Seventeen years after slaughtering all but one member of a family, a vicious serial killer known only as "The Sandman" awaits execution. But first, his jailers allow a minister to visit the... See full summary »
Seventeen years after slaughtering all but one member of a family, a vicious serial killer known only as "The Sandman" awaits execution. But first, his jailers allow a minister to visit the killer to give him last rites, unaware that the minister is a voodoo priest and an ally of the condemned prisoner. The priest places a hex on the Sandman so that when he is executed, his soul migrates into a new body made of sand. To sever his ties with his former life and achieve absolute power, the sandman must find and kill a man named Griffin, the sole survivor of the last family murdered by the killer. Written by
Patrick D. Rockwell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
The main characters' age is depicted differently throughout the film. In the first scene, Griffin is seven years old and Sandman appears to be in his early thirties. Seventeen years later, as Sandman awaits execution, he seems not to have aged a day, while Griffin is a full grown man. However, the flashback scene shows Sandman appearing to be about 10 years old, while Griffin is depicted as a baby. Their age difference just doesn't match up. See more »
I should have watched this one when I was younger. Around about 14 would have been just the ticket I think. I did see portions of it a few years back, the ending and bits and pieces of the rest deep one dope-haze night in between episodes of Six Feet Under and was pretty intrigued by what I saw, though by then it was a little too late already as some of it fell pretty flat. Still, I did get interested enough to finally see the whole thing and like I say, I should have seen it earlier. Not because its some great work or of any real significance at all, but having grown up on the 90's conception of B cinema this one could have awed the younger me. These days though, not so much. In short, the problem here is a lack of guts. The plot is solid supernatural slasher fare, a serial killer with several dead families to his credit and a penchant for pouring sand in the eyes of his victims gets a new lease of life after his execution, courtesy of a devilish priest. This becomes rather a problem for the survivor of his last slayings, not unexpectedly. There aren't any surprises in the general course of events, but the film gets a great boost from its evil doer, known as The Sandman. Not entirely sure why the film isn't just called The Sandman, but then maybe I'm just not that smart. Anyways, he's a terrific villain, well designed and decidedly unsettling. Freaky scars, inverted cross, artfully ragged clothes and deathly desert pallor plus the physical presence of Michael Harris make The Sandman quite the unnerving figure, but Harris' performance really sells things, soft voice and quiet demeanour perfect vehicle for his creepy rhymes and disturbing justifications. Whenever The Sandman is about the film carries a decent charge and threatens to turn great, the problem is that things are much too tame, there are scant few deaths and only one has any level of grue (and its pretty brief at that). Not that gore is totally necessary, but there aren't many kills and the sequences tend not to be especially well constructed. Its a real bummer as the film ends up repeatedly not quite delivering, even though it never gets too dull, indeed is fairly watchable throughout. As well as Michael Harris other performances are decent enough, Michael D. Roberts is effective as the evil priest (and sports wicked white contacts), Kathryn Morris is an appealing heroine and Jay Underwood is nicely wired as paranoid protagonist Griffin, his mounting terror put across rather convincingly. Pacing is okay and effects are sometimes interesting, sometimes silly looking. The ending is unfortunately part of the silliness, albeit moderately suspenseful and there are a few general plotting issues to chew over, though only one serious. Altogether this is a pretty frustrating watch, but even so it does manage to be fair enough if you have some interest nostalgic yearning in 90's b movies. 5/10 from me, which I guess might seem generous but I'd still say its do-able enough on a real slow night.
0 of 0 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?