I remember Bloom's performance, and it wasn't a match for the others, except for Knightley.  Knightley's performance was unconvincing in the third one.

I don't feel Bloom deserve the nomination, but he got it, and Knightley didn't, so there you go.

Pirates 3 is gonna lose to Transformers.  Both movies may be weak if not bad, but the special effects in Transformers were above and beyond anything.

Originally posted by Movie Man Good News to those that liked the movie on the message board: "Pirates of the Caribbean 3" is a semi-finalist in the field of best special visual effects for this year's Academy Awards: http://www.variety.com/awardcentral_article/VR1117977801.htm l?nav=news&categoryid=1982&cs=1

Good News to those that liked the movie on the message board: "Pirates of the Caribbean 3" is a semi-finalist in the field of best special visual effects for this year's Academy Awards:

http://www.variety.com/awardcentral_article/VR1117977801.htm l?nav=news&categoryid=1982&cs=1   

 

Originally posted by Mrs. Magnatech Keira Knightley for Worst Supporting Actress, definitely. Even the monkey and the parrot out-acted her.

I'm glad this movie is at least being debated.  Although, yes, it was not as bad as Good Luck Chuck, Bratz or Awake, or for that matter, I Know Who Killed Me, Daddy Day Camp, Are We Done Yet?, Revolver or Epic Movie, there were severe problems with this movie that seem to characterize all the major blockbuster sequels this year.  Of particular concern to me was the mishmash that passed for a script, producing a plot you'd be hard-pressed to describe in one short sentence, and Keira Knightley's acting, which kept me saying "yeah, right" every time I saw her on the screen.  And this doesn't even begin to address "sequel-itis", the problem that very few sequels match the superiority of the originals. 

Yes, I've read that Elliott and Rosso were writing the 3rd installment as it was being filmed, and in this case, the movie shows that rushed attempt.  Saving this movie was how many things were done well.  The directing was superb, Verbinski taking what could have been as bad as any of the movies listed above and, one scene at a time, wringing out the best performances with the best filming and the best special effects he could get.  And most of the other actors gave superb performances, such as Nighy, Depp, Rush, Davenport and Chow.

But I don't think, just because other movies are worse than any particular movie, that we shouldn't at least go over the problems of that particular movie.    If anything, it keeps us on our toes.

If they shoot Pirates 4, I feel it will go to the big screen before it goes to DVD.

Moviewizguy, does two movie sequels being realeased four years apart ring a bell to you?

Worst Supporting Actors this year should be:

Jon Voight TRANSFORMERS + BRATZ: THE MOVIE

The entire cast EPIC MOVIE

Paul Rae DADDY DAY CAMP

Lochlyn Munro DADDY DAY CAMP

Patrick Warburton UNDERDOG

Originally posted by Kenny In my opinion, Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley are BOTH strong Razzie-contenders.

But it does look like John Lassiter may be starting to turn Feature Animation around with his insistance on high-quality story above everything else: Several of the projects slated for release in the near future--particularly The Princess and the Frog (or whatever the title ends up being) should be good if done properly (although you do still wish Howard Ashman were still around, so we could be a little more confident).  If they gave Lassiter all the marbles over Bob Iger--come on Roy, if you ran the site to get rid of Eisner for a year and a half and essentially succeeded in the end, surely you can do the same for his old-wine-in-a-new-bottle prime minister--perhaps the whole thing could turn around. 

Guess we'll just have to wait and see...

Disney is probably the worst film company right now. Walt Disney was one of the greatest filmakers of all time, his Snow White captured the imagination of moviegoers, everywhere for all time. But Disney would probably roll in his grave now, seeing what's happened to his company. Okay, the Disney/Pixar films are good, (except the Food Safety Video a.k.a. 'Ratouille' OH I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU SPELL THE FILM TITLE!?!).

First there was the teribbly lame humor in "Hannah Montana" (and a Hannah Montana movie is in the works according to Wikipedia), then the stereotypes in "High School Musical" (Disney probably never dreamed of doing crap like that!)  and finally the theatrical release of "High School Musical 3" in 2008, and "HSM 4" in 2009 -- all definitive worst pictures. What are they going to do next, Retirement Home Musical? Got some good lyrics for a musical like that!

A ninety year-old Soy singing:
Did someone see my hearing aids?

A ninety ear old Sharp-gay singing:
Did someone see my dentures?

A ninety year Shy-an singing:
SHUT UP! I'M TRYING TO SLEEP!

Or something like that...fight the power!

PIRATES #1 was good. PIRATES #2 was OK (but much, much, MUCH too long). PIRATES #3 I have not seen, but I may rent it on video when it comes out (because on DVD, I can pause when I have to go the bathroom or want to get some more popcorn). But is #3 worth the rental? Is it a definitive Worst Picture? Should I ignore it?

Response from Head RAZZberry: While it is every bit as overlong, overloud and "under-logical" as its immediate predecessor, I must admit that, given the other drek Hollywood's been pumping out this year (See our COMPLETE LIST of 2007 TITLES) PIRATES 3: AT WIT'S END is not likely to be among the final five when we announce our 28th Annual RAZZIE Awards nominees next January... 

Umm...Head RAZZ, I have one question for ya. Do you know how much PIRATES 3 cost to make? 'Cause after this past weekend, U.S. Box Office for this film has passed the $300 Million mark, and is sitting at $927 Million worldwide. So it looks like it still made money (and high numbers worldwide) while only doing okay in the U.S...  

Response from Head RAZZberry: According to B.O. MoJo, PIRATES 3: AT WIT'S END cost about $300 million to produce ( LINK ). If you add in prints and advertising (which for this title probably topped $75 million) the film's domestic gross fell short of Disney's investment. But with its international numbers at more than twice the US figure (about $625 million) clearly, even by Hollywood's screwy accounting methods, the film did make money... 

GOOFS: Continuity: In the 'white desert' scene with Captain Jack Sparrow, it is supposed to be completely wind still. However, Johnny Depp's hair is visibly moving from a slight breeze.

Speaking of Jack Sparrow, he still has more movies coming out. There's SWEENEY TODD, coming out January 11, 2008, playing the title character, and re-teaming with Tim Burton in that. With the addition of SWEENEY TODD, it will be the 6th film Johnny Depp and Tim Burton have done together. He has also been rumored to be in SIN CITY 2 and SIN CITY 3 as well, and has two more films in pre-production called THE RUM DIARY and SHANTARAM.

Originally posted by Sanndman228715 I have to disagree with whoever said Johnny Depp wasn't good in From Hell. I thought he was tremendous in that. His accent was spot-on, and his drug induced scenes were convincing. To me that's his most underrated role. As for Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Blow, I didn't see either of them, unfortunately.

Agreed, although the movie From Hell itself was a bit of a disappointment.