Cool News
Memflix and a few others chime in 30 DAYS OF NIGHT!!!
SPOILER ALERT !!
Ahoy, squirts! Quint here. Earlier today I posted a glowing review of 30 DAYS OF NIGHT. That reviewer was in love with the flick and everything was looking up. Then I got these three reviews in quick succession. None of them are positive, but they're not all equally negative. Seems this one is having a scatter-shot effect with audiences. Reactions are all over the place.
First up is our own Memflix!
Hey Everybody. It’s Memflix. It has been awhile since I sent anything in. I’ve been a bit busy, but I wanted to write about 30 Days of Night, a movie I was excited about. One of the things keeping me away has been co-hosting a podcast. My co-host James Pitts (formerly of The Whedoncast) and I will be going more in-depth on the film this Sunday for our third episode at filmdrop.net (sorry for the shameless plug, guys).
With remakes and needless sequels, a good horror flick can be hard to find. But when a film takes a new spin on old material, it can be very refreshing.
30 Days of Night made a promise to breathe life into the undead genre with its fresh approach to the tired and exploited vampire legend.
As a small town in Alaska is preparing for 30 days without sun, a group of vampires on the verge of extinction gets the dinner table ready for a month long buffet.
A small town sheriff (Josh Hartnett), his teenage brother (Mark Rendall), and estranged wife (Melissa George) must save as many townspeople as possible and survive until sunrise. The vampires have survived this long, because no one believes they exist. So not only are they going to feed on hundreds, they have to destroy all the evidence that they were ever there.
Now that’s a good concept!
Sadly, it is not enough. A film needs more than concept to achieve greatness. It needs guidance and a clear vision of the world and circumstance it wants to create.
Unfortunately, that is what it lacks.
Coming off the critical success of 2005’s Hard Candy, David Slade directs a script adapted by Stuart Beattie, Brian Nelson and Steve Niles, from the graphic novel penned by Niles and inked by Ben Templesmith.
The film takes too many cues from Sin City and 300. Those films were designed to play like an extension from their original medium. Night was not. It wants us to be terrified for the humans, by attempting character development and its more naturalistic approach to vampires. However, the ‘artistic’ shots of blood in the snow, headless hanging bodies and business-suit clad feral vampires achieve the opposite effect by throwing us out of the theater and into a comic book. Making matters worse, those shots are sparsely placed sporadically throughout, and peppered with scenes of supposed realism to try and get us not just back into the theater, but into the ‘real’ world. It confuses and strips the tension away when different thematic tools create vastly differing viewpoints.
However, there are moments that truly terrify and it does a great job of creating claustrophobia in such an open environment. Through gorgeous wide shots of the open barren landscape, you know the townsfolk have nowhere to go and little chance surviving a day, let alone 30.
There was nothing notable about the performances, but the gore was disturbing in all the right ways and had me doing the ‘ants-in-the-pants’ theater dance. Even though the comic book look hindered the film as a whole, it looked gorgeous.
Right about the time I was wrestling with whether the disjointed themes were going to ruin the film for me, the climax made up my mind.
Unfortunately, fantasy, not horror or reality won the battle of the themes. Everything it had spent 2 hours building up was thrown away with a derivative plot device seen in almost every other vampire film ever made. This made its attempt at originality a gigantic waste of time and ruined what could’ve been a great spin on the vampire genre.
This next one is probably our most negative of the group.
Hey Quint,
Haven't written before but I saw 30 Days of Night last Tuesday had a very different opinion than Nightsong. I will start by saying I only knew the premise going in and hadn't read the graphic novel. I didn't really have any expectations so the movie had little to live up to other than the fact that I am a fan of horror. I will also say that overall I enjoyed the movie despite the many, many problems I had with it. I think that, overall, it will really appeal to the mainstream crowd that flock to see the Saw movies but isn't really invested in film as an art form or the horror genre in particular. That said, the first problem is the characters. You are never invested in these characters at all and any backstory that is presented seems last minute. Throughout the movie it is difficult to keep track of who anyone is because you have no emotional investment in them. The only real charater motivation (other than not being eaten by vampires) was the failed relationship that is alluded to between Eban (Hartnett) and Stella (Melissa George) and even this is maddeningly vague. It isn't until the last shot (SPOILER ALERT) that we see Eban pull a wedding ring out from a chain around his neck indicating that they were once married but it wasn't until I went on imdb and saw that their characters have the same last name that I was sure of the significance. (END SPOILER). The point being that you don't feel invested in these people at all. As far as the acting goes, Josh Hartnett is pretty bad giving a largely wooden performance that I would partially blame on the dialogue in the script. I think it was mostly just him though. Everyone else is pretty much relegated to the background as vampire food. The other huge problem was the lack of suspense when it comes to the passing of the titular 30 days. The action feels like it takes place in hours not days and when they do indicate the passing of time it jumps 8 or 9 days ahead each time. It would have been so easy to put in 5 minutes of them hiding in the attic,looking tired and scared and then jumping to the next day in order to add to the suspense and show that every minute isn't filled with action. I think 30 days with vampires stalking you is going to partially be a waiting game. Not so much in this movie, though. Also, this movie could've been called "30 Days of the Brightest Night Ever". I understand that snow is reflective and it can look like day during the night but geez. Some of it was so bright and washed out it detracted from the initial premise. I kind of expected more action like "The Descent" where it gets the audience disoriented and plays off that. Instead they disorient you with overused shaky-cam.
In that sense I would have also liked a better sense of the town and where the buildings were at in relation to each other. There are some great arial shots straight down showing the town being attacked but it doesn't give you a sense of place. Given that they are running from house to house hiding the audience would benefit greatly from knowing where in the town they are at any given time. It's very odd because the Utili-thing (forgot the name) building that they are ultimately trying to get to is portrayed intitially as on the edge of town but when they get there it seems like it's right in the middle of town. Minor grievances but, had they been fixed, this would've been a far better film. Okay, so the vampires. The blood all over the face thing was cool. The talking in a made up language with subtitles...not so cool. They didn't need to build a whole mythology around them (and they totally do not whatsoever) but they could've thrown us a little bone especially given all the grandiose quotes that the lead vamp is spouting and the annoying vamp-speak.
Establishing a little of the vampire heirarchy would've helped as well. So those are my personal complaints and I'm sure I could think of more but...what worked? The biggest thing that sticks out in my mind are two specific kills. One with an ax where the camera doesn't pull away and hint at the carnage as it does in some of the other kills. That kill in particular got a huge groan from the crowd which always makes me smile. Also the big one at the end was very cool and imaginative although I would bet that it is exactly what happened in the comic. It has that feel to it. I won't ruin it but I liked it quite a bit. The shaky cam stuff was over used but most of the action was done well. My feeling as I left the theater was that horror fans are subjected to so much dreck and sub-par crap that I am willing to overlook quite a bit for a few good kills and some gore. This movie has that but the thing that bugged me the most was that, as I watched, I found myself not only identifying the problems with the movie but finding obvious solutions that would have alleviated the missteps and really elevate this movie to a horror classic. It's one thing to think a movie flat out sucks but it's another to see the glimmering potential that doesn't ultimately come to fruition. As long as you go into this movie with the idea that it is mindless entertainment you will enjoy it. If you go thinking horror classic you will be sorely disappointed. If you use this call me....RYTRON3030
Actually, this one is pretty negative, too...
Fellas,
I attended the advance screening of 30 DAYS OF NIGHT last night at the Dobie theater here in Austin.
I was unfamiliar with the comic, and I hadn't read any reviews. All I knew was what the trailers showed, and that Danny Huston was going to be playing the head vampire.
That being said, if the source material is any good, which I'm assuming it is to some degree in order for it to be considered for a film, then the film must not be doing it justice. If it turns out the film does do the story justice, then the source material must suck too (and not in that pun-like "oohhh it 'sucks' because it's about vampires" way).
I think everyone gets the gist of the story. A small town in Alaska experiences an annual lights out for one full month, and some vampires not originated from there find out about it. When the sun goes down, not to rise again for another 30 days, the vampires start pecking away at a bunch of people we either know nothing about, or really couldn't care less about.
Leading the way of the cattle is Josh Hartnett, the town sherrif, and Melissa George as the fire marshall. They're just about the only two attractive people in a 90 mile radius, so they of course have shared fluids in the past, but they're having a falling out right now and so they need to be thrown in to this life threatening situation in order to save their relationship. The only other townspeople of any significance are Hartnett's character's little brother, Mark Boone Jr. (the bad cop from BATMAN BEGINS that has to swear to Christian Bale instead of God because Bale told him to in a very angry voice), and Nathaniel Lees (The guy who screams a lot when he guns down flying squid machines in MATRIX REVOLUTIONS even though he didn't complete his training for the mech thing he was operating).
There are other people, too many in fact (Ben Foster being one), but the film introduces them just to kill them off. The actors I actually named are barely even relevant, even though the film really wants you to feel like they are. They throw in everything they can think of to make these people seem likeable and human enough to empathize with them, but they mostly come across as cliched, or annoyingly dumb during times of despair because there are at least 4 really bad decisions these people make.
There's not enough backstory at the beginning to give us any insight to who the people are, but we know they have relationships, and we know they have family. We just don't meet any of the family, nor experience any of the relationships. This is a story that would have really benefited from using the FROM DUSK TILL DAWN outline. Half of that film was character introduction and development, while the other half was survival/horror. This is more like 90/10 in favor of survival/horror, and when the favor is that lopsided then you really need to rethink the way you approach your portrayal of the subject. If they wanted to make a balls out vampire film they should've done that, and if they wanted to focus on the dramatic then they should have taken the extra time to do that. If what they wanted was a little DIARY OF ANNE FRANK with the people being in hiding then they could have given more energy to character development and not worried so much about taking some emphasis away from the vampire threat. There's too much unnecessary time given to Danny Huston as the head vampire and his minions because they do very little aside from killing people that would warrant giving them as much time as they do. They could have cast some complete unknown in his role, or done away with the character completely, because he does nothing more than say ininteresting things in a foreign language, and look brooding. They portray the vampires like animals, but for some reason they feel the need to make them actual characters, and it does nothing more than take time away from the actual characters that we're supposed to give a shit about.
The misuse of Danny Huston really pissed me off, because his performance in THE PROPOSITION sold me on his capability to make a memorable bad guy. The problem is that if you have a bad guy that barely speaks it's hard to make him noteworthy, and if you write a bad guy that barely speaks then why cast Danny Huston?
Also, for a film where one of the major plot points is the need to survive for 30 days, they do a piss poor job of portraying a sense of time progression. We know it takes place over a 30 day span, and it lets you know how many days it's been, but it feels like everything happens in one night. I get that it could be because there's absolutely no sun for 30 days and that's why it feels that way, but there could have been some better way to show that a good deal of time had passed. They make 12 days feel like two hours, and time shouldn't be represented that fast if you're not making a movie about PCP. I wouldn't think it would be that difficult to depict 30 days and make it feel like 30 days. Josh Hartnett seemed to do a good job of that in 40 DAYS AND 40 NIGHTS, because I REALLY felt his pain in that film, but I didn't get that sense of longevity here.
Now, pretty much all of this I could disregard and give a slight pass on if it wasn't so obvious that they were really trying to make this a dramatic piece. If they would have just gone out and had vampires run rampant and kill people then I probably would have enjoyed it more, because when they show the action scenes it's moderately entertaining. It might be more enjoyable for people that haven't really seen good, or gory, horror films like this before, because the group of people behind me were reacting to the kill scenes like it was the greatest show on earth with a bunch of oooohhhhhhs and aaaaahhhhhhhs. But, take my word for it in that it's nothing that hasn't been done before, and some of it done better. However, they do want drama so they don't do an all out vampire massacre from start to finish, it's just the lack of character connection gives all of the non-action a strong sense of melodrama.
So, it looks like they were really trying to give us something a little more than just a mindless good time, but with no real know-how on what they needed to do to make it successful. They wasted: a good premise on bad time progression, a good actor on an irrelevant villain role, potentially intriguing drama on a need to introduce the threat so quickly, or potentially good action with a need to give us underdeveloped storylines, and Ben Foster.
This is a story that probably needed at least a two and half hour running time to do what it was trying to do. Or, they could've just completely tossed the film idea and made a nice little addition to the survival/horror video game genre. It looked like they almost thought about that idea, because during the big massacre in the town the scene is shot from a top view, and looks exactly like they were doing a live action version of LOADED.
So, for anyone that was anticipating seeing this, as I was, and has seen a good number of good horror films before, then I really don't think you need to bother with this one. You'll more than likely easily pick up on all the shortcomings, and the few things that are quite good are in way too small doses, or are contradicted by something really not good. There's a couple of funny scenes that I couldn't tell whether they were intentional or not, but for as little as I was enjoying the film up until that point I didn't care and took whatever piece of intentional or unintentional form of hilarity they were willing to give.
If you use this, this is The Beef
-
+ Expand All
-
Anyone read the graphic novel?
-
I have to see everything good or bad.
-
Is Morgan Spurlock in this?
-
This ain't no stinking Underworld flick, thank God!
-
I really want to know who the boss is, the second in command, etc... after all, they sound like drug running Cuban vampires. Jesus, they're vampires. They eat people. Fuck Heirarchy. Heirarchy is you face one, your fucked.
-
I was hoping this movie would be good, especially because of Danny Huston's contribution to the acting merit of the film, but recently found out Josh Hartnett is playing the town sheriff. THE TOWN SHERIFF. For the love of God, that is the worst casting ever. Worse than Hartnett playing a detective in Black Dahlia.
I deputy is a little more believable, but a Sheriff? Give me a break.
This movie will just suck right along with the rest of his career. And I'm excluding his under 10 minute screen time in Sin City. It doesn't count. -
Vampires vs Barrow = Vampires being eaten and distilled into some form of liquor. Did they at least have one Vamp vs Polar Bear fight? Please stop making shitty movies about Alaska.
-
someone drive a fucking steak into this genre please. its stupid.
-
Correction: Alec Baldwin's voice.
-
still gonna see this, but with a cupfull of salt grains at my side...
-
Dear Hollywood, please just make that the title of every film with the guy in the lead so that we as filmgoers can know to look elsewhere for entertainment.
-
Oct 18, 2007 8:01:45 PM CDT
Whoops. Ryton's mention of the axe thing- also a particularly f
by novaman5000
moment of mine. The movie was ok but that kill was brutal in a "wow" way.
-
No, I have nothing to do with the movie, but here's the real scoop it: it's very good. Not a great film on any level, but it's enjoyable, fun, and horrific. The movie isn't tonally all over the place as some of these reviews claim, and I don't know what the reviewer is talking about with comic book elements and "real" elements pulling you out of the movie. Positives: good concept, some tense scenes, good deaths, interesting new take on vamps (Danny Huston as the main baddie was very feral and animalistic), and good supporting cast. Negatives: it feels jumpy at times, like a scene was on the cutting room floor. (Ex.: after Hartnett finds the first dead guy's head on a pole, he drives back to town and everyone is gathered. "We heard the shots, what's going on?" Except there were no shots!! Um...scene?) Or there could be more explanation as to why they keep switching locations while they're hiding. A line perhaps? ("Damn, out of food, we need to get to the general store!") If motivations and some sloppy editing/continutity detracts from the movie, then skip it. If you're going to vampire movies for blood, death, good cinematography and interesting characters, then go.
-
"I was hoping this movie would be good...but recently found out Josh Hartnett is playing the town sheriff."
Just recently? Way to stay on top of the news, Dick. -
People, if you start to think in terms of studio heads and use words like "survivor/horror" you are going to hell. Make a fucking movie scary, fuck what has come before it. Getting scared is inherently human, too many people act like movies invented fear, darkness and things that go bump in the night.
-
That's Hollyweird. -
Yeah, most horror movies get mixed reviews, but still...
-
I really was looking forward to this and I loved "Hard Candy." I might see it on the off-chance I'm the pariah and actually enjoy it. To be perfectly honest, there wasn't too much special about the graphic novel except the concept and the art.
-
"My feeling as I left the theater was that horror fans are subjected to so much dreck and sub-par crap that I am willing to overlook quite a bit for a few good kills and some gore.".... makes me so sad as a horror fan. Overlooking quite a bit for some kills was the way we used to approach Jason movies in the 80s. Now those movies look like fucking classical genius compared to the shit we get these days. It's either crap like hostel, or watered down pg13 rubbish. The fact that we have to apologise for the lameness of what appears to be 70% of the movie just to be happy to get to see some good kills is pathetic. I watched that shitty Omen remake only because Harry said there was a great decapitation in it, which there was. I felt dirty afterwards, should have just youtubed that bit. And let's not forget that Harry was allowed to take his 5 year old nephew into a supposed horror movie. Er, it's called horror. If a five year old can watch it, how fucking horrifying can it be? And even the five year old thought the movie was shit and non-scary. The horror indeed. Oh my!(<-- I hate that shit.)
-
...Shia LaBeouf yet?
-
Ok, I read the reviews. I'm still trying to decide how relevant they are. Sure there are some things said in them that I'm paying attention to, and it disappoints me that I guess it is not going to be the classic I was hoping for (sort of as in, Carpenter's The Thing, but for this generation). But it doesn't sound like it's a total loss either. The worst thing sounds like having to do with the passing of time. For a movie about 30 days of night passing, I would hope that they do a good job of showing 30 days of night in fact pass by with all that such would entail under the circumstances. Hopefully, the problem aint too bad. I'm still interested in seeing it in the theater. It sounds like it is still worth the cinematic experience. But I think maybe I will enjoy the film more now after reading these reviews and setting my expectation/hope bar a little bit lower... popcorn and a few grains of salt anyone?
-
I remember that game on the original Playstation. Man, that was a while back.
-
"Things that got lost in the fire" has to be the absolute worst movie I've seen in years. It's a Lifetime, bring your dead husband's heroin addict friend to live with you and cuddle with you and raise your children feel good movie. Fucking trash.If any of your girlfriends try to drag you to this, just dump her. You will thank me later.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRV3gwfzSJw&mode=user&search=
-
I had high expectations for this after seeing Hard Candy, will wait for the DVD rental I think.
-
In my opinion one of the best horror films ever made, top ten for me at least, truely scary and nerve racking.
-
NOW magazine in Toronto gave it 4 out of five stars (and they are notoriously hard to please)
EW magazine's Owen Gliberman gave it a D (someone had a bad day methinks) -
They want us to lower our expectations so it doesn't seem so bad. I'm on to your clever marketing scheme...
-
Expecting a "HORROR" classic with this movie?? This reviews are all like, OH I WAS expecting the next Shawdow of a Vampire. Or The retelling of Dracula. Plus since when do we consider Vampire movies as HORROR anymore??? Ever since Eddie Murphy and The JC got ahold of them (and maybe Robert Rodriguez) Vampires are just action movies, full of snarky remarks. Hopefully most of us are just wanting another Blade movie, and all of them got panned by critics. And all the Blade movies where dumb fun which is what I want out of my Vampire movies. Plus I don't think David Slade is really as bad ass as hard core as this site makes it seem. Hard Candy was alright but I do not even remember anything from it? Also Executor I am glad you shitcanned the Fire movie, it looked fucking terrible, and everyone is like OH WOW halle berry is back!!! You know a movie is not that good when they have to act like its going to win every Oscar before its even done being made.
-
About Josh Hartnett, he is just the finest actor ever to receive a Doctrine at the Keanu Reeves University of Bland Acting. Though I do admit he is probably my only reason why I am not really excited to see this movie, I mean I want to see it but I am not, and I figure I will like it, but my excitment level is not very high. They should put him in a movie with Jude Law where they fight over who can get the lead role in a movie all the while knowing that they suck and do not deserve it. Like a mockumentary type deal, and Ricky G as the incompetent director who thinks both of them are really amazing (pretty much playing the high powered idiot) and can't decide who to choose.
-
but i've heard the new cloverfield trailer is attached to 30 days of night.
-
Oct 19, 2007 10:24:39 AM CDT
"someone drive a fucking steak into this genre please. its stupi
by kid vorpal
Nah, stupid is combining a mis-spelled pun with a snap judgment.
-
What's really funny is that when you guys see this movie, you'll blame Josh Hartnett for it being bad. Hartnett's fine, so is the rest of the cast, they're just in a movie with a crappy script and way too many vampire shrieking noises.
-
But all the reviews are negative of this movie. And they all touch on the same points: little sense of any time passing for these people you do not know or care about, incomprehensible vampires, constantly shifting geography that is never really made clear or established and is just plain confusing--all things that detract from the enjoyment of the movie.
-
it wasn't on the print i saw
-
They're hoping to quell the hype this movie has so some people go see Gone Baby Gone, Things We Lost In The Fire, or the other 10 or so movies opening up. Don't listen to this deep-rooted greenery.
-
I mean I like Drama's but like every movie coming out is a Drama, I haven't been to the theaters in a while, by this sites standards not the worlds. I can't remember if the last movie I saw was Shoot'em up or Halloween? Both sucked anyway. I want to see 30 days of night, its fucking October I'm bored I don't want to be bored more. I'll go see Saw. The only thing about these drama movies coming out right now... is that they suck and are not going to win any Oscars because all those movies come out next month. I want dumb fun at the movies right now. I just got through the shit month of Aug, now its time for some bad stupid fun of Oct and onto Award Season. Oh i saw the Kingdom to, DRAMA but with some action.
-
Is this everyone's new favorite word or something? Some massive conspiracy among word-of-the-day feeds to put this word in everyone's mind? The last month or so every review of every movie, game, book, or TV show has the word "titular" in it. I guess people think it makes them look smart. /END RANT
Movie looks sweet! -
I dont know why those bastards blasted it.
-
fuck you all. This site and all its readers liked transformers. None of you count anymore when it comes to criticizing a movie. This flick turned out to be better than the graphic novel. There was no bullshit. Great characters, and great scenes loaded with memorable moments.
-
All of these negative reviews really overplay the small problems with the film overall. I liked it a lot, and I'm usually the first one to pick a bad movie apart. Fucking Black Dahlia.
-
Oct 19, 2007 10:10:23 PM CDT
RYTRON3030, you couldn't tell that they were married?
by grandmufftarkin
What are you, a fucking retard? In the first five minutes of the film, her friend mentions "separation". They obviously had a relationship. Does someone need to draw you a goddamn map to find your balls?
-
No real memorable performances or stand out Directing... it just as easily could have been a Showtime original movie. Sorry, just sayin'.
-
snuck in after Assass of Jess (from my ticket)
dollar show powers...activate.
-
Fantastic concept, shit flick.
this
good concept, shittier flick. -
I really enjoyed this film. I loved the feel, I loved the darkness about it (completely unrelenting), and I loved the take on the vampires themselves. Danny Huston as the head vampire was FANTASTIC. The guy complaining about him above is an imbecile. One of the most original portrayals of a "head vampire" that I've seen. The "no god" line from him (I think the only one he speaks in English) is chilling. So this was an INSPIRED casting choice, and anyone who says differently wears his ass for a hat.
The acting was all over the map, and there were a few "Give me a break" moments when main characters escape what seem to be impossible odds. And yeah, the grand finale conceit was perhaps a bit cliched in some respects...but the uniqueness of this film's setting, the truly horrifying looking vampires, the originality in so many areas make it a very worthy vampire film. See it! -
It looks pretty dang good to ME, so I'm a'gonna go see it! And I'm willing to bet I'll enjoy it a heck of a lot more than they did.
-
but I wasn't bothered with the movies style. I appreciated the look of the film and got caught up in the style. The one thing hurt my overall feeling of the movie was the film's resolution. If you've seen it, then you know what I mean. I can't stand Ben Foster, and this movie didn't help his cause. I don't care what anyone says, he had 10 different accents and beyond that, he has this wierd pre-pubescent crackle/high pitch when trying to be intimidating. Go away Ben Foster, go away for good.
I wonder if they'll make Beyond Barrow now. -
we have to remember people... for the kids
-
It will be interesting to see how much more there is in the Director's Cut DVD...I get the feeling there was a fair amount that didn't show up on the screen..
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 383 total posts 380 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 111 total posts 111 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 75 total posts 73 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 71 total posts 68 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 77 total posts 55 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 54 total posts 48 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 165 total posts 41 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 41 total posts 41 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 500 total posts 35 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 28 total posts 28 posts