Console best movie i've ever seen.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

preppy-3 Dreadful "horror" film of a bunch of vicious, cruel sorority sisters (right out of Cliché City) who force three pledges to tell horror stories to get into their group. One story deals with an evil doll that (for no good reason) kills people. The second is shot in black and white and deals with the undead. The third has three lousy actresses swearing nonstop and accidentally hearing a murder over the phone...and are sure that the murderer knows where they live.Every single story here is so predictable it's laughable. Within a few minutes you know how it's going to end. Even the framing story was familiar! The acting was downright atrocious. All of the women are beautiful but just horrible actresses. They look blankly at the camera and recite their lines. That's NOT acting. So you figure there might be some nudity or blood. WRONG! Except for some very mild and brief nudity in the second story all the girls remain fully clothed. As for blood or violence--there is some blood in the first story but it's SO fake it's more funny than scary. So let's sum this up: Predictable stories, terrible acting, no nudity, no violence. Really--what audience were they aiming for here? You can safely skip this one. A 1 all the way.

lazarillo I once had a plumbing contractor who was in a band on the side and wanted to play at my wedding. It didn't work out for reasons I don't remember, but it was possible his band was really good. Still, this had NOTHING to do with his skills as a plumber. I'd say the same thing about Playboy Playmates who want to be actresses. Some of them are very good at it (two of my favorite 70's exploitation actresses were ex-Playmates-of-the-Year Claudia Jennings and Victoria Vetri). But there is NO connection between having a nice body (and being willing to show it off) and genuine acting talent--as the entire cast of this movie (pretty much all Playboy Playmates) amply demonstrates.If this portmanteau horror movie DID NOT have an entire cast of ridiculously hot "actresses" (all culled from the pages of Playboy), it frankly wouldn't have been made at all because it's shot on video and has three incredibly lame stories and an incredibly lame frame story where sexy sorority pledges are telling "scary" stories to their sexy older sorority sisters. Strangely, there's very little nudity in this, but that wouldn't matter if the movie was any damn good at all. What's really annoying is the gratuitous NON-nudity--i.e. a sex scene, a bathtub scene, a shower scene that are all completely irrelevant to the plot, but still show nary a nipple! It's like these girls think NOT taking their clothes off, but relentlessly teasing the male audience is going to somehow make them respectable or talented actresses.It's kind of like if my plumber had played at my wedding, and not only was his band very bad, but he then refused to finish the plumbing job (what he obviously does best), so I'd somehow take him seriously as a musician. No offense, but ridiculously hot Playboy Playmates generally need to stick to Playboy pictorials (or at least softcore porn films where the acting just doesn't matter) and leave the horror films to people who know what they're doing.

Scarecrow-88 Three college girls must endure the insults and heresy of the sisters of Omega Kappa Kappa if they wish to become members, and are ordered to tell scary stories as a means of possibly being accepted. The first tale concerns Lily(Rebekah Kochan), who is being driven crazy by a creepy doll her lover found in the trash. The doll wants Lily's man all too itself, and his ex-girlfriend, Sarah(Kimshellet Garner), who is currently living with them until she can find a place to stay, is also in danger of falling prey to the doll. The second tale concerns a down-on-her-luck thirty-something actress, Eva DeMarco(Bridget Marquardt), who accepts a part in a European horror film, "The Crimson Echo", and learns that taking a part for the paycheck isn't always a good idea. The third tale concerns three girls who are besieged in their apartment by a killer they hear murder a guy over the phone while prank calling the victim. The wraparound story has a twist which concerns the suicide of a college girl named Briana who took her life after the sorority sisters rejected her desire to become a member of the Omega Kappa Kappa. This snoozefest has nothing to offer except pretty girls swearing and a climax where we see the bitchy sorority sisters get their comeuppance. The violence is tame; the film offers some minor titillation. None of the tales are exactly earth-shattering(..rather clichéd and uninspired), except maybe for the second story with a quote from a director with a Bela Lugosi accent, "The undead need their entertainment, too." Hugh Hefner's former squeeze, Holly Madison, is given star treatment, that in itself spells doom for this horror yawner. Each and every tale is predictable and by-the-numbers, even the twist which is satisfying because of those getting their just desserts(..pun intended).

lastliberal Maybe the horror has to take a second seat to hot babes. In fact, the greatest horror is what we didn't see during the first episode of this anthology.This film was shot at the Playboy Mansion in Los Angeles, and stars Holly Madison ("The Girls Next Door", "Dancing With The Stars"); Nicole Zeoli, Christina Iannuzzi, and Ashley Noel (all also in "The Girls Next Door"); and Sara Jean Underwood (Playmate of the Year 2007).The second episode was a little better, featuring the undead. The last was routine, but it set up the ending.Any horror buff will guess what happens next, but it was still good.