Swampthing316's Reviews

Superman Returns (2006)

10/10

18 July 2006

Go out and see this movie it is Phenomenal, it is very reminiscent of the old Christopher Reeve movies.

This film will make you laugh and cry, it is a very enjoyable experience.

Bryan Singer did a really excellent job with this film, it was both a fitting tribute to both Christopher Reeve and Marlon Brando.

This film was dedicated to the Memory of Christopher and Dana Reeve. It was not dedicated to Marlon Brando, however using the old footage was a small dedication in itself.

This film plays off as a sequel to Superman: The Movie and Superman II, however it doesn't clearly ignore the other two sequels. Bryan Singer was absolutely correct with his comment "If Smallville is superman for you this movie will work, if the Christopher Reeve movies are Superman for you this movie will still work". I tend to think this movie leans more towards the Christopher Reeve movies than Smallville, however there were small moments that did make you think of Smallville a little bit.

Kevin Spacey gives a very good performance as Lex Luthor, he was definitely more evil than Gene Hackman, however at times Spacey proved like Routh to be reminiscent of his Predecessor.

Overall see this movie you will not be disappointed, go out and rent or buy the DVD!

I had to update this commentary by saying that there are far too many arrogant people on IMDb giving this movie negative reviews that are entirely uncalled for. The Message boards for this film are purely a disgrace and I would not waste my time responding to the smut that has been placed there.

The negative comments I have been reading about this film are all biased and are apparently being placed by people who are quite narrow-minded and can't seem to see or understand the big picture of it all. Watch Superman II: The Donner Cut, you'll understand what Singer was trying to do with this film a little better.

7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

This movie is actually pretty good!

10 October 2004

I grow tired of reading all the criticism this movie has received on this site about how this movie isn't really Bram Stoker's Dracula.

If anyone did their research well, you'd know that Bram Stoker based his novel on a real life person named Vlad Tepes.

Bram Stoker visited the real Transylvania which is located in Romania, this city and country as well as the story of Vlad Tepes became the inspiration for Bram Stokers novel "Dracula"

I will explain who Vlad Tepes was for those of you who do not know who Vlad Tepes was.

Vlad Tepes was a warrior, a very bloodthirsty warrior who was known for his brutal methods of torture, in fact he acquired quite a nickname for himself, Vlad The Impaler, he is also known as Vlad Dracula.

Vlad was imprisoned for a while, he drank the blood of rats while in his cell, when freed he would fight again.

The Turks eventually killed Vlad Tepes in Battle, decapitating him. The head of Vlad Tepes was put on display on a stake. The body of Vlad Tepes disappeared, one theory is that perhaps the Turks burned his body after taking his head, another theory is that his body was buried but stolen, the third theory is what spurned the myth of Count Dracula.

Eventually The Head of Vlad Tepes disappeared as well. To this day neither the head nor the body of Vlad Tepes have been recovered.

Francis Ford Coppola attempted to combine History with Fiction in his version of Dracula.

This film remains true to the book for the most part, however Coppola gives us more background on the Character of Dracula himself, using the theory that Dracula is Vlad Tepes resurrected.

This film took home one academy award if I am not mistaken. Coppola did not disrespect the book at all. The changes Coppola made were in fact for the better not the worst.

2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Lincoln (1988)

A very good film worth watching!

9 October 2004

Mary Tyler Moore gives the best portrayal of Mary Todd Lincoln I have ever seen on screen.

Sam Waterson gives a very different portrayal of President Lincoln than we are used to. Generally, when we think of Lincoln we think of a man with a deep voice due to the fact that he was a very tall man and was well built. However Lincoln in fact did not have a deep voice according to some reports that I have read, in fact he had a high pitched voice and he had that Kentucky accent. (Kentucky? The Hell you say, Lincoln was from Illinois, yes this is true, however Lincoln was born in Kentucky, he was raised mostly in Illinois though)

This film gives us a good look at Lincoln the man, at the True Abraham Lincoln. Yes this film only spends a small amount of time on the assassination and spends none on the conspirators at all.

If you want to see a very good portrayal of the Lincoln assassination that is very in depth, try watching "The Day Lincoln was Shot" which was a television movie made for TNT. In fact the "Day Lincoln was shot" is a nice accompanying piece to this movie.

If you ever get the opportunity to watch either one of these films take it you won't regret it.

12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Exorcist (1973)

One of the finest horror films of all time!

28 August 2004

This film does in fact rank as one of the most scariest films of all time. If you watch this film with an open mind it will scare you.

This film isn't so much of a horror film outside of the "Exorcism Scene" it is really more psychological than anything else.

Linda Blair has once said in an interview for E! Entertainment television "The Exorcist is the type of film that will make you think"

During this films initial release back in 1973 it scared the hell out of alot of people when they first saw it. Why did it do this? The ad campaign was brilliant, you didn't really get any clues as to what the film was about other than its title "The Exorcist"

If you were to walk in and watch this film without having any prior knowledge of it, it will scare you. I know there are some that aren't bothered by it at all, however I am sure when they thought about it later, it disturbed them some, maybe even caused them to question there own faith.

The one thing that angers me, is those people who say they have laughed at the film. Laughing at "The Exorcist" shows ones lack of maturity. If you laughed at that film you obviously didn't understand what was going on at all.

The people who have laughed at the masturbation scene offend me, that scene dipicts a desecration of a crucifix and that is no laughing matter, in fact it is disturbing. It's even more disturbing that there are people immature enough to laugh at it.

I do not want to condon any age bracket from watching this film although it is a film for the more mature minded individual. If you should view this film with anyone under the age of 18, please use caution.

I remember the first time I saw this film, I was a young kid, the film scared the hell out of me, I even had a few nightmares. (All this came about from yes and edited version I saw on the Television back then) I didn't want to see it again for a while.

I eventually gained an interest in the film and decided to watch it again, I saw the original version uncut and I liked it, it didn't scare me like it did when I was a kid, however it did and still does disturb me sometimes. The 2000 re-release "The Version you've never seen" provided some added chills with some of the re-instated footage deleted from the original and some rather fast sequences of the demon face that occur rather quickly.

The actual Exorcism scene doesn't bother me anymore, in fact none of the Reagan Demon scenes really bother me anymore, the masturbation scene will always be disturbing. The restored "Spiderwalk sequence" was a nice little scene added for shock value, it shocked me.

This film is purely psychological and you might feel yourself shake a little bit when you think about later even if it doesn't bother you during the viewing.

This film may not get the same reaction today that it did back in 1973 but it still has the power to make you think. Very few films that are made today have the power to creep inside our minds like this one does.

Sit back and watch this film again sometime. here is a dare for you:

"If you think you are man enough or woman enough I dare you to sit through this movie with the lights out, I bet you can't, then again one nevers knows today."

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Alamo (1960)

A Great Film no matter which version you watch!

27 December 2003

I have seen both the long Director's Cut and the short theatrical release.

The Short version is the DVD release, which was ok, the film goes much faster but it leaves many holes in the plot.

The Long Version helps to fill in the plot holes, watch this version if you really like long films and are into history quite heavely, otherwise stick with the short version if you just want entertainment value, plus it still manages to keep your attention.

This film is truly a masterpiece that will be enjoyed for Generations to come.

32 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Highlander: The Final Dimension (1994)

Pretty Good Sequal to the original Highlander

12 October 2003

Warning: Spoilers

(A word of warning there may be a few spoilers within so if you haven't seen this or any of the other films or the series I recommend you not read this yet)

First of all Highlander III: The sorcerer is the french title used for this film, I just thought I'd clear that up real quick.

Those of us that live in America know Highlander III as Highlander: The Final Dimension.

Highlander is extremely criticized due to the fact that Highlander II: The Quickening came before it. I look at it this way, Highlander II is like Halloween III it has nothing to do with the rest of the series the only exception is that it does involve Conner Macleod, unlike Halloween III which doesn't involve Michael Myers at all.

I did not see the theatrical version of Highlander: The Final Dimension, I just recently came across a copy of the R rated Directors Cut of this film. This cut of this film is excellent and it is a nice sequal to the original Highlander if you forget about Highlander II.

I think I can understand why this film was criticized, the theatrical version was probably released half assed with the scenes all cut up. The Directors Cut is pure and complete.

I'd like to comment on the love scene in this film between Conner and the female lead, it is almost on a pornographic level and it is no wonder that they wouldn't allow that to get into theatre's. It is greatly welcomed in this release though.

Mako does an excellent Job as Macleod's new trainer at the beginning of the film, he knows he is going to die and on at least three occasions gives Conner the opportunity to take his head, he idiotically refuses and his trainers powers fall into the hands of evil an evil that would hunt MaCloud many centuries later.

Those that say that this is a remake of the original are greatly mistaken and should rent the directors cut of this film and watch this one again.

MaCloud did win the prize in the original film, it just so happens that when the sorcerer is resurrected the game begins again,Macloud is actually defending the prize he already won, he gets an even greater prize when he kills the Sorcerer, he recieves the powers and knowledge of his trainer and his power of illusion, besides the overall prize.

Many have asked about Highlander: Endgame, this film only works if you think of it as many years later, this film also is based on the television series too, we have both Conner and Duncan in this one. IF you see the pilot of that show Conner is there, we learned that he trained Duncan after finding him almost dead after a battle. This film pretty much wraps up that series and it tries to finish off the film series as well, it is confusing but you can make sense out of it if you try. The Villian in that film tops them all as he doesn't care about the rules, in fact he breaks every one including the Holy Ground rule.

If anyone else can figure out the link between Highlander I, III, the series and Endgame, feel free to write another commentary with updated information and your own thoughts of what if.

Highlander: The Final Dimension is under-rated and the Directors Cut of this film should be viewed for best performance.

There can be only one, yes in the end there can be only one, we do not know when the end will be, it could be the end of time for all we know, immortals are always being born throughout the centuries and years, we don't know who they are or where they are, at the time end of time one man shall stand alone, at that point there can be only one, but it will be almost an eternity before every immortal is killed in fact the game has the potential to last an eternity.

Those were just some words to think about next time you watch any of the Highlander films(except II) and when you watch the show.

7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Highlander: The Final Dimension (1994)

Pretty Good Sequal to the original Highlander

12 October 2003

First of all Highlander III: The sorcerer is the french title used for this film, I just thought I'd clear that up real quick.

Those of us that live in America know Highlander III as Highlander: The Final Dimension.

Highlander is heavly criticized due to the fact that Highlander II: The Quickening came before it. I look at it this way, Highlander II is like Halloween III it has nothing to do with the rest of the series the only exception is that it does involve Conner Macleod, unlike Halloween III which doesn't involve Michael Myers at all.

I did not see the theatrical version of Highlander: The Final Dimension, I just recently came across a copy of the R rated Directors Cut of this film. This cut of this film is excellent and it is a nice sequal to the original Highlander if you forget about Highlander II.

I think I can understand why this film was criticized, the theatrical version was probably released half assed with the scenes all cut up. The Directors Cut is pure and complete.

I'd like to comment on the love scene in this film between Conner and the female lead, it is almost on a pornographic level and it is no wonder that they wouldn't allow that to get into theatre's. It is greatly welcomed in this release though.

Mako does an excellent Job as Macleod's new trainer at the beginning of the film, he knows he is going to die and on at least three occasions gives Conner the opportunity to take his head, he idiotically refuses and his trainers powers fall into the hands of evil an evil that would hunt MaCloud many centuries later.

Those that say that this is a remake of the original are greatly mistaken and should rent the directors cut of this film and watch this one again.

MaCloud did win the prize in the original film, it just so happens that when the sorcerer is resurrected the game begins again,Macloud is actually defending the prize he already won, he gets an even greater prize when he kills the Sorcerer, he recieves the powers and knowledge of his trainer and his power of illusion, besides the overall prize.

Many have asked about Highlander: Endgame, this film only works if you think of it as many years later, this film also is based on the television series too, we have both Conner and Duncan in this one. IF you see the pilot of that show Conner is there, we learned that he trained Duncan after finding him almost dead after a battle. This film pretty much wraps up that series and it tries to finish off the film series as well, it is confusing but you can make sense out of it if you try. The Villian in that film tops them all as he doesn't care about the rules, in fact he breaks every one including the Holy Ground rule.

If anyone else can figure out the link between Highlander I, III, the series and Endgame, feel free to write another commentary with updated information and your own thoughts of what if.

Highlander: The Final Dimension is under-rated and the Directors Cut of this film should be viewed for best performance.

There can be only one, yes in the end there can be only one, we do not know when the end will be, it could be the end of time for all we know, immortals are always being born throughout the centuries and years, we don't know who they are or where they are, at the time end of time one man shall stand alone, at that point there can be only one, but it will be almost an eternity before every immortal is killed in fact the game has the potential to last an eternity.

Those were just some words to think about next time you watch any of the Highlander films(except II) and when you watch the show.

14 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Welcome Back, Kotter (1975–1979)

Cult Classic (ignoring fourth season)

25 April 2003

This show premiered in September of 1975 and instantly became a classic. The First three seasons are pure genius, however I have no idea what the hell happened to season 4.

This show has potential if you ignore season 4.

TVland now shows this show every Friday and Saturday night at midnight.

12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)

WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO THIS FILM?

25 March 2003

WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO THIS FILM?

Was Kenneth Branagh smoking some crack or something when he got towards the end of film,deciding that he didn't like the book anymore, to screw it over completely.

This movie has potential, it was good up until the death of Elizabeth which Branagh screwed up, she doesn't get her heart ripped out in the novel, she gets her neck broken just like in the TNT version.

Elizabeth is not resurrected as a monster in the novel, she is buried and that is it, Victor goes mad and goes on to pursue the monster just like in the TNT version.

This very bad segment killed this entire film, the end was exactly like the book but still could not save this film.

Can you say try again Mr. Branagh, can you say failure.

I smell a very terrific remake coming up.

Tell me if Mr. Branagh can make a 4 hour word for word version of Hamlet, why the hell can't he stick to the book for a simple story like Frankenstein.

I rest my case.

This movie recieves the harshest rating I can give!

no stars.

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Frankenstein (1992 TV Movie)

This is the Best Version!

25 March 2003

This Version of Frankenstein is the best!

I won't even waste my time criticizing Branagh's Version. Branagh's Version stays with the book until it is time for the monster to kill Victor's wife,then Branagh throws in this ridiculous resurrection of Elizabeth scene which was totally horrible. Branagh ended his movie exactly as the book ended with the monster and his dead master floating away on a sheet of Ice burning up.

This Version of Frankenstein was made in 1993 for TNT. It was one of the first original movies made for that network, Gettysburg premiered that same year on that station.

This version stays pretty close to the basic plot of the book but it adds a twist. The Death of Elizabeth is exact to how she died in the book, the monster breaks her neck, the rest of the scene was different from the book.

The film adds some new twists to the story that make it all the more interesting. William is a teenager in this version not a child and has a somewhat different role.

This version remains pretty faithful to the basic plot of the book not the details of the book like Branagh attempts to stick to in his version but pathetically failed at towards the end.

John Cameron did a superb job with the music score for this film!

I give this film 4 stars. Excellent viewing for a rainy day!

11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

E! True Hollywood Story: Curse of the Poltergeist (2002)

Season 7, Episode 7

Very eerie account of the events surrounding the making of all three poltergeist films.

7 February 2003

This documentary is very eerie.

It is up to you to decide whether or not the Poltergeist Trilogy was cursed or not.

This documentary goes into detail about each horrific event and talks about the deaths associated with each film.

Check this one out if you dare!

5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

E! True Hollywood Story: Curse of the Poltergeist (2002)

Season 7, Episode 7

I don't know which is scarier the movies or this documentary about them?

7 February 2003

I don't know which is scarier the Poltergeist Movies or this documentary E! made about them.

This Documentary will shake you up a little bit, as E! talks about all the freakish events that took place during each of the three Poltergeist films including one very horrific event that took place during Poltergeist II involving the bodies that were brought in as props. Everyone on set was told they were fake, Craig T. Nelson discovered that these bodies were real. The stage hands got the props mixed up and got a cargo of real bodies.

This Documentary is very interesting and is very thorough and even talks about Heather O'Rourke's death while on hiatus from Poltergeist III and how they got a stand in to play her for the final scenes.

Check this one out on E! we they show it, tape it if you dare! Watch it if you dare!

10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Surviving Gilligan's Island: The Incredibly True Story of the Longest Three Hour Tour in History (2001 TV Movie)

Well Done! Propaganda certainly not!

7 February 2003

This documentary movie hosted by Dawn Wells, Bob Denver and Russel Johnson was incredibly well done!

The actors that re-enacted the roles of the castaways were superb, the young man who portrayed Jim Backus had a hell of a task on his hands and performed pretty well.

The actor who Portrayed Alan Hale had his character down to a Science. Tina Louis was portrayed most accurately.

If you pay close attention to this movie it explains why Tina never comes to the reunions, she wanted nothing to do with this show after it was over, she demanded extra high pay to play Ginger in the Rescue from Gilligan's Island so Schwartz told her where to go and he got another actress, this is not mentioned in the film.

The fact that Tina Louis was tricked into doing this show by her agent is a good enough explaination and is fully explained here.

No one is portrayed as a saint in this film, whoever made that comment was totally wrong!

This film follows up the E! True Hollywood Story Nicely and by the way Tina Louis allowed herself to be interviewed by E! for that documentary.

I give this 4 stars for excellent acting and accuracy! Worth checking out if it is shown again.

9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

E! True Hollywood Story: Gilligan's Island (1999)

Season 3, Episode 50

Highly accurate account of events surrounding the making of Gilligan's Island

7 February 2003

You couldn't ask for anything more.

E! has out done itself with this documentary. Every question you could possibly have about Gilligan's Island is answered here.

Old Interviews with deceased cast members as well as recent interviews with the surviving cast.

This Documentary is excellent!

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

E! True Hollywood Story: Gilligan's Island (1999)

Season 3, Episode 50

Very Accurate! Everything you could possibly want to know is explained here!

7 February 2003

This Documentary will answer all of your questions!

Old Interviews with Cast members that have passed away over the years are included with new recent interviews with surviving cast and crew including commentary from Sherwood Schwartz himself.

E! did an Excellent Job on this documentary I give it 4 stars out of 4 and two thumbs up!

Check it out when E! shows it again!

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Archie Bunker's Place (1979–1983)

TVLand has brought Archie Bunker's Place back in reruns

24 October 2002

TVland finally brought Archie Bunker's Place back in reruns.

Every episode will be aired. Set your VCR'S sunday thru thursday for midnight.

It is a shame that this show got canceled after only 4 seasons. The show at least should have gotten a series finale.

Rest in peace Carrol O'Connor!

8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Archie Bunker's Place (1979–1983)

A damn good Ending for "All In The Family

11 October 2002

Warning: Spoilers

A very damn good show.

Archie Bunker's place was disliked by so many probably because Mike and Gloria weren't arguing with Archie in it and Edith died at the beginning of season 2.

During season 1 a Thanksgiving Reunion Episode was made reuniting Mike Gloria, Edith and Archie. Sadly, this was the final episode that they would all be together. This episode is often overlooked due to the fact that Archie Bunkers Place is rarely seen on any network.

TVland just started showing episodes of Archie Bunker's Place every night at Midnight. I don't know if they are going to show the entire series or not, I sure hope they do.

In this series we see an older much wiser Archie, we see him flashback to many episodes of All In The Family regretting many of the mistakes he made.

Archie changes a great deal during this series, he makes up for everything he did wrong in the past. This show cleans up after All In The Family. This show is there as sort of an Anchor for All In The Family. It sends out a message to all its viewers saying no Bigotry is not Okay, sure we passed Bigotry off as being okay in All In The Family but now your are seeing what happens to a bigot late in life, this bigot begins to see the error of his ways.

This show was ironically canceled after 4 seasons somewhere in between 1982 and 1983.

I believe a full marathon of Archie Bunkers Place starting with the episodes of All In The Family in which Archie Buys the bar, should have ran for four days straight after Carroll O'Connors death, this would have been a fitting tribute to the veteran actor. At least an airing of the actual pilot of All in the Family followed by some land mark episodes of that show than episodes of Archie Bunkers Place should've been aired.

May Archie rest in peace!

27 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Knight Rider 2000 (1991 TV Movie)

Knight Rider: Dead or Alive?

6 September 2002

Knight Rider 2000 was essentially the end of the original series set in the year 2000, 14 years later.

This movie was made 5 years after the show went off the air, the story line is 14 years later.

There is a lot of talk out there about a theatrical release in 2003 called Knight Rider 3000 or Super Knight Rider 3000.

David Hasselhoff recently checked into Alcohol rehab to dry out a little bit, this may hold up production for a while, I'd say we might see a late 2003 release or 2004.

Another set back is the Death of Edward Mulhare, he died of cancer a few years ago, his character was ironically killed off in KnightRider 2000. I find it Ironic that he died several years after his character was eliminated.

He could have been used as a hologram or ghost, I have heard something about a grand niece, I still say that with technology today we could see a holographic Devon make an appearance.

Over all I say KNIGHT RIDER WILL LIVE ON!

2 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Gilligan's Island (1964–1992)

Rare original Pilot only seen on TBS!

6 September 2002

TBS was able to show the original black and white pilot for Gilligan's Island in the early 90's, since then no other network has been able to air it, as a matter of fact the footage has seemed to have disappeared.

I have a rare existing copy of the original pilot of Gilligan's Island taped off of TBS, I added to that tape the 2nd pilot, the pilot that all off us are familiar with and a few other episodes that followed. I have also included the Final episode ever shot of the series.

The made for TV comeback specials: The Rescue from Gilligan's Island, Castaways on Gilligans Island and The Harlem Globetrotters on Gilligans Island.

This was a hell of a show for its time, it was highly under-rated by the critics of the 60's.

0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Exorcist III (1990)

Almost as scary as the original!

30 August 2002

I think this film was almost as scary as the original!

It has a quite complicated plot, you have to understand the events that happened at the end of the first Exorcist movie.

If you don't understand how Father Damien got possessed you had better go back and watch the end of "The Exorcist" I don't care which version you watch that scene never changes.

Damien says: "come into me!" the demon than possesses Damien.

The plot of The Exorcist III is a very hard and complicated plot to follow. If you don't understand everything you saw in the first movie than you had better not watch this one at all.

You must ignore everything that happened in the second one, that was Reagan's story.

This movie is the continuation of Father Damiens story as eery as that may seem.

George C. Scott gives a pretty good performance in this film.

I give it a 6 out of 10 on my scale.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Punisher (1989)

The Punisher

21 August 2002

Dolph Lundgren wasn't the best choice to play The Punisher, however he was a very interesting choice.

Dolph Lundgren has quite the Russian accent, hearing speak the Punishers lines is kind of eerie in a way.

Louis Gossett Jr. saved this picture with his glorified presence, he made all the worth while to watch.

The Drunk is excellent comic relief.

Every movie based on a comic always screws up the original story as does this one, it screws up the Punishers origin, his family wasn't killed in a car bomb explosion they were killed in a crossfire in the comicbook, I can understand why the writers of this movie made this change, the original used in the comic would be too graphic for the theatres, they had to clean it up a bit.

One more discrepency is the fact we don't see Dolph Lundgren with a skull shirt on this movie, in the comic the hero does, as a matter of fact he is well known for the skull emblem.

I give this movie a 5 out of 10 even though I own a copy of it.

It's very entertaining.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Swampthing316

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed