Platypuschow This disastrous Italian horror brings the late great Donald Pleasence along for the ride and surely didn't do his career any favours.With not only a low rating but barely 250 ratings on IMDB this clearly fell into obscurity and I can see why.Italian horror during the 80's was generally fantastic, this was a rare miss and quite a big one at that.It tells the story of a crew investigating unexplored catacombs and the ancient demonic evil that they unleash.With a messy plot, shoddy audio and camera work and a forgettable cast this is pretty bad stuff saved to a degree thanks to Pleasence and an interesting setting.If you seek Italian horror look elsewhere.The Good:Donald PleasenceNeat settingThe Bad:Poor sound editingDonald Pleasence looks like a big fish in a small pond hereAwful endingThings I Learnt From This Movie:Donald Pleasence must have been short on cash

BA_Harrison This cruddy, late-80s, Italian supernatural/demonic horror sees horror icon Donald Pleasance slumming it as archaeologist Professor Lasky, who, as the result of tremors caused by subway drilling under Rome, discovers a pre-Christian tomb full of pagan carvings, including an inscription which warns that "evil will come". And come it most certainly does, in the form of an ancient demon that proceeds to attack those involved in the excavation.Italian horror films of the 80s often displayed little regard for logic, but made up for their general incoherence with a sense of style, enthusiastic gore, and—if possible—some nudity from a good looking babe or two. This one tries on all three counts, but fails spectacularly on the first two, director Marcello Avallone's overuse of his smoke and wind machines hardly qualifying as stylish, while the splatter, most of which is saved for the film's closing moments, is frustratingly brief (blink and you'll miss it). Thankfully, Trine Michelsen as Alice, sexy girlfriend of archaeologist Marcus, is on hand for the gratuitous T&A, obligingly stripping off a couple of times in order to keep the viewer awake.The bulk of Specters, however, consists of lots of dreary dialogue and numerous supposedly scary scenes that rarely amount to much (with the best moment being blatantly ripped off from A Nightmare on Elm Street); as such, the film proves extremely tedious and delivers little in the way of genuine frights. The demon (created by Italian FX expert Sergio Stivaletti) remains hidden until the final moments, and, to be honest, isn't really worth the wait.3.5 out of 10, generously rounded up to 4 for the hilariously bad computer graphics used to track Marcus as he explores the tomb, and Alice's hub-cap sized earrings.

The_Void I wonder if, back when he was wowing audiences with great performances in films such as Cul-de-sac and The Flesh and the Fiends, Donald Pleasance ever thought he'd be starring in dross like this? Anyway, I have to say that I wasn't surprised to find that Specters is basically the film I thought it would be; namely, a poor Demons-style trashy eighties horror flick with little in the way of redeeming features. The plot is just common horror fare and features a bunch of researchers digging into places they shouldn't be digging and revealing a load of ancient catacombs that warn of impending doom. Naturally, the evil is unleashed. At the very least from this, I was expecting some decent gore; but all we actually get is cheesy crap which is matched by the trashy atmosphere and typically cheesy eighties soundtrack. The plot is a complete mess and I found it very easy to get bored. Donald Pleasance was obviously bored too, and that's not surprising considering the talent of the people he's working with; naturally, Specters features some awesomely terrible acting. It all boils down to a typically pointless ending and overall, this is one of the few films that is bettered by the lamentable 'Demons 2'!

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!).