Signatures 863 total
Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... 18 › »
-
151
Name: Stephen on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
152
Name: Ephraim on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
153
Name: Carolina on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
154
Name: Nana on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
155
Name: Anonymous on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
156
Name: Anonymous on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
157
Name: Anonymous on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
158
Name: Anonymous on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
159
Name: Anonymous on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
160
Name: Anonymous on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
161
Name: Anonymous on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
162
Name: Anonymous on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
163
Name: Anonymous on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
164
Name: Ian on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
165
Name: Michelle on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
166
Name: Tziporah on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
167
Name: Marguarite on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
168
Name: Pablacito on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
169
Name: Martha on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
170
Name: Anthony on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
171
Name: Anonymous on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
172
Name: Michael on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
173
Name: Joshua Rievel on Feb 10, 2007Comments: LEAVE IT ALONEFlag
-
174
Name: Adam Pierceall on Feb 10, 2007Comments: I can't believe this is even an issue. First people screw with Romero, Hooper, and I hear plans are in the works to remake Fulci! And now this. People have no shame when it comes to making money, and they also have no creativity. Re-makes are for those who can not come up with anything on their own, so they rape the things they could never envision. Shame on you.Flag
-
175
Name: Sam Scholl on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
176
Name: Louis Justin on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
177
Name: Anonymous on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
178
Name: Nick on Feb 10, 2007Comments: Why don't you put the 30 million dollars it would cost to make this film towards buying some talent and originalityFlag
-
179
Name: Anonymous on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
180
Name: Anonymous on Feb 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
181
Name: Anonymous on Feb 10, 2007Comments: ugggghhFlag
-
182
Name: Anonymous on Feb 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
183
Name: Hester on Feb 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
184
Name: Anonymous on Feb 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
185
Name: Summer on Feb 11, 2007Comments: Don't.Flag
-
186
Name: Matt on Feb 11, 2007Comments: Booooo!Flag
-
187
Name: Kyle on Feb 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
188
Name: Anonymous on Feb 11, 2007Comments: Can you say "what the fuck, " I watched the original a few weeks ago and I can't possibly see how someone could remake that movie. Part of the movie was with all the rumors of it being real and the fact that six animals were really killed. Knowing that noone can get away with they did and trying to remake the infamous rock raping scene.... (there's more than a million reasons not to remake this film) There's enough terrible remakes as it is, and having this film considered a "cult film" is great, why bother bringing a terrible remake mainstreamFlag
-
189
Name: Eric Benestelli on Feb 11, 2007Comments: You should be ashamed to think you can remake this movie and have it censored enough to be in theaters. This movie is known for being brutal, keep it that way!Flag
-
190
Name: Jimmy Gross on Feb 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
191
Name: Sasha on Feb 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
192
Name: Patrick Surad on Feb 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
193
Name: Noemi Sardina on Feb 11, 2007Comments: apparently nothing is sacred! not even something that was once hated so bad, it was banned.Flag
-
194
Name: Steven Aday on Feb 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
195
Name: Sassy on Feb 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
196
Name: Stan on Feb 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
197
Name: Mark on Feb 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
198
Name: Pete on Feb 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
199
Name: Anonymous on Feb 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
200
Name: Anonymous on Feb 11, 2007Comments:Flag