Reviews written by registered user

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

Page 1 of 9:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [Next]
89 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

3 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
OK, its a cheapo, but ..., 11 October 2007

Its also slash and gore. Its MEANT to be cheesy. And it does right well with that. Overall: Not a bad flick, and certainly not the greatest. But it has one grand redeeming quality. Tiny Tim. My opinion: The man had a lot more talent than he got credit for. He had only 15 minutes of fame only because he was stuck in a certain place and the public moved on. Had he moved with the fans, instead of standing still, he'd of had more than 15 minutes. Why did he not move on with the fans? I haven't a clue other than he was who and what he was and, being eccentric being what it is, its was probably intolerable for him to change. I can understand that. Granted, this review deals more with Tiny Tim than it does the movie but thats because the movie is HIS flick. Its entirely worth watching, especially if your one of his die-hard fans. Which thing I am. If you think Tiny Tim was weird, I'M the one with a ukulele hanging on my wall and an 8x10 autographed pic of him framed underneath it. Did I mention I was a fan? A note to anyone who might like to watch this film: It goes by various titles, which fact can make it hard to locate. Blood Harvest, Nightnare, and The Marvelous Mervo are three that I'm aware of. There may be other titles for it as well. But its worth the search, and Tiny Tim is, 15 minutes of fame aside, STILL worth the time.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Well, it could've been better., 14 September 2007

First of all I need to say that I am a BIG fan of ATHF. I love the series. But ... The movie? Its kinda cool. The music is probably the high point. Some of the tunes honestly rock. The down side is that it drags. On. And on. And ... on. It does have its moments. Overall I liked it. It would've been a better flick if it had been about 15 minutes shorter. There's to much in it thats redundant and the film would have profited by leaving those things out. Some of the art work was very cool. Looking for bloopers is also an up side. There are several goofs. I think the two DVD set, with the extra features, is better than the movie by itself. With the extras included its much more entertaining than the cartoon by itself would be in a theatre. Thats something to consider if you haven't seen this yet. Watch the extras first. It'll help you enjoy the movie more.

Memento (2000)
1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Solidly convoluted ..., 7 September 2007

Which thing is, I think, what they were shooting for when they did this. This movie is great! The acting, the plot, the character development, the music, the photography, all very well done. But the best part is ... The convoluted continuity. Its like watching a plot fold out from the middle towards both ends. Whatever you do, don't blink. The players, all but one being unknown to me prior to this flick, do a fantastic job. This movie, and I'm not even sure of what genre it fits best having aspects of everything from crime drama to psychological thriller, is a credit to all involved. Kudos to the cast and crew, especially the director.

Mega Snake (2007) (TV)
17 out of 32 people found the following review useful:
Better than average Sci-Fi Channel movie., 25 August 2007

In my mind the Sci-Fi Channel makes made for TV movies that rank right up there at the bottom. Mostly. But this one was better than most of what they serve up. Most of the players? Don't look for Oscar alerts. But ... Michael Shanks is a fine actor and played his part well. Ben Cardinal was also a bright spot, he came off VERY well given the character he played. And, dare I say it? There was one portion of the flick that contained, well, very positive Feedback. That part was just fun. One thing that stood out, as with any Sci-Fi Channel movie, for its poor quality was the computer generated special effects. All their snakes look alike and this one looked like some sort of picture laid on top of another picture. But the plot and characters were kinda cool, so, over all ... Thumbs up for a change. Shocking feedback, huh?

12 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
Credit where credit is due., 15 August 2007

This isn't a bad flick. It has several very good aspects ... A workable plot and sub plot ( a little lame in spots ), VERY good continuity, a music score that works well enough most of the time, better than average photography, and a few of the players are actually pretty good. The Lawnmower Guy, the Blond Dude in the bar, and some of the others come across as real. Thats always a plus. ( As an aside, I think the Lawnmower Guy is my favorite character. He isn't a great actor, but he comes across as a slightly demented retard, and that works well in this movie. ) The special effects? Well, thats kind of the low place in this flick. They're not that good. Hint: There should have been blood on the axe. But hey, with body parts and blood its whatever works. Brightest of the bright spots ... Kudos to the director. Obvious talent there. I liked this. Its fun. It ain't House of Wax or Little Shop of Horrors, but for a low budget independent film its way better than most of what I see on Satuday night Sci-Fi Channel. Maybe this is what Rob Zombie would do without drugs. Now THATS scary!

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Uhh, yeah, right, whatever., 14 August 2007

I'm not real sure just how to review this movie, so I'll just do this ... List of whats wrong: Plot, character development, lighting, acting, dialog, props, special effects, photography, continuity, humor, costumes, make up, choreography, fight scenes, and pretty much anything else that comes to mind. List of whats right: A couple of the bimbos are cute. List of what works, at least part of the time, via accident: The music is, at times, really funny as background. List of what doesn't work any of the time: The attempts at humor. List of any saving grace: Its funny when they're NOT trying to be funny. Which is the only reason I rate it as highly as I do. It was so ludicrous I laughed. Often. Thats worth something. Last, but not least ... List of what would've helped: Nudity. Hey, it couldn't hurt.

The Lost City (1935/II)
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Sagging saga continued., 11 August 2007

The second half of The Lost City serial is pretty much what you would expect if you've seen part 1. Taken for what it is, and considering the time in which it was made, it's entertaining enough in it's own way. Racist by any standard, the continuous flow of villains turning into good guys and back again ( Ya gotta work in as many gimmicks as ya can to keep 'em comin' back week after week for a serial like this one. ), and the lamest natives and fight scenes ever. Bright spot ... The evil Queen was HOT. But then so is the jungle and I don't want to go there either. This flick is what you do at two a.m. Saturday night to kill time without having to think. Its kinda fun in a goofy sort of way.

A very loose adaptation of Poe's tale., 10 August 2007

Price shines as always in this twisted tale of madness, based on Edgar Allen Poe's work by the same name. The name is really about all it has in common with Poe's work, but thats beside the point. The point is the film itself. Brooding torture chamber, castle heavy with a demonic air, overseen by a gentleman brought to the brink of madness by a tension inherited from his father. Now THATS what the film is all about. With really good sets, nice score, good acting, good continuity, and good photography, (I find fault only with the past memory sequences, I think they could have been done with better effect) its well worth the Price of admission. And ... dare I say it? It does have it's Poe-etic moments.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Good, sound flick., 10 August 2007

A tribute to the talent of Vincent Price. Good photography, pretty good special effects, wonderful music score, well done adaptation of a cool Jules Verne tale, overall continuity, and Charles Bronson. All around good fun, even after all these years. Considering that the story transpires in the 19th century what might be thought of as a bit cheesy by todays cinematic standards comes off right well. All of that aside ... I think what makes this film work for me, because I've always liked it, is the pathos Price seems to bring to so many of his roles coupled with what feels to me to be an out of place Bronson. I say out of place not because he didn't do a fine job in his role, because he DID, but rather because I've gotten so used to him in other types of flicks and roles. So I guess I'm guilty of type casting.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Dan Curtis rules!, 29 July 2007

And with a cast that includes Lysette (Any relation to Josette?) Anthony, who is and always shall be a major babe, and Geraint Wyn (Who seems to do his best work at Knight.) why shouldn't he? I saw much that was borrowed from the Dan Curtis hit Dark Shadows in this made for TV flick ... The photography, the music certainly, and the ocean shots from the second tale. And these all work right well in this movie. The plots, as a whole, and the acting in particular, work well enough to be enjoyable. True, certain themes like the killer doll have been done to death over the years, but Curtis still knows how to put a twist to the devil of a tail.

Page 1 of 9:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [Next]