HumanoidOfFlesh First of all I enjoyed Marcello Avallone's masterpiece "Maya" from 1989, because it was stylish,well-produced and gruesome."Specters" is his first acclaimed horror film. While a team of archaeologists lead by Donald Pleasence are digging through some ancient ruins the subway being built above causes some cave ins and new catacombs are found.This leads to the burial ground of a legendary demon who then rises to the occasion and starts dispatching his victims in gruesome ways."Specters" is obviously influenced by Lamberto Bava's "Demons".The plot is silly and offers many annoying sub-plots which lead absolutely nowhere.The photography is beautiful,but the action is slow and there is almost no gore.Only for Italian horror completists.A very generous 6 out of 10.

Coventry Huh, what do you know…! They do make horror movies in Italy that not appeal to me, after all! Well, actually I already knew that. The Italians were the undeniable masters when it comes to horror, especially during the seventies and eighties, but obviously all films couldn't be winners. Just like "Manhattan Baby" and "Zeder", which more or less revolve on similar themes, "Specters" is an incredibly incoherent and painfully tedious film. The basic premise holds a lot of potential, for sure, but director Marcello Avallone – as well as his three (!) fellow writers – didn't manage to turn it into a compelling script. Several of the story lines are underdeveloped, the film wastes far too much time on irrelevant sub plots and insignificant supportive characters, the evil's true nature remains a mystery even after the film has finished, the lead roles aren't convincing and the production incomprehensibly doesn't take full usage of the marvelous filming locations and scenery! Here they are shooting a film in one of the most beautiful cities in the world – underneath it as well as on the surface – but all we get to see are pitiable images of some lame ruins. Donald Pleasance, who regularly appeared in Spaghetti horror productions (see also the much better films "Phantom of Death" and Dario Argento's "Phenomena") is clearly aware of the film's inferior quality and thus doesn't even bother to give away a half-decent performance. There's something evil lurking under the city of Rome… The acclaimed archaeologist Prof. Lasky and his crew have been searching for a 19 centuries old tomb for many months, but now it seems that the nearby subway construction works have finally exposed the entry. The discovery might not be such a triumph after all, as the occupant of the sarcophagus – a bizarre type of feline monster – is awakened and promptly goes on a rampage. Well, at least I think it goes on a rampage, because that's the point where the "Specters" really stops making sense. Many sequences, like the "Nightmare on Elm Street" similar suck-into-the-bed death scene, are played like they are hallucinations whereas other ones, like the head crushing sequence, are reality? There clearly is some sort of (spiritual?) link between the monster and one of the archaeologist's girlfriend (played by the former Miss Denmark Trine Michelsen who recently passed away as a result of bone cancer) but that story aspect is never at one point clarified. You'll get used to that, though, as there are many more. What's the deal with the blind tour guide in the catacombs? What inflicted the veto between Prof. Lasky and the exaggeratedly gay-behaving elderly antique dealer? Why does literally everybody in this film insist on having extended conversations with themselves? Why aren't the school couple from the beginning of the film ever mentioned anymore? Whatever, it's a really stupid and lackluster film; let's just keep it at that. As usual with the productions he was involved in, special effects wizard Sergio Stivaletti delivers the finest piece of work. The budget was clearly minimal, but he nevertheless still managed to provide some pretty cool and engrossing effects.

jplenton **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!).

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.