Print Page | Close Window

HORRORS! Another Blood-n-Gutz Remake?!?!?

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: 2007 RAZZIE® MOVIE FORUMS w/LYNX!
Forum Name: HALLOWEEN 2007
Forum Discription: One of the Best Low Budget Horror Movies Ever Made Gets "Re-Imagined" as a Cheap Ass Slasher Flick...
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2103
Printed Date: July 24 2014 at 6:11am


Topic: HORRORS! Another Blood-n-Gutz Remake?!?!?
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: HORRORS! Another Blood-n-Gutz Remake?!?!?
Date Posted: August 29 2007 at 1:13pm

THE ORGINAL http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077651/ - HALLOWEEN WAS ONE of the BEST and MOST FINANCIALLY SUCCESSFUL HORROR MOVIES of the 1970s (SO SUCCESSFUL, in FACT, THAT IT SPAWNED a SERIES of SEVEN(!) PROGESSIVELY LESS IMPRESSIVE SEQUELS).

THIS REMAKE PROMISED to "RE-IMAGINE" the SOURCE MATERIAL, and IN DOING SO, HAS TURNED IT INTO...JUST ANOTHER OVERLY GRAPHIC, SPLATTER-FILLED GOREFEST, WHOSE ONLY DIS-STINK-TION IS THAT IT's the 17th MOVIE to QUALIFY for OUR SPECIAL 2007 RAZZIE® CATEGORY WORST EXCUSE for a HORROR MOVIE...

CAN YOU IDENTIFY WHICH of THESE 3 PEOPLE:

A) Directed a typically graphic, unimpressive remake of a nearly 30-year-old horror classic...

B) Plays a character whose name is the same as the actor who voices SHREK... 

C) Apparently buys his t-shirts in the 79-cents bin at his local Goodwill store... 

D) Would likely respond to public restroom overtures from Senator Larry Craig with a well-aimed kitchen-knife... 

 

P.S. Like we also asked about http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2093&PN=1 - SEPTEMBER DAWN (inexlicably released near the end of August): Why wouldn't you release something entitled HALLOWEEN in, I don't know...OCTOBER?!?!?!? 

 



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 29 2007 at 2:09pm

I hated H20, but I loved The Devil's Rejects. So I think this will be good... 

 



-------------


Posted By: bruin_522
Date Posted: August 29 2007 at 2:16pm

If they were to give this movie a theatrical release in October, shouldn't they have released this on October 31, which is of course HALLOWEEN? Not to mention HALLOWEEN is on a Wednesday, and there are some movies that are released on a Wednesday.



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 29 2007 at 5:50pm
It's not bad enough that Hollywood has decided that the easiest and safest way to make money is to continue to make the same movies over and over, and just change the title. But Rob Zombie isn't even clever enough to do that. He is just creating what will most likely be almost a frame by frame remake of a movie NOBODY wants to see again. Couldn't he at least have hired Carmen Electra or Paris Hilton to get hacked up? As long as we have already seen it before anyway, why not?

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Criss808
Date Posted: August 29 2007 at 5:58pm
I really hope that this horror movie remake is good. Zombie's last flick "The Devil's Rejects" was pretty impressive. But with all the recent awful horror movie remakes that have come out, I can see why people aren't really looking forward to this. Besides, "Halloween" is one of the scariest movies of all-time. How could anyone possibly top the original?

-------------


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 30 2007 at 4:47am

Originally posted by Criss808

Besides, "Halloween" is one of the scariest movies of all-time. How could anyone possibly top the original?

That is really the point exactly. Assuming that you have never seen either version, and admittedly, none of us have seen the remake yet, and you had to bet on who would make a better film, John Carpenter or Rob Zombie, where would you bet the rent?

Anyone can take a Shakespeare play, toss in a new joke or two and try to pass themselves off as a great talent. But it's all just smoke and mirrors and at the end of the day, it's still taking us all where we've been before. Okay, Zombie. If you want to impress me, try something original. At this point, that would impress everyone.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: August 30 2007 at 8:24am
Originally posted by bruin_522

If they were to give this movie a theatrical release in October, shouldn't they have released this on October 31, which is of course HALLOWEEN? Not to mention HALLOWEEN is on a Wednesday, and there are some movies that are released on a Wednesday.

Well, it's still August.  Not even September.  When the date is off by that much, you know you have a steaming turd.

Did Rob Zombie choose 8/31 as a release date?  Or was he trying to get it on 10/31, and received rejections because of the obvious crappiness of this movie?



-------------


Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: August 30 2007 at 12:44pm

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

. Couldn't he at least have hired Carmen Electra or Paris Hilton to get hacked up? As long as we have already seen it before anyway, why not?
  

 

How about if he got Hugo Chavez to do it...in drag?  No small loss there. 

 

Usually I'm not that much into horror, not least of all given its heavy repetitivemess, but I really have a soft spot for Carpenter's original.  It doesn't take the audience for granted like other films in the genre do and thinks everything out.  Donald Pleasance's "I met this six year old boy..." soliloquy remains a strong piece that can stay with you.  Sadly, this version just looks flat.  That they're going to try and explain things that we've already deduced long ago are better off unexplained doesn't help their cause either. 



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 30 2007 at 6:16pm
Originally posted by wetbandit82

 That they're going to try and explain things that we've already deduced long ago are better off unexplained doesn't help their cause either. 

YES YES YES EXACTLY! Another dead on the nose point. The absolute worst aspect of Arthur C. Clarke's sequel novel 2010: Odyssey 2 and the subsequent movie was precisely the fact that he attempted to answer a slew of questions that none of us wanted answered. It was part of the charm and mystery of the original.

I think you are exactly correct. Half of this movie is probably going to be a laborious blabfest attempting to explain the story to us, rather than telling it. Forget it.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: JoeBacon
Date Posted: August 30 2007 at 6:36pm
If only they got Lindsay Lohan to do the Jamie Lee Curtis role...


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 31 2007 at 6:05am
It's early yet, but the critics appear to be coming down on our side. This movie is presently at 21% at RT, and could easily slip below 20%. Evidently, my earlier suggestion that this film could largely deteriorate into a blabfest is on the money, based upon some of the reviews.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Sanndman228715
Date Posted: August 31 2007 at 2:43pm

The only thing I hope for, is that Malcolm McDowell and Brad Dourif give performances that are at least "Ok".



Posted By: deadguy76
Date Posted: August 31 2007 at 3:02pm
Is there some conspiracy out there to remake classic John Carpenter movies into crappy movies? I hear they're going to remake Escape from New York, directed by... Len Wiseman. With Underworld and Van Helsing under his belt this is destined to bomb.

-------------
"Woody Allen, whatever his failings, does not make movies for morons. Most directors do. Of course, most directors are morons."

- Joe Queenan

http://www.myspace.com/deadguy76


Posted By: Sanndman228715
Date Posted: August 31 2007 at 3:26pm
If they remake Vampires without James Woods, I'll lose all hope.


Posted By: Criss808
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 8:31am
How many times are these people gonna kill off these slashers and then revive them for about 500 more sequels, remakes, or prequels? Who cares? They aren't good anymore. Halloween. Nightmare on Elm Street. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Why try to duplicate the originals when they were already good. At this point, people have become tired of seeing the same killer slice and dice their way through another crappy movie. There isn't any thrills or scares in horror movies these days. It's mostly for the money and not for the art of it all which is to scare the mess outta people. I haven't seen Rob Zombie's Halloween but hopefully I will today. I just wish there were more original and creative horror movies out there that aren't just trying to pull the strings and go by routine. It gets really boring.


Posted By: Sanndman228715
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 8:47am
I will say the only thing I liked about the TCM remakes was the almost always awesome R. Lee Ermy as Sheriff Hoyt. I still like the Elm Street films, because Robert Englund always gives an enjoyable performance as Freddy Kruegger. As far as recent horror films go, Tobin Bell is always good and menacing as Jigsaw.


Posted By: Sanndman228715
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 10:55am
HeadRazz, you seeing this anytime soon? If you are, we'd love to hear what you think...

-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 12:30pm
I've seen it and you guys know my reaction: I liked it a lot. Well, I really wasn't looking forward to it after the reviews came pouring in but I just need to see it. My bar was set so low, I actually liked the movie. The cliches are there, yeah. The violence was there but the thing that made this movie worked were the actors/actresses in this film. I really didn't care for cliches at that point. Rob's wife is an extremly talented actess. That's all I got to say about it.


Posted By: jb razz
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 1:21pm

Hey HeadRAZZ, while I am very glad to see this movie getting Razzie attention, I think that we should also discuss Death Sentence, which also looks really bad and has a lower rating than this on RT! 

Response from Head RAZZberry: I plan to wait 'till the final numbers are in at B.O. MoJo and, if the weekend totals on http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/death_sentence/ - DEATH SENTENCE are as pitiful as Friday's numbers were (less than $750 per screen!) I may go ahead and add SENTENCE to our Forum. Though with grosses that low, even our own Voting Members may not bother to see it! 



-------------


Posted By: Criss808
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 5:42pm

I just got back from seeing this movie and I must say I was very disappointed. How could Rob Zombie (the director of "The Devil's Rejects") make such an uninspired mess? The film was boring and unexciting, the characters were all unlikeable and stiff, the story has been told a thousand times before, and it just seemed to be missing one important thing...ANY SCARES!!! I didn't jump outta my seat one time and I will admit I am a sucker for getting scared. This movie was a huge let down and I feel like I've just waited hours of my life that I will never be able to get back. R.I.P Halloween FOREVER!!!



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 02 2007 at 7:39am
There were MANY pop up scenes and you didn't jump ONCE?! AMAZING! I jumped everytime there's a pop up scene, even surprising ones.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 03 2007 at 12:00pm

I think that one of the primary reasons that the original Halloween and a lot of the even older Hollywood horror classics are so much better than the modern stuff comes down to the graphic nature of the modern genre. The older directors understood that we can create much greater horrors in our own minds than they can ever show on the screen, consequently most of the action in those classic movies is implied, rather than shown directly.

When they show us every graphic detail, we just become so numb to it that it doesn't affect us anymore.

 



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Sanndman228715
Date Posted: September 05 2007 at 12:10pm

I just saw it, I agree with Criss, not a single bloody scare. It was more predictible than Titanic. Scout Taylor Compton seems nice, but she couldn't compare to Jamie Lee Curtis. However it did have a few good points:

1. Malcolm McDowell was pretty good, although he won't make anyone forget about the late, great Donald Pleasance.

2. Brad Dourif and (Surprisingly) Sheri Moon Zombie did well with their sympathetic roles. I think Dourif's a tremendous Villainous actor, but he's done most of the best work of his career in nice guy roles, like One flew over the Cuckoos nest (Insanity aside), Deadwood, etc.

About the only thing I can say is that William Forsythe's character was pretty one note (But that wasn't his fault, he did OK with what he was given).



-------------


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: September 06 2007 at 1:21pm
Originally posted by deadguy76

Is there some conspiracy out there to remake classic John Carpenter movies into crappy movies? I hear they're going to remake Escape from New York, directed by... Len Wiseman. With Underworld and Van Helsing under his belt this is destined to bomb.
                                                                        Actually, Stephen Sommers directed "Van Helsing". Wiseman, also, directed "Live Free Or Die Hard" so I have faith in it.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 06 2007 at 1:44pm
I don't mind remakes....unless it's bad....but I always have a soft spot for them.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 07 2007 at 6:02pm

Originally posted by moviewizguy

I don't mind remakes....unless it's bad....but I always have a soft spot for them.

The vast majority of them ARE bad which is precisely the point. Here is what it all boils down to:

**If a good/classic movie is being remade, it is the height of hubris on the part of the director to believe that he/she can actually improve upon the original. The technology exists to create a better looking version of, say, 2001: A Space Odyssey but no director will recreate the magic, atmosphere or originality of Kubrick's version

**If a bad movie is being remade, it is the height of hubris on the part of the director to believe that he/she will not only sidestep the problems that sunk the original, but will not contribute half a dozen new ones.

I'd issue a challenge to anyone out there that can actually provide a single example of a remake of a movie, good or bad, that is truly superior to the original. For a brief moment, I was going to concede the most recent remake of King Kong but the more I consider the issue, the deeper is my conviction that much like my example of 2001 above, it was better looking, but not a truly superior story.

There probably are a few, but I am either too tired or just too cynical tonight to come up with any.  Let's see what you guys can offer.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 08 2007 at 2:22am
I think the only reason people didn't like Halloween was because it was very different from the original, if anyone had seen it. Rob Zombie wanted to make his own version of it, not an exact mirror of the original. I mean, people complain about remakes but people are still complaining when the remake tries to be different than the original.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 08 2007 at 3:45am

Originally posted by moviewizguy

I think the only reason people didn't like Halloween was because it was very different from the original, if anyone had seen it.

Nope.

1. Several of us have seen it. It was somewhat different, but the notion that different=better is wildly erroneous.

2. "People" didn't like it because it isn't very good.

3. What was the point of remaking this movie, beyond:

 a) intellectual and creative laziness

 b) a craven assessment of public gullibility suggesting that people came out to see the original in droves, so why not cash in on it by applying new technologies to create a new, but not necessarily better version

 c) The fact that Rob Zombie's name on it might create further public curiousity, which of course=even more box-office $. In spite of the fact that Zombie has yet to prove to most of us that he has any real talent (or even promise) as a filmmaker. 

 



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Criss808
Date Posted: September 08 2007 at 7:26am

Originally posted by JoeBacon

If only they got Lindsay Lohan to do the Jamie Lee Curtis role...

If only they hadn't remade the movie...



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 08 2007 at 7:42am

The Devi's Rejects was a fantastic movie!

 



-------------


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: September 18 2007 at 1:38pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

The Devi's Rejects was a fantastic movie!

 

                                                                                               Oh Oh, my God, we're actually on the same level!



-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 18 2007 at 1:59pm
...I'm sure other people liked it and agree with me....


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: October 05 2007 at 8:16am

This just in, Brett Ratner has been slated to direct "Escape From New York". Yeah, I've lost all faith in this now...

Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

Originally posted by deadguy76

Is there some conspiracy out there to remake classic John Carpenter movies into crappy movies? I hear they're going to remake Escape from New York, directed by... Len Wiseman. With Underworld and Van Helsing under his belt this is destined to bomb.
                                                                        Actually, Stephen Sommers directed "Van Helsing". Wiseman, also, directed "Live Free Or Die Hard" so I have faith in it.
                                                                     



-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: Criss808
Date Posted: October 19 2007 at 4:03am

FYC - Halloween

Worst Picture

Worst Director - Rob Zombie

Worst Screenplay

Worst Remake or Rip-Off



Posted By: tomsmobr
Date Posted: October 19 2007 at 9:07am

...also http://uk.imdb.com/name/nm0000532/ - Malcolm McDowell  as Worst Actor (for Doctor Loomis) & Tyler Mane as Worst Supporting Actor (for Michael Myers)... 

 



-------------


Posted By: Criss808
Date Posted: October 19 2007 at 1:47pm

I hear there's gonna be a "Friday the 13th" and "Hellraiser" remakes. Michael Bay is supposed to be producing the "13th" one. Gee, I'm really excited for that

When will they stop? I think there should be a new category called "WORST UNSCARY MOVIE".



Posted By: Sanndman228715
Date Posted: October 19 2007 at 1:54pm
I didn't think McDowell was bad


Posted By: SlammyFewFew
Date Posted: October 20 2007 at 12:19pm

I enjoyed it!  I don't mean to be the odd one out, but I thought it was good. Certain parts I could have been left out, but I think it's a fun Halloween film.  I do wish it was released closer to Halloween, though. It would've done better & would created more hype... 

Response from Head RAZZberry: I would guess the makers of HALLOWEEN 2007 were afraid to go head-to-head with SAW IV, which opens this Friday, and has tracking numbers that suggest it might buck the Blood-n-Guts-Horror-Movies-All-Bombing-Big-Time trend that's been confounding Hollywood of late... 


 



-------------


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: October 30 2007 at 11:00am

Ratner has been evicted as director of the "Escape from New York" remake! No new director has been selected yet, but I'd like to see Alex Proyas direct it...

Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

Originally posted by deadguy76

Is there some conspiracy out there to remake classic John Carpenter movies into crappy movies? I hear they're going to remake Escape from New York, directed by... Len Wiseman. With Underworld and Van Helsing under his belt this is destined to bomb.
                                                                        Actually, Stephen Sommers directed "Van Helsing". Wiseman, also, directed "Live Free Or Die Hard" so I have faith in it.
                                                               This just in, Brett Ratner has been slated to direct "Escape From New York". Yeah, I've lost all faith in this now.
                                                                           



-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: October 31 2007 at 6:43am
This just in: Gerard Butler has dropped out of the "Escape From New York" remake. It'll proplably get scrapped now.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: Kenny
Date Posted: December 02 2007 at 10:35pm

Give that long-haired, redneck obsessed metal guy his Razzie.

I love the original, and I hated this ridiculous, laughable remake.



Posted By: CDNDestroyer
Date Posted: January 20 2008 at 3:46am
Devil's Rejects was probably as "good" a movie as Rob Zombie will ever make.  It was fun, had some good character development (for what it was) and told a story.  It wasn't anything groundbreaking, but it was a film and a watchable-enough one.

Halloween was terrible, especially the second half where it had every, single slasher movie cliche in recent memory occuring in rapid succession.   The first half was good enough for watching, Malcolm McDowell should not get a Worst Actor nod as he was the only one holding the film together at parts.  I liked the ideas that were presented for Michael Myers' background though some were poorly done (his stepdad had so many unintentionally hilarious lines). 


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: October 31 2011 at 4:07pm
Before I begin eviserating this, I'd like to say something that has relevence to this. Quentin Tarantino is one of the greatest directors and writers in history, but one of the worst actors too. Rob Zombie made good music with White Zombie and on his solo career, but completely bombs when it comes to making movies. The Devil's Rejects may have been good, but that appears to be a fluke after watching his other movies.
 
The good:
 
Malcolm McDowell: McDowell is fine here as Loomis. He's not as good as Donald Pleasence in the original ones, but still OK. I won't be as kind to him when I get to Halloween II.
 
Danielle Harris: Harris you deserve better than this! Brad Dourif is good as her dad too.
 
The soundtrack: Classic tunes such as Kiss's God Of Thunder, Rush's Tom Sawyer, Blue Oyster Cult's (Don't Fear) The Reaper, The Stooges's 1969, Nazareth's Love Hurts, and others pop up here.
 
The bad:
 
Scout Taylor-Compton: Taylor-Compton's acting is pretty bad as Laurie. Also, her voice is so annoying, it will make your head explode like Scanners.
 
Rob Zombie's direction: Several scenes are badly directed, like the confrontation in the bath-room near the beginning of the film.
 
Rob Zombie's script: While it does follow the original storyline decently, the things added that weren't in the original (i.e. Michael's time in Smith's Grove) are pretty boring.
 
The ugly:
 
One of the lamest Freudian excuses ever: What made the original so unnerving was that little Michael seemed so normal when he killed his sister. In this one, he's given a reason: he had a crappy family. If you listen to Zombie, he says Michael is evil because he's evil, not because of his family. If this is true, than it's completely undermines by the film. If he wanted to show his idea as true, he should have given him a completely normal, loving family.
 
Pumping up the gore: Unlike most people here, I don't mind super-gory movies as long as they have a decent plot. This doesn't have one. Zombie said that he wanted to honor Carpenter's original vision, but I really think he just wanted to ass more gore to it. Only five people died in the original, but 21 people bite it in this. If you go to the trivia section on imdb for this one it says that 17 people died, but they're going by the director's cut. In the director's cut, Michael's escape scene is different. In the theatrical version, he escapes the prsion by killed five cops and a secretary. In the director's cut, he escapes because two of the orderlies were raping a catatonic woman. Charming. This leads to my biggest gripe of the movie...
 
Rob Zombie's hatred of normal people: A few questions before I get into this. Have you ever killed someone? Have you ever raped someone? Do you yell expletives every five seconds? If you answered no to any of those, Rob Zombie hates you. He fills his movies with disgusting husks of skin that he calls human beings. The only normal person in this movie was Danny Trejo's character, who's given a disturbingly gruesome death. This problem, like the other problems mentioned above, are ramped up to eleven in the sequel!
 
Grade: C
 
Next-up: Zombieween II!


-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 10:58am
Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

Rob Zombie made good music with White Zombie and on his solo career, but completely bombs when it comes to making movies.
What do you think of his drawings?Such as the hallucination sequence in BEAVIS & BUTT-HEAD DO AMERICA?
Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

Danielle Harris: Harris you deserve better than this! Brad Dourif is good as her dad too.
I didn't know he was in this.So this means that a FREDDY VS JASON/ALIEN VS PREDATOR version of MICHAEL MYERS and CHUCKY is possible?


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 3:34pm

The only drawings I've seen of him were in Beavis & Butthead, which I liked.

If they do make Michael V.S. Chucky, then Dourif will do double duty like Jennifer Tilly in Seed Of Chucky.


-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html



Print Page | Close Window