The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

The problem with Leatherface is that he doesn't kill
enough. He could start with the reviewers here...
 Image via hauntedshop

In 1974 Tobe Hooper made the controversial horror film The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Today this film is still considered to be one of the most scary movies ever made. These reviewers, then, must have upper lips made of stone:

we all know that the way the movie was made was very poor (What do you mean? It was made cheaply if that's what you mean) but the film in itself is absoultely rubbish (Is it? Thank goodness you're here to pass judgement on all films for everyone).i think that anybody giving this a high mark is going purely on its so called status (First of all, maybe people [like me] just like it. And second of all it isn't a 'so-called status' it is its status. Rightly or wrongly [and its rightly by the way] that is the status it has).through the film the scariest moment is when the lady is put on the hook (No. That is the goriest moment. I'm guessing you are a fan of torture-porn then? The whole film makes the viewer uneasy. That, my simple friend, is true horror) but nothing much ever comes from the chainsaw.he whirls it about a bit running through the woods and never does much killing (For shame!).another stupid bit is that leatherface[the man with the chainsaw] is under the rule of his scrawny little dad (Well yes. The whole point is that Leatherface is not evil per se, just intellectually disabled and controlled by his evil family).to top it all off the end is worse than pathetic with the lady driving off and the chainsaw man left in the middle of the road again waving it around (Thanks for telling everyone who hasn't seen it how the film ends. Moron.).the end is ebrupt (abrupt),the sound is awful (It was a low budget hooror flick from the early 70s. What were you expecting?),the way it is made is awful (Strange then, that Roger Ebert [who did not like the content] admitted that it was well made. Much more so than it needed to be) and overall the film as a whole does not live up to its expectations (Well, not if you're expecting the gore of Saw crossed with the brilliance of The Godfather any way...).see it just so you know that the hype is all wrong. (See it just so you know that this idiot is all wrong)

Well, without any ado, here's another for your sick pleasure:

I'd wanted to see this film for a number of years (Bully for you), and was really excited when I finally got my chance.........Bloody hell was I disapointed! (Why? Did the film explode in your machine?) Loosely based on the horrific real-life crimes of Ed Gein....'loosely' is definatly the right word to use (I'm sorry, are you criticizing the film for only being loosely inspired by Ed Gein? 'Cause that seems a little bit petty to me. This isn't a biopic). When the title sequence rolled I will admit to thinking this was going to be a really atmospheric and scary film (Which most normal people agree it is), the prodution may of have been bad, but if a story is good enough it will shine through. Besides a grainy film and lack of music can be very creepy (It sure as hell is in this case I can assure all of you at home). Unfortuanatly little happened in the first half of the film (It's called suspense! Why do none of you imbeciles know what suspense actually is? I just answered my own question there didn't I...) and the acting was very dodgy. When the action did start it was stupid more that scary (VIOLENCE ISN"T SCARY! It's just shocking. To be really scary, you need an atmosphere and a sense of unease and dread. This film has those films in spades), and scenes of Leatherface with chainsaw reminded me of Benny Hill for some reason (God, you must be fucked up from watching too much Hostel...). Only one scene involing the motel owning relative of Leatherface and one of the young teenagers, came across as slightly disturbing (The whole film is at least slightly disturbing. Ridley Scott once said that the film became disturbing right from the moment they pick up the hitch-hiker, and that it doesn't let up. Texas..., if you didn't know, was incredibly important to the look and feel of Alien). I recommend people see this film, if only to see for themselves how dull this so called cult horror really is. (Was this written by exactly the same guy as the last one? Because that's quite a similar ending, and both are credited to 'A Customer'. If it is, I will attack you with a chainsaw for fixing the film's Amazon rating in favour of your stupid ideas...)

 Now, here's a review written by a comic genius...:

This has to be the scariest film ever. Within ten minutes of the film starting, my legs were already sticky with poo, and when the first of those poor, unfortunate young people died, I turned off the film and called an escort because I was too scared to spend the night alone.

The individual shots are very scary. They add a lot to the atmosphere, and had me hiding behind the sofa before I had even seen the terrifying Leatherface.I was particularly terrified by the shot of the dead armadillo. I will never watch this film again. It has scarred me for life. Never watch this film unless you want to live out the rest of your days in abject terror. I am now seeking counselling to try and overcome the mental trauma caused by such a harrowing experience.

Shame computers don't do sarcasm... (It's a shame your not as funny or knowledgeable as you think you are...)

Well, that's it for Halloween week here at Weeding Out The Idiots, service will resume as normal tomorrow. Watch out for those monsters at your door tonight - keep those shotguns loaded!

Scream

Oh God! It's horrifying! It's not like he's the killer  from a
horror film or anything...   Image starstoreblog

Continuing the week's halloween/horror theme we have Wes Craven's 1997 hit Scream. A parody of slasher films, Scream combined laughs with terror and was a hit with both audiences and critics alike that revived the slasher genre (perhaps a dubious honour, given the quality of most of those). Someone ought to tell these people. I believe that I can be that someone:

"Scream" is nothing more than a teen, stupid, oversexed and horribly overrated version of "Halloween", John Carpenter's classic (It does have its similarities, yes. But. It isn't a 'version' of it. It's a completely separate, original film). More than a homage, it's a copy (No it isn't. Aside from some references made in the film, the film's set-pieces are entirely different.). Remember: "Go to the McKenzie's house, call the police" (Yes, this was a deliberate reference. Remember, this is as much a parody of slashers as it is a horror). Nothing new in this movie, nothing at all (Y'know, except most of the film. For example, I'm pretty sure Halloween didn't have 3 rules of a horror movie...). The characters are just young, very willing fans of horror movies who don't ask for nothing but getting stabbed (This sounds like the old rapist defence of 'she was asking for it'. Anything you'd care to admit to us?), and the killer's suit is grotesque (I believe that may have been the point, you simpleton), making him a mental defective (What does that even mean? Did you wander in from the 50s? We don't do lobotomies anymore by the way) - and ridiculized by the Wayans Brothers in their raving film, "Scary Movie" (Well that's hardly Craven's fault is it?). And what about him, the killer, what about his personality? (What's your complaint here? What about his personality?)

The ending is totally stupid (SPOILER ALERT. Yes, I've done what the reviewer should have done. Thoughtless bastard): all those characters who die but come back- that woman reporter who has a van crash but comes back to save Sidney just in time, that young man who gets shot in the chest, that policeman who gets stabbed in the back (Well they didn't actually die. They were just injured weren't they. It's not like any of them had been pronounced dead by Dr. McCoy. You just presumed they'd died)

 -, and guess why? ('Cause they weren't dead?) Just because they're good... (Of course. You've opened my eyes to the cruelty of Craven)(remember: "I thought you were dead", another dialog  taken from another John Carpenter's classic, "Escape from New York" (Another dialogue? You've never mention Escape From New York before! And anyway, I'm pretty sure other films have had the line 'I thought you were dead', many of them from before EFNY was even thought of) - hey, Kevin, give Big John a break!) I'm sorry, but it doesn't make sense to me. (Well it wouldn't. You do, afterall, have more teeth than brain cells)

The only positive element of this film is an astounding young actor, Skeet Ulrich (I'm sure your praise will make up for his complete lack of major awards). The rest is no new and no good. (And that's not a fucking sentence! It would be 'NOTHING new and NOTHING good'. Idiot)

Now, to be honest, I don't really know what to do with this next one. It barely hangs together as it is. It just goes all over the place:

This movie was very horrible, what a suspense ! With excellent characters and memorable plot, I mean with this fisherman who wants to kill everybody with a fish-hook. Oups ! I made a mistake it was in I will always know what you did last summer for 20 years. But it doesn't matter, this is the same kind of movie with murders of teenagers with a lot of humor (involuntary humor). This movie was perhaps marvellous (for some people) when it was released, but in 2 or 3 years, I don't think that we will know what they did last summer. Don't worry !, you could enjoy at this time Friday the 13th part 20 with a similar plot. Evil never die ! (like money-makers). This movie is very representative of the use of gratuitous violence by Hollywood for targeting people with a commercial product. Wes Craven himself said that cinema was another way for making money. I agree with him, but in that case, does it mean that cinema became useless as a medium of creativity and imagination? Teenagers are in a age where contestation is a way of asserting their personality, this is normal, but Hollywood producers are aware of that fact and insert gratuitous violence in that contestation because they can make a lot of money. This commercial process leads to movie like Scream where there is no plot, no acting, but a lot of gore and violence used as meaning of expression. The characters in that movie are very weak, are they really representative of the young generation of the United-States ? or are they only caricatures of young people trying to convince the real young people that in the USA the life of a student is so delicious and violent ? What. The. Fuck? What does any of this mean? Are you saying that because many of the slashers that came after are very similar to Scream, that Scream is crap? That seems a little unfair to me. Also, Scream is intended to be funny, presuming 'involuntary humour' (yes humour. Not humor, you're on a British site for God's sake) meant 'unintended humour'. And it's I Know What You Did Last Summer, not whatever stupidly long title you though it was. Finally, Amazon has a reviews feature, not so that you can rant about things, but so you can share your opinions on a product in a clear and rational manner to other potential buyers. Save your rants for blogs, like this we do. Oh, and learn to write.

 Well, that's your lot for today. But don't worry, there are plenty more crappy Amazon reviews to come...

Dawn Of The Dead

Clearly drying paint has all of these thrills and more...
Image via filmsquish

Continuing the halloween theme of this week, today I am stepping bravely into the crappy world of Amazon reviews of the legendary film Dawn of the Dead. Released in 1978 Dawn of the Dead revitalised the zombie genre just as its predecessor (Night of the Living Dead) had a decade before. Or is this legacy undeserved? These reviewers certainly believe so:

 I bought this film under the impression that it was great film, how wrong I was (Well, you're certainly wrong now). The acting is wooden (Do you know what wood is?), the people seem like they are enjoying being stuck in a mall full of dead caniballs (Well yes. That was kind of the point. If they wanted something, they just took it. How isn't that fun? Oh, and zombies aren't technically cannibals as they're no longer really human). The zombies make-up is appalling, they look crap (They look like corpses. Because that's all they're supposed to look like. Animated corpses.), and the film is over 2 hours long, making it unbearable to watch (2 hours is just normal length for a film you amoeba). Avoid this trash at all costs and watch the remake as it is 100 times better. (What? You think the remake is better? Whilst Snyder's version doesn't shit all over the original like most modern remakes, it's not a patch on Romero's. It certainly hasn't had the lasting effect of this one.)

I had a witty segue here, but I've forgotten it so you'll have to make do with this picture of a giant squid instead. No I don't know why either...

Anyway, here's the next review:

My friend gave me a loan of this to watch and it was over two hours of dull monotonous drivel (I'm forced to ask if you have a brain, or wether you are in fact operating purely on instinct?). OK the effects were quite good for the time, but they were too few to make up for the main characters just sitting around doing nothing for three quarters of the film inside their shopping mall (Look. Effects are not a replacement for story, they are merely to augment it. Just ignore what that naughty Mr. Bay says.).

They could have decided to fight back, and eliminate some of the zombies (Well they did a bit didn't they. But there were fucking loads, and they felt there wasn't an awful lot of point), and reclaim the country (Excuse me? For all they know they are the last people on Earth, why the hell would they try? And that's before you get to the problem of a handful of people killing hundreds of millions of zombies...), but no they decide to twiddle their thumbs for almost two hours (It's called surviving). I almost cheered when the looters turned up and stormed the mall. (Well aren't you a sourpuss)

Anyway if you have two hours of your life that you don’t want, then go watch some paint dry it will be time better spent than watching this rubbish! (Well, if paint drying is better than one of the best horror films of all time, then I'm there!)

To round off today's post, here's a less-than glowing review from amazon.com:

I gave the remake GLOWING accolades (Well, at least we know your movie tastes are a bit shonky straight from the off I suppose). Someone in a chatroom (I should have known not to listen!) said that the original was much better (It's not just people in chatrooms by the way. Critics agree. Unless all people in chatrooms are professional critics, but that seems slightly unlikely to be honest). So I waltzed over to Circuit City (It must have taken ages to waltz there, you probably would have been better off walking) and purchased this. Sigh. I'll NEVER get that $35.00 back (Well, you'd better just shoot yourself now then, eh?). I feel so bad for having purchased this (It's not a snuff movie. It's nothing to be ashamed of. Quite the opposite in fact). This movie was not scary (At times, it's not meant to be). The zombies were not scary (Why? Because they don't run? They're zombies! They're not supposed to be able to run! They're corpses, with all the rigor mortis that being a corpse entails. Making them run would also have meant doing away with the criticism of consumerism that is at the heart of the movie. But I bet that went right above your head). The characters were completely insipid. Perhaps I wouldn't have felt cheated if I'd watched the original before the remake, but had I watched THIS drivel first I wouldn't have WANTED to see the remake--or anything else remotely connected to the movie (That's a bit petty). However, I thoroughly enjoyed the remake (More fool you), which I had to watch 10 times before it no longer scared me at all (Pussy). But this--I don't get it (No. On this we are in agreement. However, the fact that you're too thick to 'get it' is entirely your fault. Not the film's). It wasn't even REMOTELY close to the remake (Again, we agree. But I suspect we may differ on which one is way out in front). How does it get so many positive reviews? (Because it's a legendary piece of filmmaking that has inspired almost every zombie movie that came after in some way or another. It is also important for its biting criticism of many facets of life in the 1970s, most of which are as relevant today as they ever were. That's before we get onto the merits of the film itself, which include but are not limited to the strong direction, the strong acting, the [for the day] excellent effects, the engaging story and the mixing of fun with the scenes of violence and horror. There that'll do for starters. If you want more, contact Empire magazine who listed it in their The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time, or The New York Times who named it in their Best 1000 Movies Ever Made'.)

I'll see you again next time with more horrifying amazon reviews! (Did you see what I did there? Did you?) 

Halloween

Yeah, he's not at all scary. I definitely invite him round
for afternoon tea...        Image via hauntedshop

Continuing Paul's halloween theme from yesterday, today I will cast my rage-filled eye over Halloween. The 1978 original is considered one of the best horror movies of all time, and the progenitor of the 'slasher movie'. These reviewers, however, seem impervious to its, err, 'charms':

i read the previous reviews of halloween and they all gave it high marks (As well they should. It is a horror film that was exceedingly well put together). i dont even see why (Ah.). its terrible (Only a sith deals in absolutes...). a kid kills his sister and stops talking so is put in a mental hospital. when he escapes he goes and kills teens. sure it invented the 'slasher' generation (I think you mean genre. I don't think the film had sex with every woman on the planet to create a whole generation of half-man half-film mutants) but that doesnt make it a good film (No. It's pacing, camera angles and revolutionary ideas do.). also the killer michael myers is the WORST killer EVER in a film (In what way? He is an unstoppable killing machine, who doesn't speak or have real motive for his crimes. He's up there with the best). who the hell created him???? (John Carpenter and Debra Hill.) the only good thing about halloween is the acting of jamie lee curtis, though that isnt enough to save the film (I'm sure she will be delighted with this praise). 
personally i think that if you want a smartly made horror film go for the friday the 13th films (You deride this, then recommend Friday the 13th? Worse, you seem to rate that films shite sequels above this. God you're an idiot.). they are classic and totally worth checking into, with jason a great killer who you will end up supporting as he is so great. (I think you've missed the point.)

Here's another review jumping out from the closet, knife in hand:

 I'm surprised that this film is so highly rated and applauded (I'm surprised you're surprised). The film is not genuinely scary (It kind of is) and leaves much to be desired. The film feels like a high scholl project (School. Apparently you need to go back there...). The camera angles are awkward and annoying (Strange then that prominent critics singled out the camera angles for particular praise, hmm?), lacking any feeling of claustrophobia. As for the score, it is very repetitive and in my opinion reminiscent of Englebert Humperdinck's 'I'm a better man' track (Again, the simple music was and is praised. It doesn't get in the way of the film, or drag you out of the world Carpenter has created). The film feels cheap (Well it was made cheaply) and I felt cheated watching it (Why? Did you believe it was going to leap out the machine and tap-dance every couple of minutes?), after 30 minutes i was bored (Only people with small minds get bored), but I kept watching because i've heard so many amazing reviews of the film, personally the end titles provided more enjoyment than the entire movie (Are you sure you watched it right?). It is a shame to see Donald Pleasance (Pleasence actually) being under used in this appalling (In your opinion) film. Finally I do wonder why the film still has an 18 certificate, the scenes of violence aren't explicit it enough to warrent this certificate. (It could be the general tone of the film, or it could be that the BBFC has better things to do than re-classify every film every few years)

Some of the people who knock at my door on Halloween are more frightning! (Jehovah's witnesses are quite scary) 

DON'T MAKE THE MISTAKE TO BUY THIS FILM, IF YOU MUST SEE IT WAIT FOR IT TO BE SHOWN ON TELEVISION (I THINK THE BBC SHOW IT YEARLY) (Oh no! But I've already bought the film! What shall I do? WHAT SHALL I DO?)

Now we travel to America to escape the monster, but lo! It has followed us:

I thought movies were supposed to have little things called "plots." Well, Halloween has absolutely *no* plot whatsoever (Yes it does. See here for full details on this). The film is downright boring (Hardly. There's a madman with a big knife running around murdering people). The first hour of the film is sooooo boring and slow. The last hour isn't exciting, but it is more suspenseful than the first 60 minutes of the film (I think you'll find that the first half was building suspense. You see, suspense is really a lack of action but we know it's going to come). I was surprised at how much nudity there was in this film as well (It's a slasher. What were you expecting to see? Mickey Mouse doing a jig?). I can't imagine a mother (or father) letting their child watch this film (Well no. It's an 18 [or R in your stupid system] rated film about a psychopathic murderer. Which part of that screams 'family film'? Please don't mark a film down for not being child-friendly when it clearly isn't trying to be). It's gruesome and demented (Again. Slasher film. Not Mickey Mouse). I did not like one single solitary thing about Halloween. I do not recommend it at all. (So based on your hang-ups, you slate the film? Nice objective view there.)

Just when you think the monster is dead, it rises up once more:

why do people like this trash it isn't scary nor interesting (Scariness is personal opinion, but the film is certainly interesting, especially its impact on the horror films that followed) and the movie is slow paced that it looks like director John Carpenter shot this while walking slowly (Not walking slowly!) and the movie is low budget there is hardly any blood or good special effects (It doesn't need them. What special effects would have improved the film?) instead fans like it for its so-called suspense (It's not 'so-called suspense' it is suspense) and laughable scares (It's easy to make someone jump, saying boo will make them jump. It's even easy to make someone scared by using extreme gore. It's far harder to scare people with suspense, but this is real fear, not surprise or disgust. Carpenter achieves this). The main plot is a boy who murdered his sister and returns years later to kill babysitters in his hometown. Halloween is no treat but a trick (I see what you did there. Very witty.). Fans of horror films should rent something better (Fans of horror films probably already own this. Or should do, if only for its legacy). The only good part is when Jamie Lee Curtis is laying on the ground and in the background Michael Myers sits up slowly looking at her. (That is a terrific piece of camera work)

I think we have stopped the monster. For now...
Come back next time when we continue this Halloween season with another horror classic (you know, if I can be bothered...)

Halloween Special

So, I'm weeding out a special Halloween product just for your idiotic pleasure. Now, I'm not going to say all people with strange fetishes are idiots - after all, they comprise a decent number of readers on my other blog - but what do the following two words suggest to you:

Sexy. House.

 They suggest, I hope, that something is missing from my sentence. If I said, for Halloween, my lady-friend was to be dressing as a sexy house, you'd probably think you'd misheard, or I'd missed something out of my description (Thinking I meant a sexy houseplant, perhaps. Actually, that's still strange.)

 But no! The sexy house costume is a real thing for Halloween. No longer is sticking your penis inside a letterbox, only to be rejected by angry occupants a nightmare you have to bear.

Yea, is this doing it for you too? Mhh...

Image via CostumeSuperCentre.

So, in standard Weeding out the Idiots form, I've broken down the description with some mockery:

GO AS A COUPLE (Really? Is that how couples costumes work? I planned on wearing both myself. While crying. Into a box of tissues. On my own.) . EACH COSTUME SOLD SOLD (Sold sold) SEPARATELY**This walking peep show (Good show, my girlfriend wants to adopt David Mitchell. Probably to dress him like this) costume has a hidden kitty behind the front door. (Ah, because pussy is a slang term for a woman's vagina. I see what you've done there, it's very clever) Costume features a dress with windows and a door in just the right places (Those would be the boobies and aforementioned vagina. You know, if you want to really objectify a woman.). **PRICES FOR FEMALE COSTUMES ONLY. MALE COSTUMES CAN BE ORDERED SEPARATELY BY ADDING AN ORDER QUANTITY BELOW. (For 40 quid. For that piece of shit. Seriously)**

I mean, really. What people get up to in the privacy of their own homes is, of course, their own business. But if you fantasise that your companion was a big house and you were mortaring her up and wearing a crappy little blue hat, then you may have problems. And ladies: Are there any of you out there who worry your men aren't finding you house-like enough? Can't be bothered putting on the weight? Then maybe this is the costume for you...

 It's £40. 40! And that's on offer! And it's sold out! Who bought this? Why? Who wants to fuck a detached family home? Or be a human sized house riding atop a miraculously unharmed builder?

Well, me. But that's beside the point.

Paul's Rules number 3: Free Lovin'

This is a rule DVD box maker people: Don't tell me what I love!
 You know when you get a DVD, and it tells you what else to watch? Yea. That should be illegal. Bloody dictator DVDs, with their dictating. They're as bad as actual dictators. Well, maybe not. But I digress. Let me give you a case study:

 To my left is the DVD box for Spartacus, A must-have movie - Directed by Stanley Kubrick. The story of the historical Roman legend. Yes, I copied it off the box. Well, you know the film I mean. Right, standard blurb, picture, notes about the DVD features then Wham! 2/3s of the way down is this message:

IF YOU LIKE "SPARTACUS" YOU'LL LOVE...[There's a big picture of the 1932 Scarface box here. Imagine it]

Oh, what? I'll love it? Love it? So what you're saying is that:

1. The product I've bought is not my soul-mate.
2. You know exactly what I like, dislike and love based purely on me looking at the back of a box
3. I'm Spartacus.

But seriously? You can assure me, a complete stranger, that I will love this film, when you don't even know if I love the film I've presumably bought? I mean, I might just be reading this box because I'm bored, or because it's fallen on my face, or because 2 nuns are forcing me at gunpoint. Who knows? But you can make such statements with absolute certainty?

 Well, I can tell you this: I love my gran-mama, I love my girlfriend, and I love sexually assaulting ducks. I do not love 1932 Scarface. Don't get me wrong: I don't loath the film, I quite enjoyed it. Particularly the man who was crap at answering phones. I admire it, I'm impressed by the contribution it made to film history. But I don't love it. No sir, I do not.
 So, by all means, recommend films I may like based on what I appear to have purchased. But don't organise a wedding for the pair of us. And please, don't make me stick my penis in another DVD player.

Citizen Kane

Where's the colour? And wait a minute, there
was no cane in Citizen Kane...
Image via filmhistory

Every ten years since 1952, the movie magazine Sight & Sound (run by the British Film Institute) publishes a list of the best films of all time voted for by professional critics. The eminent film critic Roger Ebert once described the list as 'by far the most respected of the countless polls of great movies--the only one most serious movie people take seriously'. In 1962 Orson Welles' 1941 masterpiece Citizen Kane topped this list. It has held on to this title ever since. These Amazon.com reviewers, were not polled however:

Ok for its' time it might have been good because it did things never done before (How generous of you). I went in expecting the film to be brilliant, but it never started (Are you sure you had the disc in the machine? Or did you forget to press play?), it just kept on giving details all the way through (Well it was unlikely to become a blank screen after 30 minutes...).The basic idea that he was a man with lots of money who tried buy happiness but couldn't is a fine idea to start off with (Such high praise). The film didn't go any further in trying to challenge this idea are show the effects of this idea (He died alone, with no-one sorry to see him die. How is this not showing the effects of this idea?), it was just incredibly shallow and predictable (It isn't shallow! In no way is it shallow!). If people really want to watch films about what it is to be human watch almost any french film (The Transporter. That's French. Would you watch that to see what its like to be human?) such as those of traffaut (François Truffaut), and you will realise just how shallow Citizen Kane is (See my previous point about how it's not fucking shallow!)

Here is another review from the dregs of society:

I felt that this movie deserved less than a star (Oh dear...), but I couldn't put any fewer than one (Yes you could. You could have not bothered to review it at all...). I felt this because the movie was quite long (It's only 2 hours long) and very uninteresting (Most would say that the story is very interesting). It had no color (Well it was a black and white film from 1941. Of course it didn't have any colour you fucktard) and was uterly depressing (It wasn't that depressing. He did bring his problems onto himself, really. It's certainly less depressing than the likes of Apocalypse Now, In the Valley of Elah or Simon Cowell's existence). The camera angles were ok (Such high praise), but the acting really wasn't too good (Thank god you've told us all that Orson Welles couldn't act...). All the acters actors were always interupting themselves or each other and it just didn't flow very well in my mind. (I don't remember anything like that...)

What's that? More? Oh, alright, but don't tell your mother:

I'm 45 years old (Woohoo for you). I have seen so many great films in my life (Congratulations). I think I'm old enough to know what film is good or bad (It's not something you automatically get when you turn 45. Perhaps you're thinking of a prostate exam...). Who are those idiots calling Citizen Kane the best film ever made???? (Professional film critics. And directors. I could list them for you if you like. But I won't. Well not all of them anyway. It was critics such as Roger Ebert, Mark Kermode and Kim Newman. You know, ones that are highly respected. And directors such as Richard Linklater, Sam Mendes, Nicholas Meyer, John Boorman and Michael Mann) I wonder how many films those people have ever seen before saying such stupid things like that (Well I'd suggest that as critics have to watch 4 or 5 films a week every week, they've probably seen quite a few. Roger Ebert's site for example has somewhere over 5,500 reviews, and this is discounting films he saw for At The Movies. I think he's probably seen enough films to know what makes a good film by now...). It's extreamely extremely absurd. (Yes. Your review is extremely absurd. Now remove yourself from my sight.)

That's all we have time for today, but hurry back for more!

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Season 1

DS9 isn't as good as Babylon 5. Therefore it must be
destroyed... Image via India Broadband

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was an expansion to the Star Trek franchise and aired alongside the final couple of seasons of The Next Generation and the first few seasons of Voyager. Set on a space station rather than a ship, it is one of the more fondly remembered series in the Star Trek world among fans and critics alike. These reviewers, though, disagree:

It was innovative for its time due to the use of story arcs, which were a good thing for Star Trek and broke the genre's tradional use of stand alone episodes. In addition there was less 'ready room' dialogue ala Picard and TNG and more action! However Babylon 5 is superior. Its much darker still. More dramatic, realistic and exciting! (You gave ST:DS9 1 star because it wasn't as good as Babylon 5? You do realise that it isn't just a choice between 1 star or 5 star don't you? Surely if you liked DS9 a little bit less than B5, 4 stars would have been better? It's people like you who ruin Amazon reviews for the rest of us.)

Here we have an idiot from America:

I've been enjoying all of the treks coming out on DVD so naturally I purchased the first three seasons of DS9 (It's all good so far). I am finding the sets drab, the characters are all boring me as they strive to be such phoney "demi god, perfection" that I am struggling with my attention span (And here we go. It's a stylistically dark show so I can kind of understand the 'drab' bit, but the characters are strong. They're deep and realistic. They certainly don't strive to be 'demi god, perfection', they just strive to better people. Who doesn't want to be better?). Example: "My darling I know that coming to DSP cost you your career as a botanist. Please, I beg you to take our daughter and go on this expedition as a botanist." She responds, "I knew that I was giving up my career." (Those evil fuckers.)

This isn't entertainment. This is so dull I can't see straight. (It is entertainment. I know this because myself and many others were [and are] entertained by it)
I really did not want to spend 300 dollars in seasons, for somebodies socially progressive example of how we should all be behaving in our lives according to themselves. (Those pricks. How dare they be progressive? How dare they imagine a world with no war, racism or poverty? They're so evil they should all be thrown into a Sarlacc pit...)

If you want to wallow in socially progressive politics DS9 is for you. Just remember the rest of us love the Klingons and follow their example (Do you mean the Original Series where they remained pretty two-dimensional? Their whole characterisation consisted of them wanting to dominate everyone and be tyrannical! Actually, you probably want America to do that...). The socialist ideal lessons on us were not absorbed or learned. (More fool you then)

So far as I am concerned the popularity of Star Trek was abused by someone with a hidden agenda and it is DS9. (I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but Gene Roddenberry intended the Star Trek universe to be socialist. He hoped that one day the Earth really would be altruistic without religion, prejudice or money. If you don't like anything left of Thatcher, then you should probably never watch any Star Trek again. If nothing else could you please never review anything again...)

Well that's all from me today, but if I catch you being idiotic in any Amazon review then I'll kill you! Wait, that's probably too far. I think I'll just mock you...

Alien

Those letters are so scary...
Image, red6hosting

Regarded as both a sci-fi and horror classic, Alien is highly regarded in film circles. But not in these idiots' circles apparently:

anyone you can seriously say that they liked this movie is an idiot (Really? Well, then I must be an idiot. Thank God you've told me), made in 1979 the costumes look as if they were designed in the 50s (In what way? They're just shirts! Navy-esque shirts! What's so 50s about them?), for christs sake space suits had all ready been designed how far wrong can you go (They wore space-suits that fitted into the grimy, run-down world that Ridley Scott and H.R. Giger created. Immaculate white suits would have looked out of place).

also the plot is just terrible, firstly what stupid galactic military intelligence agency decides its a good idea to use an incompetent and unknowing crew as bait for apparantly superior predator (Well, they weren't bait per se. If they survived then that was fine, but the company didn't care either way. They just wanted the alien to be put into stasis. And they didn't tell the crew because they wouldn't have gone if they'd known. Would you willingly go into somewhere filled with aliens that wanted to kill you. Because if so, I can arrange it. Well, apart from the aliens bit...). relying on a android - that seemed to be, well lets just say i dont think it would work in the rain (I'm pretty sure they would have ironed kinks like that out. They were common-ish in the 'Alien' world) - to bring back this alien halfway across the galaxy for research purposes. if the andriod can pilot the craft alone then why is a human crew needed at all? why didnt they send a crew of android with on human as bait? (Because the humans were on another mission, delivering other things as well. This was presumably easier and less obvious than chartering a whole new 'flight')  

secondly why does the ships computer accomodate an entire room and need to be communicated with through typing commands and queries when it is capable to make androids that can pass themselves off as humans? (Maybe because the computer was too large to be housed anywhere else. And maybe typed commands just work fine, so why change it? Or maybe it has something to do with it BEING A FILM, made in 1979)

thirdly, i can hardly see the alien as being such a great predator seen as the way it meets its demise in the movie seems to be because it cant be bothered to kill the last human alive, the one that seems to be putting on a spacesuit and opening the airlock, come on now whats that about? (Well it's distracted by Jones the cat. I imagine that if it had known what Ripley was doing, it would probably have killed her. But it didn't, so it thought it had all the time in the world to kill her. Plus, that Alien was only a matter of hours old. Since it had no knowledge of spaceships, it is surely feasible that it didn't know what Ripley was doing was even possible. In any case, that doesn't stop it from being a great predator. Tigers don't know how to work doors, but I wouldn't say it wasn't a good predator)

on top of numerous plot pitfalls, the movie seems to flow from moments of extreme terror (loud noise, quick cuts) and moments off (of) calm and boredom (It's not boredom. It's called suspense. It is a much more difficult thing to pull off. It was also something that the great Alfred Hitchcock championed, saying that 'There is no terror in a bang, only in the anticipation of it') on the part of the crew, its just rubbish, why will no one else realise this. (Obviously everyone else is some kind of sub-species. Maybe we should instigate some kind of genocide of everyone that isn't you)

Here we have a couple more reviews, this time I have trawled Amazon.com to bring them to you wholesale!:

why does everyone thing (I presume you mean 'think') this movie is sooooo scary (Because it's full of suspense. And you're never sure when the Alien will strike. And what's not at least a little bit scary about when the alien bursts out of Kane's chest? It came as a shock to me when I first saw it, and I knew it was coming). first of all, this movie is the slowest movie in existance (Have you not seen Star Trek: The Motion Picture?). You have wait 24 hours before you finally see the alien (I could have sworn the film was only 2 hours long, but I must be wrong). I loved alien vs predator (Really? You loved it? Then I'm sorry, but you must be put to death for the good of humankind), and the aliens are my favorite. So I wanted to see the first alien movie. I stared watching it, and the letters going up on the screen kinda freaked me out (You got scared by letters? God you're a pussy.). Then 15 minutes later i fell asleep (So are you reviewing this film based on the first 15 minutes then? 'Cause that seems a little a lot stupid). The movie would have been better if it was taken place in present time, not 500 years from now (And how many Oscar-worthy films have you directed? Produced? Written? Yeah. I thought not). All the high-tech stuff made it even more boring (Well it was all kind of important wasn't it? We don't have the technology to get to other planets yet, so how would the story work?). I have a question,"why are all the most oldest, boring movies considered classics?" (Maybe it's just that you're an idiot. This was by a 'Kid Reviewer' so I'm going to go ahead and presume that you were brought up on a diet of utterly shit films and now equate 'good' with car chases and explosions every two minutes. If I wasn't so full of rage I'd pity you.) anyway I hated the movie, and I think they should remake it, in present time. (And I think they should remake you. With a hammer)

More?! You demand more?! Oh alright then, if you insist:

Any good sc-fi movies should have an meaningful and logical story, this is exactly what Alien lack. The CGI(if any (Well it hasn't got any. This was 1979. They used models and stuff for everything back then. I know this will be difficult for you to accept, but you're going to have to. And the sooner you do, the better)) and special effect frankly not today's standard (Well why would they be? Films that are 30 years old rarely look like they were made this morning) which make this film nothing more than a piece of junk (And you're excrement.). I keep on asking this question when I watched this film: "If nobody came to this alien planet, how can the Aliens survive in the first place?" (Because they were effectively in stasis, that's how. They hibernate until some alien comes to them and then unwittingly takes them to the next planet. It's all quite simple and explained in the film) (This aliens are not intelligence enough to make any spaceship (Because they have no purpose to. Just because they aren't technologically advanced, that doesn't make them stupid. And by the way? It's 'These aliens are not intelligent enough' what you said was just awful))If you looked for a film in similar genre I highly recommand you watch "The thing" instead (The Thing, is not an awful film, though it is somewhat derivative of this and other films. But to recommend it above Alien is frankly laughable). Alien is no more than the psychopath in "Friday the 13th" (Mrs. Voorhees, Jason's mother if you're interested) dressing in Alien suit (Never, ever compare this masterpiece to a cheap slasher film or I will fuck you up.). This film is just a waste of time and money. (And you, sir, are a waste of air and finite nutrients.)

The doctor says this anger is slowly killing me, but what does he know? Till next time faithful readers! 

God of War III

Wait, why is this copy not in a bin?
Image via Gametrailers

One of the most critically acclaimed games of this year is God of War III on the PS3. It has garnered a weighted average score of 92% on metacritic, indicating 'Universal Acclaim'. Predictably, this amazon reviewer does not agree:

Looks good but the gameplay is very annoying. The camera jumps all over the place and it can be difficult to get your bearings and see what is around you (Is it? I don't remember that. It only changes view when you move into another room. That seems quite straightforward to me). The controller keys are ok but it's difficult at times to swap from one weapon to another, especially in the heat of battle (No it isn't. In fact, I tend to switch weapons by accident in a fight it's so easy). I was rating it at about 6/10 (How generous) up until the part where you have to match the X, O etc on the controller with a series of symbols scrolling from left to right. They scroll fast and at times you have to press 2 symbols at once (Oh the horror!)! It takes an incredible amount of dexterity to get it right (No, it really doesn't.). I tried for two hours and just couldn't do it and I was playing it on easy (Wow. You must be pretty shit)! That was the moment I'd had enough. It went in the bin (Really? You paid £40 on a game and just through it in the bin? That's quite some rage quit.). I wouldn't pass it on to my worse worst enemy, so there was no way I'd sell this piece of crap on (People can make up their own minds you know). Games are supposed to be fun, especially on easy (This game is fun. I completed it on medium and I'm pretty crap. Maybe you just really suck at playing games.). This game is not fun, at all (Well, if the Chief of the Fun Police says so, it must be true). Stay well clear of this one. 

He is joined in this view by a handful of reviewers from across the pond. Be warned, there are spoilers up ahead:

My son, age 17, has been waiting for this game. He has the first two (He shouldn't. If he's only 17 now, then he can't have been when the first two were released. They have age restrictions for a reason), which he liked. He actually finished this game in 3 hours of play, at normal level not easy (Methinks someone was telling a few porkie pies). The game was 75% movies and cut-scenes (No it wasn't. Not even Metal Gear Solid 4 has that kind of ratio). The battles were boring (He rips monsters heads off, what's not to like?) and redundant (It's an action game, how are they 'redundant'? It's pretty much the point of the whole thing). He said that the storyline sucked (He said that? Then it must be true). The weapons were lame (One of them steals people's souls. If that's lame then I don't want to be cool) and useless (They're really not you know. They seem to be very effective at killing things actually). He said that they should have made GoW2 a little longer and they could have ended it there (Or they could have made this 3rd game in the series, so as not to rush the conclusion of one of the most critically acclaimed game trilogies ever made). No, the makers just had to get greedy and make a poorly designed third installment to get unsuspecting people's money (How is it badly designed? Expand, please). Kill all the gods, they are immortal and cannot be killed (Actually, it's possible that immortal just means they couldn't die naturally but could be killed by someone powerful enough, such as a demi-God like Kratos. And anyway, it's a fucking game! If you want a history lesson in Greek mythology read a bloody book). Kratos' goal was to kill Zeus, but he just destroys everything instead including himself (He does both. [SPOILERS] And then he brings hope to the earth, fixing all the damage he caused and then some). LAME! (Who are you? Hannah fucking Montana?) If you must play this game, PLEASE rent it first. Do not waste your money on it. My son said that it was the worst sequel in a game sequence that he has ever played. (Yup, 'cause your son is so great, his opinion is worth far more than the 100 professional reviewers whose reviews are counted on metacritic. All of whom gave it a positive review. Was his father God by any chance?)

And here we have possibly my favourite review ever, also from America:

When I play this game i hate games. When i hate games i hate them (Thank god you clarified that for me. I thought that when you said you hated something, you really meant that you wanted to screw it). One time i played some gizames (Nice spelling there) and they were all bad like this one (It must have been so traumatic for you). Sometimes I like games that go the whole 360 (I see what your doing) degrees and win with colors such as green and other shades of green (You have such a way with words. Oscar Wilde eat your heart out). I mean those gamz (Some more superlative spelling) dont need to have a halo (Oh you're so clever) on thur hed (You stick it to the dictionary with your disregard for their antiquated ideas of spelling), but sometimes you need the right gears for war (I really hate you) and this gme (Oh for fuck's sake it's spelled 'game' you pathetic piece of slime. How can you misspell it so many times? Is it deliberate?) aint not doin it. the end (I shall restrain myself from launching into a tirade into why the PS3 is far better than the Xbox 360, but only so that I can retain my moral high ground. I will, however, point out that it is fanboys like you that give the gaming world a bad name. Now do what you will with your precious 360 and never stray into the world of human beings again.)

You know, I'm doubtful that he even played the game he was reviewing...

Twishite, I mean, Twilight

How big and plasticky can a face get?
Image via Starpulse

Normally on this site we mock stupid one-star reviews of things we like. But today I'm gonna mix it up a bit and mock stupid five-star reviews of something I detest. That 'something' is Twilight in all it's forms. The following two reviews are for the film Twilight: New Moon:

One of the best films I have ever seen (Poor, poor you. Now that you've watched this you should watch the films I've listed below). I loved it and slightly preferred it to Twilight mainly because the film was more colourful and Bella smiles a bit more (It's nice to see that you've picked up on what's really important in a film). I have already watched it 3 times (I understand the US are looking into this as a new form of torture). I have never watched any of the special features on DVD's before the Twilight features but I enjoyed the extra special extras disc as much as the main one (Wow, praise indeed. This means that the extras for this film are better than most films...). I love the deleted and extended scene and fast forward Jacob abd Edward. I would watch it every night if I had the time (Wouldn't that drive you a little nuts?). Thank you Amazon

And:

This is the best film ever (Is it really? You, too, should check out the list below for films that I would like to suggest as perhaps being a little better) and it arrived 2 days before the release date!! All my friends were pretty jealous!!! (Wow! Two days early?! I guess you should be thankful that one of your friends didn't hack you to death with a pair of blunt, rusty scissors whilst you slept so that they could have it early instead).The best love story ever :) (Yup, necrophilia and bestiality are so romantic...)

This review for the book Twilight is in a similar vein:

I do not actually understand how i have lived without reading this book for so long (By breathing in and out probably). Without this book no life is complete (Oh no! My life is incomplete because this person said so! I'd better jump off a bridge.), and no i am not a fantasty junkie, i just have a very strong opinion (That's horrifically wrong.). However try this book and if you do not agree there is a good chance you weren't paying attention to what you were reading (Or that you're not a teenage girl who has no clue what constitutes a good book). Stephanie Meyer is a genius (No she isn't. Leonardo Da Vinci was a genius. Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein were geniuses. Stephanie Meyer is a piss-poor writer with all the creativity of a genital wart.), i have finally found a book that is better then Harry Potter and that is quite a challenge (No it isn't. If you're looking at the Harry Potter's on a shelf of a bookshop, look to your left a little and you'll see His Dark Materials by Phillip Pullman. They're significantly better for a start), The twilight saga will be hard to beat for anyone including some of the past literacy greats (Literary greats. Yes I'm sure Tolstoy, Dickens and co. are hanging up their pens as we speak. I've humoured you, now fuck off). On a final note BEST BOOK EVER WRITTEN and always will be (I'll throw this copy of Crime and Punishment that's not in my hand in the fire then. For an incomplete list of books better than Twilight, scan your eyes downwards a little)

As promised here's a list of just a few films in no particular order that are miles better than Twilight: New Moon:
The Godfather Trilogy, Apocalypse Now, Citizen Kane, Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Raging Bull, The Dark Knight, The Good The Bad And The Ugly, The Good The Bad And The Weird, Oldboy, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Sin City, The El Mariachi Trilogy, The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy, The Host, The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari, Nosferatu: Symphony Of Terror, Nosferatu: Phantom Of The Night, Star Wars (including the crappy ones), the Back To The Future trilogy, Platoon, Seven Samurai, Rashomon, The Bicycle Thieves, M, Metropolis, Blade Runner, The Matrix, Inception, the Indiana Jones films (even the crap one), the Jurassic Park trilogy, American Psycho, American Beauty, The Departed, The Aviator, The Alien films, the Predator films, fuck even the Alien Vs. Predator films, The Battleship Potemkin, The Birth Of A Nation (despite its racism), Vertigo, Psycho, the Toy Story trilogy, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Solaris (the Russian one), The Hurt Locker, Eastern Promises, There Will Be Blood, No Country For Old Men, Fargo, Miller's Crossing, The Big Lebowski, An American Werewolf in London and Pan's Labyrinth. I think that'll do for now. Feel free to add your own suggestions in the comments area.

And here's a handful of books better than Twilight, again in no particular order, except the order in which I remembered them:
War And Peace, Crime And Punishment, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Animal Farm, Oliver Twist, Lord Of The Rings, Hearts of Darkness, Dracula, Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?, Brideshead Revisited, The Old Man and the Sea, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Tess of the D'Urbevilles, Alice In Wonderland, Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas, To Kill A Mockingbird, Bleak House, Of Mice And Men, Catch-22, The Catcher In the Rye, Lord of the Flies, The Grapes of Wrath, On The Road, Pride And Prejudice, Wuthering Heights, Jane Eyre, The Iliad, The Odyssey, The Aenid, The Canterbury Tales, The Divine Comedy, Maus, Wathmen, The Dark Knight Returns, The Hitch-Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy, His Dark Materials, Harry Potter, Redwall, Tintin, Asterix, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Jurassic Park, The War of the Worlds, Birdsong, Rebecca, Treasure Island, William Shakespeare, The Good Soldier, Slaughterhouse 5, The Great Gatsby, The Crucible, and The Picture of Dorian Gray. There are more, but I'm writing this late and I'm tired. If I've missed anything obvious please leave a comment so I can kick myself for having forgotten it.
Till then friends, Romans (it's possible one of you is Roman...), countrymen, goodbye!

Psycho

I'm going to wow you all with a pun, ladies and gentleladies. and gentlemen. And manladies. And ladyboys. Everyone... And so on. <Ahem>
 Here's some reviews of Hitchcock's famous horror film, which I will go Psycho on!
 I'm so sorry. Sorry everyone.
 
Amazon.com:

The only reason Gus Van Sant's Psycho flopped is this: BOTH MOVIES ARE BAD! (Yea. Ok, foolish me) Hitchcock himself would never have been successful with this movie in the 90s. The truth of the matter is, people who say they love classic films over today's films(eg. Casablanca, Citizen Kane( I assume these are examples of classic films, and you're just bad at sentences.)) say it to give the impression they are intelligent film connoiseurs. (Actually, this may be a hard concept for you to understand, but maybe people just LIKE THEM. I'm a 19-year old arrogant bastard who enjoyed Snakes on a Plane when I watched it, twice. Both admittedly in a very drunken state. So why would I pretend to be a film connoisseur just to impress people? I liked Citizen Kane for it's own merits - the interesting story, the acting, the bit where they sing the song.)
Please save your ramblings for film students (you'll find these students working at your local one hour photo) (Will I? I'd better go and find some of these people to ramble at, so I can look like a film connoisseur. It's my goal in life.)

Amazon.com:

I have never watched a horror movie so dull as the original black and white Psycho.(Well, I'm very happy for you.) Nothing in the film is scary (What about when it goes "eh-EH eh-Eh eh-EH?) and the soundtrack is repetitive(repetitive, repetitve, repetitive) and not extremely memorable. The acting is very mediocre (How can it be VERY mediocre?) and I would suggest the remake anyday(Suggest it for what? A beauty pagent? A trip to Mars?). I'll never understand what the big fuss is, the movie stinks (Ooh, have they invented smellovision already?). I'd choose Halloween anyday and it bothers me that people have the audacity to say Halloween is a remake or some kind of copy of Psycho(Damn audacious Psycho-lovers and their stinky Halloween-hating audacity). Halloween may have the character name Sam Loomis--but they are com-pletely different characters. It also has the daughter of Janet Leigh, but Jamie Lee Curtis is much more convincing and just because you the daughter of an actress, it doesn't mean you do the same movies (Well, no. Where're you getting this argument you're replying to from anyway?). Hello people (Hi!), Psycho is merely a boring suspense film(So you found it to contain suspence? Then how was it also boring?...) (they never show anything in full graphic footage(Do you mean it's bad because it lacks gore? Well, I would mock you, but I'm impressed you can write this and wank to the Saw series at the same time)) and I'd recommend Dressed To Kill(a Psycho rip-off made way better(Because Hitchcock was notoriously talentless)), Carrie, Halloween, The Guardian, and even A Nightmare On Elm Street anyday before this lame excuse for a horror film. (Erm... Ok, some of those are good films, I'm not going to argue with that. But that doesn't mean Psycho is bad. It was meant to be slow and suspensefull - that is how you build suspence - and more psychologically scary, as Norman Bates seems like a relativly normal person. I'm sorry he didn't wear a mask and fedora and pig's blood and things from the other films you mentioned that I haven't seen. Well, I'm not actually sorry. But you get the point.)

Amazon.com: (Under the Title: Awful Overly Violent Movie)(A title which you never expand upon) 

This has got to be the worst movie ever. A plot about a guy that keeps his dead mother's body around and kills people in the shower. Lame (This has got to be the worst movie review ever. A review about Psycho where a guy talks about two plot points and doesn't explain why he found them so bad. Lame.) HOW DO YOU THINK THIS REVIEW HELPS ANYONE? AND HE KILLED ONE PERSON IN THE SHOWER! DID YOU JUST ASSEMBLE THE PLOT FROM TRAILERS YOU SAW ON T.V?

Amazon.com:

The only admittance I can muster(Erm. Yea, that's a sentence.) for this video is that it was probably influential in its day(Well, there we go then. Let's all go home). However, all the praise heaped on Psycho is basically garnered from that and has very little to go on, in reality (So your argument is that no-one actually likes the film these days? I liked it... Don't I count? WHY WON'T YOU LOOK AT ME?). Nowadays, this movie looks incredibly homemade (incredibly homemade? Oh my... What does that even mean?) and, at times boring, especially during the parts where it is obvious Hitchcock is trying to build "tension."(Hitchcock - what a cunt) Plus, it's in black-and-white, which makes a movie look old right away (Yea. All black-and-white movies are really old and crap. Fucking time-travelling Schindler's list). When Hitchcock tries to bring in the "psychological" element to the movie, it looks even worse, because it is dreadfully apparent that he has no idea what he's talking about (I don't think the film completely lacked a psychological basis) . Thankfully (Praise Jehovah!), someone decided to remake this movie, but that wasn't very astonishing either, since everyone already knows from this movie what the story will be (Well, if you will make a scene-for-scene remake...). Save your money and go to the theater to see any horror movie you want--it's guaranteed to be more believable than this one. (What if I want to see Psycho? Can I go and see that? But the paradox... Oh, the paradox! Help!)

Amazon.com:

This film is so boring and in the shower scene it was obviously Bates the wig even from shadow was awful.(Well, you covered a lot of... valid... points there. Let's examine them. Point one, "the film is boring". No. Go away. "It was obviously Bates in the shower scene". Yes. Well, not obviously, but yes. It was the twist. It wouldn't be satisfying if there weren't clues.)  SEE THE REMAKE FAR MORE ENTERTAINING! (Why is everyone shouting?)

 Amazon.com:

Well, I can't state how much I feel this movie is too overrated and medicore at best (Oh, I bet you can. Go on, try. I'll give you a cookie or something). It isn't scary and it is not exciting or violent (It's psychologically scary. It doesn't have to be violent. And it was suspenseful. That isn't the same as boring). The story is very retarded (Do you know what retarded means? Because you act as if you're speaking medically, where severe retardation (A term not used, to my knowledge, anymore) is defined as having an IQ lower than 60. Perhaps I missed that scene, Dr-professor Genius sir, but where was the film's IQ explained?) about a man that fulfiles his position as his dead mother and keeps her body in the basement (You know, I'm not a great writer myself, so I generally leave crappy sentences alone. But if you're going to call a film... an INANIMATE FUCKING OBJECT... a film "retarded", then you could at least use fucking sentences that make fucking sense. . Ohhhh, how interesting (Yes. That's clearly what most people thought), this is exactly the kind of movie I'd want to show to my intelligent teachers or friends (Then why are you insulting it?... Unless! Oh, you're being sarcastic! My sir, you looked like you were going one way, then you took me the other way! Zing!). Yea right.(You're right. Save it for the stupid teachers and friends. Out of interest, why do you have teachers round to watch films?) There are no good effects (What wankers), the acting, story, B and W color, and sets are lame(Stupid lame acting story in B and W with sets) and the let's find Marion sub plot is boring (Well, have you considered dropping acid when you watch films?). No I am not one of those teenagers obsesed with blood or gore and FX, (Neither am I! Let's get married and have loads of half-crap children!) I apreciated the bloodless halloween and Rosemary's Baby (and non-horror films)with interest and admiration(Well, how nice for you). People are always raving that Psycho paved the way for horror movies of the eightess but the truth is that Halloween ignited the formula and copy cats. There wasn't many horror movies in the 60's or 70's so how could Psycho cause this "formalic" version of horror movies (Well, look at what you're actually saying: There weren't that many horror movies before Psycho. Then there were). It couldn't because it wasn't formalic, it was just stupid (I'll let the critics know). Anyhow, a story about killers were bound to come up forth with or without Psycho (What's your point? What's going on here? I'm scared...). And if you think the shower sequence was scary then i must ask you, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN????????(Scotland. Well, to be exact, I spent most of the time since the film was made not existing. Then I spent about 9 months in my mother, in the most acceptable manner. Then I came out of her, and grew up. Now I'm here, writing about your review. Thanks for asking, and where have you been? Was it nice?)

I don't understand why the review of the original Pschyo (Pschyo? You've watched the wrong film...) and the newest version by Gus Van Sant differed. Newsflash people. BOTH WERE EXACTLY THE SAME. (Well, no. They were different. That's not a hard concept to understand.) Almost every shot and every piece of dialogue was exactly the same. (Even you admit only "almost" everything was exactly the same.) And the shots Gus Van Sant decided to actually change were shots that Hitchcock himself wanted to do, but couldn't because of limited budget and technology. (Yet that still makes them different.)