Reviews written by registered user

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

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

Lightspeed (2006) (TV)
24 out of 32 people found the following review useful:
Stupid, Stupid, Stupid movie!!, 10 August 2006

I know Sci-Fi Channel loves to air the worst sci-fi movies they can find, but they've outdone themselves with this garbage!

OMG, it's not just bad, it is stupid! The low budget Captain America and Spider-Man TV movies in the 80s had more imagination and style than this bowl of chum.

Everythting about it was a joke: The stars, the story, the characters, the dialogue, the direction, the not-very-special effects and most of all that ridiculous costume! Sure, every superhero with a bad comb over walks into a sporting goods shop and throws together their costume. Connery looked like a member of some gay stage show.

Jason's dad would be rolling over in his grave if he was dead -- and seeing his son in THIS may kill him.

If you want to see a good show about a guy with super speed, skip this vat of pee and pick up the DVDs of the Flash TV series from the 90s. It's a HELL of a lot more netertaining.


5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Time for a new film..., 16 January 2006

I saw this movie when I was 15 and fell in love with it. Sure, it was campy but so much fun. I was so enthralled by the concept and the characters that I went out and read every one of the novels by Lester Dent (Kenneth Roberson). I am also still upset that they never made a sequel.

Now it's time for a new Doc Savage film! But, anyone who makes it needs to consider the following:

1. The 70s film -- while I enjoyed it very much -- was a spoof like the 60s Batman TV show. A new film should ignore it totally and start from scratch. It needs to be fun and excited -- NOT a cartoon like the original.

2. Keep it in the same 30's time period of the books like they did with the recent King Kong film. A modern version would be a disgrace.

3. MOST IMPORTANT: Do not -- I repeat, do NOT hire a muscle bound, pump freak like the Rock, as some people have suggested, to play Doc. A few years ago Arnold Schwarzenegger was up or the part of Doc Savage and thank God they dropped the project! His participation would have been a joke and an insult to the character -- and us. Remember that the Doc character was NEVER a pumped up balloon like Ah-nold and the Rock. Like Batman (in the comics, not the films), he was in excellent shape, but NOT pumped up. Doc was also a genius, and in no way, shape, or form, would ANYONE accept Arnold, the Rock or any other WWF reject or athletic pseudo-celeb as a genius. Take a look at Ron Ely in the 70's film. He was perfect for the role at that time and an actor today needs to have the same physical look he had -- AND look intelligent.

Otherwise don't waste your time -- or ours.


Dark Water (2005)
1 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
I am SO tired of these BORING 'horror' movies!, 6 January 2006

I am so sick and tired of lame, boring, non-frightening, lack-of-imagination "horror" films like this one with plot holes so big you could roll Camryn Manheim through them! Why do studios insist on releasing these PG-13 films that are never scary? If you are going to make a horror film, make it an "R" with plenty of violence and nudity. Otherise don't waste our time. I had a LONG list of things that made no sense in this stupid movie, but I'm not going to bother posting them. Skip this thing if you can. If you REALLY want to be scared go listen to the new David Lee Roth radio show. That train wreck is so freaking bad it's horrifying!

9 Songs (2004)
2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Get unrated, uncut DVD and skip Director's Cut..., 29 December 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I rented the so-called "Director's Cut" version from and not only are the hardcore sex scenes cut out, but they also cut out all the NON-sex scenes that show Margo nude below the waist. What type of director would cut that stuff out? Oh, and while they did keep the masturbation scene they superimposed a bright light over her crotch as if the intense sunlight is shining through the bedroom window, so you can barely see what she is doing. So irritating! BTW, besides the sex and nudity, this is one BORING movie. It's like a badly-made concert film with sex scenes edited in between songs.


VERY good movie -- but commercials are misleading, 23 December 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I almost skipped this DVD after seeing the TV commercials because I thought it was just another cheap Exorcist rip-off. But it is something totally different. It's MUCH better than that.

It IS VERY creepy, but it isn't a horror film. It's a fascinating psychological study combined with a tense and moving courtroom drama.

And if that fact keeps you from seeing this film, then it's YOUR loss. But I really enjoyed it.

The stupid TV commercials for the "Unrated" version are misleading because they try to set this up as a gory, supernatural movie. They even have a quick clip where Emily Rose has glowing eyes -- but that isn't even in the film!! In fact, there are very few special makeup effects or CGI -- which is good. Cheesy effects like that would have taken away from the real story.

The scenes of Emily's possession are both frightening and heart wrenching, but it's all because of the incredible Jennifer Carpenter who plays Emily. Her intense acting and her amazing ability to contort her face into masks of sheer pain and terror make you feel like she is actually being tormented by demons -- or she is merely suffering from a psychological breakdown. That's just it, you NEVER know which.

BTW, the "Unrated" versions is misleading, too. It's just a crappy marketing move by the studios. There is no blood, gore or nudity. In fact, I don't think they even used profanity. Guess the studios didn't have the guts to let this film stand on its own merits.

But, if YOU are looking for a well acted, well written and well directed movie experience, then rent this DVD.

But if you are just looking for another run-of-the-mill gore fest, then go rent one of the cheap, low-budget slasher flicks littering the Blockbuster shelves instead. Like I said, it's your loss.


Wet (1994)
1 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Is it a comedy or soft porn? It's neither actually..., 30 March 2005

Luckily this film is only a few minutes long. I don't know where it aired first, but it's like a bad addition to some Playboy or Cinemax soft porn compilation. But it isn't soft porn because there is no sex. Only nudity. And usually this type of film hires attractive actors, but that's not the case here. Arliss Howard, who is a fairly accomplished character actor these days, is not a good looking guy. Then again, here he plays a nerdy hot tub salesman who is conned by a naked woman, so I guess he does fit the role. The woman is played by Cynda Williams who is not attractive at all. But, she does have an incredible body. Luckily she spends almost the entire film naked in a hot tub, so we get to see it a LOT. Especially her butt. More than once her round bottom is stuck right in the camera. There's even one great scene where she is scooting across the floor soaking wet, her ample booty jiggling all the way. if you must watch this film, fast forward to her butt scenes, and ignore the rest.

7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
We REALLY enjoyed this film..., 27 April 2004

I initially rented the DVD at Blockbuster for my kids to see -- one is eight and one twelve. But then I sat to watch it with them -- and I got hooked.

It started slow, but then picked up the pace after about fifteen minutes. The story is a little thin, but the animation, the production designs (air ships, weapons, robots, costumes, etc.) are VERY creative. You can tell the designers spent a lot of time creating them. We kept rewinding just to see all the background details we missed.

The action sequences are GREAT, too! In fact, they're BETTER than most live action sci-fi films I've seen in years. The climactic battle scene alone had us glued to the screen.

Like I said, I rented the DVD, but I plan on buying it now. This is a movie we will watch several times.


1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Scary As Hell? No...BORING As Hell! **SPOILERS**, 23 October 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I rented this DVD with the hope of seeing an incredibly scary film. As usual, the film did not live up to the hype. I LOVE movies dealing with the horrors of biological weapons, but this one was so weak it hurts.

This film BORED me to death. It's a series of cliche, predictable zombie/end-of-the-world scenes stolen from several other films. A complete WASTE of time.

The first half of the film (stolen from "Resident Evil", "Dawn of the Dead", etc., etc., etc.) consists of a cast of dull, irritating characters wandering aorund the city staring into space. Then, every once in a while some "infected" people would chase them. And NONE of the infected people are scary -- or even mildly frightening. They're just a bunch of slobbering, prancing, red-eyed psychotics who are easily dispatched.

Been there. Done that. Thank you very much.

The second half of the film (stolen from "Day of the Dead") is just plain stupid. You knew the MOMENT the main characters arrived at the military installation that the soldiers were going to try and rape the women. They might as well have worn signs around their necks. You also knew the main guy (I don't even remember his name because I didn't care) was going to stop the soldiers by releasing the infected soldier chained up in back.

And the ending was the worst of all! It's a sugar-coated finale that doesn't even fit the mood of the rest of the film. It's obvious they tested the film with audiences and some idiots in the studio marketing department forced them to tack on a "happy ending".

PLEASE! Save me from "happy endings".

Take a look at the alternative endings in on the DVD. The one where the main guy dies in the hospital and the two women walk off down the hall is exactly where it should have ended. Better yet, they should have filmed the proposed third alternative ending that eliminates the idotic solder story line all together.

Actually, they should have just saved their time and money and NOT made this film at all.

I see that Danny Boyle, the director, passed on making "Alien 4". Thank God for that!


2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
GREAT Movie!!!, 2 July 2003

Rennie Harlan has only made three good movies in his career and this is one of them (the other two are "Ford Fairlane" and "Deep, Blue Sea"). Great action, great stars and a LOT of fun. Also, someone else stated in a comment that Geena Davis wasn't hot enough for Jackson's character. BULL!! She looks VERY hot -- and tough as nails -- in this film. I was very impressed with her acting and her character. I suggest you see it if you haven't already.

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
What?? No Nudity??, 21 April 2003

There are two things I look for in a low-budget horror film like this one (and it ain't plot): 1) Violence/Gore and 2) Nudity.

This one had the violence and gore, but it has absolutely NO NUDITY!!

It stars a bevy of gorgeous babes -- including Jaime "I Can't Keep My Clothes On" Pressley -- yet not a single one of them strips. WHY??

Lately it seems all the horror films released these days have very little or no nudity. Well, I think this needs to change FAST!

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