The Official RAZZIE® Forum : a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? http://www.razzies.com/forum/ This is an XML content feed of; The Official RAZZIE® Forum : PREDATORS : a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:25:50 +0000 Thu, 23 Dec 2010 04:44:26 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Web Wiz Forums 9.70 360 www.razzies.com/forum/RSS_post_feed.asp?TID=4405 The Official RAZZIE® Forum http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_images/RazzieLogo02.gif http://www.razzies.com/forum/ a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : If this gets worst anything, I'll... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=37393#37393 Author: oiram
Subject: 4405
Posted: December 23 2010 at 4:44am

If this gets worst anything, I'll be sad, because this isn't that bad, especially compared to the other *bleep* we had the swim through.]]> Thu, 23 Dec 2010 04:44:26 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=37393#37393 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : Please, in another day or two,... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=33650#33650 Author: BurnHollywoodBurn
Subject: 4405
Posted: August 05 2010 at 11:31am

Please, in another day or two, this kid will forget this forum even exists. Mindlessly loyal fanboys have short attention spans like that.]]> Thu, 05 Aug 2010 11:31:45 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=33650#33650 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : I'm guessing a fanboy/hater. ... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=33637#33637 Author: cvcjr13
Subject: 4405
Posted: August 04 2010 at 8:57pm

I'm guessing a fanboy/hater.
]]> Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:57:21 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=33637#33637 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : Ugggh... Another attacker?? http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=33635#33635 Author: GTAHater767
Subject: 4405
Posted: August 04 2010 at 6:06pm

Ugggh... Another attacker??]]> Wed, 04 Aug 2010 18:06:23 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=33635#33635 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : And I feel instead that the... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=33623#33623 Author: cvcjr13
Subject: 4405
Posted: August 04 2010 at 7:59am

And I feel instead that the movie studios should stop putting out blatantly bad movies.  John Wilson provides us movie fans a much needed outlet to counter all these bad movies.
 
Originally posted by razziessuckass

Angry John Wilson should leave movies alone because im sick and tired of him and his stupid Razzie arwards! >:(

]]> Wed, 04 Aug 2010 07:59:25 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=33623#33623 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : i give this movie a 100/100 beacuse... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=33618#33618 Author: razziessuckass
Subject: 4405
Posted: August 03 2010 at 11:23pm

i give this movie a 100/100 beacuse i love the Predator movies!Smile]]> Tue, 03 Aug 2010 23:23:52 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=33618#33618 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : John Wilsonshould leave movies... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=33617#33617 Author: razziessuckass
Subject: 4405
Posted: August 03 2010 at 11:21pm

Angry John Wilson should leave movies alone because im sick and tired of him and his stupid Razzie arwards! >:(  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Please define the word "arwards." I am unfamiliar with it...  



]]> Tue, 03 Aug 2010 23:21:48 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=33617#33617 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : Um, no, I went in with an open... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=33240#33240 Author: BurnHollywoodBurn
Subject: 4405
Posted: July 23 2010 at 8:25pm

Um, no, I went in with an open mind thinking they would do an original movie that just happened to be a sequel, but I was sadly mistaken. And what is wrong with thinking the actors should be more buffed up like the ones in the original movie? That would make sense since they would look like real killesr who could stand a chance with the Predators. These people look like lambs that should have been killed off within a matter fo seconds. Danny Trejo was the only one who looked like he belonged. Oh, and nitpicking is what a critic is suppose to do, not just sit there and except everything is without fails. I mean if your car's tires blow out, do you just keep driving and say to yourself "Oh, that's no big deal, the sparks are suppose to be coming out of the wheels"?  

Originally posted by scoobs23

 
Ah, in the first film, Arnold used mud in order to avoid the Predator's heat senses. Not nearly as much of a "rip-off" as it is the lead character just using something to his advantage. What you're doing here is nitpicking. You were probably waiting for one these lines to pop off so you could yell "rip-off!...". This film, while retaining some elements from the original, clearly didn't want it to follow it and wanted to offer something different, which is why the actors aren't as "big and strong", and fyi, Brody's physical appearance for this film is very similar to that of a mercenary, cut and lean, because it fits the character. Oh and you may want to work on not contradicting yourself, on hand you criticize the film for "ripping off" the original, while on the other hand you criticize it for not having similar built actors from the original.
]]> Fri, 23 Jul 2010 20:25:31 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=33240#33240 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn Well,... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=33237#33237 Author: scoobs23
Subject: 4405
Posted: July 23 2010 at 6:48pm

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn


Well, I had a free movie pass and I gave the movie a try. Sure enough, yet another worthless remake that adds NOTHING to the series. No, it doesn't pay "homage" to the first movie, it copies and pastes everywhere ... the being covered in mud, the lines like "What the hell are you" and "I'm right here, come kill me", etc. Not to mention the first movie had a rag-tag team of big, strong, well-armed marines that could be a match for the Predators ... here, we have a team of skinny, little twigs as opponents! I say "guilty pleasure" at best ... with way more "guilt" than pleasure to it! 


Ah, in the first film, Arnold used mud in order to avoid the Predator's heat senses. Not nearly as much of a "rip-off" as it is the lead character just using something to his advantage. What you're doing here is nitpicking. You were probably waiting for one these lines to pop off so you could yell "rip-off!...". This film, while retaining some elements from the original, clearly didn't want it to follow it and wanted to offer something different, which is why the actors aren't as "big and strong", and fyi, Brody's physical appearance for this film is very similar to that of a mercenary, cut and lean, because it fits the character. Oh and you may want to work on not contradicting yourself, on hand you criticize the film for "ripping off" the original, while on the other hand you criticize it for not having similar built actors from the original.]]> Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:48:25 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=33237#33237 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : It's fairly obvious that... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=33236#33236 Author: scoobs23
Subject: 4405
Posted: July 23 2010 at 6:41pm

It's fairly obvious that certain people have a clear agenda on this board. When a film like this both performs at the box office and critically, certain posters right it off as saying, "well, the film is OKAY for what it is"....A sort of backhanded compliment, if even that. It's fairly funny that aside from the blatantly obvious awful films, the resident "experts" on this board have been a bit off with their predictions.]]> Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:41:38 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=33236#33236 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : If it doesn't get nominated,... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=33026#33026 Author: GTAHater767
Subject: 4405
Posted: July 17 2010 at 11:24am

If it doesn't get nominated, Predators might be #40 or #39 on my Worst of '010, come to think of it.]]> Sat, 17 Jul 2010 11:24:17 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=33026#33026 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : Well, I had a free movie pass... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=33022#33022 Author: BurnHollywoodBurn
Subject: 4405
Posted: July 17 2010 at 9:51am

Well, I had a free movie pass and I gave the movie a try. Sure enough, yet another worthless remake that adds NOTHING to the series. No, it doesn't pay "homage" to the first movie, it copies and pastes everywhere ... the being covered in mud, the lines like "What the hell are you" and "I'm right here, come kill me", etc. Not to mention the first movie had a rag-tag team of big, strong, well-armed marines that could be a match for the Predators ... here, we have a team of skinny, little twigs as opponents! I say "guilty pleasure" at best ... with way more "guilt" than pleasure to it! ]]> Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:51:49 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=33022#33022 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : Mayhem5185:I, too, have heard... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32908#32908 Author: BurnHollywoodBurn
Subject: 4405
Posted: July 10 2010 at 6:59am

Mayhem5185: I, too, have heard good things about this movie from those who saw it. I'm not going to hold the movie in high regard compared to the first Predator movie until I see it for myself. Besides, 64% is like a "D" average. 

But your statement proves once and for all that sequels and remakes can be good IF there's a talented writer/producer/director with creative vision behind it like Rodriquez, who will do his best with the project, instead of a talentless hack like Bay, who just throws a piece of s*** together over a weekend and calls it a movie.
]]> Sat, 10 Jul 2010 06:59:31 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32908#32908 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : MWG: Whena large amount of critics... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32906#32906 Author: BurnHollywoodBurn
Subject: 4405
Posted: July 10 2010 at 6:54am

MWG: When a large amount of critics are ripping a movie to shreds, chances are it's because the movie is bad. Granted, the critics didn't really do that with this movie, but they do with almost all other movies on this forum. You come across as someone who so desperately wants every movie to be good and be successful that you will lower your standards and say its good, just to have the opposite opinion of most critics and most of the rest of us here on this Forum.  ]]> Sat, 10 Jul 2010 06:54:18 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32906#32906 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : If they actually makeRocky vs.... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32905#32905 Author: BurnHollywoodBurn
Subject: 4405
Posted: July 10 2010 at 6:47am

If they actually make Rocky vs. Predator, will the Predator go back in time and fight young Rocky from the first movie, because if he fights modern day, 60+ old Rocky, it's going to be a short fight.]]> Sat, 10 Jul 2010 06:47:33 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32905#32905 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : I gave it a try. You can view... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32903#32903 Author: cvcjr13
Subject: 4405
Posted: July 09 2010 at 11:21pm

I gave it a try.  You can view it here.  I'll be tweaking it every now and then.  Sadly, it lacks that P.T. Barnum / advertising delivery gloved in gleeful satire that HeadRAZZ has perfected over the years.

]]> Fri, 09 Jul 2010 23:21:05 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32903#32903 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : Do you think you could achieve... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32900#32900 Author: GTAHater767
Subject: 4405
Posted: July 09 2010 at 9:29pm

Do you think you could achieve a HeadRAZZBerry style front post on this Love Ranch forum?]]> Fri, 09 Jul 2010 21:29:50 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32900#32900 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : I never heard of Metacritics before.... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32898#32898 Author: cvcjr13
Subject: 4405
Posted: July 09 2010 at 8:36pm

I never heard of Metacritics before.  I will check it out.
 
I will attempt to piece together a Forum for "Love Ranch", partly for the reason that I do believe we should include Helen Mirren's worst picture in our calculations for this year, but mostly just to see how well I can do it. 
 
Originally posted by cvcjr13

I'm amazed by this film's reviews, too.  I would have thought sticking Adrian Brody in the umpteenth film about Predators was a perfect recipe for Razzie purée.  Currently, there's 72 reviews, 70% of them being fresh and 50% of the top critics rating it fresh.  Completely unexpected!    

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I am curious why everyone is referring to this film's RT Numbers, and not bothering to check its rating at the other review site we link to, MetaCritic -- Whose numbers I actually find more credible than those at RT. While PREDATORS is hardly in the same range at MetaCritic as, say, LAST AIRBENDER, it's current MetaCritic rating is a fair-to-middling 50% Approval (LINK). And I notice that score does not include the negative review PREDATORS got in this morning's L.A. Times (LINK). So it may not be a contender come January, but it is still indicative of Hollywood's current malaise when it comes to doing anything truly original any more...
 
Since Predators apparently isn't bad enough, can we have a forum for last week's Love Ranch  instead (RT rating 14%/10%)?  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: The reviews on LOVE RANCH have been surprisingly negative, especially for something co-starring two respected Oscar® winners. But our Forum tends to focus on films audiences across the country have the opportunity to see, and LOVE RANCH, while it technically qualifies for our consideration, seems unlikely to ever play on more than maybe 3 dozen screens before it goes to DVD. If you feel strongly about it, cvcjr13, you are certainly free to start a Forum about it yourself...  

]]> Fri, 09 Jul 2010 20:36:36 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32898#32898 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : I'm saving my money for Rocky... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32896#32896 Author: saturnwatcher
Subject: 4405
Posted: July 09 2010 at 7:35pm

I'm saving my money for Rocky vs. Predator: This time, it's for the heavyweight championship of the universe!]]> Fri, 09 Jul 2010 19:35:46 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32896#32896 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : Thank you,Mayhem5185. Yours is... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32895#32895 Author: moviewizguy
Subject: 4405
Posted: July 09 2010 at 7:01pm

Thank you, Mayhem5185. Yours is the most sensible post I've read in a loooooong time (well, since the post about illegally downloading movies).  

Originally posted by Mayhem5185

It sounds like your a little bitter about this, it's almost like your saying "Oh my god RT isn't giving me the results i want, I'll just go over to metacritic they wont let me down.

Now I cant speak for everyone but here's the reason i don't use metacritic as a more trustful movie review site, it's the numbers. On RT Predators is at 63 with 117 reviews, meanwhile on Metacritic it's at50 with only 28 reviews, all of which come from major publications. On a personal level, while i do read those reviews and take them into account when i see a movie, i actually prefer hearing the viewpoints from the smaller publications. I'd rather have a consensus from a lot of different people from various backgrounds then a very small amount.

With all the other bad movies that have come out it seems your being awfully hard on this one. Yes its not original (Wah), but Rodriquez and Nimrod did something in Hollywood that's almost as rare, They created a sequel to one of the best cult action movies of all time, and they showed enormous respect to the source material (Take note Michael Bay). And in a time when most directors and studios give the middle finger to the fans, these guys actually make a movie that doesn't sh*t on them or "rape their childhood", that should be commended, we should be demanding that more directors do this, that's just me though. 


You should watch Maury.  

Originally posted by Mayhem5185

And on a side note this new feud between Gee-wiz and Burn is actually pretty funny, this is a whole lot better than Burn/Miguel battles. Lets keep this up, i love this stuff.
]]> Fri, 09 Jul 2010 19:01:23 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32895#32895 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : Are you kidding, HeadRAZZberry?... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32894#32894 Author: moviewizguy
Subject: 4405
Posted: July 09 2010 at 6:58pm

Are you kidding, HeadRAZZberry? On the Eclipse board, you said to use RT instead of Metacritic, in which the film has a higher score. Now that it's opposite for this film, you're wanting to use Metacritic and not RT. Now I'm confused what site we're supposed to use??  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I am not "suggesting" either site be used exclusively. I started offering ratings from both for perusal to give some balance in determining critical consensus because I noticed about 6 months ago that RT tended, in general, to have more negative numbers than MetaCritic. While that would seem to be of interest for our purposes, I didn't think either site alone offered a clear indicator of how critics in general rated movies. It was also significant, when I researched MetaCritic before I started adding it to our Reviews Lynx, that they claimed to get their numbers from the critics themselves, rather than merely characterizing what the reviews said, as RT does. Also, as Head RAZZberry, I probably read more full reviews than just about anyone, and in doing so, I noticed that RT often ascribed a "Rotten" icon to what was actually a middling review. 

In this particular case, when I posted my response about the difference between the two sites' ratings of PREDATORS, I was merely pointing out that the dichotomy in this instance was greater than usual.

Can we all calm down now??  
]]> Fri, 09 Jul 2010 18:58:28 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32894#32894 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : I'm not going to name Predators... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32893#32893 Author: GTAHater767
Subject: 4405
Posted: July 09 2010 at 6:56pm

I'm not going to name Predators to my Worst of O-Ten come March, but I'm going to say it's an okay movie except for Adrien Brody's small build, unfitting for this role.]]> Fri, 09 Jul 2010 18:56:17 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32893#32893 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : And on a side note this new feud... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32889#32889 Author: Mayhem5185
Subject: 4405
Posted: July 09 2010 at 5:36pm

And on a side note this new feud between Gee-wiz and Burn is actually pretty funny, this is a whole lot better than Burn/Miguel battles. Lets keep this up, i love this stuff.]]> Fri, 09 Jul 2010 17:36:04 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32889#32889 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : With all the other bad movies... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32888#32888 Author: Mayhem5185
Subject: 4405
Posted: July 09 2010 at 5:03pm

With all the other bad movies that have come out it seems you're being awfully hard on this one. Yes its not original (Wah), but Rodriquez and Nimrod did something in Hollywood that's almost as rare: They created a sequel to one of the best cult action movies of all time, and they showed enormous respect to the source material (Take note Michael Bay). And in a time when most directors and studios give the middle finger to the fans, these guys actually make a movie that doesn't sh*t on them or "rape their childhood." That should be commended -- we should be demanding that more directors do this! Maybe that's just me though. 

It sounds like you're a little bitter about this, it's almost like you're saying "Oh my god RT isn't giving me the results i want, I'll just go over to metacritic they wont let me down."  

Now I cant speak for everyone, but here's the reason I don't use MetaCritic as a more trustful movie review site: It's the numbers. On RT, Predators is at 63 with 117 reviews, meanwhile on MetaCritic it's at 50, but with only 28 reviews, all of which come from major publications. On a personal level, while I do read those reviews and take them into account when i see a movie, I actually prefer hearing the viewpoints of smaller publications. I'd rather have a consensus from a lot of different people from various backgrounds than a very small sample.  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I don't think I'm "bitter," as I said in my earlier response, I am curious why most of our members seem to look only at RT for critical consensus. It is also interesting that, as time has passed, the numbers at the two sites seem to be converging -- Suggesting that PREDATORS may indeed not be a RAZZIE® contender, but may also not be worth paying current movie admission prices to see -- The equivalent of the "Rent It" rating on At The Movies...

]]> Fri, 09 Jul 2010 17:03:09 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32888#32888 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : What's a good movie and what's... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32887#32887 Author: moviewizguy
Subject: 4405
Posted: July 09 2010 at 4:51pm

What's a good movie and what's a bad movie is subjective, so your argument makes little sense.
]]> Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:51:03 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32887#32887 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : MWG - Maybe you should just stop... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32885#32885 Author: BurnHollywoodBurn
Subject: 4405
Posted: July 09 2010 at 3:24pm

MWG - Maybe you should just stop defending bad movies. Trying to win us over and get us to agree with you is as likely as Barack Obama winning over the KKK or Neo-Nazis. Not going to happen.]]> Fri, 09 Jul 2010 15:24:00 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32885#32885 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : If R.T. posts a concensus early,... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32883#32883 Author: Vits
Subject: 4405
Posted: July 09 2010 at 1:10pm

If R.T. posts a concensus early, it's because they many critics thought the same about the movie.   

Originally posted by thomsonmg2000

Can't believe this film still has a fresh rating on RT, as well as a positive critic "consensus," despite the average score being below a six.

RT should really learn to wait until they have at least 100 reviews before making a consensus.
]]> Fri, 09 Jul 2010 13:10:17 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32883#32883 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : No, that's even worse. Maybe... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32881#32881 Author: moviewizguy
Subject: 4405
Posted: July 09 2010 at 11:40am

No, that's even worse. Maybe it would be better if you just stop talking...  
]]> Fri, 09 Jul 2010 11:40:53 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32881#32881 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : Okay, but youcome acrossas making... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32879#32879 Author: BurnHollywoodBurn
Subject: 4405
Posted: July 09 2010 at 9:03am

Okay, but you come across as making it sound like this is going to be the best movie of the summer, if not the year. Is that more to your liking?
]]> Fri, 09 Jul 2010 09:03:45 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32879#32879 a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!? : I never claimed this movie to... http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32878#32878 Author: moviewizguy
Subject: 4405
Posted: July 09 2010 at 8:19am

I never claimed this movie to be best anything ever. Stop shoving words into my mouth, BHB.  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

MWG: I think you're "over-hyping" it because you always seem like you're ready to jump through your roof at the announcement of the first few reviews, and then claim that they are proof the movie will be the best ever of the summer -- if not the year. 
]]> Fri, 09 Jul 2010 08:19:37 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405&PID=32878#32878