Reviews written by registered user
KrowbOy

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
24 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Stands up fine next to the original., 17 March 2001
7/10

The Crow: Salvation is a very good movie, not even close to being the masterpiece The Crow is but it's the best sequel you can ask for. There has been a lot of press about Salvation's release and I to am puzzled as to why it's basically direct to video, the producers blame Dimension and politics and yes Salvation is grim but I don't know how true that statement is. The Crow: Salvation is, in my opinion, the most violent of The Crow movies, some is over the top and some is pretty grim stuff but hey it's all good. Eric Mabius seemed a strange choice to some cause he doesn't have the look of what you think of as the typical Crow good guy BUT he is very good at what he does, ranging from fights to anger, sadness...all are touched upon and he delivers in all areas. Kirsten Dunst does good also, I don't think she was bad like some reviews have said, she does seem kinda off in some scenes (the graveyard comes to mind) but she does fine. It's hard to explain Fred Ward's character because it will give away plot details (which honestly isn't hard to figure out anyway) but he does well and has some funny lines also, Fred's been a cool actor for a long time playing in some quirky movies like Remo Williams, Tremors and it's sequel, and Cast A Deadly Spell. Jodie Lynn O'Keefe's role isn't big at all and she doesn't have much to do but she's beautiful and the scenes she has are effective and the scene where she and Mabius are playing around doing fake karate is cute and touching, actually that whole scene is one of my fave's especially when Alex is at her grave talking about wanting to be with her but he can't...it's really touching and sweet, yes to those confused that and the karate scene are the same...you'll understand when u see the movie. The look of Salvation is closer to part 1 than 2 was and yet it has a look all it's own, Salvation is grounded more in reality than the first 2 were but the city is still dark, gritty, and depressing, and the sets were cool...especially the execution chamber with the words on each wall. The rest of the cast does fine with what they have but it isn't much, they are all paper thin bad guys with few characteristics to distinguish differences between them other than the way they die. Which brings me back to the violence, no I don't have a problem with it and am not talking about it to warn you because violence in movies does NOT make people kill others (what movies did Hitler and Stalin watch). Yes Salvation is the most violent Crow and it's not all fun some scenes are closer to the violence in Taxi Driver than The Matrix. But we do get some cool scenes like when Alex shoots himself in the mouth and the camera goes through the mouth as the wound heals and also the scene where Alex and the Dale Midkiff character are in the car and hit a bus and both fly through the windshield but I kinda think The Crow: Salvation is a little brutal but it's all good. Credit must go to Bharat Nalluri for making a cool looking movie with pretty cool camera work and effects and also credit Marco Beltrami for making a really good score that doesn't ape Graeme Revell's but is something all it's own. The ending is really good also but I pretty much figured out who was the man with the scarred arm (which was cool but also too derivative of The Fugitive) but another cool thing was his room looked like it was out of Texas Chainsaw Massacre or the stuffing room in The Lost Boys, but anyway the end was cool how the bad guy manipulated Alex into thinking maybe he did kill Erin...it was weird. And the end credits play over the new Crow symbol like the credits played over the Batman symbol at the end of Batman Forever. Oh and to just throw it in here it was cool that the markings if Alex were scars and not the paint like in 2 (which had really no reason for it other than cause it was part 2). I'm sure some will give Salvation hell because The Crow is so sacred to them but I say let the series live on and not die. Brandon Lee did give a truely great performance in The Crow and it's a tragedy that he died but I will not hold that against Salvation or City of Angels (which was kinda sucky). I do think Salvation could have been better with a little more money invested in it but that would be in the sets and scope department but then again I like Salvation a lot and Eric Mabius is a gifted actor (for further proof see Black Circle Boys). I hope to see more of Bharat Nalluri and hope he doesn't drop of the face of the earth like COA's director (Tim Pope what are u doing these days). The Crow was better yes because ALL of the characters were better drawn and Brandon's death which I'm not saying was good for the movie but did make the movie more of an emotional experience...it IS a masterpiece and no Salvation is no masterpiece but it is a great movie experience. You won't come away giddy (it is a Crow movie remember) but like part 1 you will come away thinking of Life, Love, and Death.

Hardware (1990)
24 out of 36 people found the following review useful:
Another of my fave movies, 28 February 2001
8/10

I remember first seeing Hardware late on night on cinemax and thinking it was gonna be some really lousy mess. Well that was probably about 6 years ago and still today it's one of my fave movies. Granted it's cheesy at times but it's also pretty intense and very artsy. Richard Stanley will always be one of my favorite directors just because of this movie, from what I've heard he was a music video director before this movie which explains why it's so cool looking (regardless of what some say I love when music video directors get a chance to direct movies). The acting ranges from good to o.k. (William Hootkins who played in the similar Death Machine goes from being the nastiest talking pervert to singing a really goofy song...which is the movies lowest point). The movie was very low budget but looks awesome, the production design is very good as are the effects. It looks like Blade Runner or maybe The Crow with a red/orange filter used to film every scene which gives it a gritty, bleak feel. The cyborg effects are pretty good also, it's filmed in a way that is similar to Alien, quick cuts and covered in darkness which can make the effects look better but also make the cyborg more menacing. And if you're looking for gore u found it here. I had a field day with all the blood effects...people get cut in half, eyes get squished, people are drilled, and there's a really trippy death scene at the end which is gory and poetic at the same time...oh and the cyborg goes to town on one guy's dead body with a chainsaw appendage that it has. Some reviews bitched about style over substance and lack of substance but Hardware is what it is....a really good horror/sci-fi movie. I read an interview in fangoria with Richard Stanley a few years back when he was unfairly fired from Island of Dr. Moreau and he said he was gonna have to do whatever he could to make a name for himself again after that incident and if all's true he did some kids movies last year and all but now he's supposed to come back with a sci-fi movie called A Season Of Soft Rains...hopefully more people will see what a truly gifted and talented director he really is. Now only if we can get an uncut version of Hardware on DVD.

Hannibal (2001)
I had a great, gruesome time, 13 February 2001
9/10

Being a Ridley Scott fan for just about all of my life I was looking forward to Hannibal not only because it was the follow up to Silence of the Lambs but because he made it and did it hold up to my expectations? The answer is a big fat yes. The movie will probably get bad reviews from critics and some viewers because of the simple fact that it is the follow up to Silence (like some did last years Blair Witch 2 another good movie). But if Silence is day then Hannibal is night, they are that different in look, style, and tone. Most will be wondering if Julianne Moore will be able to fill the role of Clarice Starling after Jodie Foster passed. Well thats a yes also and I can honestly say that not for a second after Julianne Moore appeared on screen did I think about Jodie Foster. Granted the Starling character is very different in this movie but it has been 10 years and she's a more mature and broken in character (for lack of better words) but yes also she doesn't have as much to do in this movie and spends a lot of time looking over old photo's and paper's on Lecter. Anthony Hopkins gives another awesome performance as Hannibal Lecter, but this time Lecter does (in typical hollywood fashion) have those quips that all famous horror characters seem to have. But thats cool because the character is just as interesting now as he was then. I won't go into detail about the plot because if you're reading this I'm sure you already know it but it follows the book very close....as close as it needed to in my opinion. The look of Hannibal is breathtaking but thats always a given in a Ridley Scott movie so we need not go into that except that this movie is very different from Silence in that it's not all gloomy and has the fall season look of Silence, it's sunny and warm (it's set in July anyway) and the Italian locations add a lot for look and atmosphere. There is even a scene where a thief is stalking Lecter through the streets and they are so crowded and smokey that they brought back memories of the crowded L.A. in Blade Runner. Gary Oldman stars as Mason Verger the only victim of Lecter's who survived, hidden under Greg Cannom's excellent makeup effects you will never know it's him but still he gives a good performance and shines through. But Giancarlo Gianinni is the best in the movie except for Mr. Hopkins and the scenes they have together are really good and I really didn't want to see him die. Which brings me to the violence in Hannibal. When I read Hannibal I said they would never be as graphic as the book but boy was I wrong. We all know Ridley doesn't shy from the red stuff and it flows here. Which wasn't a problem for me because I loved every minute of it and I can't think of a movie thats been this bloody except for some with the work of Tom Savini. And people complain about that. I mean really how the hell can people complain when the movie is about a guy who eats people....go figure. There are some chilling scenes also like one that plays on a t.v. and shows Hannibal attack a nurse and the one that stood out for me is when Pazzi is at the opera and see's Lecter in the audience and he turns and just stares back at Pazzi. The ending is different from the book as revealed early on but it is much better and the last part on the plane was really cool. I don't think Hannibal is as deep as Silence or Manhunter but it was more entertaining and not because it was mainstream because it sure isn't that but it was funny (yes funny Lecter has some great lines) and creepy and even kinda surreal and with the way the characters are drawn kinda Sheakespearian. I really enjoyed Hannibal and it is now one of my favorite Ridley Scott movies.....a worthy follow up to Gladiator for Mr. Scott and a worthy follow up to Silence of the Lambs....the wait was worth it.

Manhunter (1986)
51 out of 85 people found the following review useful:
One of my top 5 best movies, 7 February 2001
8/10

Michael Mann's 1986 adaption of the Thomas Harris novel Red Dragon now titled Manhunter is without a doubt one of the best thrillers (or can I say horror movies) ever made (I say horror because what else do you call movies about serial killers). Manhunter is a winner on every level, from directing (but what did you expect from Michael Mann), acting, and all the other major technical jobs. I actually think it's better than Silence of the Lambs because it involves you more with the characters and what goes into catching a killer thus making it that much more intense. Now don't get me wrong Silence of the Lambs is really good and Jonathan Demme did a great job but the only reason some think it is the superior Lecter movie is because it is the mainstream Lecter movie, but for that I applaud it (how many other movies has been loved by the public and won oscars yet has a guy sling jizz in a woman's face). Manhunter is, like all of Mann's movies, kinda artsy but thats also one of the things about his movies that make them so good. And no other directer except maybe Oliver Stone or David Lynch knows how to use music to set the mood better than Michael Mann, be it the score or songs in general. The performances in Manhunter are all good except William Petersen's and Tom Noonan's which were GREAT!!! William Petersen does a great job at showing the emotional toll the search for the killer has on him mentally, and I love the fact that he's a good guy with a kind of dark side in him. There is something in Petersen's face that to me really shows his determination in catching the "tooth fairy" and he really is an underrated actor who should have bigger roles than he does. Tom Noonan has made a career out of playing villians (at least until lately), the only ones that kinda stick out are The Ripper from Last Action Hero and Cain in Robocop 2. But those were typical bad guys and his performance as Francis Dollarhyde in Manhunter is hands down the best depiction of a serial killer ever. Now I say that without knowing anything about serial killers other than whats on the news and in books but I'm sure they have some feelings (nobody's totally evil) and Tom Noonan shows this in his performance. The killer is a cold blooded killer but has a human side that is shown once he meets Joan Allen's character. There were scenes between them that really showed (through Noonan's performance) how messed up Dollarhyde is, like when she is kissing him and they have sex there is this look of unease and being totally uncomfortable on his face that really help flesh out the character. Brian Cox, who played Lecter or actually Lecktor, does great with his performance also but this movie isn't about Lecter so he's only in it for 10 minutes at the most but does great with that time, his Lecter doesn't come off as being the embodiment of evil like the Hopkins performance but his Lecter is more of a sly, manipulitive character. Not that I'm saying he's better than Anthony Hopkins because Mr. Hopkins deserved everything he got because of his performance but different movies have different interpretations. The movie does leave out some things about Dollarhyde's past but I think they were not needed because Tom Noonan did enough on his part, but the ending does change a lot but then again after creating such a compelling character as Will Graham (one of my fave characters ever...right up there with William Sommerset from Se7en) I didn't want him to get mutilated and almost killed like in the books ending. Plus if you think the killer is dead yet there is some hesitation in that AND the killer knows where you live I don't think you would go back to that house with your wife and child like in the book....oh and the kid's name is changed from Willy to Kevin but Willy would sound so corny, can u imagine the scene where Kim Griest says "stay here with me...me and Kevin" being "stay here with me...me and Willy" you wouldn't be thinking of the scene itself u would be thinking "who the hell would name there child Willy". And the director's cut does add some more depth to the characters and the new scene at the end where Graham visits the family that was to be Dollarhyde's next victim's is really good, it's not all dialogue like "you saved our lives" and all that s**t, it's played in the character's face....there needed to be no dialogue for it. Manhunter is one of the best movies ever in my opinion and will ALWAYS be one of the best of it's sub-genre. Hat's off to Michael Mann and Anchor Bay for releasing that limited edition DVD. One more thing this movie has my fave line of dialogue from Lecter, the whole "have you ever seen blood in the moonlight" scene was cool.

10 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
probably the best in the best horror series ever!!!, 19 January 2001
8/10

I can't explain in words how much I love the Phantasm series. Each film is a direct continuation of the last and each time we get answers to questions about The Tall Man while at the same time more are being asked. Phantasm II is probably my fave in the series not because of the action (most phans say it's the most action packed but I think part III holds that honor) but really this is the only one where Reggie and Mike are side by side and in my opinion thats why it's the best (in all the others Reggie being the horn dog he is is trying to find mike AND get laid...which is still cool). I can't believe that no other phans have mentioned how much Phantasm II mirrors Evil Dead 2 (I know they've had to notice it) that however is not a problem cause right next to the Phantasm series is the Evil Dead series. Just look at it and you will see what I'm talking about. Phantasm II follows Evil Dead 2 by going into comedy at times, others have complained that Phantasm III had comedy but they for some reason they forget II did also....it just wasn't as campy but still was funny, like when Reggie beat a dwarf creature into pieces by going crazy on it with the end of a shot gun or the look on his face when Alchemy is riding him and smacks him on top of his head and when he pulls a chainsaw on the graver at the end only for the graver to pull out a really LONG chainsaw...and of course just about everything Reggie says is funny. And like Ash getting equipped with his chainsaw in ED 2 Reggie gets his now trademark 4-barrel shotgun, and the scene where the mortician gets a sphere in his back and bounces all over the room makes me think of ED 2. But believe me Phantasm II is not a copy cat of ED 2. It still has some creepy stuff in it like the scene where the grandfather is getting his mouth sewn up. But this movie screams atmosphere more than anything, with it's great score and visual style really helping to push that home. All the actors give great performances and The Tall Man is the ultimate villain thanks to a great creepy performance by Angus Scrimm...all he's gotta do is twitch an eyebrow. Also the scene where the priest gets it is really cool (you can tell that the MPAA made them trim it though but thats just my opinion). But I think what really separates this horror series from most is that in almost all the other you root for Freddy, Jason, or Michael Myers and even though I love The Tall Man (God bless you Mr. Scrimm) Reggie is without a doubt THE man. Some people may have Indiana Jones or any of those guys as their fave characters but mine will always be Reggie (played perfectly by Reggie Bannister) along with the Ash character from Evil Dead (Bruce Campbell...need I say more), Herbert West from the Re-Animator series (Jeffrey Combs...one of the funniest actors around) and the best character Kurt Russell (no introduction needed) EVER played....no it's not Snake Plissken...but Jack Burton from the great Big Trouble in Little China. Sorry for going off on a rant there just wanted you to know. Anyways Reggie is the glue that holds the series together. Why Universal has not put this and part III out on DVD is beyond me, yet they will do another DVD edition of The Mummy remake. I think the reason this series is not as well known is because of the studio's killing it's chances (check out the web site on how they released Phantasm II) and instead of going in different directions to gain mass appeal (like the Elm Street series....which if I'm right Don Coscarelli was offered to direct part 2...the most under appreciated of that series) the Phantasm series as they went (and hopefully go) on tried to please it's core audiance. And the series keeps the same characters through out so you really care for these guys and like them want to know what the hell is going on. I love these movies more than any other series and hope they are continued to be made. Hopefully we will see that Roger Avary penned script be made into a movie soon.

Crocodile (2000) (V)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
My how the mighty have fallen, 15 January 2001

It really is true that Tobe Hooper's films have went down hill since his classic Texas Chain Saw Massacre (that was back when chainsaw was 2 words) but with the exception of Night Terrors I think they're still watchable. Crocodile started off bad for me because the opening shot of the road was just a really poor opening for a movie about a crocodile munching of some really stupid teens (maybe a tracking shot over the lake would have been a better opening) then we have the gratuitous ass shot. Well the characters are about as thin as a sheet of paper and about as smart as.....well the croc in the movie is smarter (she even knows to dispose of evidence after killing a character hahaha). Now don't get me wrong I kinda liked Crocodile because for one I do like Tobe Hooper and after the acticle in Fangoria on this movie where the producer said Tobe wanted to recapture the crazy feel of TCM I figured it would be good if he pulled it off.....sadly he didn't. The effects were good for a low budget movie and the references to other horror movies made me smile, the house of the old guy who constantly talks about his "pappy" (which because of his bad over acting was my favourite character) brings to mind TCM and the scene where the teens are trapped and one runs off and gets into a truck which ends up exploding brings to mind the explosion scene from Night of the Living Dead, we even get a character who picks up a chainsaw but sadly it's never put to use. But it wasn't the bad acting that made Crocodile a bad movie it's the cliche ridden script. There is a half baked back story about the croc being 100's of years old and having to do with ancient gods which goes nowhere and seems to be in the movie because the writers couldn't think of anything for the characters to say at that point, and there's also another plot point (if you want to call it that) about the main couple having relationship problems but it too goes nowhere...but thats o.k. cause this isn't a drama. The three main actors in the movie however do a good job with what they have and should go on to better things and the actors playing their friends do good with what they have also BUT the rest of the cast is really bad. The guy who plays the Sheriff looks lost most of the time and his acting style seemed to be look into the camera and just SAY the lines...hope he has a day job. BUT the hands down winner of BAD acting goes to the co-writer who plays some backwoods hick who tries to feed the croc, his acting ability has the same effect as fingernails on a chalkboard but the part where he says "god bless their immortal souls" made me think of the scene in TCM 2 where the cook says something about "grandma up in chainsaw heaven" or something like that. O.K. now's time for some of the really bad scenes to be mentioned, which are mainly at the end of the movie. The whole ending has a rushed and choppy feel (I doubt it was from editing and more likely the script) but when the characters get on the boat with the sheriff it looks like instead of trying to get away the boat's going like 1 mph, another funny/bad one is when the croc is swimming behind the boat the old guy goes to shoot it and someone says we already tried shooting it and the old guy says not with this and pulls out what looks like a duelling pistol....I'm no gun expert but I think he shoulda knew that if a shot gun or ANY modern gun won't work neither will something that's as old as the crocodile itself. I really hate seeing the man responsible for one of the modern classic's of horror (not to mention Poltergeist and Lifeforce...and even TCM 2 was fun) doing movies like this because he's more talented then this but the movie was fun in a so bad way and it made me think of all those 80's slasher flicks...it'll be a better movie to watch with some friends on a nice summer night. I do however still like Tobe Hooper as a director and will watch his next movie (along with Crocodile 2: Death Roll). But if there is a little poodle running around and it doesn't get killed thats it :)

Good, Cheesy, Fun, 11 December 2000

Gone in 60 seconds is a really good movie that has a lot of talent in front of and behind the camera. Lots of people have bashed the movie for being dumb and corny, corny yes its corny but its means to be, and stupid well to me a stupid movie is one that doesn't accomplish what it was aiming for (like Bless the Child...WORST movie EVER), so no Gone in 60 seconds is not stupid. Jerry Bruckheimer produced it so you know what you're in for when you sit down to watch it, which isn't a bad thing his movies are fun and have great action scenes and snappy dialogue (but what do u expect when Scott Rosenberg wrote it...Beautiful Girls, Con Air, & Things to do in Denver when you're dead are all cool movies with great dialogue). The characters are all cool ("Memphis" and "The Sphinx" r the best) and yes the movie is cheesy at times but hey at times everyone likes a cheesy thing or two (Shaft is another cheesy movie from the summer that was great). Most say the movie is all set up until the very cool chase scene at the end (which ends with some really stiff CGI of the Shelby GT 500 jumping over an accident...that could have been better looking) but the set up is fun and never boring, u get to know the characters as much as u need to and have some laughs along the way. The only problem with Jerry Bruckheimer movies is that I like a movie that is also a visual ride (which is what all his movies are including this one) but they all look the same...u know the orange/yellow look most scenes have and when it's dark it's REALLY dark, it's like even though he uses different directors and the movies look good they look the same, Dominic Sena directed Kalifornia which is another great movie and yes it and Gone in 60 seconds do kinda have the same visual style but tell me u can see a difference in his and Michael Bay's work. But thats my only problem (which isn't that big). Gone in 60 seconds is a fast moving, funny, very cool movie. Ya wanna have fun with a movie see this one, makes me wanna go steal a car :)

0 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL, 3 December 2000

I know my one line summary will heat some people up but sorry I think the 1990 version is truely a better movie all together. Night of the Living Dead 90 is my second fave zombie movie of all time the BEST is Return of the Living Dead (when the hell are we gonna get a special edition dvd of it) but NOTLD 90 is great. First off Romero is still on board and the best news was that Tom Savini directed it (he was the only person capable if Romero didn't do it). Tom Savini is of course a legend in the field of horror and special makeup effects and suprisingly this movie was not gore drinched like I thought it would be, its got the gore but its not overused (even though Savini says on the dvd commentary that all zombie kills were cut in one way or the other). The acting is good but it does get cheesy between Tony Todd & Tom Towles (and Bill Butler's girlfriend was the best actress ya know) but for the most part it was good. I really liked how the main female went from a character who stayed in shock in the original to a character who fights for her life by the end of this version. The makeup effects were really good, the dead are not the purple big toothed ones they were in Dawn & Day (which were still cool) but this time they look more like what dead people really look like....the main cemetary zombie being the highlight. The music was also really good it added a lot of atmosphere to the movie like the opening where u see the moon and the title comes across. This was one of the best horror movies of the 90's and way better than the original (thank god there was no library music)........and suprisingly all this was co-produced by Menahem Golan (someone will understand what I mean by that).

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
U may hate me for this!!!, 2 December 2000

I saw this movie when I was maybe 15 or so and didn't like it too much but for some reason after getting the X-Men dvd I wanted to see it again. Well I found a used copy for 9 bucks and decided what the hell. The character of Capt. America has never been a fave of mine he was just cheesy and the costume was really corny.....I just found him boring, I have always however liked the Red Skull he's a good villian. The movie was directed by Albert Pyun (who can sometimes make a visually interesting movie but is still somewhat a hack) and produced by Menahem Golan (the guy half responsible for all those terrible Cannon movies...all except Lifeforce really) so the movie already has the odds against it. But it was entertaining most of the time but a lot of that is because I have a fondness for low budget films. I think the heart was in the right place but the script was not. Actually parts of the movie work well and others don't, the acting from Matt Salinger as pretty good as was Scott Paulin (even though I think his voice sounded like Dexter's from Dexter's Laboratory) and with the exception of when the missle passes by the kid the visual effects were cool in a low tech way. The big problem with the movie other than changing characters back story was changing Red Skull (looking cool at the beginning) into some mafioso with makeup that looks at best o.k. in some scenes. Actually the whole movie is laughable (especially Caps' old girlfriends husband who sits around looking really stupid & confused) but the heart was in the right place & there is a likeable quality to it....even though the environmental stuff was irritating and preachy. It was good late night viewing.

And Red Skull looked cool when he was Red Skull.

Beowulf (1999)
Not as bas as u think, 21 October 2000

Beowulf was a movie I heard about a few years or so back in an issue of Fangoria and at the time I was in high school and having just read the poem I got excited about it and then I didn't hear about again for a year or so except that Dimension picked it up and now that it's finally out Here's what I think about it. I for one thing am a Christopher Lambert fan...yes his acting at times is stiff but I enjoy his films, so I purchased the dvd of Beowulf and after work rushed home to watch it. The bad thing about the dvd is that I like watching the trailers to sike me up about the movie and from what I could tell the trailer kicked ass but the transfer was blurry and jumpy (hey Dimension when will u EVER pack a dvd with COOL extras...other than those on the Scream movies), so I went ahead and watched the movie so here goes. It differs from the poem for one by being in a kind of Mad Max/Conan future and Beowulf himself is a sad tragic hero instead of the hero's hero he is in the poem and it changes names of characters and adds romance (if u want to call it that) to the plot but with that I'll stop with the comparisons of the two and just review the movie. Beowulf is from the same producer of Mortal Kombat 1 & 2 and you can tell because it has tons of Kung-fu like action and the same kind of score as they do which is fine but most of the acting is very cheesy, which goes to not only the actors but the writers for coming up with the dialogue. I however play video games and listen to techno so all that didn't bother me (I would probably love the movie if it had Orgy and Deadsy on it's soundtrack). What did bother me was Grendal and his mother, Grendal is a predator knock off but I couldn't tell if the monster was crummy looking or not because of the HORRIBLE cgi that surrounds him at all times except at the end when he's killed and from that he looked o.k. Grendal's mother (who brought to mind Sil from Species) was o.k. looking when she was her monster form but the actress, while she was very attractive don't get me wrong, just didn't seem right, it wasn't the bad acting and chessy lines or even the repeated face licking, and the character was supposed to be seductive but the actress reminded me too much of a stripper rather than the evil villain she was supposed to be. But still for a low budget movie the movie was sleek looking and had nice production values and costumes...not to mention kick-ass weapons. I don't know if it was just poor writing or Dimension's notorious re-editing of movies but some things were never fully explained, I mean sure the barbaric guys were killing people from the castle because they thought they were damned but after they see Grendal's arm they say o.k. thats it lets pack up and leave and thats it....come on they could have done better than that. I know it seems I hate this movie from this review but NO I DON'T, it moves along fast enough and this is my fave character Christopher Lambert has played other than Connor Mcleod, so it does entertain and has good action (too many back flips though) which makes it one of those cool, cheesy movies that everyone has at least one of in their collection.


Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]