 2006
    As cheesy as Spookies is, and as much as I love cheesy horror flicks, I didn't particularly enjoy this one at all. It just didn't grab me and seemed very flat and dull. How can you get bored whilst watching a cheesy monster flick, I hear you cry. Well, I don't know the answer, but I was. I just didn't like the 'style' of the whole film, it seemed too cheesy and was also too dark to see things properly. There seemed to be a lot of stalking about in the house which was tedious. There was also some guy controlling the monsters babbling on about nonsense, and I couldn't really follow what was going on.

    Some people will dig this, but it's not for me. Only recommended to those who love cheesy monster movies.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Oh I always just loved this film to death, it has such a great fun and scary kind of atmosphere, and I never saw another horror movie with so many different kinds of monsters packed into the story! The theme music isn't much but it sets the tone, the smiling skull informing the audience that the following macabre romp is purely intended in the spirit of ghoulish fun, and is by no means meant to be taken too seriously, although it certainly has its grim moments and there's no shortage of death! The opening demise of the rather brainless Billy is quite the chilling and nasty sequence. At first it seems like the drifter's gonna try something funny with Billy until he's killed by the lame gypsy/pirate/werecat who then, after the creepiest damn horror movie birthday party ever, chases down the helpless little boy, slashes his face and buries him alive! 13 was not a lucky number for Billy... I thought Felix Ward in his one and only role as the deliciously sinister and villainous Kreon was just excellent, and the character setup is so epic and cool to me! Ancient, evil corpse-wizard residing in his decrepit abode of the damned, using dark magic rituals to summon up a mad menagerie of freakish demons to seek out and kill the group of unfortunate sacrificial victims that are trapped in his funhouse of doom, orchestrating the fates of victims and a veritable symphony of horrors like a well-played game of chess, all for the sake of resurrecting the idealised lost love who once poisoned herself to escape him in the first place! The magnificently gothic old mansion was a truly excellent setting for some classic '80's terror. All the gloomy dark hallways and rooms make for one superbly nightmarish tone that's spiced-up by the beasties that are constantly appearing out of nowhere, creating a feeling of the unknown around every corner. Most of the cast were admittedly annoying and forgettable, making you wish that they'd just hurry up and die, which in this case was probably a good thing, and that kind of low-budget acting only adds to the charm in a movie like this. The wannabe comedian with the sock puppet especially deserved to die horribly - and boy does he ever! Fabulously disgusting and inventive display of good old practical effects work in that sequence. I loved the oh-so British "Adrienne", her droll bad attitude was really funny in the scene where she's smoking a cigarette and bossing around her wimpy husband! The music that plays during the scene where she's fighting the snake gremlins is so strange and dramatic, and a very eerie and weirdly poignant scene is the one of her gruesome, and partly-animated death via the electric tentacles of a wailing abomination, and then its unspeakable heart of darkness beats anew... Love that scene! The muckmen were the easiest out of all the monsters to defeat! I think maybe their farting was swamp gas escaping because they were made outta mud! Those silly noises make that part a real guilty pleasure. I love the finale with the rocking music going as the blushing bride is chased through deep dark woods by the demonic zombie horde! Totally goes on forever, but it was the perfectly over-the-top punchline that the whole movie deserved - creatures of the night, put your claws together!!! Half the film is kind of serious, and the other silly. It's a real soup of various horror concepts that somehow to me, all blend together into a joyously macabre work of dark wonder. And regardless of its faults "Spookies" delivers where it counts, maintaining a menacing and surreal tone of dread that keeps the viewer creeped-out until the bitter end. And for whatever reason I do adore that bad ending where everybody's freaking dead and buried, the malevolent old snake survives, the princess is his unwilling prize for all eternity, and his black victory is complete! This picture has something of the old E.C. Grand Guignol magic about it. Cheesy at points, but overall an awesomely spooky blast to watch and it always was one of my all time favourite horror flicks. Bloody brilliant!!!
  • Crazy production story behind Spookies, fairly extensively discussed in the Vinegar Syndrome Blu-ray extras. This movie was originaly made under the name Twisted Souls, and directed by Brendan Faulkner and Thomas Duran. Produced by VIPCO founder Michael Lee, who was not happy with the results. So everyone then-presently involved was either fired or quit, and Lee set out to complete/remake the film with an all-new staff. Hired as director was former porn star Eugenie Joseph. The 43 minutes of new footage (as opposed to 42 minutes of old footage left; not a coincidence) inserted is, frankly, disastrous. It is super obvious to spot, too. Everything that occurs in it is completely outside the core plot. It's too bad, because Spookies has some really amazing creature effects, and is a potentially fun haunted house-style horror flick. My only gripe with this half of the movie is that the voluptuous redhead does not get naked. I mean, you don't put a woman with a body like that in a horror movie and not have her get undressed! We can actually thank Michael Lee for missed opportunities such as this, as he stated he didn't want to do anything controversial or graphic. VIPCO was at the center of the Video Nasty panic in England back in the 80's.

    If you're going to watch Spookies, essential viewing are the two feature-length documentaries on VS's special edition. First up is "Twisted Tale - The Unmaking of Spookies." This is the original production team of Twisted Souls speaking quite candidly (and bitterly) about the making of their ill-fated horror film. Quite a fascinating journey. Next is "VIPCO - The Untold Story," which really just seems like a fan letter to the VIPCO label. But running over two hours, another dialogue entirely emerges. It tells of the story of the unraveling of the label, all at the hands of president Michael Lee. This extra is telling. It shows not only how out of touch the guy was, but also how money hungry he was (always quick to point out how much money he made). Much of this is told IN HIS OWN WORDS. There's no doubt VIPCO was the godfather to current boutique labels like Arrow, Scream Factory, and Vinegar Syndrome, but this documentary proved that they not only weren't willing to keep up with the times, but also any reasonable suggestions to Lee fell on deaf ears.
  • 1986 saw the release of some seriously bad horror films. 'Spookies' is one of them. In fact, this is easily one of the worst films I've ever seen.

    From the plot to the dialogue to the performances, this was beyond stupid and beyond bad. The attempts at humor were childish, to say the least. This film is worse than a high school production in terms of directing, with bad sound and bad make-up. The acting was seriously WTF bad!! I honestly couldn't wait for this to end. There literally was not a minute I enjoyed.

    It's so bad it's hard to believe this was made by industry professionals. Then again, maybe I should analyze the 'professionals' part. As it turns out, this film was a first for all the actors, and none of them pursued acting (with the exception of Peter Iasillo Jr., although most of his film work was uncredited). Even the directors had little to no experience, and it shows!

    Credit where credit is due: the FX department created some incredible practical effects (especially the Spider Woman). Hats off to you guys!!

    Would I watch it again? Definitely not.
An error has occured. Please try again.