Hooptober Neun (2022) - Film #31
The worst horror sequel from the 1990s that you haven't seen and can access

Look, I’m a Ghoulies guy. There’s something about the franchise that just makes me crack into a smile. There’s something joyfully low budget about them, and they combine ludicrous happenings with practical effects - always a winning combination in my eyes. That said, I’m basing these feelings solely upon the first two Ghoulies films. I’ve never seen the third one (I’ve been saving the DVD for a special occasion), but considering the lack of continuity between the various instalments, I didn’t see that as a major barrier to diving into Ghoulies IV, directed by certified schlockmeister Jim Wynorski.

Ghoulies IV wasn’t available to stream, so I bought the DVD. The only DVD I could find had Ghoulies IV packed in with a film called Exorcism. The DVD itself has no printing on. These things probably tell you a lot about Ghoulies IV.

Let’s start with the production quality. From the first scene, it’s quite clear that it’s not good at all. I’m not completely certain what it is that makes it that so clear - it might be the slightly empty set design, or the straightforward cinematography, or the dreadful overdubbing of dialogue in post - but it is very, very clear. I can look past that, being seasoned in the viewing of trash.

What I can’t look past is the Ghoulies themselves. I’m here to tell you, this is not a Ghoulies movie.

These aren’t my Ghoulies. Where’s the one who’s a bit like a rat? Where’s the toad one? Most of all, where the hell is the green toilet Ghoulie? That guy is the face of the Ghoulies franchise. Making a film in this series without him is like making a Muppets film with no Kermit. The Ghoulies aren’t even puppets this time around - a clear indication of the lack of effort put in here.

The Ghoulies aren’t named in the film to my recollection, but disappointingly, in the credits, they are named ‘Ghoulie Dark’ and ‘Ghoulie Lite’, adding an unnecessarily reductive, racialised element. If the Ghoulies have so few character elements as to make them worth naming, why would Ghoulie #1 and #2 not suffice?

To my knowledge, this is the first Ghoulies film that really makes reference to previous films, outside of the Ghoulie characters themselves, as Peter Liapis reprises his role from the first movie here. It’s a dreadful idea, as it actively detracts from the film, and I can’t imagine it added that made the film explode in the DTV market. Wynorski obviously (and probably accurately) believed that the audience wouldn’t make the connection to the first film, as he opts to show us some flashbacks here. The problem with this, beyond the incongruity of tone, is that these flashbacks show us exactly what we’re missing. We see green toilet Ghoulie, and we miss him. Of course, this presents a continuity question.

Let’s say that Ghoulies IV were set in a different universe to Ghoulies, and the films were linked only through the presence of characters that could be described as ‘ghouls’. I wouldn’t like it, but it could make a little sense. However, we are explicitly told here that this is a continuation of Ghoulies. So what happened to the Ghoulies? Why are they now actors in costume (narratively, of course - the real life reason is money)? Why are they now having full conversations? These are just a few of the questions. Here are a few more:

When the Ghoulies are in the back of Liapis’ car having a chat, why did he not hear them? Why are people in this film so bad at realising there are people behind them in cars in general? Why is a huge amount of the dialogue here shouted? How did Scotty get a job with the police? Why can no woman in this movie resist the Liapis charm? Why does a film as simple as this need so much exposition via Liapis monologue? Why does Liapis wear such an important jewel around his neck on a singular piece of string? Why does that jewel appear to be a piece of plastic?

The dialogue, from the very first scene, is an atrocity. Weak attempts at humour pervade, with each swing and a miss ironically adding to the overall humour here. The plot makes very little sense, and the movie feels very much like a string of scenes thrown together.

Beyond all of the issues with the Ghoulies themselves, there are issues with their usage. They have almost no relevance to the plot, and their characters are completely different from those of the previous Ghoulies. They’ve always been mischievous, but these Ghoulies are only mischievous - there’s no sense of menace coming from them. In fact, quite the opposite, as they save a woman in the street from a violent crime. I think they are against the bad guy, but they also come from hell. I honestly can’t decipher what their role is.

Is there anything good about Ghoulies IV? Absolutely. There’s a scene where the Ghoulies take a tear off strip from a telegraph pole poster looking for film extras. There’s some bonkers strobe light action when the Ghoulies are trying to get hold of a bunch of keys. Some of the computer effects are charmingly poor. The actor playing the doctor seemed to be really enjoying himself. There’s a cool mask on a person turned demon. There’s a ludicrous scene where a lady in a red dress shows up - we’ve never seen her before, but she sets a massive dude on Liapis. At times, the film hits that sweet spot of being enjoyable as a result of its ineptitude, but not as consistently as I’d hoped it would.

Ghoulies IV, I wanted to love you. I wanted you to be ridiculous in all the right ways, but you let me down. There’s still fun to be had, but nowhere near the level that could have been achieved, and there’s a lot that made me miserable too. At the end, the Ghoulies float the idea of another sequel. I’d love for that to happen, but if anyone takes it on, I hope they keep the following phrase in mind:

Viva la toilet Ghoulie!