If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

...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.

I saw this one back in the early 90's. I vaguely remember thinking it wasn't very good. But since there was a time when I first saw Fulci's CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD and just dismissed it as B-movie rubbish (Hey now, don't give me that look -- what did I know back then?), I decided to give the Italian SPECTERS another try. Turns out I was right the first time: It's not very good.Man, this movie had so much potential: Catacombs setting and ancient mythology about demonic mumbo-jumbo, some cool death scenes, Sergio Stivaletti doing the make-up and monster-FXs, Donald Pleasance, a sporadically present ominous drone-like soundtrack, obligatory sex-scene (boobies!) with the blond leading lady,... And the movie even has a cool title.But it's a hot-damn friggin' total mess of a movie! Practically nothing makes the slightest bit of sense in this one. None of the cool ideas are properly worked out. People just shift from one location to another without explanation. Donald Pleasance had no business in this film, except for playing a tired, old professor mumbling about stuff that nobody's able to follow anyway. Even the frozen shock ending is totally torn from the loo (sorry, that's a Belgian expression in which "loo" is British English for "toilet").I sighed immensely after this second viewing... This could have been great 80's horror stuff. Yet, it might still be considered a worthwhile one-time-only viewing. Mainly for the noteworthy elements I mentioned in my second paragraph. Plus there's a scene that resembles (ok, use the word rip-off if you desire so) another scene from ALIEN a lot (think: when Skerritt goes searching for the alien in the air-ducts, with someone watching his moves on a monitor). And Johnny Depp's death-scene in A NIGHTMARE ON ELMS STREET clearly served as a major influence (again: rip-off) for a similar (much briefer) scene in SPECTERS too.SFXs maestro Sergio Stivaletti does manage to convince again, for the most part. The "head crushing"-scene was nice (though they cut away just a second too soon). There's a gooey corpse popping up at some point. The one death-scene that starts off in the wine-cellar was well crafted. And even his demonic creature at the end seemed nifty. Though that one was hard to tell, as we're merely offered a few glimpses on it.So in a way, this is typical 80's Italian horror of the supernatural kind. But it's about three times more incoherent than what we're used to from these guys. Then again, if you've managed to sit through Fulci's lesser supernatural efforts (ex: MANHATTAN BABY), then you'll do just fine sitting through SPETTRI too.

**SPOILERS**There is a tendency for Italian horror films to draft in British and American actors to broaden their international appeal. Easy examples being John Saxon in Tenebrae and Rupert Everett in Dellamorte Dellamore. Specters (which should have been distributed in the UK as Spectres (lazy)) ropes in veteran horror actor Donald Pleasance. It marks the second Italian film I've seen in him, the first being the rather mediocre thriller Nothing Underneath. Optimistically I reckoned that Specters would easily be the better film and it is, just, although that isn't much of a commendation.In an undisclosed Italian city a group of archaeologists led by a Prof. Lasky (Pleasance), are exploring a series of ancient catacombs beneath the remains of a Roman bath system. Their ‘dig' is augmented by the local construction of a subway, the tremors from which cause a new series of chambers to be revealed. Unfortunately archaic writings in the first new chamber warn of an ancient evil that will be invoked. Of course, this being a horror film, the etchings are no idle threat…Most Italian horror (and perhaps horror films in general) emphasise style over content and Specters does not deviate from this tradition. Alas, the style aspect of the film is below par and fails to redeem it from its meagre content and any potential is lost. Part of the problem is that the film consists of too many inchoate strands, another that the killing scenes are mostly rushed and could have been easily improved (N.B. wind and fissures in the ground are not particularly scary).Most horrors incorporating archaeology either involve Ancient Egypt or a long-buried UFO. The use of Ancient Rome (and paganism) in this film is refreshing and one of its initial strong points. The baths, catacombs, zoology department of a museum, and other locales are well realised and created with some attention to detail. A big problem however is that little is made in terms of dialogue, backstory etc. of the Roman angle. The bloody history and mythology of Ancient Rome should have been emphasised a lot more to add flavour and atmosphere to proceedings. Instead, we have banal one-liners, an annoying ‘hero' figure, and not much explanation for anything. Even the ‘monster' itself is given scant explanation or detail; nothing transpires about what it is or its motivations.*spoilers to end*Another gripe is the on screen realisation of the said ‘monster'. (The title should be Specter or Spectre as there is only one of the blighters!). The film takes the classic method of slowly and tantalisingly revealing the creature scene by scene, i.e. firstly from the monsters line of sight, then a glimpse of its claws, then its eyes in the darkness, and so on. No complaints there. But at the finale, when it should be revealed in all its glory, it only gets a few seconds of screen time. In the dark. It leaves the viewer with no impression of what it looks like (unless you play around with the VCR controls). I suppose this approach hides any limitations in the SFX and make-up but it is a rum deal for a film that relies on its monster.The ending itself is pitifully executed. It is rushed, involves no real confrontation with the beast and over in seconds. A character who could offer some explanation for the events makes an appearance only to be butchered instantly, whilst the main characters run around avoiding the scary cracks in the earth and the oh-so-frightening gusts of wind. The reasons why the beast haunted and abducted one specific character are also given no explanation either.Now I shall mention some of the films good points (there are some thankfully) aside from the aforementioned Roman setting. The film briefly touches on the matter of whether history and artifacts should be the domain of private collectors or museums (or the dead!). The scene where Lasky shines his torch over a series of ‘emotionless' Roman statues to finally reveal … is impressive and invokes a sense of doom connected with a centuries dead civilisation. Finally, a character gets his head squelched against a wall (it was great!).

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.