It WILL get negative reviews.

[DistantJ]

Just thought I'd mention this, I believe that this movie, if it is to turn out to be what we want from it, WILL recieve negative reviews, and we won't care. All of the best slasher movies are absolutely slated by the critics, and we never used to listen to them in the past, but with the advent of the internet, for some reason people actually listen to critics. I'm not quite sure why, but it seems it'll be a while before we learn that, like in the newspapers and magazines, critical reception doesn't mean shit.

I know a lot of people didn't like Halloween, but I dug it, and I had never read a review of it until after the movie and was genuinely surprised by the negativity of a good percentage of the reviews (the others called it a masterpiece that will be misunderstood, seems they had something going there), and I do wonder if some of us let the things they read in a review cloud their judgement of the final, noticing the flaws the critics pointed out, which would have probably buzzed straight past us unnoticed.

I dunno, it's just something I've been thinking lately, an internet review seems to become the honest-to-god FACT about whether a movie is a good movie or a bad movie dispite what we thought of it, and those of us who enjoyed these movies are "clearly wrong or just dumb" because the critic said it was bad and so it must be.

Anybody else feel me on this one?

So I plead, don't listen to any reviews, even horror-site specific ones, see the film and enjoy it. It is, after all, Friday the 13th, which has always been purposely tacky and straightforward fun with no strings attached. I don't care if it's not a masterpiece, it's about being as gratuitous as you can.

[Trioxin]

I get you. Almost every horror film that I absolutely love gets nothing but a bunch shitty reviews. My example, of course, is going to be Silent Night, Deadly Night. They even have a section in the bonus features on the DVD with all the hate the movie got when it was released.

I actually enjoy looking at reviews that critics come up with about movies that I love. It makes me smile. Just being able to upset the masses with a story played out on film is wonderful.(It's even more interesting when a book could cause riots, like Ishikawa Tatsuzo's novel Soldiers Alive.)

To any hardcore horror movie fans, I don't think that anything a critic can say will alter their perception. Anyone who judges something based off of what someone else has to say about it, is subject to manipulation(which makes up a large portion of the world), but we are not. We are proud of what we love and we don't give a fuck what anyone else has to say about it.

[Brett H.]

Horror reviews aren't meant to be definitive, they're meant to be a guideline. I think the key is to read the words in the reviews rather than worrying about the rating of a film they give. Everyone is different, but I find in general if you go to a good (keyword: good) site with good reviewers, their words are almost always relevant. About the only one I can think of off the top of my head from a good site that I found downright nasty was a certain review of Boardinghouse in which the reviewer seemed to have some sort of personal vendetta against it.

[The Dark Vampire]

I'm looking for reviews to be honest but only from here and as most here know I just want to find out how much sex/nudity makes the final cut then I'll make a decision whether I'll watch it or not

[4BarrelHemi]

I never have cared what the reviews have said. I'll go see it and form my own opinion of the film.

[The Dark Vampire]

Unless I really desperate to see a movie (and TBH only comic book movies really fill that) I'll get others thoughts first as I just don't have much time to go to the cinema and I have to pre plan everything around going

[Uncle Hoody]

Whoever does the movie reviews on tv now probably won't even review the movie unless they do it just to vent out venom. When people like Roger Egbert wrote to Paramount after Part 2 and asked them to please stop making these films, that tells you something.

Also, there will probably be threads, are just posts, demanding bad things happen to the critics. Conversely there will be threads, or just posts, of people doing just that, being critical of the movie. Then both sides will call each other a bunch of childish things, and the mods will have to kill a bunch of posts.


And if there is a repeat of Freddy Vs. Jason, people acting like they had some sort of religious experience, I will leave flaming bags of dog crap on door steps.

[Dogmatic Insanity]

Also, there will probably be threads, are just posts, demanding bad things happen to the critics. Conversely there will be threads, or just posts, of people doing just that, being critical of the movie. Then both sides will call each other a bunch of childish things, and the mods will have to kill a bunch of posts.

Ahh, 2003. The boards were fun.

[Brett H.]

Watching Freddy Vs. Jason was and is a religious experience. The movie can suck all it wants so long as the fight delivers. It wasn't supposed to be arthouse jabsen n Freddiey... just Freddy Vs. Jason. It delivered on what it needed to. Over time people forgot the appeal of the film in the first place.

[The Dark Vampire]

I loved FvsJ in fact it's my favourite F13th/Jason movie in still want FvsJ2 but I know it will never happen now:cry: still looking for info on FvsJ2 is what lead me to the old forum so it gave me that and this place at least

[francesco]

I loved FvsJ in fact it's my favourite F13th/Jason movie in still want FvsJ2 but I know it will never happen now:cry: still looking for info on FvsJ2 is what lead me to the old forum so it gave me that and this place at least


same here. critics hated fvs but it's one of my favorite on the entire franchise.

[VoorheesGuy91]

Words cannot describe how much I hate Roger Ebert...the man has a personal vendetta with these films and really needed to get off his soapbox in the 80's.

[The Terminator]

Words cannot describe how much I hate Roger Ebert...the man has a personal vendetta with these films and really needed to get off his soapbox in the 80's.
Ebert's not my favourite guy, but he somewhat redeemed himself in my view after his Superman Returns review. All of which I wholeheartedly agreed with.

But yeah, the reviews for this wont be kind. Which isnt anything new. Just the old status quo. Yay.

[sCabbOy]

Someone needs to do a negative review on how hideous Ebert is.

[The Taff]

I very much respect Roger Ebert's opinions on movies. But just because a reviewer says something about a movie does not mean it should effect YOUR opinion on the movie. He's a man, and he has opinions and tastes just like anyone else. That's why he typically has a co-host, to offer a second opinion. You guys seriously need to lighten up and quit acting like he slapped your mother just because he doesn't like slasher films.

Someone needs to do a negative review on how hideous Ebert is.

That's just petty.

[sCabbOy]

I have no problem with negative reviews, it's just an opinion, BUT (Siskel &) Ebert has attacked the viewers of these films as well, which really brings out a whole new politic with the review. I personally don't care, hell I have seen like 45 movies he/they gave 2 thumbs up and turned out to be complete pieces of shit.

[The Taff]

Ebert has attacked the viewers of these films as well

When was that? I've heard of him being harsh towards the slasher film genre, but I've never heard of him attacking their viewers...

http://www.horrorreview.com/essay/egebertsax2007.html

A good editorial on Roger Ebert and horror films.

It's as simple as this. If someone doesn't like a movie, so fucking what?

[sCabbOy]

Ebert said that male viewers who like these movies are misogynistic and sadistic.

[The Taff]

Ebert said that male viewers who like these movies are misogynistic and sadistic.

Got a link?

[The Terminator]

I very much respect Roger Ebert's opinions on movies. But just because a reviewer says something about a movie does not mean it should effect YOUR opinion on the movie.

You know, someone would seriously have to think ALOT of a particular reviewer to have his or her opinion on such and such movie changed simply due to what the reviewer thought.

[jasonlives13]

I don't get why horror films get slated, especially slashers, the actors arent exactly going to get an oscar for there performance, horror films are meant to scare people, and are popcorn fun, not massive budget making films to appeal to everyone

[The Terminator]

Alot of it stems from the absurd idea that eventually the viewer (yeah the one the neighbors say was always very quiet) is going to go completely apeshit and go out on a massacre because he was influenced by what was in the movie.

[Germaniac]

If the movie got good reviews (by the mainstream critics like Ebert etc) then I would be scared. Each and every installment got bashed got bashed (some more some less) by the critics! Do I have a problem with that? Should we have a problem with that?
I think part of F13th´s sucess conmes from the negative critics by the mainstream-critics. They judge the movies as "disgusting with lots of violence and nudity! " Gonzo-moviegoes and Mrs Lovejoy ("think of the children") get scared and avoid this movie because it doesn´t fit their image of "entertainment". Young teenagers and kiddies get hyped because they think that the negative points in the reviews "violence, dumb fun, big titties yada yadda" is cool and they want to see that. Critics praise movies with Brad Pitt, Mery Streep or lame-ass boring romances and drama. Horror-flicks get bashed. That´s he way it is and it does not affect me nor does it afferct the box-office results. Horror movies have their fans ... and the horror-audience is smart enough (IMO) to see if they might like a movie or if a movie is watchable. The horror-audience has learned that their films get bashed by the mainstream-media so the critics do not affect the box office sucess (IMO) in a bad way.

Now, if the movie gets bashed by lets say horror-critics (reviews in Fangoria and other horror magazines, popular horror-websites, Joe Bob Briggs or bizillions of fans who saw a screening) THEN we might consider this a bad sign for the movie.
As long as Ebert gives the movie two thumbs down (and keeps mentioning how violent and untasteful it is) I am happy!

[jasonlives13]

Alot of it stems from the absurd idea that eventually the viewer (yeah the one the neighbors say was always very quiet) is going to go completely apeshit and go out on a massacre because he was influenced by what was in the movie.

Yeah typical bullshit, like a person who plays on manhunt or gta there gonna go out and kill someone, jack a car, shoot a policeman, fly a plane etc, whats worse is when games like manhunt 2 get cut to bits, for fuck sake its computer generated imagery

[Just Jeans]

Got a link?

I'm not sure he ever made those comments in print.

However, I'm pretty sure there are clips of Ebert (circa the 1980s) making "misogynistic and sadistic" comments on either the Jason Goes to Hell or Jason X DVD. There's also a documentary about the history of horror that tends to air around Halloween, and I think the clips are featured in that, too.

I'll see if I can find a YouTube clip of Ebert making those (frankly nasty) comments. Because while I do respect his opinion as a reviewer -- I often read his reviews, and as time goes by I find myself agreeing with him more and more -- I also think he was quite out of line in those video clips.

[VoorheesGuy91]

I have no problem with negative reviews, it's just an opinion, BUT (Siskel &) Ebert has attacked the viewers of these films as well, which really brings out a whole new politic with the review. I personally don't care, hell I have seen like 45 movies he/they gave 2 thumbs up and turned out to be complete pieces of shit.

:bow::bow::bow::bow:

[Darth Sinister]

The thing is that the majority of the slasher horror films is that they were easy targets, back in the day. As soon as "Halloween" became a hit, everybody and his mother was making one. The things that Siskel and Ebert had liked about "Halloween" was tarnished by "Friday The 13th" and the others. Up until then, no major US studio had made a film like that and the films that had come before, they weren't as offensive to their sensibilities. What changed was the box office for "Halloween" and the simplicity of it's story, which made it easy to copy. Only now these films were relying on gore as a selling point. Instead of just the quality of films from yesteryear, we now had axes splitting skulls and power drills in the head. Horror films began to grow into it's own genere like sci-fi had years earlier.

In the end, horror films were raked over the coals by both critics and parents groups. It's part of the reason why the latter Paramount films weren't as gory as they were in the beginning. We were sitting there, enjoying these films and often rooting for Jason to kill someone. Protests were held to bring Jason back from the grave. But, these films made a profit. It put food on the table and paid the bills for a lot of people. Careers were launched from it.

[JVM]

Most people around here don't listen to film critic reviews, BUT...

They listen to Video Game Reviews like the shit. GameSpot is God.

My friend was hellbent on getting G:U - he read ONE IGN review and automatically said the game was garbage and I wasted $50

Dick.

[The Dark Vampire]

Most people around here don't listen to film critic reviews, BUT...

They listen to Video Game Reviews like the shit. GameSpot is God.

My friend was hellbent on getting G:U - he read ONE IGN review and automatically said the game was garbage and I wasted $50

Dick.

I don't listen to game reviews if I did I wouldn't own 1 wrestling game (on a side note I own every WWE game ever made since the NES)

[Michellemabelle]

It WILL get negative reviews.


Well that's thinking positive. :D

[sCabbOy]

Got a link?

No, it was a book... "The Female Horror Movie Fan" or something.

It's not like I looked for a link and then said "AHA! To hell with Siskel & Ebert!" I read it in a book about how female horror fans are looked down on. S&E saying male horror viewers are misogynistic and sadistic stuck out at me because it infuriated me.

I wish I knew the name of the book.

Also, I should say that the book could have misquoted him/them, but I doubt it.

[Brett H.]

As much as people talk shit about Ebert being closed-minded, it's not like they're searching out the legitimate classics he does review, either. Anyone rushing out to get Fitzcarraldo or Mephisto on DVD?

Are his ideals on horror stupid? Yes, but who really cares? Can you really expect him to enjoy the cheese that is Boardinghouse? Ebert reads between the lines of a lot of good films and it's no wonder he thinks F13 is drab when even I (who has seen infinitely less than him) know there are no lines to read in between. He ain't perfect, but he watches films with real art in them, and it's hard to argue against that. And, I know from fact he gives thoughtful horror films good reviews all the time. Hell, he gave Cronenberg's Shivers a positive review when every critic in Canada was banishing that film from the country. He looks at his films in terms of characters and plot... is there a real shame in that?

[JVM]

Let me ask you guys one thing...

Honestly, are those morons at IGN and GameSpot "professional, trained reviewers?"

I don't think there is such a thing but everyone her insists GameSpot is.

[Brett H.]

Friday the 13th, Part 2

BY ROGER EBERT / January 1, 1981

I saw FRIDAY THE 13TH, PART II at the Virginia Theater, a former vaudeville house in my hometown of Champaign-Urbana, Illinois. The late show was half-filled with high school and college students, and as the lights went down I experienced a brief wave of nostalgia. In this very theater, on countless Friday nights, I'd gone with a date to the movies. My nostalgia lasted for the first two minutes of the movie.
The pretitle sequence showed one of the heroines of the original FRIDAY THE 13TH, alone at home. She has nightmares, wakes up, undresses, is stalked by the camera, hears a noise in the kitchen. She tiptoes into the kitchen. Through the open window, a cat springs into the room. The audience screamed loudly and happily: It's fun to be scared. Then an unidentified man sunk an ice pick into the girl's brain, and, for me, the fun stopped.
The audience, however, carried on. It is a tradition to be loud during these movies, I guess. After a batch of young counselors turns up for training at a summer camp, a girl goes out walking alone at night. Everybody in the audience imitated hoot-owls and hyenas. Another girl went to her room and started to undress. Five guys sitting together started a chant: "We want boobs!" The plot: In the original movie, a summer camp staff was wiped out by a demented woman whose son had been allowed to drown by incompetent camp counselors. At the end of that film, the mother was decapitated by the young woman who is killed with an ice pick at the beginning of PART II. The legend grows that the son, Jason, did not really drown, but survived, and lurks in the woods waiting to take his vengeance against the killer of his mother É and against camp counselors in general, I guess.
That sets up the film. The counselors are introduced, very briefly, and then some of them go into town for a beer and the rest stay at the camp to make out with each other. A mystery assailant prowls around the main cabin. We see only his shadow and his shoes. One by one, he picks off the kids. He sinks a machete into the brain of a kid in a wheelchair. He surprises a boy and a girl making love, and nails them to a bunk with a spear through both their bodies. When the other kids return to the camp, it's their turn. After almost everyone has been killed in a disgusting and violent way, one girl chews up the assailant with a chain saw, after which we discover the mummies in his cabin in the woods, after which he jumps through a window at the girl, etc.
This movie is a cross between the Mad Slasher and Dead teenager genres; about two dozen movies a year feature a mad killer going berserk, and they're all about as bad as this one. Some have a little more plot, some have a little less. It doesn't matter.
Sinking into my seat in this movie theater from my childhood, I remembered the movie fantasies when I was a kid. They involved teenagers who fell in love, made out with each other, customized their cars, listened to rock and roll, and were rebels without causes. Neither the kids in those movies nor the kids watching them would have understood a world view in which the primary function of teenagers is to be hacked to death. *This review will suffice for the Friday the 13th film of your choice.

Quite frankly, other than his personal interpretation, I have no grudge with the review in itself.

[Jigsaw]

Horror films almost always get bad reviews. It doesn't mean squat to me, I'll go see the movies I want to see and enjoy them, regardless of what the critics say.

[MaDMaNMaRz]

Ebert said that male viewers who like these movies are misogynistic and sadistic.

I think he said that in the Going to Pieces documentary. There was a section in it where they had a TV special, and if i'm not mistaken he said that males that go to see those films.....and the filmmakers.....are misogynistic.

[Jigsaw]

Gene Siskel even gave Betsy Palmer's address in a review he did for the original F13 :X Now that's going too far, it's one thing to hate a movie somebody does, but to give away sensitive personal information like that and invade a person's privacy like that is completely unacceptable and inexcusable. With all due respect to the late Siskel, he should've been fired and jailed for doing that.

[The Taff]

Let me ask you guys one thing...

Honestly, are those morons at IGN and GameSpot "professional, trained reviewers?"

I havn't held IGN in high regard since that reviewer verbally attacked Michael Krahulik for disagreeing with his Assassin's Creed review.

Something about Ebert that I don't agree with is his dismissal of Video Games as an art form. With the evolution of story telling in games, I think they are very much an art form. Hell, some games out there tell better stories than a lot of tripe on the silver screen these days. Bioshock deserves a fucking Oscar for best writing. Fortunately he reviews video game movies based on the fact they are movies. He gave Resident Evil a terrible review (which it whole heartedly deserved) and praised Hitman (Which was grossly under appreciated and is a very good film.)

But I don't let that detract from my respect for the man.

[Jigsaw]

Wasn't there also a GameSpot reviewer who got fired for giving the game Kane & Lynch a negative review?

[The Taff]

Wasn't there also a GameSpot reviewer who got fired for giving the game Kane & Lynch a negative review?

He gave it a "Fair" rating, which isn't bad, but isn't good. Unfortunately Eidos had paid for total site integration with Kane and Lynch advertising, and Eidos didn't like that, so the man was fired. Horse shit, yes, but it's another reason not to listen to site reviews. A lot of times publishers will buy good reviews from sites.

[DistantJ]

All very smart replies so far, thanks everybody!

This is my point exactly - Friday the 13th, like most genre movies, is the kind of movie we EXPECT to be rated poorly - if it recieved high ratings from the big critics, it'd probably worry me as we'd be seeing a movie which just wasn't what F13th was all about - it wouldn't be a popcorn flick.

Some particularly good points about Gamestop and sites like that too...

We see on all the documentaries and things about how badly reviewed some of our favourite movies were when they first showed up, but they still topped the box office charts through word of mouth and good advertising. It doesn't matter shit what some critic said, who isn't happy unless he's watching a victorian period drama coming of age tale which makes him question humanity. But with the internet it seems to take a different turn which really depresses me. I mean, Friday the 13th topped the box office charts because everybody saw it, told their friends how great it was, and they saw it. So howcome now if I tell a friend a videogame is awesome, he won't get it because IGN said it was bad? I mean that's the exact opposite of how it should be...

I think a good example may be Independance Day, a film which, as far as I know, most people enjoyed when it came out (or most of the people I know did, anyway), but once they got on the internet, suddenly were merged into this strange circle of consensus which is the internet and just "accepted" the "fact" that it was a bad movie. I mean, whatever you thought of that film, this kind of thing does happen. Heck, with the way people talk, I sometimes feel like there's something wrong with me for loving Rob Zombie's Halloween. Is it a bad movie, and my opinion incorrect? Of course not.

So basically what I'm worried about is that due to this new type of review following we get, people will all say that the remake is terrible, soils the name of Friday the 13th, etc. simply because the critics tell us it's bad, dispite the fact that they said that about the original classic as well. A few people passed on watching Rob Zombie's Halloween with me because the reviews were against it, but those who did all loved it. See where I'm going with this?

[Hockey Mask]

The reviews are the best part...

http://hockeymask.wordpress.com/the-best-of-the-worst-friday-the-13th-reviews/

[SaturdayThe14th]

people always shit on horror movies. when they judge them they don't do it based on its own scale, which horror movies should have. they are a different breed of movies. no one is tryiing to win an oscar when making a horror movie, ya know? like sure if you compare a movie like say Cabin Fever to something like Saving Private Ryan, Cabin Fever is going to look tasteless and disgusting and generally bad. But they are not on the same level, SO BACK OFF FILM CRITICS!!!

[AmonStone]

Thing is with shows like Sikel and Ebert, or whoever is on that show now, they seems to not like much at all. They'll do 4 or 5 or six movies, all will suck to them except some obscure arthouse movie from French Tobago or some damn place. They need to review each film in respect to its genre.
Was the Halloween remake a piece of art? Nope, but for the the genre, it wasn't bad at all.

[Just Jeans]

Ebert hasn't been on the show in a long time, has he? He's been too ill.

On TV, he did seem to hate everything. But I know that the more of his reviews I read on his Chicago Sun-Times website, the more I find myself agreeing with him. :X

[AmonStone]

Dont think he has. They rotate hosts or something now. Even with that, the reviewers always seem to pick some weird obscure movie as their favorite. I find it hard to believe that with all the horror movies out there, they cant find one that they've liked. I like horror films, but not all of course. But they will give a movie like Silence of the Lambs a positive review, and I think I'd call that a horror movie, just a very well done one. Others might disagree though.

[Darth Sinister]

Ebert hasn't been on since he had throat and facial surgery two years ago. He can't speak like he used to, so they did a series of rotating guest hosts. But then that's changed as Roper has been let go and a new format has been put in it's place. In regards to something like "The Silence Of The Lambs", they'll give that a better review because it features real actors dealing with realistic situations. There's a real director, a real script and real acting. It's nothing like the slashers which is why it recieved fair praise and won the awards it did.

[jimsmith]

I just hate movie critics! Even if they do like a movie I also like.

[sooners4life98]

I don't care if this gets negative reviews. It is not going to to stop me from seeing it.

[The Dream Master]

I would say that we'll be seeing reviews of this in a few weeks, but I don't think there's much of a chance of this being screened for critics. I can think of at least one place that will have a review up the night that it comes out, though. ;)

[sooners4life98]

This board is going to be flooded with reviews that night.

[The 5th Golden Girl]

I know many people don't care, but the reviews have started to pore in. I checked rottentomatoes.com to see what the general consensus was, and it's not as bad as I expected. Roger Ebert was kind of a dick about the movie and the franchise in his review (surprise, surprise), but he ended up giving it two stars (out of four) which I found kind of funny. Then again, he used frickin' Wikipedia to do research on the series as a whole like some kind of high school student too lazy to do real research, so his credibility is questionable.

[simonthekillerewok]

Generally I try NOT to read reviews at all because

1. It can spoil parts of the film
2. If it's a negative review, seeds of doubt are placed in my mind and I become more critical of the movie. Basically brainwashed by the media.. everyone is to some extent.
3. If it's an extremely positive review, than I'll expect the film to be a masterpiece, I go in and it isn't what it's cracked up to be so I feel disappointed
4. Film reviewers like Roger Ebert don't know shit about the horror genre. Their opinions were made up years before they see a horror film, and their own egos cloud everything else
5. Film critics and film reviewers don't understand the function of horror movies. I know this because when studying film, we were never told to write an essay on a classic horror. The closest we came was Nosferatu but only because it's a historical achievement.

[Darth Sinister]

I know many people don't care, but the reviews have started to pore in. I checked rottentomatoes.com to see what the general consensus was, and it's not as bad as I expected. Roger Ebert was kind of a dick about the movie and the franchise in his review (surprise, surprise), but he ended up giving it two stars (out of four) which I found kind of funny. Then again, he used frickin' Wikipedia to do research on the series as a whole like some kind of high school student too lazy to do real research, so his credibility is questionable.

Well, Ebert's never been a fan. So his using Wikipedia makes sense. Now if the reviewer was a hardcore fan, but had to use Wikipedia, then his credibility would be in question.

[The Dream Master]

It's not the fact that Ebert had to research it, it's the fact that he used Wikipedia to do so. Even the 9th graders I teach know better than to use Wikipedia. I generally like Ebert too (his jackassy history with the F13 series notwithstanding), but the idea of using Wikipedia for hard journalism is a bit laughable.

[Sharky]

The only reason movie critics bother with horror movies reviews at all is because the "low brow" public is always looking for the next big scare, even if the public isn't generally interested in horror movies. But if people hear that a movie is really really scary, they'll flock to it, like with the original halloween and blair witch project. So the critics still review them, just to sell magazines or tv adspace. Just my thoughts, hope that makes sense?

I don't really mind negative reviews and I don't read movie critics except to get a plot summary.

[The Terminator]

I like Ebert, but I am not the least bit surprised by his lack of interest in Friday the 13th, or it's history. Far as I know, him and Gene absolutely loathed the Friday the 13th films back in the 1980's, and some things just never change.

[HeavyMetalNinja]

Often when I read an ultra negative review of a film, I wonder if that reviewer has written a positive review of any film in the genre, and if not, why are they being asked to write reviews for that genre if they just don't like it? Seems a bit silly really. I think some people like to think that if you're a "professional film reviewer" then it means you're able to assess whether a film is "good" or not, but it is entirely subjective, and I don't really care what anybody else says about a movie, it only matters if I enjoy it. My enjoyment of a movie is not reduced by somebody else who thinks it is balls.