DISQUS

Was it as CGI heavy as the second one? I'm a big fan of the first and the follow up was disappointing due to my high expectations.

Franks, it was disappointing when Grudge 2 flopped and the third one was only a s2DVD title. The remakes improved on the original in terms of glossy feel, upgraded effects, and presentation (It lost the pacing and a bit of character depth of the originals though). It's too bad that very faithful and well made remakes didn't click. The remakes hardly "lost" anything in transition.

Will you be checking out the Grudge 3? It just came out.

Do you watch TV/Cable shows on DVD? How's the wait on some of the more in demand series?

After thinking about it and reading some rather not so encouraging reviews, I just took it off my queue. It's interesting that one spawned two s2DVD sequels while a so so flick like the Fog remake doesn't.

You should give Supernatural a try in case you get a craving for horror TV series. One of my buddies who watch a lot of TV say that there's nothing like it around. In addition, the episodes are not done in a cheap low rent manner.

I concur. From watching the last portion of the first one, there wasn't anything special or scary about it. Boogeyman has been rotting in my queue for years due to that. Do you watch the TV show Supernatural? It has all kinds of monsters and creatures, but almost all of them are explored in an hour long episode. Their monster of the week episodes feel like an apetizer compared to a full blow meal that one won't like too much (like Boogeyman films).

This is jcranma, your NF buddy at the other side. I've read from other reviews and articles that it takes a different path and differentiates itself from the original film. It's rare that it happens, but it's not unheard of. Did you like the American remakes of the two Grudges and the first Ring? They're my textbook example of horror remakes surpassing or at least matching the original versions. I know I'm weird when I state that the Grudge(s) 1 and 2 can match the Ju-On(s), but there's just something very slick and glossy about them that the originals don't.

I'm going to have to read further to see if it offers enough new direction compared to the original (it is a damn fine film). With remakes, I always fear that I'm just going to watch something again, but in a different language.

Frank, you're welcome. I understand why your need to be protective of the horror genre, and it's not "sick" at all. Previously, I thought that it was not getting enough respect from critics and the public as well. That changed when I found online communities that have a tremendous interest in the genre. (Having NF buddies into it also helps).

In a weird way, I sometimes feel overprotective of some of the better quality titles I review that NF classifies under the "Tagalog Language" and "Philippines". As one of the less than 5 active reviewers of those genres, I'm mildly annoyed when some reviewer blindly thrash the better ones. In my mind, my thoughts go like this: "Dude, have you even seen and compared that with what passes of as a "regular" quality one from that country?!?!"

The problem with "B" horror is that when it fails to click (more often than not), it stinks bad. The good ones are a treat to watch though.

Excellent piece Frank, and thanks for answering my questions. It seem like we share the same dislike of unintentional comedy in horror, and to a certain extent, horror that tries to be both scary and funny. With the way you describe your thoughts on "B" horror and dark horror comedies (more emphasis on comedy), I can now see more clearly the points of view certain segment of horror fans. As a person who enjoy the better ones of those movies, I previously rationalize that the horrible movies of those types turned off that segment to that extent ( the horrible ones are truly a pain to watch, and this is coming from a "sometime" fan)

The Pegg, Wright, and Frost movies are more "American" than British. Funny that it takes a non American to show a loving satire of much loved action and horror movies. I wish those guys would make more movies together. If you want some non insulting comedy, it's hard to pass up on "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz".

Interesting take on "Land of the Dead" BTW. For a long time, I disked that one. I couldn't get over the cheese factor and its "humor", and now it is still partially annoying. It took a while before I saw what Romero did in that one. It had a lot of potential. I wouldn't mind a sequel, but I'm still setting the bar higher on Romero zombie movies versus any other zombie movies.

Frank could you give recent and older examples of zombies that you find to be campy and silly? I maybe a bit of a "snob" that only watches the better ones out there, but I'll try to chip in a thought or two. The only zombie that I find campy and silly recently was Romero's "Land of the Dead". It was too unnecessarily cheesy. Legiuzamo and Hopper doing their shticks made it even worse. Due to that, I still have to see his "Diary of the Dead" (eventually!).

Along with the two you mentioned, I'd add 28 Weeks Later. I might be one of the 20 people who saw it on the big screen that liked that one.

It might just be your taste in horror. I don't like B horror for the most part, but I thought that the B zombie comedies like "Fido" and "Shaun of the Dead" were very respectful to the genre. This might lead you take me off your NF buddy list, but I'll state it anyway, even the much vilified "Resident Evil" trilogy show a good balance of mass entertainment and respecting both the videogame and zombie sub genre.

What'd you think of "Fido" or "Shaun of the Dead"?

It makes me sad that among the ones I mentioned, it is from the original innovator that I found too campy. I'm burning in zombie hell for that. ;);)

And so the inevitable conclusion of the Beckham circus is about to happen.... I'm getting my popcorn ready!

To those who constantly state that MLS is now broadcast all over the world:
Is there really demand for it? Are people actually talking among themselves about how great MLS games are? Honestly, that whole broadcasted on X countries claim is like the "attendance" figure.

The USL has made its mark. In the CONCACAF Champions League that is. I'm a person who has very little time for MLS. The USL results has made me watch the sole USL game on FSC at the expense of MLS games.

The majority of the country can't drive within an hour or two to watch a local MLS game. How does MLS compete with TV viewing time of those with access to ESPN, GolTV, or FSC?

Will people tune in to watch an American product just because the viewer is American? I really don't know. In motion pictures, the answer is a resounding yes. Hence all the ewws from Joe Sixpack about subtitles. On the other hand, judging FSC's ratings, soccer fans don't ewww all over a foreign product.

I feel for MLS promoters like I feel for filmmakers & promoters abroad (who are trying to promote local films) who are crowded out by Hollywood products.

@Johnny
Beckham was a non factor on that game. So was Ronaldinho. Pato and Ambrosini's introduction saved Milan

@BW
- Check out the CONCACAF Champions League where USL teams like Montreal and Puerto Rico saved the reputation of US based leagues. You must have missed that.

- Argentines in MLS? The best ones are already in Europe.

- If MLS teams are so superior, how come they can't dominate CONCACAF Mickey Mouse tournaments?

- Rankings as a whole don't matter (see the that ridiculous US and Czech Republic ranking at the last World Cup )

- The Champions League and its previous format proved that MLS is not in any sort of shape to be compared to England's Championship or the top flight of Mexico. I'd take those results more over rankings.

- Pointless friendly games are such fools gold in terms of comparing one's league with others. Brag about beating Chelsea, West Ham, and Fulham at your own peril. On the other hand, a Japanese team missing so many Japaneses internationals thrashed the Dynamo. Both were in pre season.

- Competitive? If I want competitive, I'd tune into NFL.

- Deluded MLS fans? As long as the likes of the Lalas brothers make a living off soccer, it's reasonable to have so many out of touch people.

What Hudson mentioned about quality of play applies to the whole country as a whole. The Miami crowd might be fussier, but I'd say the knowledgeable football fans can't be far off.

Gaffer and Kartik, thank you for producing the content. It's not quite something I run into from other football commentators from the US. I appreciate the hard work you put into the sites.

Change the rules and structure, but it will come at a cost. Viewership wil go down. Note that GolTv, FSC, and Setanta are easily available. Create an abomination at the expense of MLS credibility and viewership.

Isn't the reputation of MLS horrible as it is in the US and CONCACAF?

Gee whiz, play for a country that is lead by man that managed Princeton University and the bastard child of the authentic Chivas or a country lead by someone who managed Barcelona and Real Madrid.? Tough choice indeed.

The USSF insults us supporters and the players by hiring Bob Bradley just because he has an American passport. If we had a manager of credibility like Jose Pekerman or Jurgen Kilnsmann, perhaps we would have a national team with dual nationality players that other countries want playing for them. Otherwise, we'd get stuck with Bocanegra, Matroeni, and Feilhaber who are not wanted by Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil respectively.

Juan

Excellent points. While the NFL and NBA can rely on universities to develop players, it just won't work with soccer

Thank you for pointing out the flaws of the system. So many soccer commentators and pundits make excuse for NCAA soccer and become apologists for it like this silly article titled "Colleges still an important pipeline to the pros" http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=6...

While you make nuanced points, defending college soccer is still like lipstick on a pig. For that matter, those journalists and online commentators who justify the underwhelming nature of MLS and the USSF are really guilty of putting exquisite lipsticks on pigs.

No offense Kartik, you're one of the people who don't toe the line when it comes to your views on USSF and MLS. I've noticed that many journalists and commentators give the two free passes. At its worst, one gets the likes of Lalas brothers that take punditry to a new low.

-Convey, Benny F, and Beasley are really having a tough season. Their club form really need some drastic improvement. I hope they can get it together in time for 2010 or other guys step up in their places.

-It's irrelevant to me if the European clubs don't take it seriously. I know that the South American clubs would take it to them like it's the last games of their careers.

- If there is a club world competition in basketball, then the winner is the best in the world. They would be legit world champions unlike the press and NBA officials claiming the NBA champions as "world champions"

- I don't care what MLS teams do. If Oceania and Australian teams can reach Japan with part time footballers, but MLS teams don't care about it is their business. It's only their image and reputation at stake.

- About CONCACAF CL vs Superliga, I agree with Kartik. The football fans who already are watching the foreign leagues won't be easily swayed to check out MLS if many MLS teams are routinely beaten in CL. I guess the Superliga is to be thanked that the corrupt Warner got off his ass to enhance the CL. Nevertheless, the Superliga doesn't amount to much of anything outside of MLS fans and Mexican supporters in the country (I doubt that they see that cup as anything worth paying attention too. I'd put money on it.).

undrafted
-The CWC is about clubs fighting it out to determine who can call themselves the best, second, or third in the world (until a new champion is crowned). If that seems meaningless to you as a neutral, I really don't what to say.

-If you prefer the "market driven" $uperliga, that's your choice. Just don't expect the rest of us who don't lap up MLS's pronouncements to not see that as as a gimmick and nothing more than a Mickey Mouse Cup.

- A UEFA and Libertadores only intercontinental cup is not good for the development of the game. Closing shop and just letting those from those confederations crown themselves as champions smells like an American league practice to me. Letting the champions of other confederations and host have a chance would create interest in the game more. As a neutral, I can appreciate their efforts even if the likes of Waitekere plays too much long balls.

undrafted
-So what if the chances of CONCACAF team has a very low chance of competing in the final game? This is sports, not entertainment. If you want the latter, go to your local multiplex. The competition is engaging for football fans, and those who would rather get their fix of MLS or European leagues are not really fans of the sport.

-With your dismissive attitude, don't expect that football fans outside of the country and even inside it (those who prefer the Mexican league) turn up their nose at MLS

-Millions of Pachuca fans and the people who follow the plight of Mexican teams would know. Just because you don't give a damn doesn't mean much at all.

The CL is important because the winner gets a trip to contest for the CWC. Fortunately for MLS, the Dynamo got in. It was in danger of having zero respect from myself. I now have more respect for USL, and I would watch it more than I would an MLS game.

eplnfl
Just because your "public" doesn't know the CL doesn't diminish its importance.

undrafted
Stop being such a homer for MLS. If (note the word if), an MLS team miraculously won the CL, you'd be all over the competition and the importance of representing one's confederation well in Japan.

I posted this on Kartik's CSRN blog

After watching a gritty Barcelona v Getafe game, I could only watch through the first half of the final. It bored me, there was too much fouling, physical play was used needlessly, and players couldn’t string more than 3 passes. I went to do some grocery shopping instead.