|
Directed by: Takashi Shimizu Starring: Sarah Michelle Gellar , Bill Pullman, Jason Behr I just returned from an employee screening of this movie. A while back, my girlfriend told me she saw a preview for a movie that looked like it was going be very scary. I was very excited upon seeing the trailer she was refering to and could not wait to see "The Grudge". Here I am, after seeing this movie which i was so excited to see, completely disappointed. I went in expecting to be scared shitless but instead I just sat there wondering what the hell I was watching  . If you have seen "The Ring", you have basically seen everything this movie has to offer. However, unlike "The Ring" in my opinion, this movie was not at all scary. There were a couple of jumpy moments but after they recycled these moments, sounds, situations, throughout the entire movie, it was no longer scary. I expected this movie to take place mostly inside of the house, but the story is taken elsewhere. I myself have not seen the original Japanese version but im sure it was much better. The American actors seemed out of place but of course had a horrible backstory to why they are in Japan. If the sound of a house creeking, an annoying little kid who makes weirdass noises, and a japanese woman who looks and moves just like the girl from "The Ring", is scary to you, then this is your movie. Its definately not mine. Hopefully I just ruined this movie for myself because i hyped it up so much in my head and maybe other people will thoroughly enjoy it.RATING: 1.5 PROS: Good camera work, Nice setting, Overall dark mood CONS: It wasnt actually scary, Annoying acting, Jumped around too much ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0391198/
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2004 07:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
yeh I pretty much agree with all that. I had a sneak preview pass and saw it tonight not knowing much about it, never having seen any previews. People were laughing more than being afraid. Except the pussy next to me. It left me feeling very meh and unsatisfied. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2004 05:46
|
|
|
I enjoyed it, its not a masterpiece but much better then the typical Cabin Fever poo poo that is released 99% of the time. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2004 23:25
|
|
|
<erroneous post>
jyo fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Oct 23, 2004 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2004 00:26
|
|
|
I just came back from seeing this. Compared to the original version, this TRIED to keep things similar, but it was too awkward, especially with the backstory of why Americans are there. I also agree that the acting wasn't as great as it could have been. The end was probably the most changed from the original. It was missing a bunch of additional characters the Japanese one had and tried to replace them with others. I give the Japanese one a 3.5-4/5. I give the American one a 2.5/5.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2004 01:09
|
|
|
Although not a masterpiece, it is first rate craftsmanship. In essence, the director says "Here is the plan. I will slowly lower the lights. Once it's dark, I will make some creepy noises. I'll put on a mask, then suddenly raise the lights and say 'Boo.'" He does that about ten times, and it works. It's so stupid that it works, that the audience I saw it with would scream, then laugh, then applaud. This was a mid-afternoon Times Square crowd, who presumably were highly self-selected to be the kind of people who like this kind of entertainment. See this movie if you want to be scared, but not haunted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2004 03:43
|
|
|
Horror movie for teenagers who have never seen anything scarier than a Pepsi commercial. 1.0
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2004 04:37
|
|
|
Remember the scene in The Ring when Rachel is going through those papers in the house, and a centipede pops out? Imagine that kind of cheap scare over and over and over again for about two hours. That is The Grudge. The original in Japan was a lovely ripoff of Ringu made to make a quick buck off the fad, and The Grudge is the same for The Ring. Dont bother with this one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2004 05:30
|
|
|
This is a pretty decent scary movie. While certainly nothing that will amaze or astound someone, it succeeded in its purpose of scaring people. The main flaw with this movie comes from the fact that it relies far too much on the "pop-out-and-scare-you" tactic. In that effect, it is quite good, even when predictable. It's certainly nothing too new as far as plot, but the presentation more than made up for it. The sound effects were quite nicely done, even if somewhat repetitive. The main creepy woman was pulled off well with crazy jerkish movements that matched or even bettered that from The Ring. The rest of the acting was subpar, but I don't think this movie was aimed at any Oscars. The bottom line is that this is a good movie to take your girlfriend to when she wants a good scare (and if you want her to latch onto you). But, if you're going with a bunch of friends or solo, there's probably nothing you haven't seen already. If you've played through Doom III already, you're probably not going to get scared by the surprises in this film. Final Score: 4/5 for a well-polished, though not really original, film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2004 05:59
|
|
|
This movie has no plot development, paper thin characters, and relies on one cheap scare after another. I loved it. The entire theater was caught between screaming and laughing the entire time. We all know the stupid girl climbing into the attic is going to get it, but its still a shock when she does. Thats the beauty of this movie- it takes tired horror cliches and adds life to them with creative timing and cinematography. Like the poster above me said, this isn't going to win any Oscars, but for ~$7 you could do much, much worse on a Friday night. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2004 20:02
|
|
|
Man, this really sucked hard. I expected so much better from the TV trailer. It was like a collection of things that should be in horror movies, but with no movie holding it together. 1.0
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2004 21:14
|
|
|
Of any recent horror movie to date I felt this one had the least scary horror characters I've seen. Seriously, every once in awhile you'll see a little boy who meows (I get the story behind it, but it's honestly still not scary - in fact it's pretty much stupid) but never does anything harmful. And then there's the teenage girl who croaks like a frog and crawls slowly towards her victims. Even when they got real mean and put the camera right in front of her ugly frog face, she wasn't that scary looking. Greenish blue skin, open frog-like mouth. The image of her ugly rear end frog face has been sticking with me all day, but it's drat near laughable. The plot was weak at best, and it really made little sense why people kept going into the house, even after they knew they were hosed. Logically if you knew you were going down either way, why speed it up by pissing off the ghost in its own house? I guess I should just chalk that one up to "it's a movie." The fact that little boyfriend teen heartthrob (who I hear was added in for the American release) decides to go in there when he knows there's some bad poo poo going on just astounded me. They really should have explained the story before immediately going into it. I liked the idea of trying to explain it has it happened in theory but it didn't work out well in practice. I also felt they introduced the scary chick WAY too early. No suspense at all, no back story. Just BAM! You're dead. The scares were extremely repetitive, except for one. Every time you're gonna see a frog girl or cat boy you'll know; the music is right one queue. The only scene that I can say this didn't happen (the best scare of the movie I thought) was when they're on the bus and she's in the reflection, croaking as usual. The fact that almost all of the ghost sightings happen in the exact same fashion will probably make you laugh. Person walks in house > hears noise upstairs > walks upstairs > hears noise in room > goes in room > hears noise in closet > opens up closet > BAM!!! All in all, I thought it was entertaining and maybe even scary for some people. I'm harsh on just about every movie I've ever watched but at least this one I felt entertained, because a lot of it was kind of funny, even if it didn't mean to be. This is a great movie to watch with a large group of friends. Just don't go in expecting to be scared, unless the idea of green croaking girls and little boys who meow frighten you. Voted 2.0 They even violated the known laws of monsters. Blankets are a SAFE AREA, everyone knows that!
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2004 21:45
|
|
|
yeah, i have to agree that everything about this movie was annoying. same ol' "i'll-do-this-pop-up" poo poo gag. i'm still pissed off that i paid $4 for this borrible film. It's funny how i see "the ring" in this movie... won't give it away but you'll see it. not so great of a film... totally bummed since i was expecting a good horror flick for halloween.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2004 23:14
|
|
|
The Village was a better movie: that's the best way I can think of to insult this film. Imagine The Ring, remove any kind of follow-able plot, add in the same "BOO!" scare every 10 minutes, lovely actors that of course constantly notice something odd in the dark area of the house and MUST investigate and then die in nasty ways, and a piece of a dogs poo poo and you have this movie. Go watch a classic horror movie if you want to be scared. The best, most classic part of this experience for me was when the teenage girl that was sitting 2 seats away from me made the mistake of having her drink in her hand during one of the shock scenes. Went all over her. Good times, good times. Good things: Bill Pullman at the begining was the best scene in the movie. He's the best actor in this movie as well. Bad things: Everything else. Vote 1.0
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2004 03:26
|
|
|
Predictable tripe where the only good moments were Yuko's missing lower jaw and Toshio yowling, other than that it was your standard American sudden shock blahfest where it's "OMG creepy music ... BOO" and barely any semblance of a plotline. The audience was laughing way too much and harly anybody was scared at any point in the movie. A resounding "what the gently caress" was heard after the final scene too. This is a good reason why horror movies should never be PG-13. 1.5 (only reason it's not 1.0 is for the missing jaw scene)
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2004 03:38
|
|
|
I gotta agree with apoxupnme...Bill Pullman was loving amazing in this movie. This movie was scary. Which was good. But then it got to this lame point where I don't know what I was actually being afraid of. It was just a bunch of cheesey jump tactics. What a waste of time It gets 2.5/5 for Bill Pullman
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2004 03:44
|
|
|
This is a pretty good horror movie. I found it to be excellent in some respects and decidedly mediocre in others. I found the cinematography and mood to be excellent. I found the "creepiness factor" well above average. I found pretty much everything else to be mediocre. First, I want to address some negative points in the prior reviews with some facts. Despite what some of the reviewers are saying, this movie is not full of cheap scares. There are about five or six "jump" scares throughout the length of the whole movie, or about one ever 20 minutes. Most of them are grouped in the front of the movie, however, so there's really something like 4 at the beginning, 1 in the middle, and 1 in the end. It seems like there are more of them because the beginning of the movie overdoes it. Thankfully, it backs off. Also, at least a few of these reviewers have misunderstood or bungled major plot points, so keep this in mind as you read this decidedly middle-of-the-road review. I saw this movie with a group of 5 people. After talking with them, I came to a few conclusions. This movie requires a strong suspension of disbelief, which I'm sad to say most people don't have these days. A few people kept calling the ghost (who is not a teenager, by the way) "stupid" and "unrealistic". I thought this was pretty funny, seeing the whole movie is about ghosts. The Grudge could look like a Mars Bar with ears and I would have to accept it, as I've never seen a real ghost. Another small issue: this is also a "horror" movie, which means that it will attract "gore hounds" who like a lot of blood and mayhem. If you're looking for brains, blood, and entrails...skip this movie. It is virtually bloodless. So what kind of person would like this movie? I would say fans of H.P. Lovecraft. It is more of a Lovecraftian horror film than a Jason horror film. There is no overt slash and hacking, but there are plenty of "queer and strange" incidences. I found myself overcome with a sensation of dread while watching this movie...not terrified, but full of the feeling that the characters were powerless against this evil, that The Grudge was something that they could not comprehend or stop. The first few minutes of the movie with Bill Pullman really reinforced this. Let me paraphrase a scenario from another Japanese horror movie. After an eye transplant, you suddenly find that you have the ability to see ghosts. They are horrible, tortured creatures that walk amongst us bearing their death-wounds and silently screaming and hating the living. They are also immaterial. Does this scenario scare you? Think about this for a moment...you see everyone who has ever died, all the time. In an elevator, a nurse with a knife in her eye glares at you balefully. On the streets, you see a man being followed by a twisted little hobgoblin, who is silently scheming some horrible (yet utterly impotent) scenario for this man. These ghosts, despite their hatred, cannot interact with the physical world, which fuels their rage. If you find this concept of an invisible, hateful world a little scary, I would advise you to see the Grudge. If you think that this is a stupid scenario...after all, these ghosts can't really harm you, I would say to avoid this movie. It is mostly a psychological scare piece than a typical horror movie. Although it does have one of the best "ghost loving with you moments" of any film I've ever seen. "It's Matt, what apartment are you in?" "6101!" DING DONG Overall, an enjoyable movie but certainly not a classic. A good choice since this Halloween season seems a little short on scares. 2.5/5 Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 07:58 on Oct 24, 2004 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2004 07:52
|
|
|
I didn't think it was really that bad of a movie, but it wasn't really scary either. There were some parts that made me jump, but all in all nothing that I was too freaked out about. I'd give it a 2.5, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2004 17:12
|
|
|
Dear Takashi Shimizu, I'm glad you saw Ringu and all, but did you really have to make an entire other movie about how much you liked it? And then remake that movie for American audiences? On the bright side, though, I'm sure that all of the most fetishistic members of NAMBLA are going to love you for directing what is, as far as I know, the first film about naked boys who meow. Freak. With bile, NinjaRap P.S. It is traditional for most movies to have some kind of an ending. Please take this under consideration in the future. 1.5 stars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2004 01:06
|
|
|
Okay, I just saw this movie and it really annoyed me how much they changed from the original Japanese one. The repetition of "ooh, noises upstairs, let's go look!" got really old really quickly. I don't understand why they changed the original movie so much-- in the original you didn't have to go in the house to get killed by the ghost, you just had to know someone who had. There were a bunch of really scary scenes from the original that were missing in this one, apparently so they could add in a stupid boyfriend and Bill Pullman. However, the bus scene was scary as all hell and made me scream like nothing else. Same goes for the girl walking around the Care Center late at night, dripping. Good stuff. Original one= 4/5 American remake= 2/5 for messing with the original where it didn't need to be messed with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2004 01:11
|
|
|
I don't understand all the hate for this film. Yes, the plot sucked, but every horror movie's plot sucks. Horror movies are about manipulation and style, not thoughtful story arcs, and I think THE GRUDGE pulls it off nicely. Quite frankly, I think this movie has set a record for the amount of scare- and jump-scenes in American cinema. Whereas in normal Hollywood horrors, you'll see a disturbing scene at the beginning, three or four mood building scenes in the middle, and two or three "BOO!" scenes before the film deteriorates into a glorfied action movie, THE GRUDGE is structured so that practically every other scene makes the audience scream.  And boy, did they scream. I saw it in a packed (if rowdy) house, and the audience started screaming before the first title card and didn't stop until the credits rolled. Yes, the scares are cheap and yes, the characters are possibly the dumbest any horror movie has ever seen, but this movie is about scaring you, not challenging you with subtle and complex character motivations. Frankly, if you're one of those elitists that's only happy with literate cinema, you're wasting your time on horror movies entirely. I saw this film after seeing all four of the Japanese films, went in with high hopes, and still emerged satisfied and rattled. PROS: Consistently scary and moody, excellent shock-per-buck ratio. CONS: Due to culture shock, it's probably a little too esoteric for people who aren't familiar with Japanese horror and who will therefore just characterize it as a ripoff of THE RING. Also, seriously weak acting by that guy from XENA (brother of the producer  ), Sarah Palmer from TWIN PEAKS, and that girl from BUFFY, and a comparatively weak ending.4/5.5 FINAL VERDICT: Cheaper than going to a local haunted house or hayride, this film will deliver a lot more scares and you won't even muddy your shoes!
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2004 02:53
|
|
|
quote:Neumonic came out of the closet to say:
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2004 06:19
|
|
|
I saw this last night and was quite unimpressed. The movie relies entirely on quick camera jumps to get its scares in. It could have been so much more, but everything was either over or under done. The noise the girl makes sounded like someone burping into a coffee can, the little boy was creepy at first, but then he showed up everywhere and lost his shock value. I give it a 1/5 There just isnt much to this movie other than a few cheap scares.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2004 07:00
|
|
|
quote:Megaman's Jockstrap came out of the closet to say: I'm a big Lovecraft fan and I loved this movie. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2004 07:20
|
|
|
quote:Neumonic came out of the closet to say: YES. I loved the original and came into the remake expecting a pretty crappy movie. I was pleasantly surprised when I found it to be one of the most enjoyable movie experiences I've had all year. Seeing this movie in a huge sold-out theatre is really the only way to see it. The reactions of the audience are half the fun and although much of the film relies on "cheap" scares - it works. This is not a movie about character development. This is not a movie about plot twists (or even a plot at all really). This is a movie about creepy atmosphere, tension, and even a few laughs. It seems that this movie might not be for everyone though, or maybe it's too much of the "Japanese remake can't be any good" bandwagon. Yes, the Japanese version is better in most aspects, but this movie is still fun! I think this movie got three things right - among many other things - that help to make it great. First, it uses sound very well. I've found that most Japanese horror flicks that I've seen do this and I love it. Secondly, it realizes audience reaction to each scene and caters to it through the actors (ie: when the policeman is watching the security tape and does the quick check behind him). Finally, the film takes "safe" scenarios that we are all familiar with and allows scary poo poo to happen there. I'm giving this a 4/5 as well, but if you see it in a packed theatre it's really a 5/5 experience.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2004 18:49
|
|
|
The sound the main ghost/bad guy/whatever you want to call it ruins the whole movie. I mean, it could have been farting the whole time and been more scary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2004 00:37
|
|
|
There were some genuinely scary moments, but the jump-out-from-behind-a-door scary, though. The rest was pretty bland. Good for freaking out your dorm-mates in the dark. On a side note, the attention getter in the first 15 seconds was hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2004 03:44
|
|
|
I liked the Grudge alot. Yeah, it didn't redefine the genre and didn't bring many new things to the table, but it was creepy and unsettling the whole time. I enjoyed it for what it was. 4.5 for consistent scariness for an hour and a half with almost no let up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2004 15:48
|
|
|
I thought it was awful. The scenes were so poorly organized as well as poorly explained. Sure someone dies, becomes a ghost, inhabits/morphs (into) a body or two, throws around a few bottles and cans then kills a bunch of people; but what the hell is the story behind this ghost`s super powers? There was a scene with a bit of Japenese folk-lore that gave a bit of insight; but it was definately no justification to half of the poo poo that the ghost was able to do. I like to know this poo poo. The director could have definately learned a thing or two from the X-men. And the acting, it sucked for the most part. Have you ever knocked on a woman`s door knowing she has Dementia and expected an answer? How about responded to a phone call that consisted of "Uhhhhhhhhh" (x5 & Manson-esque) without laughing? The movie lacked an immense amount of detail. I found myself - as well as many others - walking out of the theater at the end and asking "Why?" to an rear end load of scenes. Now, I enjoyed The Ring. It was thrilling and nicely executed. I expected a descent follow up. Instead, I witnessed a piece of poo poo so huge, it was as monumental as "Nukie" (1993). If you like flicks that`ll make a jump a few times, check it out. But you can get the same effect from one of those "Stare at the picture really close for 15 seconds" flash movies made by 16 year-old kids after a night of beating off to Kazaa porn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2004 23:03
|
|
|
I think this movie was based on more of a Freakout kind of thing than trying to actually scare people. Yea, I jumped a few times, and there were some really annoying girls in the front row who were screaming almost constantly, so it was almost hard to hear. After seeing the previews on TV, I had really wanted to see it, what a big disappointment. 2.5/5. Argh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2004 01:28
|
|
|
Pros: Some very effective jump scares, with the odd clever moment snuck in. One or two very effective pieces of imagery. The house really is foreboding and unwelcoming from the very beginning. Some decent performances, particularly by Bill Pullman (who I wasn't expecting to see here). Cons: Some cruddy CGI leaves suspension of disbelief in tatters. Unbelievable character reactions. Lack of character development. While I understand that the best way to convey unnamable horror is often to flinch from it, this film suffers badly from PG-13itis. Predictable, without nearly enough surprises. Attempts to make the film more interesting to follow by portraying the film's events out of order aren't unsuccessful. Conclusion: Possibly worth catching in a dollar theater. Think of it as The Ring for the ADD-afflicted and less discerning. To Bill Pullman's credit, this was better than Lake Placid. Final Rating: 1.5/5 stars. FreonTrip fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Oct 29, 2004 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2004 01:10
|
|
|
the theater that i saw it in was full of pussies, they screamed and shrieked at everything. i think the film is crummy but it played to the audience they were trying to get.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2004 06:49
|
|
|
I will fully agree that you NEED to see this with a full theatre. The audience's shared sense of tension is what made the movie for me. You could feel the entire audience get tense when they knew something bad was coming (like the apartment scene... made me fear peepholes and covers) and then everyone relaxed together and laughed once the scares were done. I don't understand how people could say "It's not believable." It's a ghost movie! About ghosts! And ghostliness! Check your disbelief at the door and enjoy the drat movie, please. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2004 14:31
|
|
|
It had me scared throughout. I liked the camerawork and the special effects. After having a few days to think back on it, I started to see things I didn't like about it. Still, it entertained me, was enjoyable to view once, and had a great atmosphere throughout the entire movie. 4.0/5 for the scare factor
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2004 16:02
|
|
|
I can't put a finger on why I disliked this movie so much. I didn't actually hate it, but I left the theater feeling completely apathetic. There was just nothing to it. As far as comparisons to the original are concerned, it sticks close to the original plot, adding a new wrap-around story to explain the origin of all this mayhem. So what was the problem? My biggest problem with this one was the scare tactics. While the original builds tension slowly and releases it with expert timing, this one seemed to rely on shocks. BOO! There's that hosed up looking japanese ghost chick again. BOO! There's that little kid again. They come out of nowhere, looking to make the audience jump for a second. These scares had little lasting effect. The sound of that guttural groan didn't fill me with dread when I heard it in this one, it just let me know that something was about to emerge suddenly from the shadows. However, I understand that this movie was something entirely different in dailies than when it went through the American Hemogenizer. The editing was absolutely awful and it hurt the lurking fear that haunts the original Shimizu movie. They rush through so much and the few scenes of gore are cut with the finesse of a rusty pair of scissors. Most notably toward the end when we're supposed to see the body hanging and the little boy banging it against the wall (the one genuinely creepy scene from Ju-On 2). You catch a brief glimpse of a swinging body, but that's it. The scare is reduced to a very abstract idea, familiar only to us troglodyte horror obsessives. It just didn't work out in the end. It failed to gel. I suppose it could have been a lot worse, but I'm left so completely uncaring about it that I sometimes forget that I even saw it in the first place. I give it a 2 Kaiju fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Nov 1, 2004 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2004 04:34
|
|
|
best movie ever scared the poop outta me and lots of jumpy situations... haunting visuals and a perfect halloween blockbuster! 4/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2004 06:04
|
|
|
this movie was terrible. if you have never seen a horror flick before, then you might find it moderately interesting.. at first. then it gets tired when they keep using the same 'im going to stick my hand into a dark closet and hope a dead asian doesnt grab it.. oh no, it did!' i personally have not seen the original version of the movie, but im assuming there is a lot that was left out in the new version because its just loving stupid. and wtf was with that dead boy making annoying cat noises every 3 seconds.. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2004 07:48
|
|
|
this movie was a mixed bag of stale nuts. some parts were good (bill pullman, ted raimi, some of the scarier scenes). The rest was pretty shite. 2.5/5 for ted raimi and bill pullman's acting
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2004 23:53
|
|
|
Just came back from watching this movie tonight. I have to say I agree completely with the original reviewer, including his points about how he liked the American version of The Ring and how this movie failed utterly to be scary in any way whatsoever. Voted 1. Edit: After reading the rest of the reviews (I only read the initial reviewer before posting) I'm a bit stunned. I find it hard to believe that the audiences that you people saw this movie with screamed at every predictable music-cued "jump" scene. The audience I watched it with spent most of the night either completely apathetic (like myself) or laughing out loud at the clumsy attempts to scare us. For Chrissakes, with the exception of one scene (the ghost face on the bus) the music tells you exactly what is about to happen and when the "jump" scare happens it never even lives up to the (actually quite good) music. Add this to the fact that the characters are pitifully underdeveloped and often poorly acted, and that the plot is as thin as single-ply tissue paper and no amount of mood, ambiance, cinematography, or camera work can make this anything but a completely unscary movie. Antilles1974 fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Nov 13, 2004 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2004 07:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
Jesus loving christ. The newschool horror movies where cool, until like anything, the novelty weres off. I think the grudge is a sign of the novelty wearing off, because the movie was all style, and no content. People get stalked and killed with some freaky special effects chasing them. The plot was "eh", the camera work was "eh", the whole movie relied on style. Reminscent of french thinking, "All style, no substance" Voted 1
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2004 15:05
|
|