Print Page | Close Window

#2 ALL OVER AGAIN...

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: FORUMS on 2009 RELEASES
Forum Name: HALLOWEEN, TOO
Forum Discription: A Remake of a Sequel to a Remake...?!?!?
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3824
Printed Date: September 20 2014 at 12:57am


Topic: #2 ALL OVER AGAIN...
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: #2 ALL OVER AGAIN...
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 10:27am

FRANKLY, WE FIND the IDEA THAT SOMEONE THINKS THERE's an AUDIENCE for THIS KIND of MINDLESS, POINTLESS, GUT-SPEWING GORE WAY MORE SCARY THAN http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=381 - HALLOWEEN 2 ITSELF CAN EVER HOPE to BE.

SCARIER STILL, THERE PROBABLY IS an AUDIENCE for IT -- JUST NOT ANYONE WE'D CARE to SPEND EVEN 5 MINUTES TRYING to HAVE a CONVERSATION WITH.

WHETHER YOU AGREE with US or NOT, FEEL FREE to ARGUE YOUR CASE BELOW. EITHER WAY, WE GLADLY ADMIT WE HAVE NO INTENTION of SUBJECTING OURSELVES to GARBAGE LIKE THIS...

"No, no, no! I'm Michael Myers, not Mike Myers. I'm here to scare the sh*t out of people, not bore the sh*t out of them..."



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



Replies:
Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 10:35am
The premiere was yesterday and someone on IMDb posted some reactions from some people. The reactions seem split in half. Half loving it and the other half hating it even more than the first. 2 negative reviews (3/10 each) are posted online: http://www.horror-movies.ca/horror_16267.html - http://www.horror-movies.ca/horror_16267.html

Considering I liked the first film (I'm probably in the minority), I was planning to was TFD this week and H2 next week. I can't watch 2 movies in one weekend.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 10:36am
For the second time in about 5 minutes, I'll type this phrase: Count me out.

-------------
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: JoeBoyden
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 10:58am
I have no intention of seeing this movie.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 12:02pm

You and just about everyone else who values their hard earned money...or has common sense!  

 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: Movie Man
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 12:25pm
I really liked the Rob Zombie version of "Halloween". I thought it was a psychological take on the evolution of Myers, but I say it was much better developed than John Carpenter's (I still like his as well - they were both three-and-a-half-to-four-star movies)


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 26 2009 at 1:12am

Some might agree with you, both many people prefer Carpenter's overall filmmaking style of the original over Zombie's "Michael Myers was white trash all along" storyline.



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 26 2009 at 3:29am
The bottom line is that when Carpenter did the original Halloween, it was something new and fresh we hadn't seen on the screen before (it even won praise from Siskell and Ebert on their quaint little PBS show At The Movies). Even though the original wasn't all that graphic, it had the unfortunate, unintended consequence of launching the "slasher film" genre, which quickly spiraled out of control...and effectively killed the horror genre.  

-------------
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: Gregory
Date Posted: August 26 2009 at 8:51am

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

For the second time in about 5 minutes, I'll type this phrase: Count me out.

Count me out, too. I think I'll finally check GI Joe.

Anyway, still not a single review at RT for either Halloween II or Final Destination (Taking Woodstock already has over 40 reviews).



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 26 2009 at 9:57am
They aren't showing this film to the critics...in other words, they think they are "critic proof." I mean, let's be honest, those hardcore fans out there really won't give a *bleep* if a critic gives this film a negative review. But if they do give the movie positive reviews, that's always a plus.


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


Posted By: tomsmo35
Date Posted: August 26 2009 at 12:18pm
 I probably won't see either Halloween II or Final Destination. I will probably see either D9 or Inglorious Basterds

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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 27 2009 at 1:51am

Sadly, the thing about fans seeing them no matter what is true. As for positive reviews ... HA!

My guess: RT ratings of 30% - 40%...if they are lucky!

Originally posted by moviewizguy

They aren't showing this film to the critics...in other words, they think they are critic proof. I mean, let's be honest, those hardcore fans out there really won't give a *bleep* if a critic gave these films negative review. But if they do give these movies positive reviews, that's always a plus.

 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: August 27 2009 at 8:08am

I liked the first one up to a point. But I just don't feel like we needed another, especially with all of the sequels that we already have and don't need these days. 

 



-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 27 2009 at 8:39am
SPOILER ALERT:
Yeah. Rob Zombie really didn't want to make a sequel, because there was a lot of rushing while making the first film. This was why he killed Michael Myers at the end of the first film with a bullet in the head.   Many months later, however, he reconsidered the idea of making a sequel, after the dust had settled over the rushed production on the first flick.


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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 27 2009 at 3:12pm
Yes, I'm sure any director would reconsider the idea of making a sequel after the studio throws piles upon piles of money at you to do it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 29 2009 at 3:04am

You know what's so weird? Currently, H2 has a 15% on RT, and TFD 3-D has a 29%. The former is trying to do something new, while the latter wants to be the same as the other three. It's just weird.

H2 is now rated even lower than the first, when the first was 50% a retelling and 50% backstory. Now this film is 100% original, which still doesn't mean it's good all of the time...  



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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 29 2009 at 4:53am

What's so weird about it? Both movies are just excuses for studios to sucker more money from of fans of the two series. Of course their quality's gonna suck!   

Originally posted by moviewizguy

You know what's so weird? Currently, H2 has a 15% on RT, and TFD 3-D has a 29%. The former is trying to do something new, while the latter wants to be the same as the other three. It's just weird.



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: Headbanger14
Date Posted: August 29 2009 at 4:49pm
Let's just pray to God that this is the end of this Halloween "series". The original John Carpeneter film was brilliant. The rest after that were fairly mediocre, but they're nothing compared to these Rob Zombie remakes.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: August 30 2009 at 6:04pm
Neither of the aforementioned films are trying to do anything "new."

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: December 12 2009 at 12:44pm
Well, now that we're slowly settling into Metacritic, this film actually has almost the same rating as the original remake: 46. That is not bad at all. I'm definitely interested in this movie.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: December 12 2009 at 4:48pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Well, now that we're slowly settling into Metacritic, this film actually has almost the same rating as the original remake: 46. That is not bad at all. I'm definitely interested in this movie.


Well, that's good for you. You know me, 46 is considered an F. Enjoy it, as I'm sure you will.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: December 13 2009 at 6:10am
46 is not considered an F. That site has 3 colors: Red, yellow, and green. Green is rated between 60-100, yellow is 40-59, and red is 0-39. Yellow is not an F. If it is an F, then anything below 70 is an F but the 60-69 part is considered GREEN, which is considered generally positive.
 

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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: December 13 2009 at 5:49pm

As I have said before, I go about the RT and MC ratings as most people do with school grades. Unless the grades have changed over the years (like apparently the GPA standards have) they are as follows:

100-90 = A,

 90-80= B,

 80-70 = C,

 70-60 = D,

 60 and below = F.

Thus, 46 is an F -- hence this movie is not worth my viewing. But, hey enjoy, the movie, as we all know you will.


 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: December 14 2009 at 9:38am

IMO, I think that's an incredibly silly standard. I do stress the words "incredibly" and "silly." You simply cannot convert R.T. numbers to   to letter grades. If society followed your standards, you'd probably get, in the whole year of 2009, maybe 1 or 2 A's, a couple of B's, many C's...and everything else "failing." Even the Best Picture winner Gladiator only got a 64, which is, by your standard, an almost failing grade of D. Up in the Air currently has an 83, which you would equate to a C. You just can't have standards like that...but that's just my two cents. 



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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: December 14 2009 at 4:14pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

IMO, I think that's an incredibly silly standard. I do stress the words "incredibly" and "silly." You simply cannot convert R.T. numbers to   to letter grades. If society followed your standards, you'd probably get, in the whole year of 2009, maybe 1 or 2 A's, a couple of B's, many C's...and everything else "failing." Even the Best Picture winner Gladiator only got a 64, which is, by your standard, an almost failing grade of D. Up in the Air currently has an 83, which you would equate to a C. You just can't have standards like that...but that's just my two cents. 


Well, hey, we each think of the other as silly. Me and my converting RT ratings into school grades, you giving every movie here a 6 to 9 out of 10 rating, etc.

By the way, if "Up in the Air" is 83, that's a B average. As for "Gladiator", well, "Traffic" or "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" should have won that year.


Posted By: LBSOfficial
Date Posted: January 20 2010 at 2:04pm
I agree truly! Thank God I skipped this in theaters, and caught it at a friend's house on Blu-ray. It BLOWS big time! Possibly the worst film to be remade from a sequel, or it that a sequel remade from a remake, or maybe...AW WHO CARES!

RAZZ this one guys!

-------------
“Why should people go out and pay to see bad films when they can stay home and see bad television for nothing?" - Samuel Goldwyn


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: January 25 2010 at 2:45pm
How did Rob Zombie's Halloween part 1 miss the nominations for Worst Excuse for a Horror Movie in 2007? I wanted to see this one get nominated for Worst Director for Rob Zombie, but another category will have to suffice.

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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: January 25 2010 at 5:19pm
Originally posted by GTAHater767

How did Rob Zombie's Halloween part 1 miss the nominations for Worst Excuse for a Horror Movie in 2007? I wanted to see this one get nominated for Worst Director for Rob Zombie, but another category will have to suffice.

There's actually quite a few people who liked the first movie, myself included.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 25 2010 at 5:45pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy


There's actually quite a few people who liked the first movie, myself included.
Key word in that sentance: "FEW".


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: January 29 2010 at 7:35pm
After watching this from Netflix, I can certifiably say that there is no legitimate reason for movies to like this to be made. Hollywood's only "reason" to excrete crap like this from their studios is to make money. Audiences with half a brain cell in their heads have no reason to expose themselves to this s**t except to spend money(if they're trying to improve the economy or whatever). 

There is a legion of Rob Zombie fans who try to jump through moral hoops in an attempt to defend this for it's unique "vision" or "style", and some will just say that I should at least admire it for its willingness to be what it is. I could, but when a movie is audacious, it should at least have payoff, and this doesn't have it. It is simply cynical, mean-spirited, ugly, and depressing jive with no redeeming value.

There are critics who are saying the same thing about Last House on the Left because of its unrelenting violence. I would agree that the violence is graphic and unsettling, but I would defend that movie, given that the violence is all justified, and that it's trying to make a point about the moral cost of violence. It was above all, a commentary on revenge and morality. While Last House on the Left is conceived with practicality and idealism, Halloween II is conceived with deprived virtue and cynicism.

The movie's basic story is pretty much the same as every other movie Rob Zombie has done: Despicable, low-life, white trash hicks do despicable, low-life things, and get murdered. The End. Don't think this is like the Final Destination or Friday the 13th flicks where the selling point is the macabre humor and spectacularly stylish deaths, because there is none of that in this one. Every character dies in a way that was executed at some point or another in an earlier slasher film. It's just disgusting and pointless.

Also, given that this is supposed to be an "original" film, there's just about every horror movie cliche in the book, thus ridding any suspense as to who dies. Anyone who has seen horror movies(or at least Scream) should know that two people getting ready to fornicate are gonna get skewered. When a guy says, "I'll be right back", it's likely to be the last thing he says. Or a woman is about to take a shower, she will be a goner at some point shortly beforehand, during, or afterwards.

My friends, I could go on all day about why you should avoid this movie at all costs and  that Rob Zombie is a one-trick-pony and how I expect to see it all over the Razzie noms next month, but hopefully you get the point with the rant I've written so far.

ATTENTION PARENTS: If you come across teens who claim they enjoyed this movie, don't let them hang out with your children.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 29 2010 at 7:45pm
Originally posted by movieman

After watching this from Netflix, I can certifiably say that there is no legitimate reason for movies to like this to be made. Hollywood's only "reason" to excrete crap like this from their studios is to make money. Audiences with half a brain cell in their heads have no reason to expose themselves to this s**t except to spend money(if they're trying to improve the economy or whatever). 
Thank you, thank you so very much! That is what I've been trying to explain about all these horror movie sequels and remakes. But sadly, there are some "members" of this forum who just don't get it. 


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: January 29 2010 at 8:50pm
I like Rob Zombie in general, to be honest. I didn't mind the first Halloween, although I probably would today, on principle alone. I haven't seen this one, and I don't really feel the need to. I know people who like just about anything who thought this one was crap.
But yea, Michaels and I, at least have been making the "money" argument for a while now.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 30 2010 at 6:30am
Originally posted by dEd Grimley


But yea, Michaels and I, at least have been making the "money" argument for a while now.
Well, great minds think alike.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 20 2010 at 3:15pm
Ew. This was a bad movie. I think this movie gives a new meaning to the phrase "back-stabbing." You think you've seen distasteful violence in the first film? You have seen nothing yet. I think this is the product of what you get when David Lynch decides to make a slasher film. It's so very weird and out there, probably one thing that I appreciate in this film, yet Zombie has a problem to put the elements all together. At one point, it's your usual slasher film. The next, it's surreal but they just don't add up. 3/10


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 21 2010 at 6:39am
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Ew. This was a bad movie. I think this movie gives a new meaning to the phrase "back-stabbing." You think you've seen distasteful violence in the first film? You have seen nothing yet. I think this is the product of what you get when David Lynch decides to make a slasher film. It's so very weird and out there, probably one thing that I appreciate in this film, yet Zombie has a problem to put the elements all together. At one point, it's your usual slasher film. The next, it's surreal but they just don't add up. 3/10
That is a pretty low review score. But if the movie really sucked THAT badly, shouldn't a one or a zero be a more fitting score?

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: February 21 2010 at 7:17am
That's the first time I've seen MWG dip below a 6, which I thought was the lowest rating he'd ever give. Most are 9's and 10's.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 21 2010 at 7:53am
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

That's the first time I've seen MWG dip below a 6, which I thought was the lowest rating he'd ever give. Most are 9's and 10's.
Out of ten reviews? That's kinda high for movie review standards. Wouldn't out of 5 reviews or a school grade system be more reasonable? And they range anywhere between 6 and 10? I understand he like movies, but as we try to be critics, we should nit-pick over whatever flaws movies should have. 9's and 10's (or 4's and 5's or A's) should be extremely rare, like in cases for "Hurt Locker". And considering these are the Razzie forum, the worst of the worst movies of each year, 3 out of 10 should be common ... and in some cases even 3's are being generous.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: February 21 2010 at 8:33am
I think some of MWG's 9's and 10's were out of 5.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 21 2010 at 9:19am
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

I think some of MWG's 9's and 10's were out of 5.

LOL As I said, overly generous much?


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 21 2010 at 11:37am
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

I think some of MWG's 9's and 10's were out of 5.

You are soooooo funny.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 21 2010 at 12:04pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

I think some of MWG's 9's and 10's were out of 5.

You are soooooo funny.
Oh come on, man, that was funny. He's just pointing out that you do give overly generous reviews; you can't deny that.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: February 21 2010 at 12:46pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy


You are soooooo funny.


It's true. It's true.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 21 2010 at 7:04pm
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Originally posted by moviewizguy


You are soooooo funny.

It's true. It's true.
Kurt Angle, circa 2000?


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: February 21 2010 at 9:29pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn


Kurt Angle, circa 2000?


Good eye, mon frere.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: April 30 2011 at 9:16am
I hated this more than Transformers 2. At least that didn't show Shia LaBeouf eating his dogs in that one.*
 
*I know that Myers ate a dog in the first one, but it wasn't shown because it wasn't needed.


-------------
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
Up-next: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: October 31 2011 at 7:45pm
Man I really hated this one! In all honesty, I rank this in the same league as Batman & Robin, Van Helsing, Exorcist II, and Battlefield Earth. It's not as bad as those, but still, when you're compared to those films, you know that you've failed as a filmmaker. Since it's so bad, it's a 9 worst things review is in store here. But before I totally trash this, I'd like to give props to Danielle Harris and Brad Dourif who somehow manage to rise above this slop.
 
9.) Sheri Moon Zombie: Mrs. Rob Zombie wasn't too bad in the first one, but she's really bad here. The only reason she seems to be in this is because Rob needs to point out how hot is wife is. We get that he's the ugliest director to have a hot wife since Tim Burton lived in Lisa Marie's cleavage, but at least he wrote actual roles for her.
 
8.) The gore: The amount of gore is up from the last one, which is kind of impressive when you consider that there's less kill scenes in this. If only he put more effort into the story. Another thing that could use improvement is...
 
7.) The kill methods: Most of the kill scenes just involve Michael stabbing someone a billion times or shoving them into a wall a dozen times and then some blood squirts out. After a while, it gets VERY boring.
 
6.) Michael eats a dog: After watching both of Rob Zombie's Hallowen abortions, it's clear that Zombiedoesn't understand what made the first one so good. The biggest example of him not getting it is easily this scene. All he seemed to notice about the original was that Michael ate a dog offscreen. He probably thought that John Carpenter was being a pussy. So, we get a scene where Michael cuts a dog open and proceeds to eat it. The scene is juxtapositioned with Brad Dourif's character saying that humans were meant to eat meat and considering that Zombie's a vegetarian probably means that this is some ham-fisted sort of social commentary.
 
5.) Malcom McDowell: McDowell is just awful here. It seems like he was turned into an expy of Zombie himself, peddling violent sh*t to the idiotic masses. Until the end of the movie, he doesn't seem to have much of an effect on the movie.
 
4.) The opening dream sequence fake-out: You DON'T make the entire first part of the movie a dream. Any sane director would change this, but it's been established that Zombie is either insane, a moron, or both.
 
3.) The "symbolism": There's a lot of fake symbolism here. For example, Michael has regular visions of his mom on a white horse. In another, there's several aristocrats that have pumpkins for heads. No, it doesn't make any God-damn sense and it doesn't have anything to do with anything else in the movie. Just Rob Zombie doing more drugs than a human should. Then again, he is... more human than human. (Puts on sunglasses CSI: Miami style. Yeah!)
 
2.) Scout Taylor-Compton: There is absolutely nothing redeeming about her in any way here. She may be cute to look at, but her voice is so annoying and her personality so revolting that it negates. She definitely WILL make your head explode Scanners style!
 
1.) Rob Zombie's directing, writing, and hatred of normal people: It's been established that he can't direct or write to save his life from reading the above points, but his hatred of normal people takes itself to new stomach-churning, revolting, repulsive, disgusting, tasteless levels! The first new characters we see are two ambulence drivers who contemplate necrophilia. At most, there's four decent people in the movie: the daughter of a redneck who beats up Michael for squating in his barn, a security guard in the dream part, and Dourif and Harris' characters. Both of the women and the security guard are horribly murdered and Dourif is left emotionally shattered.
 
There's one intersting note before I finish off the review. Watching this caused me to formulate my Rotten Asshole grade. Films that were given F's that I deemed bad enough were given retroactive Rotten Asshole's. Grade: Rotten Asshole
 
Next-up: Trespass!


-------------
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
Up-next: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 6:41am
Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

But before I totally trash this, I'd like to give props to Danielle Harris and Brad Dourif who somehow manage to rise above this slop.

I agree with you on Dourif. He is the only good thing about this entire film and is the only likeable character IMO.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 10:59am
So you're saying that from now on an "F"="Rotten Asshole"?

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


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 3:31pm
When I said "watching this...," I meant the first time I watched this last year. I created the Rotten Asshole grade then. So far, only 24 movies have gotten Rotten Assholes. The ones I've reviewed so far are Exorcist II, this, Jaws 4, Psycho 98', House Of The Dead, Superbabies, S. Darko, NeverEnding Story III, and Freddy Got Fingered.

-------------
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
Up-next: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles



Print Page | Close Window