Watch The Ghoul For Free

Too much of everything

So much average

Captivating movie !

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

So what gives? The description gives the whole thing away. Where's the sense in that? Right away we know the ghoul is this doctor's son who's a cannibal. I'm sorry I stopped in to see if this is worth watching. Now I know what the story is there's no point is there. I was somewhat intrigued to begin with because John Hurt seems to be assistant to the stooge of the ghoul. So I thought I'd pop over here and see what the fans think. Actually I just wanted to see if it really was John Hurt or not. But lo and behold I made the mistake of reading the description and now I know it all. Where's the mystery now? The guy that always plays Van Helsing or Baron Frankenstein is the doctor and his son is the ghoul. John Hurt is the murdering psychopath who stooges for the Indian woman who stooges for the ghoul. And the doctor is a lying sack of feces. The whole gang is a bunch of utter scum. Since I don't like any of these rats I don't think I'll watch anymore. Bye. Oh yeah.. whoever wrote the description is an idiot.

If one chooses to go by the Law of Diminishing Returns, one finds it can be applied to almost anything, and Film Studios banking on the same themes are no exception. The film studios in question are the four British 'Horror Houses': Hammer, Amicus, Tigon and Tyburn. And at first, the law plays itself out almost perfectly. Hammer was the first and most innovative with it's(for the time)abundant cleavage and(for the time)graphic gore, as well as introducing the world to Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Oliver Reed and Ingrid Pitt, Amicus came second and made plenty of enjoyable, non-pretentious horror films that played out like carnival spook houses and at one point were upping Hammer in overall quality of product, then there was Tigon; which no sane human being could disagree produced mostly crap; yet amazingly managed to squeeze out the AMAZING 'Witchfinder General'(1968) by the talented and tragic Michael Reeves; a film many consider to be one of the 5 or 10 finest horror films ever made and superior to anything it's rivals put out, and I wouldn't entirely disagree. Then we come to Tyburn studios. Logic dictates that this would be the worst studio of the four, but all in all, especially considering it only made 3 films, Meh, it's output wasn't bad or good, just....Meh. 'Persecution'(1973) was dull, and 'Legend of the Werewolf'(1974) was a fun potboiler, but nothing I'd soberly give more than a 6.9.(Though I should admit that I DID like it more than Hammer's 'Curse of the Werewolf') So in other words, Tyburn was to Anglo-Horror what Skywald was to horror comics; not bad, but nothing worth getting excited about. BUT WAIT!! I left out Tyburn's most famous(?) film; 'The Ghoul'. This sluggishly-paced ODHWWFM(Old Dark House With Warped Family Members)entry may not be a GOOD film, per Se, but it's certainly the most stylish film to come out of Tyburn. It's also notable as one of the most bleakly depressing films I have ever seen. But hey, it'll at least be worth including for my 'Family Un-friendly' series of reviews.It starts out quite well as a young woman we will later learn is named Daphne(Veronica Carlson) creeps through a mansion with a candle to strange screams and gurgling noises, luxurious architecture and flickering shadows build suspense, establishing a good-looking film at least(Surprise, surprise, the director is our old friend Freddie Francis), she gets closer and the cries grow louder! Louder! She turns to find a hanging young man foaming from his mouth!!! Sounds like a great beginning, huh? Pity nothing in the film matches up to it, as it all turns out to be a prank that doesn't even faze our heroine. Daphne, an oddly assertive type for the era this film is taking place gets in a race with her friends, determined to win(this takes up a good 15 minutes of screen time, I kid you not)she gets lost in what is absolutely THE FOGGIEST moor I have ever seen. The car breaks down near a cliff, and Daphne searches for help. After being warned, and then almost raped by a creepy handyman(A younger John Hurt) near a mansion, Daphne meets the mysterious owner of the mansion, Dr. Lawrence(Peter Cushing)and his Indian maid, Ayah. After several tedious scenes where we learn Lawrence lost his wife and son in India(including some very racist dialog), well, nothing happens. And then Daphne gets murdered. After some drama between the Handyman and Ayah, Daphne's friends search for her and all get killed off(I do have to mention an absolutely incredible murder scene involving a hatchet to the face that is the high point of the film)before Lawrence kills the killer(The titular 'ghoul')before shooting himself.Peter Cushing had an almost masochistic tendency after his wife's death to play grieving widowers, and he clearly wasn't in a very good state of mental health, his performance is mostly routine, but eventually Cushing had a breakdown and his fit was recorded. The film's stolen bag of tricks from 'Psycho' and 'The Reptile'doesn't help save long sequences of tedium.That said, Francis does an excellent job creating an atmosphere of nihilism and despair. The mansion exists almost like a house dropped into hell with the fog seeming to separate it from the world. All attempts at escape fail, all characters are somewhat unlikeable and austere and the film as a whole is just unpleasant. Too bad there's no thematic content for it to serve.It's also frustrating that we never learn the origins of this 'Ghoul'. He's supposedly Lawrence's son, but how he came to be a ghoul is never explained, only a vague mention of a 'maharajah' is made. And if he is under a curse, why does he visibly change from the handsome man from the pictures into a different looking one who isn't visibly inhuman except for scars? And why the scars? He isn't a zombie type of ghoul. Why not have him just be a normal, but disheveled version of the same actor from the photograph if you're not going to make him look like a monster at all? And why does he wear Hindu garb? Was he garbed by the maharajah? And if so, why does he continue to wear them? Wouldn't Lawrence make SOME effort to cure him, at the very least, change his clothing? Why does he keep Ayah around? She's obviously evil, but doesn't seem to be controlling him. And what does the handyman's RAF background have to do with anything? It all makes no sense and is never explained or resolved.I have no problems with using my imagination in films where things are left unexplained, in fact, in Francis's other 'Family' film, the wonderful 'Mumsy, Nanny Sonny & Girly', I liked that approach. But in films like that, those unexplained details were TANTALIZING, here they are FRUSTRATING, and that makes a world of difference.For completists only.~

"The Ghoul" is a Hammer wannabe from producer Kevin Francis and Tyburn Films. Directed by Kevin's father, Oscar-winning cinematographer and veteran genre director Freddie Francis. The film benefits from nice sets and costumes, good performances by the leads Peter Cushing, John Hurt, and Veronica Carlson, and the sure hand of Freddie Francis at the helm. But the action is non-existent, even for a performance-driven film fan like myself. This thing doesn't even move! The cinema equivalent of rigor mortis. I literally had to pause and walk away from the film several times before finishing. Tyburn and Kevin Francis have done much better with films like "Persecution" (aka: "Terror of Sheba") and "Legend of the Werewolf" (also with Cushing). Not to mention the fine 1984 British TV-film "Sherlock Holmes and the Masks of Death" (again with Cushing as Holmes). For fans of Cushing, Hurt, and Carlson only.....

The Ghoul starts in 1920's London where two rich guys Geoffrey (Ian McCulloch) & Billy (Stewart Bevan) challenge each other to a car race to Land's End, the very most Northern point of the UK hence 'Land's End' because that's where the land ends. Anyway, to stop any cheating a couple of ladies join the ride, going with Billy & insisting on driving is Daphne (Veronica Carlson) & going with Geoffrey is Billy's sister Angela (Alexandra Bastedo), they all hop in their fancy motor cars & speed of into the night. Now back in the 20's there probably wasn't the road system we all know & love these days & like a typical woman driver Daphne gets lost, almost sends the car over a cliff & to add to their worries they've run out of petrol. They split up & Daphne meets a sinister guy named Tom Rawlings (John Hurt) who tries to stop her going to a large isolated house deep within some marshland owned by one Dr. Lawrence (Peter Cushing) but to no avail, at first Dr. Lawrence seems nice enough but that night Daphne discovers that there is something nasty lurking in the attic which feeds on human flesh...This English production was made by the short lived Tyburn Films who only ever made three films all of which were horror, Persecution (1974), the cool Legend of the Werewolf (1974) & this The Ghoul in '75 before they went out of business, if I'm honest that's not actually a bad resume of films. Directed by Freddie Francis for some reason I have always wanted to see The Ghoul, I recently admitted defeat in trying to see it for free & actually spent some of my hard earned money on a copy & while it's a decent little horror film for sure it did end up disappointing me although I suspect a large part of that is down to the fact I had high expectations for it. The script by Anthony Hinds as John Elder has all the necessary ingredients to be a top British period horror film, the fog enshrouded marshes, the period setting & the attention to detail, the large ominous isolated house that holds a gruesome secret, evil religious ceremonies, some killing & the fabulous Peter Cushing. However the script is a bit, OK very weak when trying to tie all theses ideas together, there is no explanation of how the Ghoul himself gets into the state he did or why he supposedly feeds on human flesh, there seems to be no connection between the Ghoul itself & the religious ceremonies that take place or just why there is so much religious symbolism in the film, what Dr. Lawrence's servants have to do with it & why they help/cover up for him & instead it decides to focus on the attempts to locate the people who have gone missing which just isn't as interesting as the Ghoul aspect. Having said that it moves along at a nice pace, is certainly watchable with some effective scenes & unusually has the balls to unexpectedly kill off one of it's stars about halfway through.Director Francis knows how to turn in a decent horror film with plenty of atmosphere & fog, the house sets are also excellent & very detailed with great attention to period detail. There are a few creepy moments with the attack of Daphne standing out. I thought the scene when John Hurt threw a rock & hit Veronica Carlson on the head to stop her going to the house was pretty funny though, surely there were easier ways? When finally revealed at the end the Ghoul himself (Don Henderson) looks rather silly, he looks like a bald overweight bloke painted grey. There's not much gore, someone gets a knife stuck in their head, there's a joke meat hook hanging & some stabbing but nothing else.Technically the film is impressive & would certainly give any other period horror film of the time a run for it's money. Peter Cushing is great as always & the rest of the cast is good to that includes John Hurt & Ian McCulloch who would both go on to arguably bigger & better things...The Ghoul is good film & I won't say it isn't but the story & it's ideas are never really tied together in any sort of convincing way, it's worth a watch but I think my expectations were just too high.