Reviews

177 ReviewsOrdered By: Date
1/10
Bloody AWFUL!
8 July 2008
This was hands down one of the WORST films (Gay, Straight, Asian, Western, WHATEVER, WHEREVER!!!!) I have ever seen in my ENTIRE life.

Recently I have gotten into gay Asian cinema, watching outstanding films such as "Fleeing By Night" and light comedies such as "Cut Sleeve Boys". Then Netflix recommended this garbage and the premise sounded cute so I decided to go ahead and rent it.

Be warned folks, this movie is downright pathetic. The movie is so low budget it looks like it was filmed with a digital camera, the actors appear as if they were rounded up while waiting outside a gay bar, the script was blatantly ripped off from "Miss Congeniality" and given an Asian spin and the dialog and script is so abysmal, Uwe Boll comes off as a cinematic genius.

The plot (if you could call it that) centers around two best friends A-Hong and A-Shing, one is supposedly straight and the other is a flaming queen. A "pop idol"-like contest arises for gay men and the prize is 10 million dollars. The straight dude has a selfish girlfriend who blew all of his money on shopping debts and he figures he can enter the contest posing as a gay dude.

Enter basically every single plot line from "Miss Congeniality", psycho targeting the competition with a bomb, over-the-top camp emcee (what, William Shatner wasn't available for this either?), an array of colorful and outrageous pageant entrants, an undercover "swat team officer" joining the ranks... this movie was so offensive on every level to my remaining brain cells that I wanted to throw my DVD player out the window.

Not to mention that they kept re-running the same awful song over the soundtrack, again and again and again. Some no-talent guy singing with a guitar - I didn't even know what he was singing and yet I just wanted him to stop. At this point, my friend (who also got suckered into watching this trash) and I were laughing with embarrassment at nearly every aspect of this movie, we pretty much stopped following whatever plot there was - not that this film required any kind of deep attention.

By the time the credits roll and all of the main cast members are doing a montage of goofing off, singing and playing instruments - you'll be cracking ribs with embarrassment over how lame this movie is. I don't believe I have ever seen a movie this rotten from ANYWHERE in a long time.

So beware viewers, if you want a semi-decent gay Taiwanese film to watch - try "Eternal Summer" or "Formula 17". This movie was so beyond pathetic, I am trying my hardest to warn EVERYONE not to see it - I wouldn't even recommend this trash to my WORST ENEMY.
4 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Hand (1981)
1/10
"Get back, you silly cow!!!"
21 February 2006
Michael Caine is absolutely embarrassing in this 1981 bore-fest that tries too hard to pass itself off as legitimate "horror" but comes off as any other number of his misfire films from the 70's and 80's that can be found in a cut-out bin at your local non-chain video store (or nowhere at all).

There are only a few moments of unintentional humor, such as the "paper crumpling" sounds that can be heard whenever "the hand" goes for a walk, or the complete inability to act by Andrea Marcovicci who plays his wife. Every scene Marcovicci is in reeks of "D-Grade acting". In fact, I swear half the time she isn't even trying, like she's hamming it up on stage for some ridiculous off-Broadway production that no one bothered to see.

Most people who visit this page must already know what "THE HAND" is about. Basically Caine is a comic illustrator/writer who loses his hand in an accident after he sticks it out of a car window while his wife fails to pay attention to the truck in front of them. This was probably the "goriest" scene which involves red blood spraying out of a bloody stump. Don't hold your breath, there aren't any other gory scenes following this one.

So Caine revisits the accident site trying to find his missing hand and of course, it's gone. Meanwhile, we have a "hand-cam" following a gray hand walking around country-sides and hitching rides(!!), choking people to death, mostly those who have either wronged Caine or upset him. So by now, this would make a great movie to watch while either stoned or in the mood for a comedy, but it provides no entertainment to either party.

Most of the actors/characters in this movie are so grating, unsympathetic and obnoxious, you pray that "the hand" is going to get them fast, especially the wife. The "ending" should not have continued to the scene with the psychiatrist as I thought it was nicely wrapped up the way it was first explained. But then again, all lousy horror movies need to end with a scene that leave them open for sequelitis should they become financially successful ("BASKET CASE", here's looking at you!).

Caine acts to a level that is unnecessary for the dreck that he is starring in. I've always felt that Caine is a very good actor (it's not common to see Caine deliver a bad acting performance) yet has starred in so many horrible and forgettable movies that it's quite amazing how broad his resume stretches. "THE HAND" is up there with "THE ISLAND", "THE JIGSAW MAN", "ASHANTI" and "PEEPER" as some of the worst movies he's ever starred in.

This movie isn't even worth it for a good laugh or two. You'll only get one, and that's when Caine yells "Get back, you silly cow!!!" to the female driver that causes his accident. Trust me, that's not a good thing either!
5 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
99 Women (1969)
1/10
Exploitative trash yawn fest.
6 January 2006
"99 Women" starring Oscar-winner Mercedes McCambridge as a sadistic prison warden and Maria Schell as a super-intendant with lesbionic tendencies towards one of the female inmates, who'd have thought that you could have gone wrong with this one? Apparently not me as I was quite excited about my purchase of this movie. It was pretty horrible as expected, but not in a good way. I was hoping this was going to be one of those hilarious women-in-prison exploitation flicks that were high in camp value. Hell, Mercedes McCambridge is in it! First off, the movie started off positively. We have three broads arriving on a boat, still in the clothes they were apparently arrested in, tried in Court, and then literally, sent up the river in! We are introduced to the blonde starlet, Marie, the black-haired stripper, Helga, and some other brunette who dies from some sort of "accident" that required medical surgery.

The camp factor needle hits "HIGH" as soon as we are introduced to Mercedes McCambridge appearing in a warden's uniform, barking orders in a faux-German accent (even though her name is Thelma Diaz) and giving Marie a backhand across the face for using her name instead of her number, "99".

However it only gets worse from here. While there are certainly some entertaining cat-fight scenes (ie hair-pulling, clothes being ripped off, face slapping, etc), the rest of the film is incredibly boring. There is a sadistic male warden (Herbert Lom) who coerces one of the female prisoners into seducing Marie for his pleasure, and there is one un-named prison guard who has the most hilarious facial expressions when introducing guests to McCambridge, but the rest of the film falls flat.

Maria Schell is not in the film nearly enough, and when she is, it's hard to determine what her true agenda is. It seems like she has a thing for Marie, but they never explore it.

When the girls finally break out and trek through a "jungle", there are a few more camp moments, such as the scene with the harmless snake where upon spotting it and instead of running around it, the girls proceed to scream, grab it and cut it with a knife (LOL). The other semi-amusing moment was watching Marie and Helga make a dash for the fishing boats, hand-in-hand and wearing nothing short of see-through panties and torn jumpsuits.

Mercedes McCambridge was the movie's only saving grace. Her accent border-lined German and Spanish, and she had some pretty hilarious one-liners such as, "She was put in the punishment cell... for repeated insolences!" At various moments, her voice deepened into that same voice she used as Pazuzu in "The Exorcist", I thought maybe she was going to morph into Satan at any moment.

The most interesting thing that I heard about this movie was that there is an X-rated version out there. I watched the un-rated version which had no explicit sex scenes, only some gratuitous breast shots and a glimpse of bush. I shudder at the thought that Mercedes McCambridge might have filmed a scene not knowing that at some later point her body double would be enjoying an explicit lesbian sex scene with one of the female prisoners.

I would not recommend this movie to any women-in-prison enthusiasts out there. In fact, I would only recommend this movie to Mercedes McCambridge fans as she is the sole reason I gave this movie "one star". Don't waste your time with this one folks.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Camp trash mini-classic!
14 December 2005
If you happen to catch this movie, it could easily be mistaken for the pilot episode of an 80's prime-time soap. How the producers thought that anyone would seriously pay good money to watch this midday made-for-TV movie at the theater is incredibly hilarious.

Kirk Douglas surprisingly headlines this incestuous melodrama where his daughter January (Deborah Raffin) harbors some sort of daddy-complex since the day she was born. I would have loved to have sat through a theater screening of this and observed the faces of the audience around me. I don't know if I would have seen smirks or looks of discomfort, like someone shouldn't have eaten those bad tacos for lunch.

The movie is very outdated. It's lifted right from a Jacqueline Susann novel (or basically take your pick from any Harlequin read) and plays out just like it on the small screen. Most of the close-ups are shot through a filter, the soundtrack is hijacked by Henry Mancini's orchestrated strings, and all the actresses parade themselves with such high camp you'll find it hard not to fall in love with this atrocity.

Most hilarious is January's attraction to David Janssen's character. Talk about taking the daddy-complex to the next level! Brenda Vaccaro who received an Oscar nomination(!!!) for her portrayal of a man-hungry sex-starved magazine editor is absolutely stunning. She delivered plain awful dialog with perfect snap, "He laid me, and then he fired me!" and also managing to keep a straight face at the same time, she definitely deserved the nomination.

The best line comes out of the mouth of Douglas' long-suffering housekeeper, Mabel (Lillian Randolph), "For twelve years, it's just been a parade of poon-tang!", as she boards the bus to Santa Monica.

Throw in a closeted lesbian millionaire engaging in a secret relationship with a reclusive Hispanic actress (where else could you view an interracial middle-aged lesbian sex scene!!), gratuitous shots of Gary Conway (portraying an astronaut LOL!) running in short shorts on a beach and Deborah Raffin staring blankly into the camera as if she were doped on percosets, and you have the ultimate camp classic of 1975.

There was a scene with Raffin's character walking blankly across the road (nearly getting run over by a taxi) after she is devastated by Janssen's character, and yet I still could not determine any difference in her acting from that scene to the entire film.

Vaccaro is definitely the one thing that holds this movie together, although her character isn't necessary to the story. She seemed to express more personality than all of the other characters combined that it was a joy to watch her self-diagnosing, "Sleeping with men makes me feel better!" It made me feel better too.
12 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Sub-par collection of seven short films with gay themes.
17 June 2005
This collection of short gay films was half entertaining. The first few films were cute, one was actually very good. The remaining films were borderline terrible including one that absolutely stank.

The first story is "Burls", a cute tale narrated by Mark Hammill about a young pre-teen boy (who eerily resembles a young Jodie Foster) growing up in the 1960's, his eyes opening up after seeing a group of drag queens walking down the street, or "boys dressed up as girls" (hence the title "Burls"). We then follow his identity awakening as he tries on his mother's clothes and make-up, fantasizes about the hot young male working at the pet store and a run-in with what appears to be two revolting pedophiles (one in a gym locker room, the other in a car). This short was actually cute save for the rather abrupt ending.

The second story is "Touched" which is the best short film in the collection. It is about a middle-aged male who picks up a younger male in a night club, only to discover that the younger male has a different agenda. There are a lot of emotions in this one short, particularly concerning the middle-aged male. His agenda is to just "touch" someone out of loneliness, to be with someone, if only for an encounter. What happens when the two men reach out to each other is very powerful.

The third story is "10 Pesos" which really isn't "gay" at all (except for one scene involving an old man and a john). It's basically a short film that follows the path of a peso bill that travels through different hands and situations, starting in a night club and ending up in the street. The ending is actually quite stupid and I'm not even sure what the director was aiming for with all the money blowing around in the air.

The fourth story is "Safe Journey", and this is where the collection starts to go downhill. It is about a young man who gets beaten up on the street and seeks refuge in the home of a blind Asian man. The Asian man is seen at the beginning praying and reading braille, when by chance the young man who shows up in his house has some sort of connection to his prayers. There is supposed to be some sort of spiritual (though non-sexual) connection between the two via Buddhism or some Chinese God, but it's actually quite laughable really.

The fifth story is "Shaving The Castro", a rather boring documentary short on a barbershop that was established in San Francisco's Castro district in the 1940's with a clientèle of children and families, and how time has changed since then as the community is now predominantly gay.

The sixth story is "Gaydar", an absolutely horrid abomination concocted by someone who obviously never got past Judy Garland and every other gay stereotype known to man. For those of you not in the know, "Gaydar" is a term often referred to in the gay community as a gift to detect those who are gay and those who are not. The short itself is about a completely obnoxious gay office worker who discovers a "Gaydar gun" at a yard sale run by none other than Jim J. Bullock (in yet another grating and poorly-acted performance), who decides to take the gun to work and use it on a co-worker of whom he has the hots for.

Unfortunately, this short just wasn't funny. Not only did the stereotypes get old REAL fast, but the characters were obnoxious, unsympathetic and screechingly vile, particularly the main character. And if that wasn't bad enough, Charles Nelson Reilly showing up in a completely embarrassing cameo as the main character's uncle was the absolute worst. What, wasn't Rip Taylor available? All the gay men are portrayed as big screaming queens, and the African-American co-worker had her sass down pat, right down to the "Mmmmmm-hmmmm!" and "Oh no you dz'int!". This short should have been scrapped as it brings down the entire collection. It is neither funny nor witty.

The seventh and final short is "Masturbation", a tongue-in-cheek satire on 1940's sexual health info-reels on masturbation techniques, including how-to tips on home-made devices carved out of cucumbers and sponges (let your imagination fill you in). The acting although intentionally cheesy mirrors that of a bad porno, and the short itself isn't all that funny either.

So basically the first two shorts are worth watching, but the rest are pretty bad. I'm not sure if this is worth the rental fee, but there's worse things to do on a night when there's nothing else to do.
15 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Vampyres (1974)
1/10
Lesbian porn horror-lite.
1 June 2005
When I rented this movie, the synopsis on the back of the DVD read: In this controversial cult classic (also known as Daughters of Dracula), two beautiful bisexual women -- played by Marianne Morris and Anulka -- roam the English countryside, luring unsuspecting men to their estate for orgies of sex and blood. When an innocent young couple stumbles into the vampyres' dangerous lair, they find themselves sucked into a vortex of savage lust and forbidden desires. A landmark of erotic cinema.

Okay, after watching this garbage, I could point out a zillion things wrong with that synopsis.

"Controversial" is a bit of a lark. Let's see, what we have basically are two lasses clamoring all over each other in hilarious "love scenes" while going on blood-lust sprees. It's like the lesbian version of "SUPERNATURAL BORN KILLERS", but without most of the explicit violence. These two women are the most unconvincing lesbian couple I've seen on screen since Ellen and Anne. The dominant partner, "Fran" is one of the most unconvincing actresses I have ever seen on screen. Not only is she bad at delivering dialog, but even in scenes that don't even require dialog she manages to put on the worst show that is worthy of a Razzie. Too bad they didn't exist back then.

For example, whenever "Fran" engages in any sort of sexual foreplay such as kissing, she makes these weird sucking motions with her mouth as if she were a fish out of water gasping for air. The intimacy shared between the two women comes off as laughable. Whenever they have a go at each other's bodies, "Fran" does this weird thing that resembles a ferret sniffing around for something to play with. Now picture her doing that while making those funny sucking motions with her mouth, and you have an unintentional comedy. "Erotic cinema" I think not.

The "innocent young couple" are two vacationing yuppies (one being a typical male slouch, and the other being a typical nosy broad) who park their trailer in front of an old mansion. And that's about it. The nosy woman pokes around in the mansion a few times, but that's about it. There is one steamy sex scene (if you could call it that) and this couple prove to be one of the most boring couples right there behind Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles.

So basically what we have is "Fran" and her playmate, "Miriam" flagging down men in their cars (although they come off more like hookers at work than damsels in distress), have them drive to their mansion where they get drunk on wine, and then stabbed to death.

Yes, you heard right. For a movie titled "Vampyres", there is very little, if anything, to do with anything of vampire lore. These two ladies don't even have fangs - they just murder their victims and then "drink" their blood, if you call two women hesitantly lapping at Karo Syrup running down someone's arm with their tongue, "drinking blood". In fact, these women have no problem running around in broad daylight, they don't turn into bats, and they're not allergic to garlic, well for all we know right? As for the dialog itself, that's in an entire league of its own.

Male victim: "You're not from around here are you? Might I ask where you're from?"

Fran: "You wouldn't believe me if I told you." ;

or how about:

Male victim: "Are there limits to the questions I can ask?"

Fran: "No, but there are limits to the answers."

And then there's all these ridiculous sub-plots running throughout this cinematic bore-fest that make no sense at all. Why do they short-cut through the graveyard all the time? Why would a pair of vacationers choose a dumpy-looking mansion to park their trailer outside? Why do the women need to drink blood? What was with the whole "ghost" sub-plot and why did the two women get shot to death in the beginning? But most of all, why did I watch all of this trash?

For horror aficionados, there is absolutely no horror in this movie at all. There is no "mystery" element as you get to see everything happen as it takes place. The "murder scenes" are sometimes downright hilarious, like when some poor sod thinks he's about to get in on a hot bi-sexual threesome and instead gets stabbed via "camera cut-away" action.

For porn aficionados, most of the sex scenes are R-rated (if even that), and the most exposure you will see are gratuitous breast shots and some pubic hair. Not even the men drop trou for the camera! This is actually one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I think it had one of the most deceitful synopses ever featured on the back of a movie, and the acting is incredibly bad. Just watch the woman who plays "Fran". She delivers every line with a ridiculous half-smirk/half-look of being coy. And the woman who plays her lover pretty much exists only to wind up in some ridiculous phony lesbian love scene.

Steer clear of this one folks, it's not worth the time or the rental fee!
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Hilarious zombie trash!
25 May 2005
How can you not love this? From the atrociously bad dubbing of side-splittingly hilarious dialog to the so-fake-it's-funny "gore scenes", this movie has it all.

The laughter pretty much begins with the opening scenes where some old geezer makes some comparisons between a book of doodles and an artifact while declaring, "It's incredible!" Then he proceeds to tap away at some rock with a pick-axe while zombies surprise him from behind and munch on his shoulders (LOL!).

Cut to the following day where our zombie food arrives in three cars, two horny couples and an even more horny couple with Maggie Smith as their "son". The dialog is camp trash classic. The mother refers to her husband as "Darling!", and the sexual innuendo is heavily laden with cheesy eroticism as only imported movies like this trash can deliver.

In one "sex scene", one of the ladies is wearing a see-through lace bikini. One of the other ladies is wearing what appears to be a corset. And who can forget the hilarious scene where the son stumbles upon his mother engaging in a bit of slap and tickle with his father. What does she do when they get caught in the act? Does she pull the bedsheets up to her chin out of embarrassment? Not this mother. Instead, she jumps out of the bed fully naked and runs to the middle of the room to cover herself with a piece of clothing lying on the floor. Timeless! However, the laughter doesn't really begin until the zombies appear. The make-up is so bad, there is no room for "horror", only comedy. In some scenes, you can see the flesh-tone pink of the actors playing the zombies when the camera focuses on their hands. Other times you can see their eyes behind the "eye holes" of the zombie masks, which looked no less terrifying than a woman giving herself a mud facial.

The better "gore scenes" as usual in these types of movies involve the female gender. One woman gets her head sliced off with a scythe before having the rest of her body fed to a hungry pack of zombies. Another woman gets her face pulled into a broken window and her eyeball "pierced" by a shard of glass-ala-Lucio Fulci's "Zombie". Another woman gets her nipple bitten off by her newly zombified child. All of them get their internal organs pulled out and chewed on by hungry zombies.

The men get it just as bad. One gets his throat torn out. Another gets attacked by a roomful of praying zombie monks who tear him apart on an altar leaving literally nothing left but the soles on his feet! There really is no logic to the plot. Why the idiots didn't just leave the estate is beyond me. Why was there a bear trap on the lawn? Why was one zombie buried inside a planter? Why did the lights on the chandelier explode? Why was I watching this movie?

Let's be honest. We all tuned in to see the infamous scene involving a nipple, a hungry child and love that only a mother could give! Anyone else who claims otherwise would be lying.

However, the Dave Brubeck-inspired soundtrack was very lovely to listen to.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Logan's Run (1976)
5/10
Time hasn't been kind to this "futuristic" society.
23 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
"LOGAN'S RUN" is by all means, a great concept. The idea of a futuristic Utopian society where life ends at the age of 30, only to be renewed again sounds pretty neat. The story/idea is excellent.

Michael York and Jenny Agutter play the leads in perfect straight-to-video fashion (as can only be expected). Richard Jordan as an assassin to take out "runners" (ie. people who turn 30 and decide to run for their lives) adds a nice blend of evil. Farrah Fawcett turns up in a tiny role as what else, a plastic surgeon's ditzy blonde assistant! The acting is sub-par save for Sir Peter Ustinov, who could fascinate me just by reading from the phone book, adds heart and comic as an old man born and raised in the "outside world".

Now as for the special effects. Well, maybe back in 1976, audiences might have thought people walking around in togas and leotards with seventies hairstyles could have passed for a society living in the 23rd Century... but these days, it just looks funny. Actually, most of the ideas for special effects in this movie are not just outdated, but they actually look REALLY outdated.

The exterior shots of the city look like a 70's architectural display model of a cheesy golf club. Most of the furniture look like it came directly out of a K-Tel infomercial. The interior shots of the "Arcade" look like something that could be found in any 70's shopping mall, from the twin escalators to the box-container elephant-ear plants. And how about the "Carousel"? Well, it's supposed to be some sort of an arena where the same extras sit down and do that power thing by pumping their fists in the air, cheering and clapping while a group of people who have just turned 30 get lifted off the ground via pull-strings and float towards a funky-looking chandelier as they explode in a shower of sparks and flames.

Spears with glow-sticks on the ends. A talking computer with lettering font long outdated since the late 70's. Fawcett wearing a sequined green Peter Pan outfit. York's face appearing in holographic mirrors shouting dialogue in slow motion! What more could one ask for! It gets even funnier. When York and Agutter encounter "Box", an evil robot that looks like a big upright vacuum cleaner with clothes dryer exhaust pipe arms and Christmas tree lights on its body, you won't be able to stop yourself from laughing uncontrollably. My sides were still hurting after watching "Box" chase the two characters while flailing its arms around in the air brandishing what looks to be a pilot lighter! The only really good scenes were the shots of Washington D.C. covered with creepers and vines. An apocalyptic vision of a world fallen by the stupidity of man (as always).

The action scenes were actually alright. Watching two people on the run can always be fun, no matter what the setting. But watching them dodge exploding squibs that look like chintzy fire crackers as they get "fired upon" by angry Sandmen was pretty funny. The funniest scene was seeing Fawcett getting "blown away" by a cloud of smoke as a wall gets broken into. And who could forget the hilarious scene in the plastic surgeon's office where the machine goes bonkers causing someone to die from thin red lines of paint.

All in all, "LOGAN'S RUN" is a fun movie to watch. The story is captivating. You don't need to care about the acting - all the producers did was cast a bunch of people with pretty faces and not much acting range. One can always count on Michael York for various occasions of over-acting in scenes that don't require it. But watch for the special effects. They haven't held well over time, which now make them prime and ideal targets for jokes and laughter. And of course, stay for the late Sir Peter Ustinov, who is always a delight to watch in almost anything.

My Rating - 7 out of 10
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
200 American (2003)
1/10
Probably the WORST gay movie I have ever seen!
15 January 2005
I saw this advertised on Netflix in the "Gay and Lesbian" section and the synopsis sounded cute, so I thought to myself that it wouldn't hurt to give this movie a shot.

Wrong. From the beginning of the movie, we have one of the most unique plot lines ever to be featured in a gay movie... a hot sad gay guy has just been dumped by his boyfriend and looks for love in all the wrong places, starting with the escort section in the back of a gay rag! How unique! Not to mention the escort who shows up happens to be a good looking Australian guy stuck in a financial rut (who has the strangest bones and muscles ever seen in a torso). Needless to say, the escort is only interested in business, but the hot sad gay guy falls for him and helps him out by giving him a high-profile job at his business firm! Then it gets even more original from here. The escort falls in love with his business partner and here begins a complicated gay love triangle.

What is with this rut lately of gay films that continually explore the sad and lonely single lives of very attractive gay men who are financially successful and situated that pairs them up with a very attractive "come from the wrong side of the tracks" guy in relationships that go awry? The only difference with this movie is that it was poorly acted and heavily laden with a continual line of gay clichés that as a gay viewer myself, I was embarrassed just watching it! This movie was so amateurish, it could only be adored by a pretentious small-town gay and lesbian film festival wedged between various film shorts and a documentary on gay life in Anytown, America. What a load of garbage and a waste of my time! I couldn't identify with anything or anyone in this so-called "movie".

It was neither charming nor witty. The plot was trite, the characters were shallow, the story writing was lazy and the whole idea was predictable from the start. If very attractive gay men can't seem to get it together in the real world, then I guess the average Joe such as myself doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell either!

Gay or straight, this movie was trash. Watch "Chuck and Buck" instead.

My Rating - 0 out of 10
10 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Star Crystal (1986)
1/10
I can't believe I remember this trash!
21 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I remember seeing this on video many years ago in the mid to late 80's. There were some key scenes that stood out in my mind:

  • Space explorers discover a rock on a planet. The rock has a crystal in it that unleashes a deadly alien.


  • The alien starts to kill everyone on board the space craft/space station.


  • People who encounter the alien or its gooey trail comment on a "lemon"-like scent.


  • A black man gets killed by the alien.


  • One woman tries to get away from the creature by crawling through a tube-like tunnel.


  • The alien leaves its victims encased in a gooey substance.


  • The alien is playing chess with the surviving male character.


Yes, you heard me right. The alien is playing some sort of board game with the survivors! I couldn't believe my memory either. For the longest time (15 years and counting), I always thought I had two movies mixed up in my mind, confusing them as one.

Nope, it's all in the one flick. As stated by others above, this creature becomes good at the end (even after killing all the other people on board the space craft), and everyone goes home a happy camper, I kid you not.

This outrageously bad movie ("STAR CRYSTAL") has to be seen to be believed!
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.