Best movie of this year hands down!

That was an excellent one.

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

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.

1st watched 8/4/2012 – 4 out of 10 (Dir-Charles Band): Mediocre scary movie about a haunted casino inherited by an only relative of a great uncle that just happens to have killed five people in the casino and their ghosts are bothering the inheritant and his five friends. The movie starts with what appeared to be an insurance person with an inspector checking out the abandoned Mysterion Casino in Las Vegas for the inheritant, played by Scott Whyte with his girlfriend played by Robin Sydney. The initial visitors get gruesomly murdered by some unknown beings, and then we hear about the inheritant's story as the six friends are camped out in Vegas looking to check out the place. The acting is OK and the storyline is interesting, but I think the movie fails because of it's slow pacing and lack of humor. Director Charles Band is a veteran of low-budget schlock movie-making who sometimes surprises with his combination of the gruesome with tongue-in-cheek humor, but this one kind of just lays there and does very little. There are no writing credits listed in the movie but that was probably done by Band as well, and it seems like it was done off the cuff with some subplots just abandoned. Some of the special effects were interesting and I liked the way the card playing ghost dealer tried to keep the inheritants by making them lose limbs if they lost. The ghost characters came across like in "The Shining" as real people imagined or seen at times and not at others. Sid Haig, with top billing, played a rival casino mobster-like ghost who ofted the grand-uncle in the late sixties with an attached personal vengeance against him, but is just OK in the role. The words mediocre and OK are used a lot in this review because that's what the movie was for me. Not horrible, but just OK – which doesn't make for a very worthwhile movie-viewing experience.

People all around the world are full of many wise old sayings or I guess some would call it sage advice.Prior to watching Full Moon Features latest horrific offering, I wanted to check out their making off featurette and once again the man at the head of affairs, Mr Charles Band as ever was offering up his thoughts and words of wisdom.As is his want, the full moon rule book appears to state, shoot fast and loose and keep the questions to the barest minimum.For Mr Band, time is money! The vast majority of his movies these days seem to take less than a week to shoot, and as for any post production time, lord only how long that takes.However watching 'Dead Man's Hand - Casino Of The Damned' I kept thinking about that phrase, time is money! The movie starts with a very slow and very un-involving prologue with two extras spouting forth about the Myteria casino and it's bloody history, now looking at the timer on my DVD player this took about ten minutes, of course anyone who knows their horror movies will know that these two characters are just two lambs ready for the slaughter, but when the inevitable happens it's a pretty lacklustre affair.I have pretty much resigned myself to the basic fact that Charles Band is washed up, sure he can serve up a pretty decent concept, but the glory days of Empire Pictures are well and truly long gone and once again his writer in residence, August White has let him down badly! However once again, time is money! and I guess that no matter what shape the script is in, Mr Band, wearing his producer/director cap is not going to waste anytime about trying to address any issues that might arise within the scripting department.The main star of the movie, or so the main credits after the lengthy prologue would have us believe is the legendary Sid Haig, however he does not appear in the movie until forty plus minutes have dissolved.Up to that point, rather than deliver some heartpounding moments, I say heartpounding, because the set up within a long abandoned and very much haunted casino is just rife for some good old fashioned William Castle type scares.Alas no, no such things happen, instead the script calls for character development and lame situations. Now of course without character development we as the audience wouldn't be able to identify with who is who on the screen, but within the first scene proper after the prologue, the characters and their traits are pretty much set up for us.It must be said that at this point I started to get a little restless, and felt a strange desire to reach for the fast forward button, but owing to my allegiance to Mr Band's movies, no matter how bad they have become, I firmly resisted that temptation.Too bad! as the rest of the movie crawled to it's conclusion, which I won't spoil for anyone, just in case like myself, you are a longstanding and oh so suffering fan of Full Moon or indeed the entire works of Charles Band himself.Of course it has been noted that this movie contains no nudity, but it does have plenty of pretty young women and there is just enough old style gore to keep the mind just about focused but in a nutshell, as soon as this movie had finished, I had pretty much forgotten about it.Yes Indeed, time is money and in this case both were not well spent! My rating is 1

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.