WOW!

What a scary movie! Very heavy on scares.. The whole theater was reacting to the scares, big time. Chicks were screaming...it was great.

As you know " The Grudge" is based on some other Japanese movies from the " Ju-On" series. Its clear that the Japanese know how to scare!

I was very impressed with the overall scare factor of the movie. It was the scariest movie I have ever seen. Hands down, right to the end!

You want to see it. I dont have time to review it..but Im telling you that if your reading bad reviews then your not getting the truth..cuz it rocks.....yea I was scared, even I had to cover my eyes at one point!

The Grudge was one of the most annoying, boring, and pointless movies I' ve seen in a long time.

This rarely happens, but I agree with everything Ebert said about this movie.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041021/REVIEWS/40922015/1023

It was a terrible, jumbled mess. Wasn' t that scary either.

No I disagree with them. This movie was scary.. I was scared. There a few times where I had to close my eyes cause it was just too much.. I mean it' s just that women.. she' s so freaky.. I would have died of fright if I saw her in real life like that... the story was interesting in the begining but at the end it was pointless and nothing was resolved... but it is a very good movie because of the sacre factor.. and that noise that women made will forever haunt me... yikes... maybe I should go hide under the covers like that lady did... Ahhh!

Your crazy.

Moronic Quotes by Ebert:

" I' m not sure how this scene fits into the rest of the movie, but then I' m not sure how most of the scenes fit into the movie."

You have to wonder if he ever watched the end of the movie based on the above remark.

" It loses intriguing opportunities to contrast American and Japanese cultures, alas, by allowing everyone to speak English"

First, its an American remake, second, there is a fair amount of Japanese subtitles which once again makes this remark rather confounding.

" This woman' s hair, which sometimes looks like seaweed, appears in many scenes, hanging down into the frame as if it dreams of becoming a boom mike."

This comment is by far the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I swear he must have just watched the trailer because this is the most asinine thing I have ever read.

" Various cops and social workers enter the house, some never to emerge, but the news of its malevolence doesn' t get around. You' d think that after a house has been associated with gruesome calamities on a daily basis, the neighbors could at least post an old-timer outside to opine that some mighty strange things have been a-happening in there."

Wait, heres something more asinine! Ebert obviously is senile and dementiated because THEY WERE THE FIRST FAMILY IN THE HOUSE SINCE THE MURDERS! All the deaths take place in a matter of days.. Its not like the house has this huge long history of killing dozens of people over the years. The investigator deaths were still being investigated... It was all explained. (once again towards the end of the movie where I imagine Ebert was either sleeping or not watching)

" The fragmented time structure is a nuisance, not a style. The house is not particularly creepy from an architectural point of view, and if it didn' t have a crawl space under the eaves, the ghosts would have to jump out from behind sofas."

First off, the " fragmented time structure" was hardly fragmented, I would call it more like a few flashbacks. Yea a few, it wasnt a nuisance, it was tied into the movie quite well, and unlike Ebert I think most people could very easily follow what was goin on. Oh and sorry the house wasnt " creepy" enough for Ebert (who complains that the movie is too much like other horror movies early in his review but now complains that its not enough like all the other horror movies). Lastly, the ghosts didnt have to jump out from anywhere, which they really didnt. Im convinced that Ebert reviewed this movie off a trailer because the attic space really placed a very small part of the scares, as a matter of fact most of the really good scares didnt even occcur in the house!

If you agree with what Ebert said (which is contained in most of the above quotes) then I guess the responses apply to you as well.

I have to agree that the movie was very frightning. I liked how the flashbacks were placed in smoothly to give insight on what went down that caused this house to be haunted. And Eberts reveiw really doesnt reflect the movie in it' s entirety at all, dude gone lost his damn mind or somin.

The only thing that took some of the scare out of it was the eyes...They sort of took me out of the whole fear thing, maybe if they were blackened out or somin. Overall tho the movie was scary had a good story and is a great flick for the halloween season. Next up is Saw.

Moronic Quotes by Ebert:

" I' m not sure how this scene fits into the rest of the movie, but then I' m not sure how most of the scenes fit into the movie."

With Ebert I think a more appropriate phrase would be: " I' m not sure how most scenes fit into any of the movies I' ve seen over the years dating back to when I was a bratty little kid."

If you agree with what Ebert said (which is contained in most of the above quotes) then I guess the responses apply to you as well.

You sound very defensive, and quite frankly I don' t appreciate the tone in which you' re speaking to me.

I am not your child, your opinion is not fact, and you shouldn' t trash other people' s opinions when yours is no better.

If you can' t handle other views then I have some advice for you - GROW UP

Fact: Ebert' s review was totally off the mark.
Fact: You said you agree with everything Ebert said about the movie.
Fact: Many of Eberts opinions are baseless as I clearly pointed out.


I wasnt being defensive I read your link to Ebert' s review and I found it quite off the mark. I gave my opinion based on your agreement with Ebert' s review, I would have given the same responses had you written the review yourself. Hence my comments.


I can handle other views, and I have no problem with criticism. Apparently you do. Sorry if I made you feel like a child but your comments in particular were pretty off the wall, i.e. " boring" , " annoying" , " pointless" ??? Maybe I think these comments are demeaning my opinion because they obviously insinuate that I must be easily entertained by something that is so obviously pointless and annoying to your vast and deep intellect.

Fact: Ebert' s review was totally off the mark.

You didn’t find any factual errors in his review. You countered his review with your opinion. More opinions equal more opinions. NOT facts.

Fact: You said you agree with everything Ebert said about the movie.

I fail to see your point as I’m quite sure everyone read that.

Fact: Many of Eberts opinions are baseless as I clearly pointed out.

Many could call your opinions baseless as well. I can easily nitpick apart your opinion as well, but don’t feel the need to since I could care less if you like the movie and I don’t. But nothing you said can be counted as solid facts.

I can handle other views, and I have no problem with criticism. Apparently you do.

Calling other people crazy and saying their opinion is asinine is far from “criticism”.

It’s flaming.

Sorry if I made you feel like a child but your comments in particular were pretty off the wall, i.e. " boring" , " annoying" , " pointless" ??? Maybe I think these comments are demeaning my opinion because they obviously insinuate that I must be easily entertained by something that is so obviously pointless and annoying to your vast and deep intellect.

But at any point did I flame you in particular for liking the movie? I gave my opinion and you countered by calling me crazy.

If you thought my comments were directed towards you then that was your mistake, not mines.

Wow what a fight *Grabs Popcorn*

haha..not really...I can agree to disagree. peace!