Monday 27 December 2004, by grudge fan : it’s not very complicated roger, anyone who goes into that house is going to die in a horrible way. the fact that the house looked just like your average house made the movie far more creepy than it would have been had the house already looked damned. the acting was great and the thrills kept coming, it was a solid movie.Tuesday 28 December 2004, by Slayer comma the : SMG a nominal actress ?????? What the f***??? Blind much !!!!Tuesday 28 December 2004, by Anonymous : I like Sarah as an actress but I have to agree with Ebert here. I just didn’t think the movie was that good. If Sarah keeps doing movies just for the money aspect then she’ll never be any more of an actress that she already is, nominal. Sarah please break away from the horror movies, they may pay well but they are career killers.Tuesday 28 December 2004, by Anonymous : SMG was actually paid $600,000 to make ’The Grudge’, which is not an enormous amount of money for someone in her position. She didn’t make this film "for the money". As to Roger Ebert’s opinion of the film, it’s his opinion. In the long run it really doesn’t make any difference. Personally, I thought it was a great film, but so what?These comments are an anwser to this article : Sarah Michelle Gellar - ’The Grudge’ Movie - Rogerebert.com Review
|