Reviews written by registered user

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

7 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Psych:9 (2010)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Convulted and confusing, 1 January 2012

The cast was very good, the cinematography fine, its the movie itself which is just poorly edited and convoluted. I know this sort of thing is en-vogue these days but give me a stylish Argento over this sort of thing any day. The flashback sequences do little to make the films point or establish any coherency to the story and the surprise ending should really be no surprise no matter how improbable. Film is a form of communication and the end product fails miserably in communicating anything at all. Again, kudos to a fine cast in spite of the material. Sets, lighting, atmosphere, cinematography a movie that would have had everything going for it in more capable hands.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
The creepiest kid in movie history!, 25 August 2007

You have to see this movie just to see the creepiest kid in the entire history of film-making. The movie is one of the weaker Italian zombie flicks with its own share of nudity, gore and zombie flesh-munching but the creepiest thing about this movie is the kid.

Everything about him is creepy. At first you might mistakenly think he's actually a really short adult and maybe he was in real life but he's just so darned....well.... creepy.

Forget that he has a fixation on his own mother, the incest notions might make him creepy but even without the incest, he's just plain creepy.

The zombies in this film have nothing in realm of creepiness compared to this kid. They had to undergo grueling make-up. All this kid had to do was show up. It was unsettling and I'll never be the same person since I've seen him. I read on the database that this kid also was an uncredited boy scout on a train in some movie called Vai Alla Grande. Being a former Boy Scout myself, I hope I never run across this film. I know for certain it would scar me for life!!

Zombie (1979)
Fulci classic...A Must See!, 25 August 2007

Lucio Fulci films aren't to all tastes but if you like zombie films, gore and nudity don't bother you and you don't have a problem with just sitting back and letting a movie happen, then Fulci is for you and this is his milestone marker.

Any "serious" film student can tear this film apart. You actually don't have to be all that serious to find faults with it. But if you want to know how to make a zombie film, this is the place to start.

I have watched this film at least 40 times and I have yet to see the eye-piercing scene all the way through. There's just something about eyes and sharp objects that don't go together.

Like most Fulci films, it has the nightmarish quality with individual sequences that transcend the movie as a whole. These moments of sheer terror make up for whatever else the film might lack. And like every Fulci film, there is no cookie cutter film-making here that is so dreadfully prevalent in the current horror films. There's no late 20's cast trying their best to pretend they are still in high school, no group of peers that you didn't really want to hang around with in the real world fleeing some faceless killer who lurks in the shadows. This is in your face, over-the-top and a great ride.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
A model for living!, 25 August 2007

First of all, I consider this movie to be one of the most important horror films in the entire history of horror films. It changed the way horror movies were made and while zombies had appeared in movies before, it would re-define the zombie sub-genre of horror forever.

You take a group of people who are just regular everyday kind of people, people anybody can identify with and put them together in an abandoned farmhouse during a crisis. You provide them with every tool necessary to survive and then spend 90 minutes watching as adults demonstrate that William Golding was on target in this adult look at the Lord of the Flies.

The stark contrasts of black and white only make this film better and you should avoid watching any colorized version of this film. It needs to be seen in black and white. In spite of it's low-budget origins, the movie shows a really talent with lighting effects and demonstrates what can happen when extremely creative people work within the limitations of low-budget film-making.

While there might be flesh-eating zombies lurking on their doorstep, the real enemy facing the people trapped in this farmhouse are themselves. Their personal prejudices, cultures and attitudes become their greatest adversaries and instead of coming together to fight a common enemy, they get torn further apart as they struggle for their own power and identity.

In Night of the Living Dead George Romero hold up a mirror for us to gaze into the reflection of our own dark souls and it's not a pretty sight.

One final note. While I'm a big fan of MST3K, Mike Nelson's riff on the film is just a cheap shot and while funny at times, distracts from the beauty of this classic on the genre.

Saw (2004)
Just an excuse for being nasty!, 25 August 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

First of all, i have to say that the movie was made well but it wasn't my cup of tea! I really like horror films and I enjoy gore but I just couldn't accept the entire premise and just when I thought I was going to start to appreciate it they threw a wrench into the film that absolutely ruined it for me.

I can accept that Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees are unstoppable forces of Evil. I can accept that Freddie invades our dreams to do his killing. I can even accept a giant lizard with a destruction passion for Tokyo. I couldn't accept a terminally ill guy lying all night in a pool of blood in a cold and abandoned warehouse without so much as a slight twitch to give it all away. The serial killer in this film isn't sub-human or super human, he's just a guy with a disease and it was such a cheap shot that it completely destroyed any real thrill or fear in the film.

Since the whole movie hinges on this key fact, the movie fails miserably for me. I'm glad I saw it...I won't watch it again. Give me Michael, Jason, Freddie or a good Lucio Fulci zombie and I'm a happy camper!!!

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Decent flick from New World, 25 August 2007

I can't believe that people keep comparing this film to Alien. First of all, the original Alien had a budget of 11 million dollars. Galaxy of Terror was made for around 5 million. Second, Alien was "inspired" by many horror/scifi films that went before it. If it wasn't a crime for Alien why then is it a crime that this film used a currently popular genre title as inspiration? Third, Galaxy of Terror has more in common, at least story wise, with Forbidden Planet than Alien.

This has the look of a much more expensive production and it takes full advantage of it's exploitation roots. It has a fun cast, some minor gore (much less than you would expect in a film like this), and some gratuitous nudity especially during a rather nasty scene.

It's a fun diversion for fans of these types of films and can be recommended for many reasons. You get to see Robert Englund before he donned the glove, Ray Walston after he was everybody's Favorite Martian and Erin Moran after her years as Joanie. You also get to see some early effects work by James Cameron.

Sure, it gets a little confusing in spots and there's some continuity problems and more than it's share plot holes, but it's still a terrific movie to look at, great set designs and some of the monster effects are decent (and some are bad). It's all that I expect from Roger Corman with more than enough to keep me interested.

Make sure to catch the uncut print if you can!!!

Supercroc (2007)
7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
What did they say?, 25 August 2007

Fist off, I love movies of this ilk. I can handle stilted acting, cheesy special effects and extreme close-up to hide the fact that there isn't a cast of thousands in the crowd. The reason for really low rating is because of the sound mix.

Budget limitations might be an excuse for seeing matte lines or transparent effects. Budget limitations might be an excuse for a lot of reasons but there is no excuse for the sound mix on this movie. Most of the time the dialog is completely inaudible. That might not matter to some, but it's a major distraction. Often the music cues simply stop before the cue is finished. In one sequence near the end of the film where the two principals are obviously having a key discussion, the overdub of machine gun fire is so loud that you can't hear a word that they say.

I was prepared to like this movie. I expected a low-budget film and with that comes the expectations of less than stellar performances and effects. The camera work was fine, the acting okay (from what I could tell from facial expressions), everything that you would expect but somewhere in post production this film was totally destroyed by somebody who thought loud music and gunfire was more important than anything else in the film. At least they could have supplied a subtitle track or a close caption option so the viewer would at least have some way of knowing what the actors are supposed to be saying.

Maybe the scifi channel can pick this up and give it a remix. The people at Asylum productions should be ashamed of themselves.