ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Beanbioca As Good As It Gets

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

atinder There first half of the movie is the back story of Lady who seem to being having a party. I then find out she been rejected and that to kill everyone shoot everyone in that room with a gun. There was some nudity scenes in first half of hour of the movie not much in the second half of the movie. The start of movie was based 1920's and Decades after, 2 Girl who planing the selling this house. Get caught up then those Dead Men from past come back to haunt them, I thought the make up effect were not too bad,they could have them bit more scary there they were. The acting not that bad, I was expected very bad acting, it not un- watchable. The movie was very boring thought, I was again drifting away from time to time, while watching this movie. 3 out of 10

Paul Magne Haakonsen OK, given the title of the movie, you know you are in for something cheesy, but this movie was even worse than I had anticipated it to be.The story in "The Dead Want Women" starts out at a party in Hollywood in 1927, where silent movie starlet Rose Pettigrew comes to learn that her movie contract is terminated as the new movies with audio is knocking over the silent movies. Enraged and crazy, she kills her entourage and then herself. Fast forward to the present day, two brokers are selling the house of the former silent movie queen, a house that has been untouched for over 80 years. But legend has it that the house is haunted by Rose Pettigrew, and the hours wear long as the two brokers wait for the mystery buyer to show up...The story itself wasn't actually too bad, there were some nice enough moments to it and some interesting ideas, but there was just something about it that made it not work out at all. Perhaps it was the fact that the house wasn't in any state of decay or ruin, even though it had stood untouched for 80 years. Or perhaps it was the stupid make-up on the living dead. Why is it that in low budget, or B-movies, like this, that only the face of the undead is shriveled up and decayed, but the neck, the ears, the arms and legs, or even the eyes are not? They hadn't even bothered to spend a couple of dollars on contact lenses for the undead. It is so lame and so bad to see that a face is rotting, but come the neck, it is very much vigorous, healthy and as smooth as a baby's bottom.I don't understand how these type of movies still make it in today's world, it was just so very 1980's. I even know that when you do undead make-up, do all parts of skin that is showing, not just the face. And as for this movie being a horror movie, well I would say that is something of an overstatement. There was nothing scary about this movie at all, aside from the horrible make-up (or lack thereof).As for the people cast for the roles, well I must say that I thought that only Jessica Morris (playing Reese) and Ariana Madix (playing Danni) as the two brokers were the ones carrying the weight of the movie and had the most memorable performances acting-wise. Not even a pseudo-celebrity like Eric Roberts (playing Sonny Barnes) managed to impress in any way here.And true enough to the stereotypical low budget horror genre, then "The Dead Want Women" had an abundance of pointless nudity and sexual scenes, which really did nothing for the movie except bring it down to a sleazier level than it already was.I am sure that there is an audience out there somewhere for this particular movie, I just am not part of that audience. And as a zombie aficionado, I will pass on one word of advice to other zombie fans, don't bother with this movie.

sscholl95 As someone who actually likes "so bad they're good" B grade horror flicks, I thought that a movie titled "The Dead want women" would definitely fall into this category. I was disappointed that it fails both as a "horror" movie and as a "so bad it's good" B comedy. From what I can see, the director seemed to want to make an authentic scary horror movie. Unfortunately, neither the script nor the limited acting skills of the cast allow for a serious movie. OTOH, the film contains none of the campiness or self-referential parody of a fun "B" flick. Even the makeup effects on the "undead" are simply unbelievable and quite cheesy looking.The only things saving this movie from a "1/10" rating is the lighting, the very pretty eye-candy (especially former soap opera star Jessica Morris who is gorgeous) and a not bad soundtrack. Unfortunately, this wasn't enough to keep my interest. Avoid.

JoeB131 The plot is that back in the 1920's, a silent film star has wild parties in her basement with actors who are bad clichés of 1920's film characters. When she discovers her film career is over, she kills her friends and herself. It takes about 20 minutes of the film to establish all of this.So flash forward to the present day, where amazingly, this house has sat vacant for 80 years, with all furnishings intact. And two hot babe Realtors are cleaning it up because a customer is about to visit, because apparently, they couldn't afford to pay a cleaning service.The ghosts are kind of interesting. They have a character called "Tubby Fitzgerald" who comes off like a bad impersonation of Curly Howard, even though he was sort of based on Fatty Arbuckle. I think the writer spent six minutes thinking of a name for this character.Not half as sad as Eric Roberts... But damn, every time I seem to encounter poor Eric writing a review, the poor guy is somehow losing a wrestling match with dignity. he stands out here in being able to act, compared to his co-stars.Really, a movie set in the 1920's would have been a lot more interesting than the one they made.