uscfilmgrad2000
Joined Feb 2004
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews4
uscfilmgrad2000's rating
This is really a very good film. It has all of the visual wildness of a Fellini movie with all of the character development of a Coen Brother's film. The main thing that I personally like about this film is that there is all of these various characters, which all develop and expand the story for this film. They are then all tied together by the character Jack B. Quick, Space Sheriff, played by Scott Shaw. I think was a great idea and a great way to present a lot of very good story development and add depth to the many characters that make-up this film.
Though this is considered a monster flick. The monster, which is very good, is almost secondary to the characters presented in this film. Robert Z'Dar plays a great bad guy. Joe Estevez is this very interesting character reminiscent of 1950's and 1960's T.V. who pops into the film about half way though and provided this great, very bizarre, story narration.
There is also a lot of gun play in this movie. What I really like about this fact is that the gun play does not possess all the blood, guts, and gore of many indie films on the market right now. Instead, it is very stylized like the violence of 70's T.V.
The locations this film was shot at also deserve a mention. This film was not shot in only one or two very stagnant locations. Instead, it was filmed in numerous very visual locations. I believe this is a common stylistic trait of the films that Donald G. Jackson and Scott Shaw created. One of the most interesting scenes in this film is when the reporter character is giving one of her news reports. In this scene there were all kinds of news vans, news crews, and news reporters behind her. This must have cost a lot of money to pay all of those extras and to set up that scene. But, that is just one of the subtle elements that makes this film worth the watch.
The punk rock combines with country music also adds a very interesting and unique element to this film. The theme song is great! Overall, this is a really good movie.
Though this is considered a monster flick. The monster, which is very good, is almost secondary to the characters presented in this film. Robert Z'Dar plays a great bad guy. Joe Estevez is this very interesting character reminiscent of 1950's and 1960's T.V. who pops into the film about half way though and provided this great, very bizarre, story narration.
There is also a lot of gun play in this movie. What I really like about this fact is that the gun play does not possess all the blood, guts, and gore of many indie films on the market right now. Instead, it is very stylized like the violence of 70's T.V.
The locations this film was shot at also deserve a mention. This film was not shot in only one or two very stagnant locations. Instead, it was filmed in numerous very visual locations. I believe this is a common stylistic trait of the films that Donald G. Jackson and Scott Shaw created. One of the most interesting scenes in this film is when the reporter character is giving one of her news reports. In this scene there were all kinds of news vans, news crews, and news reporters behind her. This must have cost a lot of money to pay all of those extras and to set up that scene. But, that is just one of the subtle elements that makes this film worth the watch.
The punk rock combines with country music also adds a very interesting and unique element to this film. The theme song is great! Overall, this is a really good movie.
This is a Great Movie!
I am always amused when anonymous reviewers attempt to criticizes actors and filmmakers here at imdb.com. Most of the time I simply read the reviews and chuckle. But, in regard to this film I feel like I really need to put in my two cents because it seems that most of the reviewers are either missing the point of this film or simply want to attack the filmmakers (for whatever reason).
First of all, I am grad film student at U.S.C. In one of my classes we went through the three films associated with the project, THE ROLLER BLADE SEVEN, RETURN OF THE ROLLER BLADE SEVEN, and LEGEND OF THE ROLLER BLADE SEVEN, frame by frame. So, I believe I know these films as well as anyone, expect maybe the filmmaker, could know them. And, `Yes,' I have gone to both Scott Shaw's and Donald G. Jackson's websites and have read what they have had to say about these films. What I have to say is that they accomplished exactly what they set out to do; to make a completely nontraditional, art based, film.
Now, I am not saying this is the greatest film ever. What I am saying, however, is that the filmmakers used every element at their disposable to, as they put it, `Push the envelope,' of filmmaking.
If you look at what Donald G. Jackson and Scott Shaw accomplished in this film, with out any of the computer technology which became available after this film was made, they did one hell of a great job. The camera work is great, the editing is great, the story line, (or lack of one), is also great. What I think they really accomplished is to be the first to bring an MTV style of edit to a full length feature film. Or, three in this case.
Not only are these films visually inspirational, but they brought together a great cast. I mean look at the acting careers of Karen Black, Don Stroud, and William Smith. If actors of that caliber embraced this film, how is a person who has no background in either acting or filmmaking qualified to criticize it. I mean you may not like Indy Art Films, but as Scott Shaw says on his website, `You may not like the art of Picasso but you can not say it is not art!'
There are a lot of reviewers who claim they could make a better film. As I always say to people who make this claim, `Let's see it.'
I briefly met both Scott Shaw and Donald G. Jackson when the gave a lecture at the DGA, Director's Guild of America, a couple of years ago. They were both very nice men and have held true to their ideal of pushing the boundaries of traditional filmmaking. I believe they are both an inspiration and the nonsensical criticism of this film should cease. People should open their eyes and see this movie for what it is, an inspiration to Indy Filmmaker that you can make a nontraditional film and push the boundaries of the accepted and the expected. Rock on Scott Shaw and Donald G. Jackson.
I am always amused when anonymous reviewers attempt to criticizes actors and filmmakers here at imdb.com. Most of the time I simply read the reviews and chuckle. But, in regard to this film I feel like I really need to put in my two cents because it seems that most of the reviewers are either missing the point of this film or simply want to attack the filmmakers (for whatever reason).
First of all, I am grad film student at U.S.C. In one of my classes we went through the three films associated with the project, THE ROLLER BLADE SEVEN, RETURN OF THE ROLLER BLADE SEVEN, and LEGEND OF THE ROLLER BLADE SEVEN, frame by frame. So, I believe I know these films as well as anyone, expect maybe the filmmaker, could know them. And, `Yes,' I have gone to both Scott Shaw's and Donald G. Jackson's websites and have read what they have had to say about these films. What I have to say is that they accomplished exactly what they set out to do; to make a completely nontraditional, art based, film.
Now, I am not saying this is the greatest film ever. What I am saying, however, is that the filmmakers used every element at their disposable to, as they put it, `Push the envelope,' of filmmaking.
If you look at what Donald G. Jackson and Scott Shaw accomplished in this film, with out any of the computer technology which became available after this film was made, they did one hell of a great job. The camera work is great, the editing is great, the story line, (or lack of one), is also great. What I think they really accomplished is to be the first to bring an MTV style of edit to a full length feature film. Or, three in this case.
Not only are these films visually inspirational, but they brought together a great cast. I mean look at the acting careers of Karen Black, Don Stroud, and William Smith. If actors of that caliber embraced this film, how is a person who has no background in either acting or filmmaking qualified to criticize it. I mean you may not like Indy Art Films, but as Scott Shaw says on his website, `You may not like the art of Picasso but you can not say it is not art!'
There are a lot of reviewers who claim they could make a better film. As I always say to people who make this claim, `Let's see it.'
I briefly met both Scott Shaw and Donald G. Jackson when the gave a lecture at the DGA, Director's Guild of America, a couple of years ago. They were both very nice men and have held true to their ideal of pushing the boundaries of traditional filmmaking. I believe they are both an inspiration and the nonsensical criticism of this film should cease. People should open their eyes and see this movie for what it is, an inspiration to Indy Filmmaker that you can make a nontraditional film and push the boundaries of the accepted and the expected. Rock on Scott Shaw and Donald G. Jackson.
I am always amused when anonymous reviewers attempt to criticizes actors and filmmakers here at IMDb.com. Most of the time I simply read the reviews and chuckle. But, in regard to this film I feel like I really need to put in my two cents because it seems that most of the reviewers are either missing the point of this film or simply want to attack the filmmakers (for whatever reason).
First of all, I am grad film student at U.S.C. In one of my classes we went through the three films associated with the project, THE ROLLER BLADE SEVEN, RETURN OF THE ROLLER BLADE SEVEN, and LEGEND OF THE ROLLER BLADE SEVEN, frame by frame. So, I believe I know these films as well as anyone, expect maybe the filmmaker, could know them. And, 'Yes,' I have gone to both Scott Shaw's and Donald G. Jackson's websites and have read what they have had to say about these films. What I have to say is that they accomplished exactly what they set out to do; to make a completely nontraditional, art based, film.
Now, I am not saying this is the greatest film every. What I am saying, however, is that the filmmakers used every element at their disposable to, as they put it, 'Push the envelope,' of film-making.
If you look at what Donald G. Jackson and Scott Shaw accomplished in this film, with out any of the computer technology which became available after this film was made, they did one hell of a great job. The camera work is great, the editing is great, the story line, (or lack of one), is also great. What I think they really accomplished is to be the first to bring an MTV style of edit to a full length feature film. Or, three in this case.
Not only are these films visually inspirational, but they brought together a great cast. I mean look at the acting careers of Karen Black, Don Stroud, and William Smith. If actors of that caliber embraced this film, how is a person who has no background in either acting or film-making qualified to criticize it. I mean you may not like Indy Art Films, but a Scott Shaw says on his website, 'You may not like the art of Picasso but you can not say it is not art!'
There are a lot of reviewers who claim they could make a better film. As I always say to people who make this claim, 'Let's see it.'
I briefly met both Scott Shaw and Donald G. Jackson when they gave a lecture at the DGA, Director's Guild of America, a couple of years ago. They were both very nice men and have held true to their ideal of pushing the boundaries of traditional film-making. I believe they are both an inspiration and the nonsensical criticism of this film should cease. People should open their eyes and see this movie for what it is, an inspiration to Indy Filmmaker that you can make a nontraditional film and push the boundaries of the accepted and the expected.
First of all, I am grad film student at U.S.C. In one of my classes we went through the three films associated with the project, THE ROLLER BLADE SEVEN, RETURN OF THE ROLLER BLADE SEVEN, and LEGEND OF THE ROLLER BLADE SEVEN, frame by frame. So, I believe I know these films as well as anyone, expect maybe the filmmaker, could know them. And, 'Yes,' I have gone to both Scott Shaw's and Donald G. Jackson's websites and have read what they have had to say about these films. What I have to say is that they accomplished exactly what they set out to do; to make a completely nontraditional, art based, film.
Now, I am not saying this is the greatest film every. What I am saying, however, is that the filmmakers used every element at their disposable to, as they put it, 'Push the envelope,' of film-making.
If you look at what Donald G. Jackson and Scott Shaw accomplished in this film, with out any of the computer technology which became available after this film was made, they did one hell of a great job. The camera work is great, the editing is great, the story line, (or lack of one), is also great. What I think they really accomplished is to be the first to bring an MTV style of edit to a full length feature film. Or, three in this case.
Not only are these films visually inspirational, but they brought together a great cast. I mean look at the acting careers of Karen Black, Don Stroud, and William Smith. If actors of that caliber embraced this film, how is a person who has no background in either acting or film-making qualified to criticize it. I mean you may not like Indy Art Films, but a Scott Shaw says on his website, 'You may not like the art of Picasso but you can not say it is not art!'
There are a lot of reviewers who claim they could make a better film. As I always say to people who make this claim, 'Let's see it.'
I briefly met both Scott Shaw and Donald G. Jackson when they gave a lecture at the DGA, Director's Guild of America, a couple of years ago. They were both very nice men and have held true to their ideal of pushing the boundaries of traditional film-making. I believe they are both an inspiration and the nonsensical criticism of this film should cease. People should open their eyes and see this movie for what it is, an inspiration to Indy Filmmaker that you can make a nontraditional film and push the boundaries of the accepted and the expected.