89 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Blood Harvest (1987)
8/10
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.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
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.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Memento (2000)
9/10
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.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Mega Snake (2007 TV Movie)
7/10
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?
17 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
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!
12 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
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.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Lost City (II) (1935)
6/10
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.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
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.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
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 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Trilogy of Terror II (1996 TV Movie)
7/10
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.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
I don't like this movie because ...
19 July 2007
The plot makes no sense, the acting is poor, the music isn't that good, it lacks continuity over all, and it is obviously an attempt to capitalize on the popularity of the first movie (which was a very good flick). Trying to capitalize on a previous film isn't a bad thing if its done well, certainly. But this film isn't done well. It was, for me (and this is my opinion, so if you liked this movie and disagree don't take it as a personal affront, because movie reviews are opinions and NOT personal affronts or an abuse), a total let down from beginning to end. On the plus side I thought the photography was fairly well done, but thats about the only redeeming quality I saw. Over all ... Its just not worth watching.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I, Robot (2004)
9/10
Will Smith ROCKS!
5 June 2007
OK, OK, I'm a big fan of Will Smith anyway, but ... I've read the "I, Robot" story, seen the various films, TV episodes, etc. and this is by far the best take yet. True, its not altogether with the original story line, but what movie ever was? This has something that most films, in departing from the original story line, don't have ... Its better! The acting, the action, the special effects, ALL of it works together for one fantastic sci fi flick! Like sci fi? Like the "I, Robot" story? Like action? Like Will Smith? You gotta see this. I didn't think Brother Smith could top Independence Day, but there ya go. Not seeing this film, if you're a fan of any of the above, well, that just doesn't compute.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Good, not great, Sci-Fi.
20 May 2007
This movie has several things to commend it. Good location, plausible players, decent script, good flow and continuity, nice photography, and a workable music score. All of these add to it. But what they didn't do, and so detract from it, is just as important. And what they didn't do was simple: They didn't bombard the viewer with a lot of bad computer generated special effects. They don't show you much, they leave the horror where it belongs. In the mind of the person watching. The next best thing they didn't do was over act. The players, given their circumstances, come off pretty natural. And thats another big plus. All in all? Given the avoidance of certain mistakes and the proper deployment of whats left ... This is a way cool flick.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Signs (2002)
8/10
Not just good Sci-Fi.
20 May 2007
But good drama as well. I like this flick. The plot line, the characters, both develop well. The continuity is good. The story holds your attention. Gibson in particular shines in his role, as do all the other players. Good cast. These things, along with a subdued musical score that adds to and doesn't distract from, and good photographic technique, all add up to a very entertaining piece of work. The plots, plural, string the thing together so as to provide an ending, singular, for both. If I explained that further I'd spoil it for you. I won't do that. This film deserves a look see. If you haven't seen it yet you ought to. You'll enjoy.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Lost City (I) (1935)
6/10
Flash Gordon meets Tarzan, sort of.
19 May 2007
An obvious attempt to capitalize on things that were already popular, this is actually mildly amusing. Acting? Except for Gabby Hayes, who was a natural hoot anyway, and Gino Corrado there's not much in the way of really good talent here. I say that, but its understandable too that the standard was often over the top at that time, which thing often enough covered real talent with unnecessary over acting. And that, I think, is a problem with the director and not the cast. Anyway. Plot? Not much of one really. It comes across like it was made up as they went along. Whatever it takes to keep folks coming back on a weekly basis. Character development? Well, the players jump around kind of like the plot, and probably for the same reason. Special effects? Lets just say they weren't shocking, but Tesla would've been proud. Last analysis? Rainy day, comfort food, don't want to think about what you're doing? Watch this. Its fun enough.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Mel-O-Toons (1960– )
5/10
Toons outta Tunes.
5 May 2007
I have a limited number of Mel-o-toons in my collection. There are over 100 in the original series. They're cute, maybe teach a lesson, and many of them were based on certain music scores or children's 45s (ancient nomenclature for plater style records). The animation is less than appealing but workable. The music seemed to be the primary focus, and not animation quality. Produced in the late 1950s and early 1960s they fit in that time frame well enough. In 1960 I'm sure they'ed have been entertaining for a 10 year old. By todays standard a 3 year old might get a laugh out of them. Based mostly on music and well known tales, legends, and the like they can still be mildly entertaining. But don't look for great artistic expression here. That'll drive you Looney Tunes.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
One Step Beyond (1959–1961)
9/10
A wonderfully entertaining series!
27 April 2007
The Twilight Zone ... The Outer Limits ... But wait. Lets go ... One Step Beyond. This series was, and remains, classic. The episodes, based at least in part on factual stories, shine. The stars? Great names, some caught early on in their careers, with lots of talent. The structural aspects of the various episodes themselves are very well done given the techniques and equipment available at the time. The host, John Newland, had a very benign style all his own. My own experience with this series is, perhaps, a bit different than some others. I understand when it ran originally, and that it was in rerun mode for sometime after that. Funny thing, child of the 60s that I am, and born in the 50s, I NEVER heard of it or saw an episode until March, 2007. History lesson: The 60s? There were TWO, count 'em ... two, primary networks. NBC and CBS. ABC, and One Step Beyond was an ABC program, was still an up and comer with out that many affiliate stations. The area I was raised in, well, we got two TV stations. Right ... NBC and CBS. It was past the mid-sixties, literally, before I knew there was anything else around. And then only because I moved into another section of the country. So One Step Beyond? Never heard of it till I saw it on DVD. And ya know what? I love it. Creepy, huh?
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Informative and factual.
31 March 2007
This is a very well done and very thought provoking documentary. Obviously well thought out, the reasoning and history that it includes are a true insight into one of those "hidden" spots of U.S. history. Bluntly, given my own ethnic heritage, I had some preconceived ideas that bordered on the romantic. This film added depth to my views. It actually helped me access a part of my own past. That has to be a plus for any person in watching any film, documentary or otherwise. I own a couple of the Rich-Heape Film productions and this is, I think, one of their best. Kudos to Rich-Heape Films for making a film that brings to life the words of Black Elk (Oglala Sioux) who said: "With all beings and all things we shall be as relatives."
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Mystery of Chaco Canyon (1999 TV Movie)
8/10
This is GOOD.
31 March 2007
When I watched this I had mixed feelings. Being Native American myself (Cherokee) I felt odd about the spot being studied, trespassed upon if you will. And I had thoughts, gut feelings, about the place itself. The documentary is very well done, but its the PLACE thats the subject here. I felt that in opening the sealed rooms, the purpose of the rooms and their having been sealed being unknown to the archaeologists, something that had been meant to be kept there was being released. Without permission or understanding. I also felt that the place had been meant only for a certain time and a specific purpose, which thought was echoed at the end of the film. Understanding all aspects of the thing wasn't important to me. Understanding that it was sacred to a People was what mattered.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
I loved this thing.
17 March 2007
Its just good, cute, fun. The cast is way cool, from Timothy Dalton to Heather Locklear. (Boy, has time ever been good to her!) The plot is a vehicle for laughs and thats all, but thats plenty good enough. The stars? They ARE Bugs and Daffy. No doubt about it. Everyone else plays second fiddle to the cartoon characters. I have seen better interaction between animated characters and live actors, but thats OK. The rest of it makes up for the slight lack in this area. Sneaking certain characters into the thing, making cameos, is well done and adds to the fun. I think "fun" defines this film very well. Who will enjoy this movie? Well, little kids certainly. And big kids, the ones that, like me, were raised on Looney Tunes. And, having said that, well ... Tha-tha, tha-tha, thats all folks.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
This has almost nothing in common with the original.
4 March 2007
But thats not a minus. With enough body parts and bullets, twists and turns, murder and mayhem to last the length of the movie it doesn't NEED anything in common with the first. (Side note: I liked the first, I'm a big Vincient Price fan, and I don't generally care for remakes.) This flick stands well on its own. Very good players, along with spooky sets, good continuity, and really well done special effects, this thing basically rocks. The premise is cool, jealous spouses, haunted asylum, totally "unaware" guests, put that all together and this thing makes for a good scare. Which is what its all about. Kicker? I liked the name they gave one of the main characters. ... Mr. Price. THAT was way cool.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Classic animation.
3 March 2007
Wonderfuly done, and at that point in time when animation was REALLY animation and not just the same art shown over and over or computerized "stuff". The music is very well done, with great voices and good score. Given that it was made in '39 this film has held up beautifully. It still conveys a good antiwar message which, in this day of Home Land Security and international political blundering, we all might do well to remember. All in all, for its sweetness and wholesomely entertaining story line, this thing is STILL a treat for young and old alike. You want a nice story with a good message, well done animation with pretty music? Something to just relax with and enjoy? Travel with Gulliver.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Magical Mystery Tour (1967 TV Movie)
9/10
This thing ought not be judged by todays standards.
25 February 2007
This was made in the 60s. The decade of "Make love, not war". There was a sort of innocence run rampant during that era, when people thought that by standing up for what they believed in they could make an honest contribution and thereby a difference. That was the mind set. And the Fab Four were heroes of a kind. They, for some anyway, embodied the ideal. This film? It was their gig. I think that this "Magical Mystery Tour" will appeal most to those of us that lived through the 60s. If you can wrap your head around that time and place, or if you're just a die hard Beetles fan you'll love this thing. Its a musical treat and a walk down Abbey, er, I mean memory lane. If you can't relate, well, be kind and consider ... Most of us that watched this thing when it first aired in '67? Well, we were probably smoking something at the time.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
It ain't easy bein' cheesy.
24 February 2007
Hey, a space ship that comes with its own seat belt equipped laz-e-boy recliners! OK, given that this thing was started by one bunch in the 60s and then finished by another group in the 70s you can pretty much figure that continuity is out the window. Hairstyles change, the Russian chick looses her accent, and boy does Danny's voice ever change. But given the circumstances, like two entirely different crews, I really don't think continuity and the lack of same ought to be a factor. The folks that took this thing out of mothballs and tried to make it work deserve kudos for the effort. And they did a fair job up until the very end. Pseudo-philosophical meanderings just don't fit well in a sci-fi movie that comes across like the B films of the same genre out of the 50s. But, thats rather where a lot of those flicks tried to go too, so I guess it was to be expected. At the end they even set it up for a sequel. Well, be thankful that never happened. The cast is fun, with players recognizable from "Wagon Train" to "M.A.S.H." and beyond. Its not so bad, and kinda fun to watch. With all the problems it survived, hey, maybe, at the edge of our solar system, there is an adventure awaiting the "last of man".
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
This movie is wonderful.
22 February 2007
Without going into technical aspects and the like, because in this instance that sort of thing is secondary at best, this movie is extremely well done. But that isn't the point here really. The real point is that its done in such a way that ... You're THERE. You FEEL it, SEE it, HEAR it. Its one of those flicks that sucks you in and makes you a part of it. It makes a point, and it does that without beating anyone over the head with someone else's morality. That was a very pleasant surprise for me. This is a film that is well worth the view. Side note: Most of the players? Never heard of 'em. Any disappointments in that? Not one.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.