Supelice Dreadfully Boring

Manthast Absolutely amazing

Kodie Bird True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

gavin6942 After inheriting a casino from his great uncle, a young man and a few of his friends decide to check it out and spend the night. Guess what? Past employees of the casino who have been killed by the uncle haunt the place and are eager to get their revenge on the new owner. Can the curse be broken? Will they survive? Charles Band... that name conjures up all sorts of thoughts, but most of all it should bring to mind one thing: low quality horror films. Once upon a time, hits like "Puppet Master" came from Band, as did other cheesy (but enjoyable) movies like "Head of the Family" and "Troll". Now, we are treated to low-grade smut like this and "Evil Bong". Are they still enjoyable? Sadly, yes. But if there is anything Band lacks, it is artistic merit.Veterans Sid Haig and Michael Berryman are here, which is nice (but not necessary). Kristyn Green appears, as she did in "Evil Bong" and one other Band production -- she has the chance to get big, but must escape his territory. The other actors are good, but we will likely never see them again outside of a Full Moon film. And I do not feel bad about that... they were more or less here for the higher body count.The film is rather vague about why the ghosts haunt the casino and how they can be stopped. (It seems they want the uncle's silver, but that begs the question -- what can ghosts do with silver if they are dead?) The background of the characters in general seems lacking. A guy inherits a casino from an uncle he does not know, because he is the next of kin. Well, where are all the other family members? I understand these things make the plot workable and the story easier, but they are also illustrative of Band's shortcomings -- he is great at dirty jokes and senseless violence, as well as topless women (which does not come up as much here as you would expect). He fails at three-dimensional characters. That may be writer August White's fault, but Band is White's boss, and therefore to blame.When a film needs three titles ("Dead Man's Hand", then "Casino of the Damned" and now "Haunted Casino") I get worried, and when Band is attached I get even more worried. In the end, you get what you would expect from Full Moon. Cheesy horror and not much more. If you are with another horror fan and have some booze, you might enjoy this. But it is not a date movie or anything you are going to want to see again and again or talk up to friends. There is a reason that "straight-to-DVD" was invented and this film is it.

event3070 This film was not good. In fact, you might even say it was bad.First of all, it wasn't scary. There was nothing scary about it and I frighten easily, so take my word for it. The casino itself failed to create any sort of tense atmosphere. Sure there were spider webs everywhere from not having been inhabited for forty years but that wasn't enough, not even close.The screenplay is dreadful with some very unfunny lines and characters so uninteresting, you root for them to be killed. You might be better off killing them yourself though, as the so-called ghosts of the casino aren't all that fearsome and you could probably give it to the good guys better than they can.This film is without special effects or gore, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Some of the better horror films have neither. The weird part is, this film does do some things you'd want effects for. Without them however, it just looks cheap. It becomes funny, not scary.I give this film a 4/10 because for all of this movie's problems, it isn't completely devoid of entertainment value. Some of the enjoyment comes out of how bad it truly is, for sure. On the other hand, however, the last twenty minutes are kind fun and interesting - still not scary though.Overall, this film is not worth the time and money it took to make, and it's certainly not worth your time to watch it.

helibobber Someone earlier mentioned that this movie was like an introduction to horror flicks. That pretty much says it I think. To those of us who really enjoy a solid, memorable horror flick this one is a vast disappointment. I fell asleep twice while watching it and had to rewind back to see what I missed. It didn't matter to the continuity though. Some suggestive sex but nothing really bad. Sid Haig is excellent as usual. I think he is the most underused horror actor around who can really be pretty menacing when he's on his game. The special effects involving the apparitions are so bad it really bothers me to think about them. I think I've seen some better homemade ones on Youtube truthfully. If you like crappy movies you should see this one. You won't be disappointed.

cllangkjaer In my opinion Dead Man's Hand is mostly made for the younger audience that are just getting started in the Horror genre. I have been following Director Charles Band since his Empire and ealier Full Moon days and growing up watching movies like Trancers and Dolls which are filled with charm in my opinion, then you know of the quality he can produce. But like I started out, this movie and the once he have directed and produced since 2000 are more or less made for a younger and newer audience. I'm sure I can follow his trail of thoughts, because as a director and producer, I could imagine you really needs to keep up with what is hot and what people what to see. It is a business after all. These Movies really need to be seen in the light that Full Moon is not as big as they were back in the day – due to the 2nd collapse of he's company in the late 90's these productions are made for under half of what the budget where on the pictures he made doing he's collaboration with Paramount Pictures. After reading a couple of reviews on Dead Man's Hand and a few of the movies Charlie has done lately. I think it is a shame that people keep comparing Full Moon today to what Full Moon use to be, Instead of looking at Charlies company in the light of today. A consistent felling all over is, that the films he makes today are to short. Dead Man's Hand has a 75 min running time. If you take a look, at his most loved films, like Dolls and Trancers, they not much longer than this. Dolls is a 77 min feature. Though I do agree that they are short, I still think that they work marvoulsly. I do think the idea of a haunted Casino is a really good idea and Dead Man's Hand does have some of the better special efx. compared to the movies, Full Moon has done lately. The story line is a little thin, but hey this is a horror movie right? Still it is an interesting little movie and I think Charlie managed to make it look well. About the DVD, it is nice to see that Charlie is back shooting on 35mm and the transfer is done nice and clean. The stereo sound is done well and set a good mood for jet another late night of horror. The DVD also includes a nice behind the scenes program and a trailer for the upcoming Decadent Evil II.