yohancardinal Never mind my rating: it's not a good movie, it's a fun movie, same goes with quality chocolate vs a Nestlé chocolate bar or filet Mignon vs a hamburger, one will make you feel complete, the other will satisfy a craving.Let me first start off by saying, this is why I love SOME B-Series horror movies: The acting is poor, the story is seldom believable, the make-up and special effects are acceptable, but the lore is interesting and the story is original, if a lot of moments and events in the movie are obvious rip-offs of other famous horror titles, not to mention a villain with a great sense of humour, literally "killing" his audience and at least it wasn't shot with an "in-story" cameraman afflicted with Parkinson or a week-day afternoon soap shooting.From today's perspective, considering what's on the market, aside from a few jump scares, I would put this more in the odd and frequent genre (in B-series) known as horror-comedy rather then literal horror.What do I mean: a good villain, powerful, a trickster, a master deceiver with witty come-backs and jokes at every kill with killer o-p dialogue (no pun intended), mixed with the bad acting, it's hard to take this movie seriously, which is a good thing.With movies such as the Hellraiser series (never mind the one about that video game based on the Lament Configuration or that last one with the two teenagers on a trip to Mexico (that was awful, to say the least)), the Leprechaun series (one of my personal favorites: so bad it's hilarious, and therefor, good), this movie adds nicely to my collection, where gore is turned into comedy, where horror laughs at itself.For you people out there who have a sick sense of humour and are kind of tired of today's more serious take on life in general medias, this movie will bring enough mixed emotions caught between general amusement and visceral disgust to make you over-look the B-ness and dull plot of the movie.If on the other hand you're looking for something either believable or of decent quality and aren't into cheap jokes, step away from the movie, walk on by and don't look back.With this said, for those of you who *wish (ha-ha) to stick around, enjoy the show and Be careful what you for (duh).

Leofwine_draca Another typical clichéd horror outing boasting "Wes Craven Presents" before the title (at least it's not as bad as MIND RIPPER though), WISHMASTER is a painting-by-numbers affair which is slick, superficial, and instantly palatable. The story is your usual one of murders and serial killers, with a slimy genie taking the place of scarred Freddy Krueger. No originality exists in the film, so you're coming to the wrong place if you're looking for that. Scenes have been taken from ALIEN 3, HELLRAISER 2 and HELLRAISER 3, even BRAINDEAD, and the laughing at the end titles is more than slightly reminiscent of the end of EVIL DEAD 2.The film does, however, boast an extraordinary cast of horror film actors, and it's fun playing 'spot the actor', just like in THE DEMOLITIONIST. Angus Scrimm narrates, while Danny Hicks and Josef Pilato turn up in tiny, blink and you'll miss 'em roles. Reggie Bannister also appears (Phantasm's ice cream man), and I'm even sure I saw Tom Savini in there somewhere. However, main interest lies in appearances of four "luminaries" (at least in some quarters) in the horror genre. Kane Hodder (all-round stuntman and actor inside Jason's hockey mask) has a brief and ill-fated appearance and is at the receiving end of the Djinn's curses. Similarly, Tony Todd has another small role as a bodyguard, and makes the most of his material. Just to emphasise the links to Craven's earlier works, Robert Englund has a large role (slight bias here?) as an antiques dealer, who vomits up something nasty. And the fourth actor? That'll be Ted Raimi, who has made fleeting appearances in more films than I can remember, who is killed right at the beginning (when is this guy going to get lucky?).Tammy Lauren is sadly totally annoying and incompetent in her large role and overreacts and screams a lot (just like the obnoxious Penelope Ann Miller in THE RELIC), while Andrew Divoff is a suitably charming but purely evil bad guy who gives us the typical wisecracks (and also is strangely reminiscent of the Emperor from RETURN OF THE JEDI. What was I saying about originality?). Apart from watching out for the actors, there's also a lot of gore (a heck of a lot of gore, and the film is uncut...ironically, however, it's far more gory than some of the video nasties were). The various deaths throughout the film are well staged, while the torture parties are excellent, with blood spraying and internal organs coming out. The highlight is the skeleton at the beginning of the film which pulls itself out of someone's body and attacks another innocent victim! (ARMY OF DARKNESS anyone?). There is also a good scene with statues coming to life (although rather too JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS for my liking), and obviously CGI plays a big role again, but is not too noticeably bad here. WISHMASTER is a popcorn movie, nothing more, but it's entertaining enough for what it is and it could have been a lot worse (just thinking of MIND RIPPER gives me a headache). And I never thought I'd say this, but it's good to see a monster movie instead of the wave of boring slashers filling the cinemas at the moment.

Evan Staley Why the Wishmaster has gone so unsung is perhaps due to the limitations of production at the time. In the 80's, much was forgiven on the basis of limitation... But once the threshold of "modern" horror films was crossed in the 90's, certain standards set by the industry may have forced a certain forgetfulness of DIY horrific sensibility and well, good clean sadistic fun. Wishmaster makes up for its comic book "campiness" throughout, with its appropriately thorough approach to the mythological villain. (It's interesting that Robert Englund and Tony Todd both make an appearance in this film. Both of their characters are surprisingly upstaged by the Wishmaster, especially in the realm of dialogue. The Wishmaster's one-liners get under your skin rather than beat you over the head.) His motivation is clear from the outset, which may turn off those who seek more mystery in their horror fare. But I found the viewing experience rather comforting, much like reading the Brothers Grimm (before good night's rest...). The violence and gore is evenly spaced throughout the film, making for a satisfying viewing for blood and guts fans. The music is goofy as heck, but somehow doesn't detract from the arc of the story.Some of the best films on IMDb are rated lower than 6, don't you forget it! In fact, seek them out... what you find within such films might be the "gem" that most people missed.

Dr_Drew_Says Wishmaster (1997): The Good, the Bad and the Reminiscent Synopsis: A long lost artifact that plays host to a Djinn (which is an ancient demon) is found and comes into the possession of a young appraiser. Mysterious events begin to unfold until the Djinn finally reveals his plan: to grant three wishes to the woman and release his kind from their realm to rule the Earth.The Good: I really like the concept of this movie. The idea is a fascinating one, which is no surprise given Wes Craven has made a living out of coming up with good ideas. The idea of taking the old "genie in a bottle" myth and making it a fairytale told to cover up the existence of the Djinn is clever. The movie works well within the guidelines of that story. While the film is not at all scary, it has a number of really good, effective scenes... even by today's standards. The party scene near the end of the film is beautiful chaos and very well imagined by the director. Some of the effects are dated a bit, but it is disturbing nonetheless. The acting is adequate and the script isn't half bad. The actor who plays the Djinn in human form is actually more effective than the Djinn in demon form. Also, the "wish" format is intriguing. Part of the Djinn's devious nature is tricking people into making wishes they thought were going to give them treasure, etc. In essence, the Djinn does in fact grant the wish, he just does it in a way that brings pain and sacrifice to the wisher. It's a pretty clever mechanism and makes the film work.The Bad: All the things I said about the originality of the idea aside, it could have been done better. I just felt that parts of the script (and possibly the budget) held up the idea that Craven created. The movie could have been a whole lot "bigger" in scope with the ramifications of a "Djinn invasion" not localized to one protagonist. It was like the only one aware of the Djinn and apocalypse heading for the planet was this one girl. I get that they tried to make her interesting... giving her a past that made her susceptible to weakness and ultimately, redemption. It just made the stakes too small for me. Craven has always done this though, so maybe it was more the limitations of the budget or quite possibly, it was that the idea is to be more single character-centered... like he did with Nightmare on Elm Street's Nancy. Most horror films do this though.The Reminiscent: Speaking of Nightmare on Elm Street, I found a lot of similarities with Wishmaster to Craven's cornerstone franchise. The evil comes from a parallel or dream-like state. The protagonist is a young female. Much of the dialogue feels much like the early Elm Street movies. The evil is trying hard to bust through into our world and finds a way to manipulate those of us on "the outside". This movie even has an unmasked Robert Englund. Some of the originality is lost in this, because at times it feels a bit like a newer Elm Street movie with less of the cheese factor. I also feel like a lot was borrowed from the Hellraiser series as well. Even some of the imagery was similar - like a man hanging with his chest ripped open by chains and hooks. By the end of the film, I felt like I watched a decent movie that had maybe borrowed one too many scenes from other iconic horror movies.