So much average

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Horror novelist Richard Wayborn (Tristan Rogers, straying from the soaps) is an immortal who kills young women so that the soul of his 600- year-old mate can inhabit them for a day or so before they start to go stiff. Kinky. Anyway, trouble arrives when young college student Sara (Arabella Holzbog) doesn't die when Wayborn tries to poison her and he has to try again so she doesn't blow his cover. Making matters worse is her ex Scott (Tyrone Power Jr.) is a cop handling the case. I'm obviously not picky when it comes to my viewing if I picked this up, so sometimes the slightest hint of a good idea can win me over. I like the idea and, while the film is too low budget to effectively pull it off, it makes for something like a high end Concorde production with nice locations and decent acting. Deliciously named director Thunder Levin also makes sure every body the ghost inhabits get nude beforehand (including Melissa Moore) and offers a "I've never seen that before" bit where a girl clad only in a g-string jumps off a roof. Paul Bartel has two scenes as a "boring professor." Also watch for the guy introducing Wayborn at a book signing. He is in front of a big banner for the novel that reads Blood Love (the film's UK title as well) and he calls it Blood Luck. D'oh! No second takes for you, pal. Of course, I still can't decide if the title is EVIL LIVES (as in lives that are evil) or EVIL LIVES (as in evil that lives).

Boy, oh, boy... What was this? I have great difficulties categorizing this flick. For one thing, it says in the video-box: "If you're a fan of: The Sixth Sense, The House On Haunted Hill, Stir Of Echoes, you'll love Evil Lives". Now if you look at which year this movie was made in, you know right away what that means, right? It's one of the biggest lies I've ever read and a perfect example of shameless advertising with the sole purpose of ripping off the unsuspecting viewer. It also says: "A Horrifying Supernatural Thriller". No it's not! It has hints at comedy. A bit of drama. Lots of naked boobies and some sex-scenes. It tries to be a thriller. Yes, there's some dark supernatural powers at play. But it's anything but a successful "horrifying supernatural thriller", I can tell you that much. The so-called surprise-twist this movie has, actually happens, more or less, in the opening-scene of the movie! It has some extremely silly dialogues that are actually pretty funny to hear. And in the final conclusion it has make-up effects vaguely reminiscent of Brian Yuzna's "Society" (or perhaps even better: Lamberto Bava's "Per Sempre aka Until Death" comes to mind), so you can count that as a bonus. Anyway, yes, it's a pretty damn bad movie. But strangely, all this nonsense to me was still rather amusing. Didn't even mind the ending, haha! However, even though I had no problems finishing this dubious movie, this, ladies and gentlemen, is another perfect example why the 90's very much sucked when it comes to horror.

Why did i buy this piece of trash.I bought it at my video store for £1 because it looked interesting from the cover.Now I understand why they say don't judge a video by it's cover. The film was about a 600 year old mortal who kills a string of young women in search of a perfect body in which to resurrect his dead wife, however the perfect girl eludes him and he spends the film stalking her. This film doesn't know whether to be a erotic supernatural thriller or a slasher movie and ends up being neither. i'll start with the good points as there aren't many.If you are into films with female nudity then this film is for you as there are plenty of scenes involving naked women but if you are looking for a film with a good plot and strong characters then this film is best left on the shelf. Now the bad points:The film is supposed to be scary and isn't,the villain has about as much menace as a bag of jellybeans,you feel no sympathy for the heroine,the acting is atrocious and because of poor editing it is a bit disjointed. If you see this film walk past it and do not waste your money as the film,in my opinion has no redeeming features. if I could i'd give this film 0 out of 10 I would but as I can't I will give it 1 out of 10

This review has very minor SPOILERS, so do not read it if you don't want minor details given away.I rented `Evil Lives' recently because it looked like a neat little horror movie. Heck, it even featured Paul Bartel and Dawn Wells. It couldn't be that bad. But then the first person in the movie was Julie Strain, and I knew I had made a big mistake. My thoughts were confirmed fairly quickly. You see, this movie was made in 1992 under the name of `Soulmates.' Thanks to the recent horror movie craze, it was retitled and released as `Evil Lives' in 2000. The movie box tries to compare it to three great movies---`Stir of Echoes,' `The Sixth Sense,' and `The House on Haunted Hill'---three movies that bear zero resemblance to this. The plot is foolish. A man and a woman centuries ago had a strange curse placed on them. The curse is never fully explained, but basically the man murders women so that the spirit of his dead wife can inhibit them for a few hours before the body decomposes and dies completely. After centuries of this, the man currently has the identity of a writer. He lures women into his clutches, kills them, and his wife takes charge for a short while. The writer's next pick is a college girl played by Arabella Holzbog, who you may or may not remember from `Stone Cold.' He botches the murder, and spends the rest of the movie stalking her, killing other people you don't care much about.What is so bad about this is not the acting, but the script. It handles the curse in such stupid ways that you want to scream. Many times, it violates its own rules, especially in the hackneyed end. Holzbog is okay as the star, but those around her simply don't stand out. Except for Wells and Bartel, who only show up in amusing and all-too-short cameos. The director, who does poorly throughout what with sloppy production values and few special effects, made a real mistake in taking these two performances for granted. What he has left is a bad movie that nobody is going to see, no matter how many false comparisons are on the movie box. Zantara's score: 2 out of 10.