Short sweet & straight to the point; I actually forgot this movie existed.

It may not be Adam Shankman's "Hairspray", but the guy still proves how fantastic & phenomenal he is when doing musical numbers (which is when Shankman is at his uttermost best).

Before anything, yes, Rock of Ages is cheesy & has it's flaws, but the movie is still fun to watch, since that's what watching a musical & movie is all about (but since 97% of RT's community consists of prejudiced morons who have their heads rammed up the ass & take movies way too seriously, I sure as hell don't expect that out of them). If you want to avoid the story & everything, just watch the musical numbers which are much, much better than the movie itself.

Story/Plot: As I said, & as most people have pointed out, it's very cheesy, makes little sense, & as the consensus states very inconsequential, so that's one major fault of the movie, but can be overlooked if you're a very patient person as I am. For those who don't like musicals, this movie will just irritate you more. People who take a movie far too seriously (like 9&% of RT's community) will clearly not like it, & I'm not even saying that you have to like it, but to say this movie was bad & was put together with no effort would be like saying The Last Airbender was secretly a good movie if you overlook the infestation of problems it has.

So the plot is pretty simple, Sherri leaves her old town to head to Hollywood where the big dreams come true so she can become a great singer. It then involves the love story with Drew who also wants to become a big hit in te music industry. But the plot takes a big turn as well as a bit more confusion when it brings up the other subplots involved such as the anti-Rock/Metal preachers, gay love, Stacee Jaxx, & so on. The storytelling just gets confusing with all the weird twists thrown in & numerous characters. But like I said, if you're patient, it will make a bit of sense to you after you clear out all the plots & subplots in here.

Cast/Acting: The movie is listed with big-name Hollywood actors, & they all do a phenomenal job, as weird as their performances may be. But the one who deserves the biggest praise for their wonderful acting is om Cruise. Say what you what about him, but the guy does his roles just right, & in here is one of his best I have ever seen. I'd go on about every other actor here but that would take too much time from me.

Characters: Here is another fault to the movie; the movie just has way too many characters stuffed into it & focuses on them much too much, & doesn't make it really clear who the main focus really is. You have Sherrie & Drew (Julianne Hough Hough & Diego Boneta respectively), the actual main characters of the movie & love couple. Then you have Stacee Jaxx (Tom Cruise), a character that was or still actually is a Rock god & has left his band to be solo but continues to perform the same songs over & over again, & is looking for that 'perfect song, perfect sound that will make me want to live forever', hence his unnoticeable misery. Reporter Constance (Malin Akerman) is an interviewer & wants Stacee Jaxx to realize how controlled he is by Paul Gill (Paul Giamatti), & after a certain & hilariously awkward moment with Stacee she realizes how confused she is with her own life & makes the rock god realize his own inner feelings to what he really wants.

Patricia Whitmore (Catherine Zeta Jones) is a religious protestant against Rock music & has a very morbid resent towards Stacee Jaxx who doesn't know her own husband, Mike Whitmore (played by the still-hot Bryan Cranston), is cheating on her. I'd go one but like I said, too many characters fill the movie. But I will mention the awkward & comical characters of Lonny & Dennis (played by Russel Brand & Alec Baldwin respectively). With with this many characters a movie will be confusing & doesn't give you an actual focal point. If anything, I would have used very little time on the characters outside of Sherrie & drew, & Stacee Jaxx (questionably Constance too), & used a lot of info with the little time with them.

Musical numbers/Songs: This here is when director Adam Shankman gives you his best, & the greatest parts of the whole movie. With the exception of Russel Brand & Mary J. Blige, I had no idea any of the actors in this movie could sing, especially Tom Cruise. Apparently SHOULD have known Catherine Zeta Jones could sing since she was in Chicago, but I never watched that movie. The songs in here are all classic 80s rock music, & while I do ADORE all the ones used in here, some of them are actually better in this version than the original ones (because those some I like better actually work better they way they were done in this musical).

Now, before I continue on with this section, please do not give me some "They are edited tweaked, & cannot sing" bullshit, because that will only tell me you have a mental disorder, no further argument from there. I don't give a rat's ass who you are, how much you hate certain actors in this movie, & how much you hated this movie, they can sing, & nothing you tell me will change that solid fact. One of my friends, who gave less of a turd about this movie, already made it clear that the singers in here are great, & that's coming from him since he is a professional musician. If you think none of the actors in here can sing, then I must assume you must also think none of the singers in The Beatles or Kiss could sing (that's the type of logic you'd be using). There is no dubbing, lip-syncing, editing, auto-tune in this movie; Adam Shankman goes for all natural talent, & he proves that in this movie as well as Hairspray.

Anyways, the musical numbers are just phenomenal & as stated before when Adam Shankman is at his best. All of the musical numbers in here are everything most musicals should be; energetic, naturally performed, fantastically choreographed, & beautifully executed. My most personal favorite scenes are Shadows of the Night/Harden My Heart, Any way You Want it, I Want to know what Love is, & Pour Some Sugar on me.

The songs used in the films were:

- Sister Christian/Just Like Paradise/Nothin' but a Good Time
- Juke Box Hero/I Love Rock 'n' Roll
- Hit Me with Your Best Shot
- Waiting for a Girl Like You
- More Than Words/Heaven
- Wanted Dead or Alive
- I Want to Know What Love Is
- I Wanna Rock
- Pour Some Sugar on Me
- Harden My Heart
- Shadows of the Night/Harden My Heart
- Here I Go Again
- Can't Fight This Feeling
- Any Way You Want It
- Undercover Love
- Every Rose Has Its Thorn
- Rock You Like a Hurricane (only present in the extended cut)
- We Built This City/We're Not Gonna Take It
- Million Dollar Love
- Don't Stop Believin'
- Paradise City

Of the ones I do like better than the original songs:

Juke Box Hero/I Love Rock 'n' Roll - I've never liked the original version of the song, & Britney Spears' version of it from that dreadful "Crossroads" movie only made it worse for me. This version mixes it with another song & it actually sounds a bit darker than the original ones & still loaded with energy from it's stars.

Hit Me with Your Best Shot - While the original is great, the way Pat Benettar sang it sounded very snobby. Catherine Zeta Jones sounded a lot stronger & like she meant it.

I Want to Know What Love Is - Aside from being the most hilarious & awkward musical scene in the entire movie (no really, if you watch this scene with your parents or other relatives, you won't be able to look them straight in the face for a good while) slightly behind Can't Fight this Feeling Anymore, the song itself actually works & sounds a lot better as a duet, & plus the lyrics have been mixed in a bit because the original's lyrics started to sound a bit awkward around the very end.

Shadows of the Night/Harden My Heart - Not only is this my favorite song in the whole soundtrack but also the best scene in the whole movie next to "Any Way you Want it". The way Mary J Blige sings this song using her soulful voice & the way the song was changed to a more R&B style (which was originally Rock & Blues) kicks ass. Another thing, the way the strippers/exotic dancers dance on those poles is so unreal, & only makes one want to dance on the poles as well. And plus, I find the way they stomp those heels to be hot!

And don't get me wrong, I adore the original "Shadows of the Night" by Pat Benettar but the way they changed this song from a rock to an R&B one was a hell of a lot better for me.

As far as the other songs go, they're all performed spectacularly. Every Rose has it's thorn is possibly the weakest rock song in the soundtrack. But the worst songs in the soundtrack are definitely the Undercover love or any of the songs sung by the Crazy Guyeezz (do they even exist?). why? Obviously, because you don't put a boy-band pop song in a soundtrack that consists of 80s rock songs. It just doesn't work, doesn't look right, & it sure as hell looks bad. Not that those are bad songs, they're not great either, but when you just finished hearing "Wanted Dead or Alive" or "Any Way You Want It" & you hear the first few seconds of "Undercover Love" it sounds utterly ridiculous & it just seems illogical to put a song like that in Rock of Ages, even for the intention.

For those of you wondering what the actual intention of the pop songs was, it was a homage as to when in that decade most music companies thought out of sheer stupidity that Rock was dead since they saw a bunch of squealing moron girls going bat-shit insane over dudes in a band looking like they were thrown out of a fashion disaster camp & that Pop was the new thing. I love Pop, but no way in hell would I take it over classic rock.

I mainly like how some of the songs actually work as a group, & I found "Wanted Dead or Alive" sounded a lot better with a chorus than the actual guy himself yelling "WANTED!".

Directing: Adam Shankman has a great visual & directing style regardless of what you think of his films. That being said, I honestly couldn't think of any other director better suited to direct Rock of Ages other than him, because like with Hairspray, the guy is a full blown phenomenon with musicals, even if it's just the musical numbers themselves. You can give him any songs & the guy can give you his directing style suited exactly for the song. Hell, you'll most likely get an intentionally shitty video if the song sucked, but that there will tell you what he's capable of.

But Shankman is one of the best musical directors out there, regardless if you like his movies or not (that he's directed, that is). Rock of Ages is just proof that the guy gives his effort & puts his heart into his films, even the original band members of the songs used in the stage/movie supported this movie & loved that he was giving all his honest homages to the classic rock era. Musicals are not easy movies to make, no. Just the behind the scenes of this movie or even the behind the scenes work of other musicals like Sweeney Todd or Little Shop of Horrors gives you what a nightmare it is to direct these. If anything, I would want to see what he would do if Adam directed or at least did the choreography for Wicked.

Dialogue: Most of the story words is given through the songs, but the dialogue outside of the music was ok. Nothing bad, at all, it was just average.

Final summation, the movie rocked, & is definitely one of my all time favorite musicals. Top 5? No, unfortunately. But it is a worthy mention, & I will always love the movie. It's largely silly, & it has flaws, all films have flaws, even ones everyone worships has flaws no matter how much they deny it. It's a guilty pleasure I suppose. Who doesn't have one or plenty? Those who say they don't are idiots without a doubt.

"Nothin' but a good time" was this movie's intention, & that's certainly what I had after watching it.

Fun Trivia:

- Gloria Estefan was originally considered, heavily, for the role of Patricia Whitmore.

- Seth Rogen was offered the role of Lonny before Russel Brand, but turned it down due to his citing of lack of singing abilities.

- The band Poison & Def Leppard performed a live concert with a Bourbon Room backdrop for their stage. Def Leppard also dedicated their Pour Some Sugar on Me song on stage to their "good old friend Stacee Jaxx"

"Feast on this, motherfucker!"

Looks like an abomination just from the commercials.

John Carter's major & most obvious of problems is how messy it is how much sense it doesn't make.

As far as what I've been told, the films has crammed over 5 different plot elements & stories from the Barsoom series this movie is based on. However, by trying to cram in about 7 of the earlier stories into the last of the books into 2 hours is tricky & completely illogical, as illogical as when Shayamalan decided to use only 2 hours to make The Last Airbender & cramming in less than half of the the first book/season of the TV show & call it a movie. If you wanted to fit in maybe two books or a large Bible of a book (Stephen King's IT) into less than 3 hours, then go ahead, make that much smarter alternative movie, but fitting in over 12-15 worth of book material into 2 hours instead of 4 is a major mistake.

The rest of the film's problems are noticeable, & quite possibly the only redeeming factors it has are the performances & special effects.

One irrelevant problem but still a major fault as to why there is no possibility to a necessary sequel would be the massive flop it was at the box office. It DID do decent in the box office, but when put on inflation, compared to other box office performances, & on it's own terms John Carter is still a major flop, & sadly lands as one of the biggest box office flops in history. This makes the second movie that involves "Mars" that Disney has done that does poorly in the box office (the other one being Mars Needs Moms [which is considered the worst box office bomb in history], a Disney animated movie that gave me zip interest to watch); seems like DIsney should just leave Mars alone. Not to mention that it will also not age well, like, not at all unless the film gets a sequel, & that's if the sequel is better than this.

Is it entertaining? Mostly, yes. But it lacks anything else, especially how rushed it was.

So overall, John Carter sucked, & from what the director has done, he hasn't made anything that I liked with the exception of Wall-E, & Monster's Inc. I find it so hard to believe that this director who made Wall-E could make this. If anything I would highly recommend that this movie get a sequel, regardless of it's box office bomb. But that sequel won't happen because apparently Stanton thinks that a movie like Finding Nemo needs & deserves a sequel over John Carter. Do Stanton or Pixar not know that none of their films other than The Incredibles deserve & need a sequel?

Moral of the story: Go batshit insane & then try to commit suicide when your boyfriend leaves you.

I FORCED myself to say this movie was actually good & better than the first one...it worked. But man was I wrong rewatching this again. I feel like I should shoot myself for saying such a thing.

Sorry I keep reviewing this movie so much, there is just always something I find to add on this review that i missed or remembered. This has to be my most updated review in my page.

Now, before I continue on, let it be clear that I like the Twilight movies, they aren't THAT bad (this one was), & just because I like them doesn't invalidate my opinion or automatically give you a reason to thumb down or even mean that these are the only movies I have watched; no, I've watched plenty more movies than these, & far better. So, don't give me that crap. And one more thing, just because I like these movies does not automatically mean you have to treat me like these are the only films or series I ever liked. You want to know what some truly shitty movies are that deserve the hate these movies have? How's about you watch "You don't mess With the Zohan" or "The Haunting of Molly Heartly" or "The Happening".

Now, the major problem I had with this movie was how BORING it was. Not to mention slow, poorly dialogued, & predictably plotted. However, while the acting still wasn't too good, it was still better than the first one, as well as the action, & special effects. But it's not worth noting, so you're better off watching the first one than this.

Plot/Story: Pretty much like in the first one, there really isn't a plot or story, but unlike this one, I had some reasons to like the first one. Now, the movie as a whole is just boring, really, really boring. Why is that? Well, it's directed by Chris Weitz, the guy who directed "The Golden Compass", one of the most boring movies ever made. And it is also predictable. You know from the moment one thing happens, the next one can already be seen from a mile away. There isn't one part of this movie that is not predictable.

But this movie can also be described as a stripper movie (more on that later below).

Characters: The characters in here pretty much became assholes in this movie than in the first one (despite Edward still being an asshole in the first one). Let's face one thing, Jacob was pretty much the only reason this movie was made, mainly because Jacob (Taylor Lautner) spent 97% of the time without his shirt. Hey Jacob, how's about you become a male stripper? I'm sure you'll make twice as much money stripping for the girls than this movie made in the box office. Or better yet, I'm sure any of the raging zombie Twilight fangirls will do anything for you to let them touch your abs.

As for Edward, dear Neptune, the fact that he left Bella over something HE DIDN'T DO not only makes him a douchebag, but an idiot as well. I don't hate Pattinson, but his character just pisses me off. Edward can also be described as a human condom! He'll protect Bella from anything! Well, except for now.

Bella Swan in here pretty much turns emo & boring, & she also loses her fucking mind. She can't handle Edward being away so she goes batshit insane & does the craziest shit no normal/sane teenage girl would possibly do when their loved one leaves them, from seeing visions of Edward everywhere she goes to actually taking a ride with a random biker; she practically almost kills herself too. So the message in this movie for the girls is, that if your man dumps you, you should commit suicide.

By far I have to say the only character I really liked in this movie was Alice.

As for the other Native guys or werewolves, here is what I meant from the above statement about this movie being a stripper film: Just like Jacob, you spotted these werewolf guys shirtless 97% of the time (I think). Then there are the Volturi, all boring, lame characters. I expected them to be pretty cool, but they were just annoying, & boring as hell with some truly mind numbing words coming out of their mouths.

And lemme just say that all in all, Edward & Jacob are gay for each other.

Cast/Acting: While I do like Stewart, & I loved Pattinson's role in "Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire", the acting in here was terrible. Better than the first one, but still horrible. Kristen had the same face throughout the whole movie, whether she smiled or was sad. Pattinson looked constipated, pretty much it for him. And I guess I could say that Taylor Lautner was a good choice to play Jacob, but his performance was just boring, & he didn't look like he was taking himself seriously.

Now, before I continue on the the next category, this movie acting sucked, & so did Twilight's, but they are NOT THE WORST ACTED MOVIES EVER. There are plenty of other movies out there with acting far worse than this one. It's not hard to believe. And the same goes for the main actors; Kristen Stewart & Robert Pattinson are not terrible actors, same somewhat goes for Taylor Lautner. Just because these are the only movies you have seen these actors in doesn't automatically make them some of the worst ever like some of the idiots on this page make them out to be. I thought Rooney Mara was a shitty actress, simply because of her dreadful, plank acting in that abomination remake of "A Nightmare on Elm Street", but I thought otherwise when I saw how wonderful she was in "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo".

If you seriously think Stewart is a horrible actress simply because this is the only movie you've watched her in, then you're an idiot. She was in other, far better movies, where she gives far better performances; like Panic Room, Adventureland, Zathura, Breaking Dawn Part 1 & 2, The Runaways, The Yellow Handkerchief, & Speak. When Stewart gives a performance, she GIVES a performance The same goes for Pattinson, he was in Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire, & Order of the Phoenix, both amazing movies he gave great performances in. And while he hasn't been in many good movies since those two like Kristen has, at least when he tries, he tries & gives it his best. To say Pattinson or Stewart can't act simply based off anti-Twilight bullshit would be the equivalent of saying that you think a certain actor is shitty at acting just because you don't like him/her. If all of you anti-Twilighters seriously HATE the main actors just because they were in Twilight or simply because they played the characters you hated in the books then I seriously feel a massive amount of pity for you. If you want to know what a truly terrible actor/actress is, then how's about you watch any movies with Tara Reid, &/or Ashton Kutcher. I'll take Stewart & Pattinson as actors over Jessica Alba, Eva Mendez, Ashton Kutcher, & Tara Reid any day.

Special Effects: Anyone that honestly thought that the CGI wolves in here were one of the worst effects ever needs some serious help. I'm not saying that they were amazing, but the CGI in here wasn't terrible; it wasn't great, but not terrible. I've seen better CGI wolves (Van Helsing), but anyone that honestly compares good or bad special effects to this movie's effects needs a life & needs to know what bad special effects are. You want to see some bad special effects, then watch The "Core".

As for the makeup, umm...when the hell did the makeup on the vampires go so wrong? What the hell was the director thinking when he made the vampires, especially Edward, so damn white that he looked like he was wearing lipstick? I don't know, I really don't know. The first movie had the vampires simply pale, & looked as if they were just wearing a bit of chap stick; at least there they had the vampire-like quality to the paleness. But in this one, I swear I could have confused Edward or any of the male vampires as a tranny.

Chemistry: I don't really care for Edward & Bella's chemistry in this one, it was so dull & boring that I honestly think that seeing some chemistry between Edward & Jacob would have had more life into it.

Dialogue: Wow, just wow. Now before I go on, I'm going to point out that this movie's dialogue was so bad & boring, that I almost fell asleep to it. No joke, & while this is one of the worst dialogue I have ever heard, trust me, this movie's dialogue is far better compared to the dialogue in "Crossroads" & "The Adventures of Sharkboy & Lavagirl".

"They run...real fast!"

Direction: *Face palm* Do I really have to tell you guys about this...actually, do you even WANT me to tell you about the direction in this movie? Chris Weitz is such a BORING director with a very BORING directing style! Baz Lurhmann & Christopher Nolan have more of a thrilling directing style compared to Weitz! Now I will say that while I don't really like Nolan, & his movies are well written & executed, his style is just so blue & boring to me. But anyways, yeah, the directing style to this movie is just by far one of the most boring styles I have ever seen.

Style (OMG new category!!! :D): Each Twilight movie had a very different designing style, & this one's style wasn't too bad. The first one had an admittedly emo, blue, & somewhat dark style to it. This one has a very fantasy look to it but also rather historical-looking. The third one was dark & grim, & action-packed. And as for the last one, it has a very surreal, gothic, fantasy, & even soap-opera style to it. However, this one is the weakest of the styles. A stylish fantasy look doesn't cover up the rest of the flaws it has.

Soundtrack/Score: Man oh man, I expected the soundtrack to this movie to be as good or better than the first movie's soundtrack, but wow, was I proven wrong yet again. The music in this movie is just as boring as the film itself. No song in this movie was worth my time listening to, & isn't worth putting in my iPod for that matter as well. Hell the songs in here barely fit the movie's boring style. All the other installments of this franchise have some kick-ass soundtracks to them, & even if you don't like the movies you can't deny that they know what they're doing with the music, but this one right here is just bad. It's unbelievable that something could go so wrong in a soundtrack for these movies.

Now the score is a different thing. I loved the score to this movie. No more than Carter Burwell's score for "Twilight", but wow, it is probably the best feature or the only redeeming feature about this movie. Pretty much it for that.

How true it is to it's source: Now, I read the books, or at least the first three (more on that in a bit), & I have to say I did not like them. They sucked in other words, but oh, I'd rather force myself to read them over & over again than to ever force myself to even grab Eragon & flip the first handful of pages to it &/or watch the movie ever again. Yeah, Eragon the book & movie were that much worse. Now, while I pretty much forgot what the book to this one was like after a while, & as well as the third one, I have to say that this movie, out of the three, has to be the one that stood the closest to the book, but unlike in the first one, this movie didn't really improve much on anything. Om fact, that's where the main problem to the film lied; keeping it far too loyal to the book.

What made me like the first one more was how Catherine Hardwicke actually IMPROVED the many flaws the first book had: such as fleshing out Bella by making her character more like a normal high school girl & removing how much she talked about Edward's beauty 75% of the time, & adding variety to the vampires (I.E. making Laurent black & not white). This one on the other hand, didn't, & only made it ten times more boring. Now, as I stated above, I read the first three books; the first one was nothing too special, the second one was boring & forgettable, & I completely forgot the third one, so, I can't compare it much to the third movie. Now, I DID get to the fourth book, Breaking Dawn, however, I closed it at a certain point & returned it to the library. Why? Because it was getting really fucking creepy.

Now, I will compliment the books on one thing, they have very pretty covers, & they would look very nice on my shelves simply for how nice they look. Ugh, it's so unfair how such beautiful covers like the books have are wasted on such crappy stories. Same goes for the movies, the movies may not be as great as other films I've watched, but they undeniably have very, very pretty posters that look nice on anyone's walls, & very funky soundtracks (except for this one's).

And you know what, I'll point this out, I give thumbs down to positive & negative reviews that are terribly written. People who give this movie a 0%-10% or a 60%-100 without writing any good reasons to why deserve & get a thumbs down from me, & from anyone else. I HAVE given thumbs up to positive & negative reviews because people wrote good reviews on them & had their fine reasons, unlike others who just write "BESTEST MOVIE EVAR!!!", "OMG I lubvD this SO maUCXH!!!!!!!!!!1!!!11111!1!1!111!!!" or "Gay movie is gay like a gay porn video & sucks so much dick like them!!1", "WORST movie ever made int eh history of man kind!!!!" But just to clarify things, I have given thumbs up to negative reviews more often than I have to positive or poorly written ones, or even thumbs down.

So, this movie was boring, & not even great. In fact, I'm in a huge fight with my head whether this movie is on the 'movies only good to waste time on' or 'movies you should watch only if you never want almost 2 hours of your life back' kind of movies. All I can say is that this movie is pretty much 4 hours I'll never get back. Yes, I watched it twice, the first time was to finally watch it since I didn't see it in theaters, at that time, I was forcing myself to say I liked it & was better than the first one. And the second time was with my siblings, we all got so bored that they were doing something else, & I struggled to watch it that time. It's not one of the worst movies I have ever seen, but it sure was bad. But if I WERE to add it onto a list of the worst films I have ever seen, it would possibly be the last one on the list or before the last one. I actually regret buying the movie. I should have bought Twilight on Blu-Ray instead, because at least the first movie was able to entertain me. This one, was just unbearable.

If anything, this was a completely worthless installment of the franchise. And I'm not saying this because I didn't like it & because it was bad, but because the whole movie does not progress at all from the first one. If anything, it only drags on countless hours & doesn't accomplish anything. The movie was mainly supposed to be how Victoria was after Bella, but it drags on so endlessly & she does nothing but be there to be annoying. So if anything, you can skip this movie not only to save yourself time & life, but because it will not affect what you will watcher later; it does not connect the movies at all. You can just watch Eclipse or Breaking Dawn Part 1-2 after watching Twilight & trust me, you did not miss a SINGLE thing from skipping the second installment. Trust me, it's that big of a waste of time. This movie bears no connection to the other movies.

Now, I'm pretty sure I'm going to get thumbed down & hated for the next set of paragraphs, but oh well, the truth hurts;

The vampires & wolves in this movies are still what they are, WOLVES & VAMPIRES. There is no such thing as a 'real vampire' or 'real werewolf'. In case you haven't noticed, vampires were never blood-sucking demons in the first place. Before Bram Stoker changed vampires, vampires were originally creatures who fed on energy. And also, the sparkling vampires idea isn't terrible or stupid, I made my own vampires in my art sparkle (but I had that idea way before I ever heard about Twilight). There are far more idiotic vampires out there in the world of vampireology than Twilight's vampires. I would know, because I love vampires & study the many different kinds there are in the world; & I can tell you right now that there are far more ridiculous vampires than Twilight's (feel free to ask me to name a few for you). It sickens me to see how ignorant Twilight haters just think they know what a 'real vampire/werewolf' & 'real movie' is because they've watched Nosferatu, the Wolfman, Bram Stoker's Dracula, And American Werewolf in London, The Lost Boys, & so on. But the sad truth is, they don't know what the hell they're talking about. I don't care how much you hated both Twilight & it's vampires/werewolves or give a rat's ass who you are; can it! There is no such thing as a real vampire or real werewolf or real movies. So don't come by giving me your "real vampires" bullshit. And all of this is coming from someone who grew up watching "The Lost Boys", "Bram Stoker's Dracula", & "Sleepwalkers" (movies I still love to this day).

Ok, I get it, & so does anyone who doesn't like these movies that has sanity in their brain, you hate the Twilight movies, there, move on with your fucking life. They may be bad (to you), but they aren't Battlefield Earth, Ghost Rider, The Last Airbender, or even The Happening. They may have been awful movies to you, but you know what? They didn't give you AIDS. So stop acting like a bunch of incompetent, 1-IQ morons & grow up.

One thing that bothers me, is why the hell was Eclipse nominated for Razzies, & won one which it shouldn't have, but this one didn't, & deserved to get nominated? Another thing that bothers me, is how the hell do the top critics give this movie a 42% (top critic wise), but yet Breaking Dawn Part 1 gets a 21% critic-wise?

And the last paragraph, The Twilight Saga are not the worst series of movies ever made, let alone worst vampire movies as well. I have seen far worse series of movies (such as the Friedberg & Seltzer movies) than these. And anyone that thinks these movies are the worst series, let alone vampire series, ever made is beyond help. You want to know what vampire movies are actually shit compared or not to the Twilight movies? Then go watch Bloodrayne, Dracula 3000, &/or even Queen of the Damned. And anyone that goes by comparing EVERYTHING to Twilight &/or saying "Not as bad as Twilight!" or "It's still better than Twilight!" or anything of similarity loses all credibility. I'm not kidding. Again, I don't give a rat's ass who the hell you are, you compare anything to Twilight or say any of the things I previously stated, you lose all credibility. It's that simple. Yes, there are movies that you CAN compare to Twilight, but not EVERYTHING needs to be compared to them. I've even seen morons comparing Twilight to Repo! The Genetic Opera! I love the first & third Twilight movies, but I hate seeing everyone compare EVERYTHING to them, & I also love way more movies than these, hell Harry Potter I something I adore one hundred times more than this & are TEN TIMES BETTER. Feel free to say I have terrible taste in films after what you just read, I'll only know I was further right.

How do you torture someone who has sanity in their head? Make them watch this garbage, of course! This right here is perfect torture for anyone who hates bad movies.

This 'movie' is a garbage sequel to an already garbage first one (and it pisses me off that 57% of the the moron users enjoyed this shit but only 34% enjoyed the Dark Water remake) that should not have happened because it quite frankly makes as much sense as watching Darth Vader at the beach using a water filter to make pure water out of salt water (get the reference?). That's what you'll get from this.

Plot/Story: It makes little (emphasis on 'little'), to no sense at all. We have one plot line, which then switches to another, then into another, & then into the same as before. It's so damn confusing that you ask yourself if any of those have any connection to the story . In which this case, they do, but you will have to HURT your brain trying to put all the plot elements together to understand it, & it is NOT worth it. But despite having something to do with the movie, they are nothing to help the story or anything of similarity. There are so many things wrong with the story's structure that you will just leave halfway through the movie. Oh but trust me, the twisting, irritating plot lines are the most obvious of it's problems but the least of them.

As for the story, it's a sequel to the first one, & our main character Aubrey has to go to Japan to find out what happened to her sister Karen (the same character from the first one). After seeing Karen's death in front of her own eyes, she sets out to find out the origin of the ghost of Kayako & why she kills. But the film is boring, & even more predictable than the first one. And now that I mention it, why would we want to know why Kayako kills people in the first lace, when, in the first one it was already clear to us? In other words, this movie was unnecessary.

But wait, I'm not done. The movie is also rather illogical on a handful of points, such as when Allison is trying to run away from Kayako, & she is being taken to the other world by Kayako, in a phone booth! How does no one see that? Actually, how is there NO ONE AROUND to see what had just happened there? Doesn't make sense to me. Then we have the REASON to why Kayako kills, because she wants everyone to suffer the same way she did. That sounds rather mindless & pointless to me. And then we have the fact that apparently the three girls from the beginning of the movie are being chased around by Kayako, but the ending twist of the film tells us that it actually wasn't Kayako haunting them, but Aubrey herself! How the hell does that add up to what we were actually watching?

Characters: They're all useless, & far too many of them! No character has any real relevance to the plot or story, & they were all practically asking to be killed, actually, they all deserved to be killed (except for the small American family). And again, there is just too many of them being focused on; so you ask yourself if there is even a main character for the movie in the first place. Aubrey (played by Amber Tamblyn) is a weak & dim-witted idiot of a character who ran from practically anything that popped up & didn't do anything to help. Allison (played by Arielle Kebbel) was some freaked out, paranoid outcast who doesn't seem to put any effort to do anything. Then we have Vannessa (Teresa Palmer) & Miyuki (Misako Uno), your typical high school popular & rebellious girls. Vanessa is your typical bitch (sorry for using that word, but it's the only word I can think of to describe what she really is) who only wants to humiliate you & tries to make you part of her crew only to laugh at you, & Miyuki is the follower.

Cast & Acting: I have no words to how lame the casting choices are. The only familiar faces in this movie are Sarah Michelle Gellar & Takako Fiji. The acting on the other hand, was great.

Effects/Scares: Just like the first one, the large use of CGI in here was unnecessary, despite being good (the original only used the effects when necessary). And the scares, just like the first one, aren't present. Only one scene managed to make me jump off my seat, but that's because it caught me off guard.

Final summation, this film sucks ten times more than the first one, & is more predictable & confusing. This movie is only worth watching if you want to kill or waste time. If you want to know what a REAL horror movie is then watch The Orphanage or Rec.

I waited 6 years...for THIS?!

Before I continue on, let me make it clear that I have NEVER played a single game in the Silent Hill franchise, despite my love for them. "How can you love a franchise you don't play?" you might be asking yourself right now. Well, to point that out, I actually began to read about each & every SH game on the Wikipedia & Silent Hill Wikia pages, & slowly began to love the franchise. I want to play at least the first two, then Homecoming, but that won't be happening anytime soon.

Anyways, back to this. So after that, you'd expect me to like this movie, & the previous one. Well, I DID like the first one, despite the inconsistencies (Pyramid should NOT have been put in there) & the extreme focus of the cult (something the first two or three games did not really emphasize on). But this sequel, no, no, it was awful.

Silent Hill was one of those video game adaptions that I TRULY waited for a sequel to, & now that I got it, I wish the sequel would have kept me waiting longer if it could have been done better. I will tell you though, that despite how bad of a game adaption this is, it is still far superior to any of the so-called 'game adaptions' that Uwe Boll has given you.

Cast/Acting: The only actors that returned from the first movie was Sean Bean's hot ass, & cameos from Radha Mitchell. The rest of the actors are recognizable, but unworthy. The acting in this movie is wooden, very wooden. Each actor looks so lifeless, bored, uninterested, & forced. With that, the movie honestly doesn't get much better you can assume.

Characters: Like the consensus already stated, the characters in this movie are weak. So weak that you'd be surprised how they don't die within the first 5 minutes of screen time the have. You honestly could live less of a shit about them, & instead you just want to see more of the cool-looking enemies that appear from the games. Sharon is afraid of any little thing that approaches her. You could throw a piece of toilet paper at her & she'd go bat-shit freaked out.

The only characters that aren't even characters you'll enjoy looking at are the Silent Hill enemies that only makes cameos in the movie, save for Pyramid Head (who still does NOT belong here).

Effects: The only redeeming value this movie has, save for the ending of the movie (and no, I don't mean the ending credits). The 3D was spectacular, & worth paying for. The effects to the monsters found in this movie were perfect & well done, but sadly, each monster is not given enough screen time, just like the first movie.

Plot/Story: First off, this movie is supposed to be a sequel to the first one, & is loosely adapted from the third Silent Hill game. But the story isn't actually there & it is so incomprehensible, & the plot is loaded with tons of inconsistencies & retcons. Yes, I used the word incomprehensible even after the consensus already stated it, but I thought of that word anyways as I watched the movie.

Not only does the movie adore referencing how it's a sequel to the first one, but it also enjoys leaving a lot of loose ends, lots of missing elements, & doesn't want to hold still. There are points in the story where you actually wonder what the hell does it have to do with the movie & why does this happen. There is also much less mythos & storytelling about Silent Hill in here than in the first one. The first movie gave you an excessive amount of information about the cult & Alessa, but very little on Silent Hill itself (and that's if they actually mentioned anything about Silent Hill).

The story also has lots of loose ends, like I said. There are so many things that don't connect, are not brought up earlier in the film to explain them, lots of inconsistencies, & at times just makes no sense. Not to mention that the story itself is rushed & the plot has been structured in a Point A to Point B setting. So not only will you ask yourself lots of things & wonder how any of the stuff is even possible or connects, but you'll get frustrated at how fast the questions keep getting throw at you.

Oh, and another big flaw the movie has? It's BORING! I sat down through this movie bored, & waiting for something interesting to happen. Even my little brother along with his friend were dying of boredom in the theater while they sat through it. The only interesting things that happened in the movie were the appearances by the monsters.

And again, Pyramid Head is not a being that should be in here; he is not the reminiscence of Sharon/Alessa as the movie makes him out to be, he is James Sunderland's reminiscence. But sadly, the reason he was added in both movies was because of how iconic he is to the franchise, & admittedly, if he didn't make an appearance, even a cameo, in either movies, most people would have a hard time seeing it as a Silent Hill adaption.

Finally, as I stated earlier, the ending to this movie was actually great next to ******Spoilers****** that epic battle between Pyramid Head & the Missionary. The ending gives you references to previous installments of the franchise, such as the cameo of Travis Grady from Silent hill Origins who picks up Sharon & her douche boyfriend in his truck after leaving Silent Hill, & the police cars passing them by along with the prisoner bus from Silent Hill Downpour******Spoiler end******

Dialogue: It is laughable, just laughable. Whatever so called 'words' that escape the lips of the actors/characters will only make you crack up of how bad they are. I even recall hearing Sharon or that douche guy she hung out with say "Let's leave together" even though they know nothing about each other. How does that add up?

Music/Score: I don't think there were any songs played in this movie, but the score was wonderful. Like the previous movie, the score matches perfectly with the Silent Hill feel & eerie atmosphere.

Overall, this movie sucked, & was a massive disappointment. Is it the worst video game adaption I have seen? No, that's taken by any of Uwe Boll's works. Is it the worst video game movie sequel I have seen? Nope, that is still taken by Resident Evil Apocalypse & Extinction.

Could I ask for another sequel? At first I said yes, but after reading that director Bassett would rather make an original sequel rather than another possible adaption to the games, I said no. Unless some other director, say Sam Raimi, decides to pick up another game of the franchise to adapt or reboot these ones, I don't want a sequel.

I would like to see Silent Hill Homecoming get an adaption, despite how negatively received it was (though it doesn't technically deserve it). I feel like Homecoming has such a perfect plot & story for a movie adaption, & that's only if it's going to be done right.

Quite possibly the weirdest musical I have ever seen, & one of the most unusual movies I've seen as well. Was it bad? No, never. But weird, this definitely takes that cake.

But being weird doesn't mean this movie wasn't amazing.

But this movie, as great as it was, had it's flaws.

For one, the story isn't all to clear as to what it wants to do for the movie. Secondly, the main characters (I.E. the newly married couple) are completely uninteresting & I actually didn't give much of a damn for them. And thirdly, the plot makes little sense.

As I said, I didn't give much of a shit for the couple of the movie, hell I actually did not enjoy the first song they sang together at the beginning of the movie. But once they made it to the castle where all the trannys are at, is when things got weirder, & most importantly, better!

The songs also got a major improvement, & just amaze me with their rock & grundgy feel. Tim Curry gives a phenomenal performance in here, one I thought I'd never see.

Overall, it's a good movie, & actually still goes strong as it ages, & it is amusingly awkward, but the story could have used a bit of work as well as the two lover characters.

If that remake of this movie is actually happening, then maybe they can develop the story a little better as well as characters, even if the remake ends up being crap. But I highly doubt anyone can do a better job than Curry.

An abomination to animation. All this movie does is piss off your intelligence to the point of making it painful to watch.

All this movie consists of is horrible animation, appalling & preposterous voice castings (one of the worst things in this sequence of moving characters), an out-of-the-dumpster plot & story (seriously, Santa gets sued), annoying characters, horrible songs (the song this crap was inspired from is actually pretty good, but gets irritating after a while), & an overall bad animated film.

Now, while this movie sucked, & it is actually one of the worst animated movies I have ever seen, it is not the WORST I've seen. That spot is already taken by the Titanic animated movies, & The Little Cars.

Plot/Story: The plot of thefilm should be pretty obvious from the title; a kid's grandmother gets run over by one of Santa's reindeer. So from that, you wonder how you can possibly extend it to 50 minutes. Well, apparently the animators of this found a way by adding a grandmother that lost her memory from that impact & then somehow lost her memory while also being taken care of at Santa's workshop, an evil gold-digger cousin named Mel that wants to take over the family business from her own great aunt at any cost along with an accomplice (appropriately & creatively named Ms. Slime) & then sell it, & Santa Clause getting his ass sued by that same accomplice & evil cousin.

Yeah, from that, you can't expect a good film with those plot elements thrown in. All of them are incomprehensible & do not make anymore sense as they go by.

Cast/Acting: Casting choices are loaded with no-names, & they are all done wrong, seriously. It's like whoever directed this movie just asked the actors to voice whichever character they're fingers randomly landed on & go from there. Not only are the casting choices for the characters bad, but they are also horribly done; no character in here with the exception of Cousin Mel & Jake sound anything like they're characters. Grandma sounded like some annoying half-wit that seemed to have gotten a squeaky toy stuck in her piehole, grandpa sounded like some obnoxious guy who was in his early twenties & hadn't yet hit puberty, & Santa sounded young as well, nothing like the jolly fat old man he is supposed to be.

Songs: As far as I can recall, there were only less than a handful of songs in here, next to the main theme song of the movie. But by handful, I actually mean I can't remember any other songs in here other than "Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer" & "Grandma's gonna sue the pants off of Santa". I will admit, that as random as "Grandma's gonna sue" was in the film, it was actually pretty catchy. But hearing it again & again more than 3 times a day or every few days would drive me insane (because the lyrics are actually the same over & over again).

Animation: It sucks. The animation in here is not only inconsistent, but also choppy, & very cheap. There are a handful of moments where the animation is pretty clean & smooth, but the rest of it is just awful. Heck, a lot of the character's looked deformed! I swear I noticed how one of Cousin Mel's gigantic tits (I think it was the right boob) shrunk & regrew every frame for about 10 seconds!

Everything else in this is just crap. I understand TV-made films are on liited budgets, but this is no excuse. Disney's "Beauty & the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas" was done by the Disney Television animation industry, & even that movie had some beautiful animation for a TV-animated movie.