SteinMo
What a freaking movie. So many twists and turns. Absolutely intense from start to finish.
Plustown
A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.
Ezmae Chang
This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.
Michael Ledo
Matthew Dragna (Scott Whyte) inherits the Dragna Mysteria Casino which is run down and haunted. He checks out the property with 5 other people. The ghosts who haunt the place were victims of his uncle. Matthew must gamble for his life against Sid Haig and Michael Berryman. You would think a film which top bills Haig and Berryman would be a smash. It was not. Their time in the film was limited and they didn't appear until the 45 minute mark. There was an attempt to make this an 80's style comedy horror, but the writing was simply substandard with fake sex and male debasement being passed off for adolescent comedy. Not overly funny or scary. Guide: F-word. No sex or nudity. Charles Band let down.
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.
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.
badgerz94
Saw this on Charter on demand. This is a 75 minute movie and nothing and I mean nothing happens until minute 57 leaving you with 18 minutes of pathetic action. Sid Haig and Michael Berryman are in this for 6 or 7 minutes. How did they spend $200,000 on this...as a grad student at UCLA in Theater I can tell you that this easily could have been shot in 2-3 days. They use 2 locations, a hotel room and a casino the size of a 4 bedroom house. Michael Berryman is no longer scary, he looks 110 years old and can barely speak. Sid Haig looks like he just came off a 3 day bender...you can tell that he was looking at cue cards(watch carefully and you'll see. This is a low point even by Full Moon Standards.
