grkamerican1984 Reviews

Howling II: ... Your Sister Is a Werewolf (1985)

Too many werewolf orgies and not enough werewolves

[3/10 · 27 March 2008]

to be honest, i didn't watch all of the original 'howling', but those scenes i saw made it obvious that the first howling was a great movie. so great, that seven horrible sequels had to be made. they started off with "Howling II: Your Sister Is A Werewolf". i got this movie on VHS from my uncle sometime ago when he was giving away a bunch of old movies he bought back when Atari was brand new. i just watched it last night, and it wasn't really BAD, it was just weird. i mean, the whole thing with Sybil Danning going three-way with two of her werewolf minions was just out of place and quite disturbing (but kinda hot), Christopher lee about to stab a dead karen as if she's a vampire, etc. actually, this movie was actually like some sort of mish-mash of Dracula and The Lost Boys...except with werewolves, because everything Christopher Lee (whom played Dracula himself) was saying about werewolves pretty much ripped off from every other vampire movie (stake in the heart, garlic, the creature of the night must die AT NIGHT, and the ruler of werewolves lives in TRANSYLVANIA). not much for the acting, but the worst of it came from Annie McEnroe. i swear, at some point in the film i found myself rooting for the werewolves to rip her throat out, because that damn throat always had to say SOMETHING. Anyway, the plot is pretty silly and clichéd, so there's no real point in telling you, you could just read about it on Wikipedia. By the way, the thing that really makes me nauseous about this movie is the fact that it's the ONLY film out of all the seven sequels thats related in any way to the original (not counting Howling IV (1988), which was a remake of the original, or in other words, a sequel based on the same novel). so don't see this movie. there's no real horror, hardly any werewolves, and just horrible special fx. 3/10

Friday the 13th: The New Blood (1988)

You know, Jason being a zombie was cool in Part VI, but this...

[4/10 · 6 February 2008]

"Friday the 13th" is considered to be one of the most memorable horror films of the 1980's, next to "A Nightmare on Elm Street" and "Child's Play". By 1986, the series had gone through a lot. Four sequels, two of which were pretty well received (Parts 2 and 4) and two others which didn't get many positive reviews (3 and 5). After a dismal attempt at the box-office with "Friday the 13th Part V", Jason fans everywhere embraced Part 6, which is considered to be the best of the sequels. Then in 1988, Paramount decided to bring Jason back for another scare, with an unknown cast of horny teenagers, lots of bloody death scenes, and a director by the name of John Carl Buechler. Now, this is where i get irritated at Paramount. You might remember many of the horror successes Paramount Pictures had; 'Rosemary's Baby', 'Psycho', and, of course, the original 'Friday the 13th'. You may also remember paramount's horror flops, such as 'Friday the 13th Part V', and 'Orca'. You see, the successes Paramount had were led by experienced directors. In the case of Friday part 7, it's different. John Carl Buechler already failed at the box-office with his unsuccessful horror film 'Troll' (1986). Was he really the director Paramount needed to take on Jason, one of the most memorable icons of the slasher genre? The results, as you might see, were disastrous. 'Friday the 13th Part 7' is so dull, so idiotic, so weird, that i almost fell asleep watching it. First thing that sucks about Part 7, is the first half hour of the movie. We get very little character development. All we know is that Tina has telekinesis, she likes a boy, but this bitchy whore will do anything to keep Tina from scoring with the guy, and Jason returns after Tina (stupidly) revives him. Somebody should've mentioned earlier that there was a homicidal maniac chained to the bottom of the lake, and he could be awakened at anytime. but alas, f there had been such a warning, there wouldn't be a movie. Another thing being the music. Harry Manfredini's musical score from the first 6 Fridays enhances the mood in each scene the memorable theme is played. His music added an ominous feeling even when Jason wasn't present. While is score is recycled into Part 7, a majority of the music is done by Fred Mollin. Fred Mollin's score isn't horrible, but it certainly doesn't add any atmosphere or mood during the film, and it is very inferior to Manfredini's score. Manfredini did the vocals for the infamous "Chi Chi Ha Ha Ha" in the original Fridays. Mollin takes it over this time but his imitation sounds nothing more than "Hee hee hee". Also, in the final scene when Jason's mask splits open, the scene is ruined because the musical score SUCKS throughout that entire scene. Also, the now infamous alternate ending in which Tina's dead father rises from the lake was included in the version i saw. It was really pathetic. Tina killed her dad earlier in the film by drowning him in Crystal Lake. The disappointing thing is, is that Mr. Shepard's corpse looks like nothing more than the original Mr. Shepard, except now he's covered in water and his clothes are all dirty, and not even ripped. Compare this to Jason, who's been underwater for about the same number of years Mr. Shepard has been, and he's a deformed walking corpse! Also, it's kind of surprising that Mr. Shepard was able to take down Jason by just pulling him underwater, considering the fact that Mr. Shepard looks like a total pussy, even when he is a corpse. Mr. Shepard also abused Tina and her mom, but from the way he looked and acted in the beginning, Tina's mom could've beaten the crap out of HIM.

OVERALL, this film is a ridiculous sequel that all the other F13's should be embarrassed to be related to it (even parts 5 and 8!!)

Kyle XY (2006–2009)

well.....................the first season was interesting!!!!!!!!!!!

[3/10 · 22 January 2008]

TV shows these days are starting to get kind of dull. i know of no other good show (my opinion) other than 'Lost', 'Law and Order', and maybe a Nickelodeon Show or two. When i heard about Kyle XY, there was all this hype about it all over the ABCFamily website, so i thought, "Whatever, I'll see". I watched the first episode. Interesting, some suspense and drama, and some questions that wouldn't be answered very soon. The next few episodes i admired. Not only were they about the mystery of Kyle's true identity, but how he's adapting to this "new" environment, as a teenager, and dealing with...well...you know...teenage stuff. Then came the final episode where he met his "true parents". I missed an episode or two before it, so i didn't understand all that was going on, so i saw the recap. No real hints there either. I watched the final episode, and by the end, i was seriously confused. I thought it would've ended with Kyle going back to live with his parents, and pick up on his life from there, but then there's this twist which made very little sense. I eventually saw the two episodes i missed, but they provided little information. When the show came back some time ago, it no longer revolved around Kyle trying to deal with life. Instead, now he's part of some sort of weird experiment and there's also a girl who's like him, and i just got lost from there. Also, the acting got much, MUCH WORSE. In the first season, the acting wasn't great, but it was still believable. Matt Dallas' acting as the title character was the best in my opinion, acting like this confused boy who didn't know what to do, what to say, or where to go at anytime. But now, his acting is as inviting as finding out your girlfriend is a man. This show is also getting a huge fan-base by ABCFamily trolls, who keep advertising and boasting this show as the "most suspesnseful drama/sci fi ever". The there's the whole thing about Kyle beign what he is. Another way ABCFamily tried to advertise this show is the fact that Kyle doesn't have a belly button. OOOOOH! SCARY!!! I wondered why this show managed to go down the drain so quickly, but then i remembered it's ABCFamily, a station that produces the worst and most overrated TV Shows and Movies ever. 3/10

The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

truly startling

[9/10 · 12 January 2008]

What can you say about "The Silence Of The Lambs"? Well,...

it won several Oscars.

it's in the top 250.

it has amazing acting.

it combines several of today's greatest actors.

it has a creepy score.

the story is believable and horrifying.

Anthony Hopkins' character gave me nightmares because of this movie, and i stopped watching any of his movies for a while.

The personality of the character 'Buffalo' Bill made me very overprotective of all the women in my family.

After reading all this, you might wonder, is it good? No, it's not good. IT'S GREAT. A must-see

Amityville 3-D (1983)

eh, after 'Amityville II' its starting to get a lil annoying

[4/10 · 3 January 2008]

the original Amityville was pretty good, Amityville II, eh, it was alright, but after seeing two dumba**es buy a haunted house, i'm not really intent on seeing another gullible idiot buy it again. before i comment on the 3-D, i'd like to comment on the music. i'm guessing they couldn't get Lalo Schifrin to do the music for this one after the first two. His music in those two films was actually suspenseful and ominous, and i really admired it. the music in Amityville 3-D sounds like music you'd normally hear in one of those British soap operas, and it adds no atmosphere or suspense. now on to the obvious; the 3-d. the 3-D isn't horrible, but it's just really obvious in some scenes that the film's creators use almost any object on the screen to serve as a 3-D object (a hand, a jar, a pole). the same gimmick was used in 'Friday the 13th Part 3' a year earlier, except F13 part 3 was actually pretty good. the story is kind of ridiculous. this time, the series decides to leave the 'ghosts of the DeFeos' storyline out, and now go on to something really silly; apparently, the previous families had no idea that there was a giant hole in their basement - a hole, furthermore, that's one of the entrances to hell. this explains the theatrical poster, which shows a huge, creature-like arm coming out of the lower part of the house. eventually, all hell breaks loose (pun not intended) and the house convinces yet another family that the rumors are true. Very, very mediocre film. 4.5/10

P.S.: the only reason to see this film is for the hilariously lame 3-D, and a young lori loughlin (Full House) and meg ryan in the supporting cast.

Tentacles (1977)

Ned Turner: 'I think we're in for a nightmare.' We are, indeed!

[3/10 · 28 December 2007]

i got this movie in the mail today after ordering it from amazon, b/c i was curious to see what it was like. well, the film started out okay, then got a lil dull, and then i was about to fall asleep. watching the film was sorta like watching 'Jaws: The Revenge' except with an octopus. also, you can tell that the octopus is fake. well, actually, u barely ever see the octopus. u see octopus footage most of the time and it's POV, but the only mechanical octopus in this movie is just some rubber head and a few tentacles. the tentacles actually move around as if they belong to a real octopus, but the head does nothing but move straight ahead. now the acting. the acting isn't too bad, from the main cast, but the rest of that acting is bad. all the Italian actors (except for Delia Boccardo) are horrible at acting. there are a few funny scenes though. The scene were this pair of legs just pop out of the water and go scooting by a boat, a scene or two with Shelley Winters wearing this big-ass hat that looks like something inappropriate, and the scene where you see a bunch of fish underwater standing on their heads (?!). it's hard to explain the fish scene, you have to watch it for yourself. the one scene i hated the most was the sailboat regatta scene. you only see the octopus' head going' around capsizing boats, and while the kids are out at sea being eaten by a rubber octopus, there's a bunch of freeze-frames (apparently a trademark of the director that he also uses in 'Beyond the Door', an 'Exorcist' rip-off) their parents are back on dry land being "entertained" by some guy in an Uncle Sam suit and applauding him for his jokes (which make no sense at all). the pacing of the scene is very slow (as is the pacing for the film), and finally when all the kids are back at the dock with their parents, this one woman goes looking around for her son (who got eaten). The police chief asks the coastguard who looks like a gay guy if there were any other kids. the coast guard just shrugs his shoulders and goes on with his business, apparently unaware that a five year old boy just got eaten by an octopus.

My Point? The only reason you'd want to see TENTACLES is for its unbelievable cast (John Huston, Shelley Winters, Henry Fonda), and because it's such an atrocious and hilarious rip-off of a classic. 2/10

It (1990)

C.C.C : Creepy Clown Cinema

[7/10 · 26 December 2007]

My review of "IT" and how the film affected me.

Like most people, when i was younger, any horror movie, whether it was Dracula, or THE WOLF MAN, or maybe even JAWS, would scare the living hell out of me. any horror movie (except for M Night Shyamalan's films) would give me nightmares. Now look at me now. Name any horror film ever made, and i've probably seen it or heard of it. I'm pretty much a HORROR movie buff as well as a movie buff. Then there was IT.

I saw IT last year on ABC Family's 13 Nights of Halloween. If you read my review of 'Stephen King's MISERY' (also released in 1990) then it's obvious that several scenes were cut out of this version of IT. I later rented it on DVD, and by god it was AMAZING. However, it wasn't the best adaptation of the book of course. People have complained that 'It' didn't do the novel justice. i sort of agree, but i have something to say in defense for the filmmakers. 'It', the novel, is 1,138 pages long. It's extremely difficult to cram all that story into one movie. The film itself was entertaining as it was gory. i've never seen so much blood! Tim Curry does a great performance as the title character, and no wonder people on the set of the film avoided him.

Now how did 'IT' affect me? Unlike other people, i'm not exactly creeped out by clowns, even after i saw 'It'. i mean sure, pennywise was creepy as hell, but that was just him. but if you ask me, it's best to watch the movie in broad daylight rather than an hour or two before you go to sleep. i tried that once and pennywise was in my nightmares for a month.

So basically, 'It' is a good horror movie, decent adaptation of a good book, and not to mention an extremely creepy film altogether. 7/10

P.S.: Isn't it ironic that a book that is 1,138 pages long was made into a 4 hour long movie, and the title is only one syllable?

My Left Foot (1989)

The reason why many people hate this movie is because they don't know people with cerebral palsy

[10/10 · 1 December 2007]

My older sister was born in March of 1985 and has cerebral palsy. in her 22 years of life, she has seen nothing but the walls of our house and her school which is also occupied with other disabled kids. i have been the butt of everyone's jokes because my sister is disabled, and i still think to this day that nobody is, or ever will give a damn about her and her condition. Then i saw this film.

I knew what Christy's family was going through. but they were lucky. Christy could talk, he could communicate, and he had artistic skills. my sister can walk, but she can't utter a word, and she can't use her hands to do anything but grab onto things. but this film made me realize there were other people in the world like my sister, and the ending (to tell the truth) made me cry. AND I'VE SEEN SHAWSHANK!!! This film is seriously underrated, and it shouldn't. This movie tells people something. that people should be proud of their own lives. thinking you can't write well? this guy wrote with his foot. thinking you're not attractive? this guy got turned down by lots of girls, because of his condition. not the fastest runner? christy couldn't even stand up.

My point: Parents of young children, i suggest your children watch this movie with you, so they'll know the next time they see someone on the street in a wheelchair, they don't stare at them like they're aliens. My sister got millions of stares, and it breaks my heart to think that this is still happening to many people. This film will teach people, that people who might not seem "normal" are people too. 10/10

Alice, Sweet Alice (1976)

hard to watch, (especially if you're catholic) but suspenseful and entertaining

[7/10 · 17 November 2007]

"Alice, Sweet Alice" (aka "Communion" or "Holy Terror") is probably one of the scariest and most entertaining of all the "indie" films that i've seen. true, this film was disturbing and scary, but the one thing i'd like to point out is the music. Stephen Laurence (Lawrence?) did a great job scoring this film. The music was played in scenes that needed it, and the musical theme to the film that plays in some suspenseful points in the film is just incredible. This film is highly underrated, either because it hasn't really been brought up lately and isn't very well known, or the fact that it has some disturbing scenes. The most disturbing scenes i have to say where Karen's (Brooke Shields in her film debut) death, and the last death scene (i'm not going to spoil it). Karen was killed during her communion, and it's scary, thinking that someone is in the church chapel your in when you think you're all alone. The last death is so unexpected. You never, throughout the course of the film thought this character would die. Even worse, it happens in front of all these witnesses in the middle of the church. The ending is a scary twist, and it would probably a start up for a sequel or a series, but nope. It ends just like that.

My point exactly? "Alice, Sweet Alice" is disturbing and in bad taste in some scenes, but if you're able to withstand the film's content, then it might be entertaining for you. 6.5/10

Signs (2002)

makes 'Bolero' look like 'Casablanca'

[2/10 · 11 November 2007]

as i said in my comment on "The Sixth Sense", i don't like M. Night Shyamalan's movies, and this one started out decent, and then got seriously dull and boring just like his other movies. that scene where the alien just walks by for a second at the birthday party was the stupidest scene in a horror film ever. how that scene managed to be #77 on Bravo's 100 Scariest Movie Moments, I'll never know. Speaking of which, Rory Culkin, who acted in the film, was on that Bravo Special talking about the film, and it seemed that this movie stupefied him. he was talking like he was possessed, saying stuff like "the family gets crop circles...in their crops...and it's aliens..." i think the dumbest part in the movie was it's "climax" . it was a HUGE disappointment. i figured that Mel Gibson or Joaquin Phoenix would get a gun or something and blow the heads off those aliens, but no. the aliens are so weak and defenseless that they can be trapped behind a weak wooden door and get burned by A GLASS OF WATER. so this space creature can operate a spaceship, make circles about a mile wide in someone's backyard, but gets killed by a glass of water. Wow. I didn't know Shymalan's movies would sink THIS low. if you want to see a good alien movie, see "Day the earth Stood Still" or "Independence day", or MAYBE EVEN "Mars attacks!". But avoid this movie like the plague. 2/10

The Sixth Sense (1999)

overrated and uninspired mess

[1/10 · 11 November 2007]

People are probably going to write abuse files about my comment, but at least read it first. First off I don't really like M. Night Shyamalan's films. They don't scare me at all, i've seen enough horror movies to know when the "scary" moments and clichés are coming, and sometimes the characters can be pretty stupid. I saw the Sixth Sense when i was only SEVEN, which was the time i was scared of a lot of stuff. When i went to bed that night, i didn't lose an inch of sleep. How it can be in the top 250, i don't know. The "twist" ending was no surprise, i kinda saw it coming. no person can be able to still walk around living after getting shot a million times by a psychotic person. The little boy was seriously annoying. he was always walking around like a ghost, and while it was "scary" for some people, to me it looked like he was drunk. some scenes aren't totally original either. while i was watching, i had this feeling in a few scenes, like "What movie was that from?" or "deja vu". and a few days later i happened to watch "Tobe Hooper's Poltergeist" again and realized what i was talking about. that scene where all the cabinets and drawers are opened is a huge, slap-in-the-face reference to Poltergeist. Also the scenes where the rooms get colder when the dead and unholy are near reminds me of another certain film in the Top 250 that exceeds this film by all standards.

BOTTOM LINE: if you're looking for a decent ghost/supernatural being story, see Poltergeist or The Exorcist. If you like Shymalan's films, i can't say i agree with you, but whatever. that's my opinion. 1/10

Ratatouille (2007)

is EVERY Pixar movie in the top 250?

[10/10 · 10 November 2007]

don't let my comment title confuse you. Ratatouille is amazing. when it was released some time ago, my older sister (yes you read correctly OLDER SISTER) dragged me to the theater to see it with her and her (coed) friends. i was shocked. this was probably the best Pixar movie ever, and Pixar is doing great in the movie business. The film's plot is interesting, and the title is hilarious (in relation to the pun). the animation is really good, the locations actually look like Paris, and there's a witty sense of humor in some scenes that don't really require it. not to mention, in the film's two hour runtime, with ever passing second you see the chefs cooking the food, and the sizzling of the food in the kitchen it just makes you SO HUNGRY. What's really great about Ratatouille is it's theme. It's sort of (this might sound corny) about how one can be misunderstood or disliked, but still can become a success. bottom line, this film is a true Pixar hit. 10/10

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985)

awful sequel to an awesome movie

[1/10 · 4 November 2007]

this movie was on youtube a few months ago. i swear this movie was probably the worst sequel ever, next to Friday the 13th Part 7 and 8. the acting was pretty awful. Robert englund was the only thing that kept this movie going. but there were some points in the film where he just disappeared and we got to see the weird days in the life of Jesse . that scene with the bird going crazy was kind of cool, but the dad's explanations and theories about the bird were just unbelievably stupid. the worst thing about this film was probably it's plot. even though this movie has the highest body count in the series, the movie's plot is so dumb! this movie is about Freddy, so we wanna see FREDDY kill people, not some weirdo kid who's sometimes Freddy and sometimes himself or some stuff like that. i think a really dumb scene was during the pool party. after Freddy destroyed half of the backyard and killed about six people, everything and everyone turns quiet, and some dumba** kid walks up and says to Freddy "it's alright, no one's gonna hurt you." this guy quickly gets the fate every dumb-a** teen in a horror flick deserves. when the words 'no one's gonna hurt you" were spit out, i was convinced that this teen would break out into singing "kumbaya" to Freddy and giving him a hug. speaking of stupid and weird characters, WHAT THE HECK was up with that gym teacher?! it's like he wanted to abduct Jesse or something, like some weird child predator. now we move onto Jesse again. No matter what happens, Jesse never has a reaction that looks like what it's supposed to be. when he's angry, he looks like he just sh** himself. when he's scared, he's calm at first and then just screams out of nowhere. the only things that make this movie watchable are Robert englund (freddy) Christopher young (music) and Kevin yagher (special effects)

Overall; this movie was really bad, and i don't recommend it to any fans of 80s horror flicks at all. how this movie managed to be the #1 horror film of 1985, i'll never know. if you wanna see a good Nightmare movie, watch 1,3,4,New Nightmare, and FVJ. Stay away from 2,5 and 6. that is all.

2/10

Shark Hunter (2001)

when it ended i felt like cutting my wrists

[2/10 · 3 November 2007]

the plot of this movie revolves around this submarine builder who's a real bastard and he wants to launch his new sub that can travel thousands of feet deep. unfortunately, he can't. oh yeah, and he's haunted by the memories of his mom and dad getting eaten by a megalodon when he was a child. the guy meets some scientist whos pretty hot, and they and this crew of about a hundred people set out on the main character's submarine to kill the same megalodon that killed his parents.now, the shark in this movie is a really fake looking CGI shark. basically this is sorta like Shark Attack 3, except more depressing. if you don't get what i mean, listen. the film's opening credits show "home movies" of the main character when he was a child with his parents before they got killed, and there's really sad and depressing piano music playing in the background. you would expect to see a shark or something, and you do. a brief shadow of the CGI shark floats around every few seconds but that's just it. also, i don't remember one happy facial expression at all throughout the film's entire runtime, a majority of the film takes place in the dark depths of the abyss, where the story gets even more dull, and all the characters (the shark too) die in the end. I was thinking Sabato would manage to kill the shark and manage to save himself and the girl, but no, they all die, and the film ends with the shark, all blown up, and the submarine (with Sabato's crushed and burned body in it) sinking into the abyss. if you're a happy person and you don't enjoy being depressed, then avoid this movie. if you're the opposite, then congratulations, you found your movie.

The Birds (1963)

'a little birdy told me'

[10/10 · 1 November 2007]

i first saw this movie some weeks ago on AMC's 7 Nights of Hitchcock. This was probably one of the most intense movies i ever saw (even for a 60s movie!). a perfect cast too! rod Taylor and Jessica Tandy. also, the "music". the man who did the sound effects for this film (bernard herrmann) did the infamous haunting score for PSYCHO, another famous Hitchcock film. it's very tense and scary when you watch the film over and over again. throughout it's 2 1/2 hour runtime, there is not one musical note played. that just adds to the intense creepy atmosphere. when the part came where Susanne pleshette was killed, i was real shocked. when the town center exploded, that's where the film REALLY started. if you're a fan of natural horror films or Hitchcock, i recommend this movie. a must see. 10/10 P.S. - doesn't tippi hedren kinda look like Paris Hilton?

Fright Night (1985)

my favorite vampire movie...

[9/10 · 31 October 2007]

...next to "Dracula" (1931). I only know four films Chris sarandon has done, (this, nightmare before Christmas, child's play, and princess bride) and this is my favorite of those films. Roddy McDowall did a really good job in this movie, as well as Sarandon, Ragsdale and Bearse. "Evil" Ed was kind of weird, but funny. Had they brought him back in the sequel, "FRIGHT NIGHT PART 2" would've been great. i'm not saying the sequel was bad, but it was inferior to the original. it didn't really take me as a surprise when i found out that Stephen geoffreys was gay (his character seemed kind of queer), but Amanda bearse?! i have two favorite parts in this movie. the scene where jerry seducts Amy, and the part where peter Vincent tries to fend of "Evil" Ed with the crucifix. if you like vampire movies that have a dark blend of humor, i recommend this movie. and "The Lost Boys" (1987) lol.

10/10

Final Destination 3 (2006)

after this movie, i'm PRAYING there won't be an FD4

[3/10 · 25 October 2007]

there's such a thing in terms of horror films, that the material might get so graphic, obscene and vulgar that it might be crossing the line. Final Destination 1 didn't do that. there was some violence, but it wsn't extremely graphic. F.D.2. REEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLYYYYYYY crossed the line with so much gore and violenc that i threw up several times. Final Destination 3 however was different. the violence level was pretty high, which made the film just as disturbing and in bad taste as FD2. basically, it's the same story repeated over and over again, except the deaths are different, the main disaster is caused by something else that's pretty obvious, and the characters are different. just stick with the first one. it's not as graphic nor as obscene as 2 or 3. 2/10

The acting was good though. but the deaths were disgusting

The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie (2005)

1 win, huh? let's hope the next win is a Razzie

[1/10 · 23 October 2007]

I hate this movie. I hate the show. i hate just about everything about it. it's so annoying and stupid. everyone's saying that nat and alex wolff are heroes in the music world and that they're going to make it big. WHAT KIND OF DRUGS ARE YOU TAKING???!!!?!?!?!?! nat and alex are going to end up as either hobos or end up like Jane Hudson from "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?". i could only get through not even 20 minutes of this one, barely 30 seconds of the show, and i managed to survive about half an hour of 'Battle of the Bands'. How anyone could cheer for these guys in the audience at the Kid's Choice Awards, i have no clue. days before the movie premiere on Nick, most of the teen girl actresses on Nick (Jamie Spears, Emma Roberts, Lindsey Shaw, etc.) showed up in a commercial influencing brain-dead kids about how awesome nat and alex wolff are. first off, they didn;t trick me, and second of all, nat and alex probably either drugged them or payed them loads of money in order to say that and sound convincing, because i don't see how anyone could find this show/movie entertaining. the music is just awful. nat's singing sounds like a sick, dying moose on crack. alex is the most annoying movie/TV show character EVER. he's not funny, he's annoying, he's really weird, and he thinks he's hot and knows everything about girls. this guy's lucky if he ever manages to get laid. you know this show is fake when you find out that some of the characters (in real life) don't even exist!! the character Jesse is actually played by Nat and Alex's cousin jesse Draper (they mustve had some budget problem). Their father is not single, he's married to Polly Draper, but she doesn't appear on the show, making it seem the Wolff's are mom-less. Rosalina doesn't exist either. Her name is Allie DiMeco. I'll tell ya, the Naked Brothers are gonna be in some deep sh** when their "fans" find out the whole thing is staged. 0/10

The Naked Brothers Band (2007–2009)

Nickelodeon. 1979 - 2005.

[1/10 · 22 October 2007]

i originally wrote another comment about my opinions about this show, but got taken off because of some "abuse file' by another user. first off, if that person doesn't agree with me, i have no problem, but they don't have to be a troll and take off the comment just because i might not sound agreeable. now that i got THAT out of my system, let me go on.

The music is just painful to listen to. i can't stand listening to Nat Wolff's voice for a brief minute. it's so high pitched and annoying, that zac efron's lip synching is maybe even more entertaining. Alex Wolff is one of those characters who's supposed to be the comic relief, but possibly 1 or 2 out of the millions of cheap one-liners and "jokes" he cracks in every single episode comes close to being funny.

This series never should've began. it just should've been the original mockumentary and that's it. because i (and several others) can't stand watching nickelodeon without Nat and Alex Wolff popping up every 3 seconds. i'm not even going to say anything about the title. to even think that such an inappropriate title to a stupid show is being showed on a channel that used to be on the top of the world but now s on rock bottom is just unbelievable. IMDb should make a new list called "ROCK bottom 100", for atrocious nightmares like this. 0.5/10

P.S. - I don't usually say this about celebrities, but i really felt sorry for Hillary Duff when she had to stand next to those two at the Kid's Choice Awards a few months ago.

Black Christmas (2006)

the age of horror films has come and gone. heres the proof

[1/10 · 21 October 2007]

This is the biggest insult to a classic horror film i've ever seen, next to Gus Van Sant's remake of PSYCHO. Black Christmas is one of my favorite horror films. And when i heard it was going to be remade, i knew that this would give the original a bad name. in the original, there were only six or seven deaths. in the remake, i lost track. almost every death showed eyes getting ripped out, and after the 8 millionth victim gets her head ripped off, it starts t get so dull and predictable. everything was so gory, it was like the film depended on gore more than the actual plot. don't even get me started on the plot. in the original, we never see who the killer is, why he's killing people or what connection he has with the sorority group. in the remake, we're given a back story about how he became a psychopath obsessed with ripping people's eyes out, which just takes away all the mystery and suspense. How could Glen Morgan do this? He actually wrote the script too! Does this guy have problems or something? because only a totally deranged maniac could think of something like this, and/or find it entertaining. I'm not the only one who's saying this. as most people have heard, when the movie came out on Christmas day, it was a box-office flop, Christian groups were offended, horror fans were offended, and i'm offended, because glen Morgan took the original slasher film and turned it into a piece of sh**. forget coal, Santa should start putting the DVD of this movie in people's stockings if they've been naughty! 1/10

Bratz (2007)

what has the world come to when a film based on dolls that teach girls to be sluts is made?

[1/10 · 21 October 2007]

this movie is the worst thing ever made. even worse than Jaws the Revenge. My little cousin (girl) likes Bratz (the dolls)and had thoughts about seeing the movie. well i'm glad she didn't see it! this movie and the dolls teach little girls how to be sluts. that girl meredith was the most annoying little bitch i've ever seen on a movie screen, the four lead actresses are just your typical 20 something year old whores who can't act trying to make it big, and not even John Voight (that's right, JOHN VOIGHT) could save this film. I'm very close to my little cousin, and she looks up to me. i personally told her not to see the film because it would make her feel unpretty and stupid. i'm very glad she followed my advice. if you're a shallow low-life crackhead who thinks fashion and acting like a bitchy slut is what life is all about, then this movie is for you. i'm serious this movie is so bad, bad acting, stupid plot, and EXTREMELY ANNOYING CHARACTERS. 1/10

Slaughter High (1986)

they're unknown British actors, so you can't complain...

[2/10 · 20 October 2007]

...but i expected better from Caroline Munro. She's done some good films, and i was hoping this would be just as good. as a matter of fact, she and this other blonde girl character (the girl who got electrocuted i think) were the only two out of the 8-11 actors who could act. this film has the worst acting i've ever seen. almost as bad as 'Psycho' (1998). the really dumb part was when the woman was in the shower and marty rigged it to pour battery acid in there. she starts screaming, and her scream is probably the most annoying sound in the whole world. she attempts to get out, but "accidentally" falls back in. i will admit, the violence and story is good, along with harry manfredini's music, but the acting could've been a LOT better. there were two other characters, frank and joe. i don't know about you, but they bare a strange resemblance to dan akyroyd. also, when they find that woman's fried corpse in the bathtub, you would think they'd be screaming and barfing. No. Caroline Munro and the blonde woman are the only ones who react. Frank and Joe barely show any signs of fear or disgust. i don't know about you, but i know that if i saw a fried skeleton of one of my best friends, i'd puke. also, when joe starts saying stuff like "what happened to marty was an accident, it wasn't our fault." he says it like his nervous or scared but barely shows any facial expressions. then the blonde girl starts crying and says "i'm scared frank!". and she grabs joe. i guess the actress really didn't know which guy was which. the film's ending is the most confusing thing i ever saw. more confusing than the climax of "jaws: the revenge". all the eight friends end up dead, marty kills them all, but then, you see something that looks like him being chased by their rotted corpses, and then it just cuts to marty still in the hospital from the accident, and then when the film ends, marty dresses up as a nurse trying to sedate him, but then we see that marty has gotten into her clothes or somethin like that kills a doctor, and the film ends with marty peeling skin off his face. which leads me to this next question. WHAT WAS THE WRITER ON WHEN HE CAME UP WITH THAT?!?!?!?! did he actually expect people to understand just what the hell happened?? the ending left me so confused. were the characters still alive? is marty still holding a grudge? did the events we just see not happen yet or not at all? i don't know. overall, this movie was pretty dumb. the acting sucked, the music was okay, the story was pretty decent (except for the ending). basically, this is just one of your average 80s teen slasher flicks. see it only for harry manfredini and caroline munro. 2/10

P.S. - Simon Scuddamore (Marty) committed suicide shortly after the film's release from intentional drug abuse. i guess he was the only person who knew this film was what it really was. A PILE OF SH**

Psycho (1998)

makes the original look bad

[1/10 · 15 October 2007]

when movie classics are usually remade, it's sometimes a re imagination, a rip off, etc. normally in a remake there's new things in the story that weren't in the original film. NOT GUS VAN SANT'S VERSION OF PSYCHO!!! this was the biggest disappointment in film history, and i'm glad it won the razzie for worst remake. this "film" was a shot-for-shot, line-for-line, scene-for-scene imitation of the original Psycho. here are three things from the film that were a major disappointment

1. the cast of the film was just atrocious. it starred well known actors, like Anne heche, William h Macy, Julianne Moore, etc. whenever they do that in a movie, you know it's gonna suck, because the creators try to use well known faces in Hollywood to draw you away from the shitty movie. which brings me to my next point. guess who plays Norman Bates? Vince Vaughn. I'm not kidding. Normally, i'd think that would be dumb because no one can replace Anthony Perkins, and because Vince Vaughn is known for his comedy films. but now there's another reason. HE SUCKS. in this film, Vince Vaughn does the worst imitation of one of the most famous characters in horror film history.

2. the credits. Bernard herrmann did the original score, but he wasn't listed in the credits for the original soundtrack, which is just selfish because the creators deliberately ripped off his original music and used computers to make it sound brand new. Robert Bloch (the writer of the original 1958 novel) wasn't credited in the writing credits either. now in the special thanks section, you'd think they'd credit Hitchcock, Leigh, Vera Miles, Perkins, or maybe the original film's producers. Did they? No, the only credited Hitchcock's daughter Patricia, who was in the original film for not even ten minutes. that's real generous.

3. The death scenes. the shower scene was exactly the same as the original, every shot, except it was more graphic, and anne heche was horrible at imitating Janet Leigh in that scene. arbogast's death scene wasn't only graphic, but it was also stupid. in the original, he gets slashed in the face once, and then falls down the stairs. in the remake, he gets slashed in the face three times (he doesn't even show shock or surprise), and in between the shots of his face slashed, there are 2 three second shots of a hot naked blonde woman and a goat/cow/sheep/ whatever. when he finally falls down the stairs, it's done in blue screen (which is stupid because this was 1998 and there were way more superior special effects then, as there are now.) when he lands at the bottom of the stairs, "mother" follows and starts stabbing him off screen (just like the original). however, in the remake, arbogast's moans and howls in pain sound like he's having a hard time taking a crap. if some guy dressed as an old lady was stabbing the life out of me, i'd be screaming my a** off.

BOTTOM LINE: to fans of the original who want to see this movie, DO NOT SEE IT. you will be very disappointed and angry that one of Hollywood's most horrifying classics was trashed like this.

Sleepaway Camp (1983)

dull, gross, unnecessary rip off of Psycho and Friday the 13th

[2/10 · 13 October 2007]

I first saw Sleepaway Camp some months ago, and it was okay at first, but i just saw Psycho, and i found something wrong. but i'll get to that later. Robert Hiltzik's Sleepaway Camp was nothing more than homosexual content peppered with super evil bitches and bad acting. the scene in the beginning with the 2 teenagers on the speedboat was the dumbest scene i've ever seen in a horror film, as it was also hilarious. the character Aunt Martha was annoying as much as she was creepy. what kind of psychotic idiot would deliberately turn her own nephew into a girl??!!! if my aunt was like that, i'd secretly remove her from the family tree. felissa rose does a decent performance as "Angela", the main character/villain, Johnathan Tiersten does okay acting too, but the rest of the acting is atrocious. it's like the characters knew they were in a movie, but were trying to cover it up with cheap cliché dramatics. the ending was just unnecessary, and was really creepy. the music in the background was amazing, but it was ruined by the moans coming from Angela, which was the loudest sound in that scene. and now onto the rip off conflict. people say that the only way this film has a similarity to Psycho is meg's death in the shower, and the film rips off Friday the 13th in every way possible. that is incorrect. SC and F13 had very few similarities. the only thing they had in common was that it took place at a sleepaway camp, and that someone was going around murdering campers and counsellors. but here are ten things that SC stole from 'Psycho'.

1. The killers in both films were dressed up as the opposite sex for a majority of the films.

2. there are scenes in both films where a woman is brutally killed in a shower.

3. Both killers had maniacal "mothers".

4. Both films have an eery "who-done-it" theme.

5. both films end with a shot of the killer, with their faces twisted into a creepy and intimidating "smile".

6. SC and Psycho both take place over the course of 2-3 weeks, where as the events in Friday the 13th only occur in one day.

7. It was the killer's mothers who drove them into insanity and murder.

8. There are scenes in both films where a body is disposed of in a lake/swamp, and is eventually retrieved by the authorities.

9. Both killers were orphans.

and finally...

10. Both killers could imitate the voice of a woman/girl.

So basically, SC was rip off of Psycho more than it was a rip off of Friday the 13th. if you want to see this movie and you already saw PSYCHO, watch the film carefully, and you will find the similarities.

My rating: 3/10

Creature from the Haunted Sea (1961)

boring

[1/10 · 12 October 2007]

this was probably the most boring movie i've ever seen. not only is it boring, but the sound quality sucks, and you can barely tell what the hell is going on. the monster is the most fake looking thing i've ever seen. its some guy who looks like Cookie Monster covered in seaweed. this movie sucks so much, no wonder it was featured on "The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made." The 'monster' doesn't even appear until halfway through the film, neither is it mentioned, and when you finally see it, it's so disappointing!! i was never a fan of Roger Corman, but this is ridiculous! Roger Corman is one of those annoying overrated B-Movies that you want to destroy so bad. well, this is it! this is the movie i wanted to impound into the dirt, so no sci fi fan will ever find it and be disappointed by this...this...THIS! 0/10