FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Leofwine_draca This is a disjointed, sometimes confusing affair which spends an inordinate amount of time with people wandering around in dark tunnels. If you've seen Michele Soavi's THE CHURCH then you'll be well prepared for this film's structure as the two films are very similar. Both have confusing editing and plot strands which don't make sense. At least with THE CHURCH, Soavi had some style and pleasing religious imagery on show. When it boils down to it, SPECTERS is simply a monster-on-the-loose movie with some ancient mumbo-jumbo thrown in for good measure.Strangely enough, I actually enjoy films which have people wandering around ancient tombs and catacombs, so for me a lot of this film was pretty eerie. A single low note on the soundtrack helps add to the spooky atmosphere of the crypts, which certainly look impressive, being littered with skeletons, Latin inscriptions, rats, and mysterious artefacts. There's a sense of brooding menace and "eeevil" (as Pleasence would say) lurking in the shadows and, as is nearly always the case, it's what you don't see that's most frightening. When, at the end, the makers let their demonic creature on a rampage in the tunnels, a lot of the tension is dispersed as we realise it's just a man in the suit. At least the guys here were wise enough to figure that quick glimpses of the monster were enough instead of dwelling on it for a long time and totally shattering the myth.Donald Pleasence lends a welcome face in what otherwise is a completely Italian production (crew, cast, whatever). Pleasence gets all of the best lines here and gets to say the word "evil" in his own inimitable style about a dozen times. Aside from Pleasence, the acting is uninspired with boring leads who have the 'designer' look and not a single drop of charisma between them. A lengthy sex scene helps to pad out the running time but to serve no other purpose, while the film's best shock scene has been stolen from another film (the hands reaching out of the bed and dragging the victim down moment is a direct reprise of Johnny Depp's demise in A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET).There's a predictable twist ending and some mild gruesomeness to enjoy (a skinned head jutting from a wall), but only two major gore sequences. The first has an old duffer, who happens to be an antiques hoarder, get his head crushed against a tunnel wall - an exceptionally unpleasant moment. The other shows a blind man having his heart pulled out, but some rushed editing ruins the impact of this one and just makes it look rubbery. SPECTERS is okay, but a little too light on the horror and a little too heavy on the dialogue for me.

Reaper-of-Souls ...and I mean that sincerely. I don't truly understand all the hate this film has received. It honestly puzzles me. I have found it much better than the low rating it has garnered here. Maybe I just have a soft spot for 80s horror (or a hard-on, whichever way you want to perceive it).I won't discuss the plot. It's already been dissected on here, so there really is no need. I will say this however; it is not nearly as inept as some would have you believe. The film does move at a slow pace and it is cheesy. I'll give them that, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it is that lovable 80s charm that makes this film worth watching. I will also admit it could have used a good dose of gore, but the lack of it really doesn't hinder the film as a whole.So if you're a fan of 80s horror, specifically Italian in this case, then give it a shot. It's not a bad way to pass 90 minutes. If, on the other hand, you aren't very fond of 80s horror, then by all means give it a pass. Your loss.

Scarecrow-88 "Whether evoked, or not evoked..evil will come."During a routine archaeological study, a secret door is discovered leading to an undiscovered tomb. What lies within this tomb, a demon, if able to escape the tunnels, could threaten the lives of everyone above ground. It'll be up to Marcus(John Pepper), a member under renowned archaeologist Professor Lasky(Donald Pleasence)to seal the tunnels and stop this powerful demon who has designs on his temperamental actress girlfriend, Alice(Trine Michelsen).That's the best I can do to provide a reasonable synopsis for such a difficult film. It seems director Marcello Avallone and his co-writer Andrea Purgatori were more interested in flashy visuals than creating a decent story which we can follow.I kind of reacted to Specters the same way as Soavi's The Church. I think Avallone wishes to depart from following a narrative structure, freely using the premise of an evil resurrected from it's place of entrapment, to unload bizarre sequences such as the importance of wind which disrupts the characters and often leads to the presence of the monster somewhere within the proximity of those destined to perish. I was disappointed in the lack of gore, because there seems to be opportunities to show gruesome violence. I will admit that I think it's got some incredible atmosphere, especially the tunnels which lead to the demon's tomb, and the Roman catacombs. I'm not sure why the film was called Specters, though. I guess it sounded cool and those Italians, God bless them, love a catchy title. There were, to me, striking uses of light(..the dark silhouette of characters from afar in tunnel entrances as light shines from behind them, the demon opening it's arms after rising from under earth with light grandly presenting it to us, barely visible but still ominous enough, the great scene where the demon's green eyes blanket Lansky, his face full of fear at what he has just encountered), and a nifty tourist trip through the Roman catacombs. Didn't care for the Marcus character or his girlfriend, Alice(..although, she's hot in a man's shirt)and too many scenes end abruptly just as they were on the verge of getting really good. I loved the first time Marcus follows the tunnel which eventually leads to the demon's tomb and that marvelous sequence where Lansky is engulfed in darkness, his flashlight pointing out statues in his dead employer's cavernous "tropy room". There's a scene very reminiscent of Nightmare on Elm Street where Alice is sleeping, with the demons hands exploding from the mattress, pulling her into it(..many will consider this an outrage, I imagine).The main flaw, among many, that bothered me the most was the fact that Lasky informs Marcus to close the tunnels so that the demon can not escape, yet the beast attacks victims on the outside of the tomb. I think the feeble plot serves as an excuse for the demon to prey on those who were involved with it's discovery. Repercussions for those who are responsible for unearthing evil seems to be the point of emphasis, if there is one. The creature is flimsily established by the filmmakers with artifacts such as a dagger buried into a wall, pagan symbols, skeletal remains and a sarcophagus all tied to the demon terrorizing folks. The demon does rip the flesh of victims' faces and there's this neat jump scare involving a destroyed corpse. Enter with caution because Specters is not an easy nut to crack. Oh, and Donald Pleasence fans will probably find his character and performance rather disappointing. There were times when the poor guy just agreed to work in anything and Specters certainly doesn't display Pleasence at his best..he was sleepwalking all the way to the bank to pay his electric bill.

Scott Andrew Hutchins There is never any mention of a "specter" in this film. The creature we finally do see (other than Universal's Gill Man) is an ugly beast not unlike the She Creature. If it weren't for the ridiculous horror clichées, this film might have worked, as the set design is fascinating and some scenes are actually suspenseful, and the archaelogical dig is exciting. Unfortunately, a lot of it deals with stupid teenagers, gratuitous pop songs, sex, and topless scenes, and predictable junk make much of the film annoying. When wine bottles start spraying and catacombs are collapsing, it's interesting, but it has the cliché horror it's not really ending, no one survives by the main fornicating couple, and girls panicking from little mice. The blind man's beating heart getting ripped out is the ultimate in gratuity, since it lacks all the significance of Evan pulling out his own heart in Michele Soavi's _La Chiesa_. It could have been better than _Demoni_, but at least it's not worse, nor as disgusting.