I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

i must have seen a different film!!

To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

This is a disjointed, sometimes confusing affair which spends an inordinate amount of time with people wandering around in dark tunnels. If you've seen Michele Soavi's THE CHURCH then you'll be well prepared for this film's structure as the two films are very similar. Both have confusing editing and plot strands which don't make sense. At least with THE CHURCH, Soavi had some style and pleasing religious imagery on show. When it boils down to it, SPECTERS is simply a monster-on-the-loose movie with some ancient mumbo-jumbo thrown in for good measure.Strangely enough, I actually enjoy films which have people wandering around ancient tombs and catacombs, so for me a lot of this film was pretty eerie. A single low note on the soundtrack helps add to the spooky atmosphere of the crypts, which certainly look impressive, being littered with skeletons, Latin inscriptions, rats, and mysterious artefacts. There's a sense of brooding menace and "eeevil" (as Pleasence would say) lurking in the shadows and, as is nearly always the case, it's what you don't see that's most frightening. When, at the end, the makers let their demonic creature on a rampage in the tunnels, a lot of the tension is dispersed as we realise it's just a man in the suit. At least the guys here were wise enough to figure that quick glimpses of the monster were enough instead of dwelling on it for a long time and totally shattering the myth.Donald Pleasence lends a welcome face in what otherwise is a completely Italian production (crew, cast, whatever). Pleasence gets all of the best lines here and gets to say the word "evil" in his own inimitable style about a dozen times. Aside from Pleasence, the acting is uninspired with boring leads who have the 'designer' look and not a single drop of charisma between them. A lengthy sex scene helps to pad out the running time but to serve no other purpose, while the film's best shock scene has been stolen from another film (the hands reaching out of the bed and dragging the victim down moment is a direct reprise of Johnny Depp's demise in A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET).There's a predictable twist ending and some mild gruesomeness to enjoy (a skinned head jutting from a wall), but only two major gore sequences. The first has an old duffer, who happens to be an antiques hoarder, get his head crushed against a tunnel wall - an exceptionally unpleasant moment. The other shows a blind man having his heart pulled out, but some rushed editing ruins the impact of this one and just makes it look rubbery. SPECTERS is okay, but a little too light on the horror and a little too heavy on the dialogue for me.

...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'm guessing you've got like late-era Italian films to enjoy this, but I liked this film a lot more than anyone that's reviewed this film here.Why? For all the reasons listed as negatives elsewhere, that's why! Sure, the plot doesn't make much sense, and barely exists. Sure, there's bad eighties hair, bad eighties music, and bad eighties everything else, but come on, these are good points! I had a good laugh with this one. I loved the way the first guy they sent down the tomb had to crawl for ages to get to it, but by the time Donald Pleasance et al got down there, it was as easy as walking into your back garden! Brilliant.It's suspenseful in places, with a good atmosphere and setting. I've been down to the catacombs in Rome and they really do warn you not to wander off. I thought that was because they were so large, but after watching this film, I guess it was to stop me falling foul of a demon.Good stuff, if you know what to expect.

**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!).