ThiefHott Too much of everything

Beanbioca As Good As It Gets

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Loui Blair It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

Leofwine_draca This cheap and cheesy all-black horror film is about a female demon in human form who goes around killing sexually promiscuous men. It's as simple as that, and a plot that's not necessarily bad given the right treatment. A pity, then, that the execution is all wrong in this often laughable amateurish effort, which was unsurprisingly distributed by the team at Troma.Everything about this film is bad, from the dated attempts at stylish direction to the rubbish acting (the possessed woman goes way over the top) and the even-more awful gooey effects. I used to see this film around on VHS and DVD back in the day although I never got around to purchasing it, and now I can see why.Really, the only reason anyone would go out of their way to watch this film these days is to see a few famous actors in early roles. Bill Nunn (SPIDER-MAN) is here as an erstwhile hero while Samuel L. Jackson plays a preacher. Kadeem Hardison (DRIVE) is also present. The blame for this film's failure can be laid at the door of writer/director/star James Bond III, who definitely bit off more than he could chew. As a blaxploitation horror film, it's a dog.

robert-259-28954 I give this film high marks in spite of its limitations, which are primarily budgetary only. I thought the casting was perfect, particularly in Kadeem Hardison (who's career I had thought should have been, by rights, much larger), and Cynthia Bond, who's feature turn as the succubus was terrific—both terrifying and seductive at the same time. There were references to this film being firmly in the genre of "blackspoitation," but again, given the obviously low budget and other factors, I thought they did a bang up job with what they had to work with. Compared to say, "Vampire In Brooklyn," a big budget studio film starring Eddie Murphy, this little film succeeded in every important way, and in comparison fared so much better for all the reasons you watch a movie in the first place, two hours of solid entertainment. In this regard, I think the film succeeds quite well—funny, scary, hip and funky, with a strong undercurrent of the mystery of faith. I loved it.

owi2001 Well, I really tried! But it didn't help. This movie is so bad it hurts. Dull screenplay, amateurish acting and very bad visuals. And though Ernest R. Dickerson might be the only artist/technician on this project, it didn't amount to nothing but the look of a home-video. And then the soundtrack: O boy, this is even worse than the famous Glen-or-Glenda soundtrack! The sound-quality is very low (home video again) and the music is just horrible and without any connection to the plot whatsoever. I really like low-budget movies, as far as there is any vision you can explore or at least: something. There's nothing here, I can assure you.

JZvezda What? And why?Thinking of seeing this? Ha ha ha. My dear friend, greater pleasure can be derived from a root canal or a slow limb amputation, minus the anesthesia. Watch this only if you're into laughably bad make-up effects or "Diff'rent World" actors destroying their careers.I like a lot of celluloid garbage but this merits a 10 on the no effing way scale.A stake through the heart! If it had one.