I think I've figured something out.
First of all, this movie was bad. Baaaaaaaaad. It was terrible. It was as bad as anything else that Ed Wood Jr. has ever made, so don't think that what I have to say is meant as some kind of praise (although from a modern view of Wood's work, it just may be).
I believe that by the time Wood made "Night of the Ghouls", he had already figured out that he was a truly terrible filmmaker, and that none of his movies would be "classics". I say this because I really think this was meant to be some kind of comedy. A really inept comedy with jokes that you only laugh at because they're so badly written, but a comedy nonetheless. I think that with this movie, Wood may have actually SET OUT to create a horrible piece of garbage, but a funny horrible piece of garbage. Of course, if I'm right, he succeeded. Some of the stuff in this is just too bad to believe. This may be his worst film, but I think he may have intended it to be his worst film. I think he also intended it to be funny (of course, you're laughing for all the wrong reasons, but there are enough obvious jokes in this to suggest that I'm right).
The centerpiece of this movie? Why, Criswell, of course. As the narrator and also a character who pops up in the "surprise" ending, he has been given the gift of some of the worst dialogue that has ever graced the screen. You have to wonder if Wood WANTED the dialogue to sound so bad. After all, who could write this stuff with a straight face? There's also Tor Johnson, as Lobo, a disfigured monster. He just sort of stumbles around and moans all through the movie. He's supposed to be a depraved beast, but he doesn't automatically kill the cops when he gets his hands on them. Does this make any sense? Of course not, but in a Wood movie, sense goes out the window with quality.
Now, there's more to support my argument that Wood was trying to make a horror comedy. First of all, in the first death scene, the music is completely incongruous to the action. It sounds like the background to a cartoon, or perhaps a jaunty comedy. This music pops up elsewhere in the movie. And there are certain characters who really seem to be stock comedy characters. The most obvious is the inept cop Kelton (who appeared in a couple previous Wood movies), who comes off sort of like Lou Costello in those old Universal movies. He's certainly intended as comic relief. But then there's the old couple from the beginning. You're going to tell me they weren't meant to be funny? The plot, about a phony medium (named Dr. Acula, natch- do you really think this wasn't some kind of corny joke?) who claims he can raise the dead, but who it turns out REALLY CAN raise the dead, is like something out of an EC comic book. And the ending is straight out of an EC comic book. But certain aspects of this plot really seemed to be intentionally bad too. The séance scenes, for example. Was the ghost in the sheet with those weird whistling sounds supposed to be scary? Or the trumpet that was so obviously hanging from a string and playing something that can only be described as sounding like a 2nd grade trumpet player that can't even play as well as other 2nd grade trumpet players? All I'm saying is that perhaps Wood was trying to make a parody, perhaps of those EC comics. That's not to say that he succeeded. But I think that some of the bad dialogue is no "worse" than some of the dialogue that your Mel Brookses and Zucker Brotherses have come up with. That dialogue was meant to be funny. Who's to say this dialogue wasn't too? Let's consider, also, where he went from here. It's unclear to me whether this came first or "Plan 9 From Outer Space", but "Plan 9" is often called the worst movie of all time. And then? Why, he made softcore porn in his later years! I think that his earlier movies took themselves too seriously for them to be anything but accidentally bad. But maybe by "Night of the Ghouls", he had "figured out" how to make a truly bad movie, and he was exploiting that fact, TRYING to make a bad movie. If this is the case, it turns all current theories of Wood's work on their head. It means that he achieved his artistic vision with at least SOME of his movies, and since we continue to be entertained by them for what they may have been meant to actually be, he wasn't such a bad filmmaker after all. I mean, sure, he certainly wasn't a GOOD filmmaker, but at least he wasn't TRYING to be a good filmmaker. Some of the time anyway.
Of course, that's just my opinion. And I still thought this was a bad movie. But I tend to rate movies more by entertainment value than by what others consider to be quality. "Night of the Ghouls", like "Glen or Glenda?" or "Plan 9", was an entertaining movie. I can't bring myself to give a low rating to a movie that I had so much fun watching. And besides, Wood has gotten the last laugh, because whatever his intentions, his movies are considered to be classics.
First of all, this movie was bad. Baaaaaaaaad. It was terrible. It was as bad as anything else that Ed Wood Jr. has ever made, so don't think that what I have to say is meant as some kind of praise (although from a modern view of Wood's work, it just may be).
I believe that by the time Wood made "Night of the Ghouls", he had already figured out that he was a truly terrible filmmaker, and that none of his movies would be "classics". I say this because I really think this was meant to be some kind of comedy. A really inept comedy with jokes that you only laugh at because they're so badly written, but a comedy nonetheless. I think that with this movie, Wood may have actually SET OUT to create a horrible piece of garbage, but a funny horrible piece of garbage. Of course, if I'm right, he succeeded. Some of the stuff in this is just too bad to believe. This may be his worst film, but I think he may have intended it to be his worst film. I think he also intended it to be funny (of course, you're laughing for all the wrong reasons, but there are enough obvious jokes in this to suggest that I'm right).
The centerpiece of this movie? Why, Criswell, of course. As the narrator and also a character who pops up in the "surprise" ending, he has been given the gift of some of the worst dialogue that has ever graced the screen. You have to wonder if Wood WANTED the dialogue to sound so bad. After all, who could write this stuff with a straight face? There's also Tor Johnson, as Lobo, a disfigured monster. He just sort of stumbles around and moans all through the movie. He's supposed to be a depraved beast, but he doesn't automatically kill the cops when he gets his hands on them. Does this make any sense? Of course not, but in a Wood movie, sense goes out the window with quality.
Now, there's more to support my argument that Wood was trying to make a horror comedy. First of all, in the first death scene, the music is completely incongruous to the action. It sounds like the background to a cartoon, or perhaps a jaunty comedy. This music pops up elsewhere in the movie. And there are certain characters who really seem to be stock comedy characters. The most obvious is the inept cop Kelton (who appeared in a couple previous Wood movies), who comes off sort of like Lou Costello in those old Universal movies. He's certainly intended as comic relief. But then there's the old couple from the beginning. You're going to tell me they weren't meant to be funny? The plot, about a phony medium (named Dr. Acula, natch- do you really think this wasn't some kind of corny joke?) who claims he can raise the dead, but who it turns out REALLY CAN raise the dead, is like something out of an EC comic book. And the ending is straight out of an EC comic book. But certain aspects of this plot really seemed to be intentionally bad too. The séance scenes, for example. Was the ghost in the sheet with those weird whistling sounds supposed to be scary? Or the trumpet that was so obviously hanging from a string and playing something that can only be described as sounding like a 2nd grade trumpet player that can't even play as well as other 2nd grade trumpet players? All I'm saying is that perhaps Wood was trying to make a parody, perhaps of those EC comics. That's not to say that he succeeded. But I think that some of the bad dialogue is no "worse" than some of the dialogue that your Mel Brookses and Zucker Brotherses have come up with. That dialogue was meant to be funny. Who's to say this dialogue wasn't too? Let's consider, also, where he went from here. It's unclear to me whether this came first or "Plan 9 From Outer Space", but "Plan 9" is often called the worst movie of all time. And then? Why, he made softcore porn in his later years! I think that his earlier movies took themselves too seriously for them to be anything but accidentally bad. But maybe by "Night of the Ghouls", he had "figured out" how to make a truly bad movie, and he was exploiting that fact, TRYING to make a bad movie. If this is the case, it turns all current theories of Wood's work on their head. It means that he achieved his artistic vision with at least SOME of his movies, and since we continue to be entertained by them for what they may have been meant to actually be, he wasn't such a bad filmmaker after all. I mean, sure, he certainly wasn't a GOOD filmmaker, but at least he wasn't TRYING to be a good filmmaker. Some of the time anyway.
Of course, that's just my opinion. And I still thought this was a bad movie. But I tend to rate movies more by entertainment value than by what others consider to be quality. "Night of the Ghouls", like "Glen or Glenda?" or "Plan 9", was an entertaining movie. I can't bring myself to give a low rating to a movie that I had so much fun watching. And besides, Wood has gotten the last laugh, because whatever his intentions, his movies are considered to be classics.