IMDb > Texas Chainsaw 3D (2013) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Texas Chainsaw 3D
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Texas Chainsaw 3D More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 27:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 266 reviews in total 

100 out of 120 people found the following review useful:

I couldn't give it a zero.

Author: Andrew Gold from United States
17 May 2015

This movie is terrible. Honestly, can you be surprised? It's a movie that's been remade and rebooted a hundred times, who can expect the new "sequel" released the first week of January to be good? I mean I saw this movie on Netflix smashed out of my skull and honestly I just wanted to see some cool kills, fun campiness, a little tittage, and maybe, just maybe, passable acting and a decent story to hold it together. I got none of those with Texas Chainsaw 3D. Not a one.

Boobs are teased all throughout the movie but it's all tease and no show. That's a weird way to start the review but I mean why in the hell would you put a ton of clear ass shots whenever these girls are walking around and not throw in a couple nip slips? Ugh, whatever.

I really can't go down the checklist because everything about this movie is awful. Every single goddamn thing. I won't spoil anything but they butcher Leatherface in this movie, even more than they did in other remakes. But this is actually a "sequel" which makes it even more f*cking stupid. They show footage of the original film at the beginning as if to give a recap of its "predecessor" and you start off like "okay they're doing something different at least" but within the first ten minutes it gets so unbelievably dumb. It's an achievement how dumb this movie is, really. Even Leatherface deserves better than this.

I'll sum up the plot as quickly as possible: The pretty eyed slut from True Detective (Alexandra Daddario) inherits a house from her grandmother who was there during the massacre of Leatherface's family 20 years ago or something, because pretty eyes was the baby that survived the massacre, which makes her Leatherface's cousin. But Leatherface survived the massacre too and doesn't know this girl even exists. So she and her friends decide to go to the house but of course Leatherface is still there up to his usual shenanigans, and the body count ensues. But in a peculiar turn of events, on the way to the house they pick up a hitchhiker that looks like an Abercrombie & Fitch model (a clear homage to the first film) and when they get to the house, the hot chick and her dumb friends realize they forgot something or for some stupid reason they have to leave. So this idiot girl who was blessed with this gorgeous million dollar mansion from out of nowhere, lets the hitchhiker HOUSESIT after knowing the guy for a whole FIVE F*CKING MINUTES. I can't stress enough how dumb this movie is.

So then I started watching Texas Chainsaw as a comedy, and I gotta admit, I got a few good belly laughs. The acting is hysterical, the dialogue is even more ridiculous, the 3D attempts are hilariously awful - almost every scene in this movie is comedy gold. I would give it a high score as a spoof but this movie clearly is trying to be serious, which makes it all the more sad (and funny... but sad). The lead actress is blatantly just there as eye candy. She can't act worth sh*t. And guess what. She's the best actor in the movie!

Maybe it's just because I watched this after The Babadook, I don't know, but I really really hated this movie. The writing is some of the worst I've ever seen in a movie. I guess it holds some merit as a "horror" comedy, assuming you can get past the fact that there are no scares, no boobs, no worthwhile gore, no good kills, no good actors, no suspense, no {insert anything else required for a good horror movie}.

In conclusion, Texas Chainsaw 3D sucks balls. It's just a disgrace to horror films and is the epitome of everything wrong with the genre today. It's an abysmal, horrific, blasphemous, piece of sh*t, Hollywood fartpile of a movie. F*ck you Texas Chainsaw. F*ck you with a chainsaw right up the ass.

Was the above review useful to you?

128 out of 220 people found the following review useful:

I already forgot about it

Author: Jason Marsh from United States
4 January 2013

Pure garbage. They set the movie in 2012, 39 years after the original. The only character that aged was the Sheriff. The main character was a baby in 1973 but is miraculously only about 22 or 23 in 2012 (which they clearly display on a grave stone, 2012). Also in 2012 smart phones can stream live HD video in real time over a call. I wonder how much their data plan is? Which, by the way, brought the film from ridiculous to absurd especially given that streaming the video served no purpose in the story or the scene. A speaker phone would have sufficed and my disbelief would not have been called back from suspension. So yeah, those are just TWO of the myriad issues this movie has. This was worse than the remake, by far. There isn't a film maker in the world who could make a good sequel to the original, even Tobe Hooper couldn't do it and HE directed the original. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) is a perfect film, it needs no more exposition, but this is the era of the retro cash grab. So everything cool from the 70's and 80's gets dragged out and crapped on for the youth market and they think the winks and nods to the source material will tickle us old fans nostalgia gland. Well screw you Hollywood. It doesn't. It's lazy film making. What I paid 10 bucks for was nothing more than a 1sr draft script chock full of slasher clichés and inept story telling. You know what made the original so brilliant? It wasn't about anything! It was simple, I dare say even plausible. But this movie BEGAN in implausible territory and only sank deeper into the abyss. Stay away if you have a brain. CGI gore, 'nough said. The 3D was not even adding any degree of anything, it was more distracting than anything, which is more the format, 3D just sucks.

Was the above review useful to you?

81 out of 146 people found the following review useful:

So Disappointed.

Author: megdomes92 from Buffalo
5 January 2013

Being the extremely huge Leatherface fan that I am, I have been looking forward to seeing this movie since the first posters came out. Literally have been counting down the days. I rushed to the theater on opening night super excited because the Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3D facebook page shared a lot of information about the making of the movie and I expected it to be the best one yet. HOWEVER....

I was so unbelievably disappointed in this movie it sickens me.

If someone didn't know anything about the previous TCM movies, they would think this was just your everyday horny teenager horror movie. I believed that the TCM movies were always better than that, but now my opinion has changed.

The movie started out good, and had some good background information to later understand the present scenes. However, once we met the main characters of the movie it was obvious that it wasn't going to meet my expectations. And the fact that Trey Sonz was in this movie(even though his acting skills WERE better than I expected) totally ruined it for me. Also the makers of the movie made a huge error with the the main character's age (should be at least 40.) The killings were not that severe, the only 3D parts were with the chainsaw (which didn't even happen that much), and Leatherface was turned into this sweet character that you began to feel bad for. And don't even get me started on how Heather was acting at the end of the movie.

The whole story line was completely changed. During the first half of the movie it is just like the other TCM movies, but the last half turns into some weird love/family reuniting story which I absolutely hated. Plus the other movies really portrayed the fact that the movie was based off a true story. This new TCM makes it seem more like a fantasy horror movie. It's all just very confusing and makes me feel like a woman with a glass of wine wrote the story line.

See for yourself if you like but if you are a die hard TCM fan like I WAS, then I highly expect you to be disappointed and don't spend money on it. Thank god I got movie theater gift cards for Christmas...

Was the above review useful to you?

29 out of 45 people found the following review useful:

Probably the worst movie I've ever seen

Author: mortonzhou
21 May 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I love horror flicks. I thought the 2003 remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre was a pretty decent horror film. Not amazing, but entertaining nonetheless.

This version of Texas Chainsaw caught my attention in the beginning. Giving a flashback sequence to the original Sawyer family members being killed. Things just went downhill after that. Every character in this movie seems to lack a brain and/or is a complete a**hole. On top of that... there was no nudity. I mean c'mon.. what's a horror film without some nudity?! Just to name a few of many things that made this movie bad:

Farnsworth a.k.a. the KFC Colonel didn't think it'd be important to tell Heather, there was a 6"5' lunatic living in a hidden basement of her inherited house.

Even after all of Heather's friends are brutally murdered by Leatherface, whom she discovers to be her cousin, she feels sorry for him and loves him because he's "family." Screw that noise... ALL of her friends are dead because of him. It's not even like he's a close relative. She doesn't even know him. One minute she's scared sh**less of him and the next she loves him AND helps him kill a couple more people?? Are we supposed to believe that her thought process was: "Oh, hey Cuz, you just knocked me out in the kitchen, almost cut me up with a chainsaw in a coffin, tried killing me by flipping our van, chased me through a carnival with a chainsaw forcing me to hang on to a Ferris Wheel for my life AND killed all of my friends. But that's all okay.. I forgive you because we're family. Now I'm going to help you kill people and take care of you for the rest of my life." All I could say was... Seriously... wtf just happened.

Towards the end, the sheriff was the only character I liked up because he seemed to have a brain... Surprise!!! He's an idiot too! He decides not to shoot Leatherface even after he killed five people in just one night because he feels bad for him. His family died because they were a bunch of murders.... boo hoo. Are we supposed to feel bad for Leatherface??? I sure don't. Yet the makers seemed to think "let's try to get the audience to feel bad for him." Last time I checked, Leatherface was a scary serial killer. You're not supposed to feel bad for them. We, as the audience of a slasher film, have no interest in feeling bad for him. We want to be afraid of him. It is a HORROR film after all.

In summary. The plot and character development make absolutely zero sense... to the point where it makes you cringe. No thought was put into this movie. Seems like the makers knew Texas Chainsaw fans would go watch this movie so they didn't care to put effort into making it a good one. Don't waste your time and definitely not your money watching this movie. If you want to watch a Texas Chainsaw movie that isn't incredibly old. Go watch the 2003 version. Not a great movie... But it's still (approximately) a million times better than this garbage.

Was the above review useful to you?

34 out of 55 people found the following review useful:

Ludicrous 3rd Act

Author: jamdifo from United States
5 January 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

First the positives:

1. The movie moves quickly, it doesn't drag, so edited well. 2. The middle part is half decent and what you expect for this series. 3. The female lead and her friend are very attractive. 4. Decent special effects. 5. Nice highlights from the original movie at the beginning.


1. Where did all these family members come from that wasn't in the 1st movie? Terrible answer to what happened after the woman escaped. 2. Are you really suppose to feel sympathy for a family who killed 4 people in the 1st movie and implied they killed countless others? They deserved to be shot and burned but the movie says it was wrong. 3. Why is everyone a jerk in the movie? One guy steals, 2 people cheat, people abusive, lying, etc. Only the boyfriend of the lead actress's friend wasn't, and he was the most brutally killed. Come to think of it, the mayor wasn't either, he did what had to be done, and he was the 2nd most brutally killed. Too bad the movie thought he was a jerk. 4. Too many clichés like the officer going to the house and not waiting for BACKUP! Guess what happened to him. 5. Tombstone scene showing grandma died in 2012, meaning 39 years after the 1st movie, yet no one aged that much. Eating human meat must keep the body young as Leatherface at 60 something moves awfully well. 6. This must be the only carnival in Texas that no one carries a gun. Also, amazingly, Leatherface doesn't cut anyone with the chainsaw moving thru the crowded carnival. 7. A van with a cut tire flipping over. That doesn't happen. 8. A sheriff who believes in equal rights for serial killers. Just absurd. 9. Terrible ending. Trying to have sympathy for Leatherface? How did anyone think that was a good idea? He's suppose to be scary! 10. Lead actress who suddenly forgets Leatherface killed her good friend and boyfriend, and now loves him because he's her cousin. Terrible! 11. How does a sheriff lose a deputy, see on video 3 cut up bodies, and just tell Leatherface to clean up his mess? Fire the script supervisor! 12. Leave evidence out so someone else can look thru it. Always the incompetent police dept. If that were true today, the US would still be like the wild west. 13. Have to take care of Leatherface? Let the cannibal rot. 14. If it wasn't for the thief, would Leatherface ever have gotten out of the house? How did he survive when Grandma died? 15. CGI gore, not that great.

I could go on, but too many more negatives, I'm done. I see why this came out the 1st weekend of the new year.

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 36 people found the following review useful:

every cliché in modern horror movies rolled up into a painful hour and a half

Author: tbmforclasstsar from United States
5 January 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

John Luessenhop's Texas Chainsaw 3D is a bad, bad movie. You know this. I know this. Unfortunately the producers and studio that backed this latest incarnation of Tobe Hooper's original genre-creating slasher film ignored what we, the audience, already knew, and decided to milk the franchise-cow for the sixth (and hopefully, final) time.

This new reimagining (as Hollywood likes to call it) starts off promising with archive footage of the original film. That was the first five minutes. After that, the movie spirals into unexplained and implausible territory, asking its audience not only to suspend disbelief, but disregard it completely.

The 2012 version of Texas Chainsaw is a direct sequel of the original, with the prologue taking place in 1974. Vigilantes show up at the infamous Sawyer home where the murders of several young adults literally just happened and proceed to torch it to the ground in a fit of vengeance. Amongst the chaos, a young Sawyer woman with an infant is found hiding in the garage. Then, in a laughably inane act of kindness followed by harsh brutality, one of the vigilantes saves the baby girl and randomly kicks the Sawyer woman square in the face.

If there was anything 2011's The Cabin in the Woods has taught us, it's that ridiculously attractive young adults will always venture out to parts unknown for no reason and behave in ways normal human beings would never agree to in real life given eerie circumstances.

Cut to Heather Mills (starring Alexandra Daddario's midriff and breasts). She finds out she inherited a home in Texas after her previously unknown grandma passed away while simultaneously discovering she's adopted. Usually this would tear at the soul of a normal person, being lied to your entire life by people you thought were your parents, but no. Heather's first instinct is to collect on her inheritance by dragging along her boyfriend, Ryan (Tremaine 'Trey Songz' Neverson), her best friend, Nicole (Tania Raymonde), and Nicole's boy toy (Keram Malicki-Sanchez) on an impromptu road trip. Along the way, they pick up a hitchhiker named Darryl (Shaun Sipos), apparently to add to the inevitable body count.

Texas Chainsaw fails to mention the time discrepancy as the original film took place in the 1970s and this new film clearly states it's 2012. Heather should be pushing 40, but no bother. In a movie like this, the only thing that matters is the gore, the scantily clad women, and the infamy of the original.

To read the rest of the review (IMDb form too short) visit: chainsaw-3d/

Was the above review useful to you?

54 out of 102 people found the following review useful:

Utterly ridiculous...and not in a good way.

Author: Damion J. Rowan from Montreal, Canada
4 January 2013

I walked into "Texas Chainsaw" with my usual tempered expectation when seeing a horror film. We all know that maybe one out of ten releases nowadays is actually good and scary...if we're lucky. And seeing as this one was dumped on the first Friday of the year, it didn't bode well for great expectations from Lionsgate. However, it was distributed by, well, Lionsgate.

Alas, the umpteenth sequel to the 1974, although based on a great concept, is a fail.

Despite the many follow-up films on the subject, this film is, in a round-about way, a sequel to the 2003 remake of the 1974 original. The original was directed by Tobe Hooper, and Hooper himself helped produce not only this film but the 2003 remake (which inexplicably changed the family name of the murderous family) and the 2006 prequel, but the current film actually uses scenes from the 1974 original (and the original family name of Sawyer) as it's jumping-off point, which gave the film some instant weight for fans of the franchise.

However, the weight was lifted real quick.

In short, right after the events of the original film, some of the residents of the town of Newt, Texas burn down the house where the original massacre occurred with the entire Sawyer clan inside, but not without one baby surviving the inferno. Said baby grows up never knowing what had happened until she randomly receives word that her long lost grandmother has passed on and left her with an inheritance, resulting in the realization that her abusive parents are not her birth parents. She leaves to check out what she has received, but not without some friends coming along (of course)....and picking up the atypical Texas Chainsaw hitchhiker in the process. Needless to say, the inheritance came with something a little bit unusual, carnage sorta ensues and what could have been a great twist is ruined by the sheer implausibility of the execution of the story.

And that is ultimately where the issues with this film the details. Never mind little stupid things like the fact that the house burning down at the beginning of the film happened on August 19th and somehow, the newspaper which reported the story was also dated August 19th (rather than the 20th). It's the major implausible details like four friends leaving a mansion full of silver to get groceries to be "cleaned up" by a hitchhiker they just picked up or the fact that a rotting corpse is randomly found by Heather Miller, the inheritor, and then never once mentioned again. As the story unfolds, it completely falls apart and you risk missing something unimportant because you are too busy rolling your eyes or wondering how a character went from A to B or from caring to not caring. The story just ended up not making any sense.

Why RnB artist Trey Songz chose this train wreck to launch his acting career is beyond me, but his character is as unoriginal as his music. Other than Songz, the cast is mainly made up by mediocre, little-known television actors not worth mentioning except with the inclusion Shaun Sipos as the hitchhiker and Scott Eastwood (yes, son of Clint who, until recently, went by the name Scott Reeves) as a police officer, both of whom are absolutely excellent eye candy.

So, was I entertained? Well, I wasn't BORED...but this film is definitely a fail in terms of plot and execution and wasn't even so bad it's good. But if you do decide to see it, do not pay extra for 3D if you do not have to but do wait for the end of the credits to get a good grin.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

This film needs to be chainsaw massacred.

Author: ProjectError from United States
30 May 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I don't usually rate films a 1. I'm fair with my ratings. A rating of 1 is saved for the worst of the worst, extremely bad movies. And this is one of those movies. Where to begin?

Going in a different direction than the last two installments which were reboots of the franchise, this movie is a direct continuation of the 1974 film, ignoring all of its four sequels that followed. News flash: if you're going to ignore sequels, make sure your film is better than those sequels.

The film had some obvious plot holes, which I could forgive if the movie weren't so bad. The main character, having been born in 1974 when the events of the original took place, is played by a 26-year-old actress who could play a 20 year old. And yes, the movie is set in the present, as shown with the newest iPhone. I guess the writers didn't think anyone would notice. But I don't even have an issue with that. That would be perfectly passable, if the rest of the movie wasn't a cancer-ridden train wreck.

This film, unlike all of the past installments, only features Leatherface without his infamous cannibalistic family. Leatherface just isn't the same and doesn't have enough charisma to carry a whole movie by himself. What made the past incarnations decent horror movies, was the entire cannibalistic family with Leatherface as a side character. Here, no cannibalism goes on, which makes the TCM movies what they are. The writers try to turn Leatherface into a solo killer the next Jason, Michael Myers, Freddy Krueger (as if we have a shortage of those) and it's not going to fly.

The acting is atrocious. There are no good performances in this film. Not one. The dialogue is cringeworthy; there are one-liners in this film, such as "you get em cuz!" and "welcome to Texas mother*cker" that will cause most to get that embarrassed feeling in their stomach.

And then, that ending.


In a quick change of events, Heather, the lead in the film, transitions from running from the sadistic killer that is Leatherface into SIDING with him. Yes, you heard right. She gets on Leatherface's good side. Why, you ask? Well, she is Leatherface's cousin and all, and apparently she has a change of heart when she finds out the town torched her cannibalistic, murdering family members back in 1974. What a horrible town to do such a thing...

Which leads us to the climax, where now, Leatherface and Heather are after the corrupt mayor and police force of the town. Apparently, the movie wants us to sympathize with Leatherface, a guy who just murdered all of Heather's friends a few minutes prior, but she seems to have forgiven him for that. All of the sudden, Leatherface is put in the protagonist role, and the new enemy of the film becomes the corrupt mayor, who torched the cannibalistic, murdering family years ago. I mean, they deserved it right? Well, the mayor acts like a jerk, so I guess we're supposed to hate him.

This film makes the 2003 version look like a great contribution to cinema, in the same way watching Mortal Kombat after Mortal Kombat: Annihilation will make you appreciate it so much more.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

No classic but not bad

Author: yeltzmanmatt from Birmingham, England
11 November 2013

You are not going to watch Texas Chainsaw and expect a classic unless you are seriously deluded. You do get what you expect which is plenty of gore, a far fetched story line and a mindlessly enjoyable film.

This is no acting masterclass although to be fair the cast are not bad at all. Alexandra Daddario is nice to watch and the supporting cast do their best with limited material.

This is a slasher movie and you get your moneys worth of gore and a few pretty tense scenes.

As an easy to watch slasher this works pretty well, it moves along at a swift pace, has all the elements you'd expect in this type of film and is well executed. All in all it's better than I thought and worth a viewing for genre fans.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

An Excess Devoid of Thought or Merit

Author: John Grey from United States
6 January 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Beyond all the pink-cheeked, bated-breath laudation that has come from critics and horror aficionados in the 38 years since the release of the original film, it's not a stretch to say that the two things that worked together so effectively in the execution of the original was the stark, naturally-lit and flat documentarian style of cinematographer Daniel Pearl and the sparse writing of Hooper and Henkel, whose utter lack of exposition lend a terrifying, claustrophobic immediacy in counterpoint to sun-baked Southern Gothic vistas, which place the viewer squarely and unremittingly in role of Hitchcock's man filming in the corner, with all of the legendary director's flinch-inducing atmospherics and not of whit of his restraint, such as it was.

With so much latitude in which to effect a direct sequel (apparently given a seal of approval by Hooper, undoubtedly for monetary incentive and despite his directing a direct sequel in 1986), with so little to hamper questions of plot or motivation, Texas Chainsaw 3D fails so completely and morosely that one might wonder for whom the film was even made, for it definitely was not for a viewer with any sense of taste or even the ability to do basic arithmetic.

It is generally understood that the events of the first film take place in 1973 or '74. Once this film left the confines of those few brief sequences which dovetail immediately from the end of original, in which a lynch mob and the most ineffectual sheriff ever are party, directly or indirectly, to picking off the entire Sawyer clan to which Leatherface is kin, and then burning the farmhouse to the ground, and a member of the mob inexplicably taking the lone babe of family home to raise as his own, we skip, by all accounts of vernacular, media, and what little of civilization we see before plunging back into the wilds of rural Texas, to be modern day; a tombstone later in the film confirms that the year is in fact 2012. From this, we must conclude one of two things: Heather Miller (the now grown-up Sawyer child from the intro, played by a disturbingly thin Alexandra Daddario) is either the youngest looking 40-year-old heroin chic store butcher (as heavy-handed a nod to the nature vs. nurture debate as I've seen in film since being lampooned in Trading Places) in the history of cinema, or people were picking up retarded hitchhikers in VW bugs while wearing bare-backed polyester fashions of the seventies sometime between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Rodney King riots. So far is this discrepancy from being explained that all reference to the date of the original film's events are limited to "August 19th" with the year consistently being deliberately obscured.

The rest of the cast is equally unremarkable in presence and abysmal in performance, from the Tonia Raymonde shedding her more tame bad-girl image from ABC's absurd Switched at Birth series to become the requisite slutty slasher-bait, inexplicably involved in a love triangle, never exposed or explained beyond its smarmy, innuendo-laced exposition, with Heather's boyfriend, played by Trey Songz, included no doubt in an attempt to add urban flair and coax minority viewers that are probably sick of seeing Caucasian kids lumber around stupidly and getting fileted in the dark woods.

The greatest disservice to the original material was the ridiculous attempt, by way of the Sawyer family slaughter at the beginning and the near single-minded thuggery of the lead vigilante, now serving as the town's mayor, to make Leatherface and company sympathetic characters, even swinging for the anti-hero fences when the bloodthirsty mayor meets his boring and contrived ending. Were the mayor and his retinue of good old boys terrible people for mowing down a slew of people and burning the house to ash with Molotov cocktails? Undoubtedly. But we should not forget those people were part of an inbred family of murdering, cannibal sadists, something that no amount of rural oppression can allow any sane person to ignore.

The film exists for the same reason that the sequel to the Blair Witch Project was released: to produce a sexualized, tangential story with hot young actors in a shameless attempt to cash in on a franchise name. At least Book of Shadows attempted a story even if it was a terrible one. Avoid this one, unless you have enough morbid fascination to see both the death of a franchise's self-respect, and one torn button-down shirt which maintained its wearer's modesty purely by proving that one of the few forces in nature greater than gravity is a non-nudity clause.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 27:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history