Originally posted by moviewizguy The characters remained true to the source and the plot was actually pretty good.

I'm sure saturnwatcher will totally disagree with you on both accounts, seeing as how english WAS NOT invented in the stone age and the plot was taken straight out of Mel Gibson's Mayan movie.

The characters remained true to the source and the plot was actually pretty good.

Originally posted by moviewizguy No. It's a fun movie and I enjoyed it a lot, especially on IMAX. That was like crazy. All of the colors and the whole racing sequences were like WOW!!!

Yeah, that's what the directing style of this "filmmaker" is all about,  pretty colors to keep you from noticing the crappy storytelling and 1-D characters. 

Originally posted by Razzilla I will say it was worth what I paid to see it (got free tickets from a radio station)...  It wasn't all that bad...  It wasn't all that good either...just not RAZZIE-worthy...considering the heavy competition this year...

No. It's a fun movie and I enjoyed it a lot, especially on IMAX. That was like crazy. All of the colors and the whole racing sequences were like WOW!!!

Too bad, because it is whether you like it or not, H-Wood needs to take a cue for the up-coming "AstroBoy": If your movie is based on an animated series, then your movie adaptation of it should be animated as well.

Originally posted by moviewizguy  Speed Racer is one of the most fun movies I've had this year. It's pretty good, actually. It surely did not deserve the box office bomb it has gotten.

Originally posted by movieman Oh yes, anyone who survived hearing Susan Sarandon say the words, "I go to your races to watch you make art" should know what I am talking about. And yes, it's going on my top ten list for worst movies of the year(that I've seen; I haven't watched all the major candidates). The Wachouskis seemed to energetically direct the race sequences and the bright colored sets, but the dialogue and interplay between the characters is so hollow, you could watch the movie with the sound off and enjoy it more than hearing what the bland script forces these talented actors to say.

Speed Racer is one of the most fun movies I've had this year. It's pretty good, actually. It surely did not deserve the box office bomb it has gotten.

I'll admit that, to this day, there are still parts of "GITS" that make no sense to me. And the movie had an animated TV series spin-off that could be just as confusing (if not more so). I let fans of "The Matrix" go about how they like the storyline, and yes, the style is interesting. But that style is often seen as being anime style as well. What I won't defend is when people call "Matrix" "original," for the reasons I stated in my earlier post.

Originally posted by movieman I actually found Ghost in a Shell to be more vexatious than fascinating, as the story fails to draw viewers into its convoluted and futuristic world as well as its predecessors, and also because few ideas fully established themselves with the viewer. Yes, there were some parts of the movie that clearly inspired the Matrix, but at least the Matrix explained its origins consistently enough to make a coherent story. I felt the look and feel of The Matrix was more stylishly conceived than GITS (the comment you made about Trinity's resemblance to Kusanagi, I guess it Trinity was Japanese....). And as far as story lines go, I think the idea of machines harnessing humans for energy while humans live in the simulation was more interesting than that of the convoluted pursuit of The Puppeteer, or whatever he's called. I see where Michaels is coming from, and I respect his opinion in the sense that GITS was part of the inspiration of the Matrix.

Disaster Movie, Meet the Spartans, Postal, In the Name of the King, The Love Guru, Meet Dave, The Hottie and the Nottie (and a few others) are keeping me from wanting to give Speed Racer any nods.

Are you saying Speed Racer is bad?  If so, is it bad enough to nominate for one of your awards?

The Matrix? Imaginative, yes. Original, no. Seriously, rent "Ghost In The Shell" (a Japanese Anime movie from 1994/95), watch it, then watch "Matrix". Like me, you will see "Matrix" as it really is: a live action adaptation to "GITS". The plotline (false memories), the look (sunglasses and raincoats), the gun fight with pillars, giant robots, the chase through a market, the plugs in the back of the head, Trinity even looks like "GITS"'s main character. Heck, the Japanese company that made "GITS" unsuccuessful sued the "Matrix" filmmakers because the two movies had too much in common. I know many fans consider "Matrix" to be groundbacking here in American filmmaking, but to us anime watchers, it's nothing that Japan hasn't done already. And now America is stuck in a trend that Japan is already famous for, turning their animated TV series into live action movies. It always seems America is trying to catch up to the trend of international film making. Saturnwatcher, your thoughts?

I also find the first Matrix quite over-rated. I actually found the sequel a lot better, more mature and emotional... 

Originally posted by movieman Pardon me but the Matrix is the most thought provoking and imaginative movie that I have ever seen in my life. To start off, the way it is shot and filmed just took me in, everything around me disappeared and the screen became my eyes, the set designs and and feel was so well executed. Second, the story is hands-down amazing, the moment where Morpheus tells Neo what the Matrix is just blew me away, That's when I knew I was watching a sci-fi classic, no matter what generation you live in, you will be astounded by the premise. Even if you were to take out all the action the story would still be enough to salvage the movie. Third, the action is groundbreaking, never until I saw that movie had I seen such immensely skillful action sequences, my favorite of course being the helicopter sequence and the scene where Trinity tells Neo that he is "The One", at which point he is able to stop the bullets in midair is a classic CGI sequence. To say the Matrix is "overrated" is fallacious on a grand level.

.

Originally posted by saturnwatcher Was there a more (unintentionally) hilarous moment in the movies this year than those stampeding, bunny hopping mammoths or that dreadful CGI sabre-toothed tiger? Actually, this movie was pretty entertaining for all the wrong reasons, which is why I'm leaning toward giving it a Worst Picture nod.

Ah, like how "Plan 9" is entertaining for all the wrong reasons? I don't know how this director is able to keep making movies, he has no concept of writing good characters, dialog, or plots. He's like the American Uwe Boll, except movie goers are sucked into his movies by their outragous CGI effects. And yes, "StarGate" the movie sucked big time. And yes, "The Matrix" is highly overrated (it's just a live action adapatation of "Ghost In The Shell").

After careful reconsideration, I've decided that this was less than stellar. While, I still consider it "damn stupid," the "damn entertaining" didn't hold up. I was willing to overlook the Egypt part the first time, but the second, it was unforgivable.

That being said, I don't think it's worthy of WORST PICTURE or the title of "'Battlefield Earth' in the Stone Age".

Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter Just saw this. It was damn stupid. It was, also, damn entertaining.

And for that matter, why is it that if a person gives a movie a negative review, that means they are "corrupt"? I'm not sure if you even understand what the word "corrupt" means. As I have said time and time again, people are entitled to their opinion, so please quit it with the "who do you/he/she/they think they are" and "how dare you/he/she/they" remakes. This forum is all about the fact that not all movies are created equal, so if you think no one has the right to judge a movie, than you're in the wrong place.

That is a pretty provocative claim and I'm going to have to ask that you provide pretty substantial support for it. Further, don't even dare attempting to cop out by saying, "Well, it's just my opinion." because in the very next statement, you clearly move on to a supporting  assertion that clearly underscores your previous claim as fact. It therefore behooves you to present the requested support.

About Movie Preview Critic's Review, I think he may have judged that film based solely on its trailer.  That is lazy and rude, not to mention awful.  That guy is one corrupt son of a bitch.

Based on what we've seen this year, this film may be drowned out in the Worst Picture category by much worse films that came out since then.  It might get a nod for Worst Director or Worst Screenplay (despite the fact that it might lose to Disaster Movie and Postal), but I doubt it will get nominated for Worst Picture based on everything I've seen.

Totally. This movie was a stinkfest. One I regret spending money on. It had entertaining moments, completely horrible writing, and possibly the stupidest casting of all time (we're supposed to believe these people all come from the same tribe?).

It's bad. A renter at best.

Movie Preview Critic ripped this movie a new one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROn3NOn-orE

I finally got around to seeing this piece of crap on On Demand the other night. It was definitley a howler. The mammoths looked kind of cool until  the scene when they started stampeding. They ran with a sort of weird bunny-hop that must have produced gales of unintended laughter in the theaters. The sabre-toothed tiger looked like a reject from some Ray Harryhausen effort.

Combine that with a plot in which the audience probably couldn't help but get the feeling that they were rooting for the wrong tribe an you have the formula for a stinker definitely worthy of Razzie consideration.

This was Battlefield Earth set in the stone-age.

10,000 B.C. shows what happens when you pile a lot of money into a movie consisting wholly of ideas borrowed from many other movies and characters as two dimensional as a slice of Dominoes pizza.  I'm especially disappointed in how bland Camille Belle's character Evolet was.  Evolet should have and could have had a lot of heart, and the character as written, directed and performed was nothing but recycled cardboard. 

Then there's that one particularly ridiculous moment.  Remember, when the mammoth looks at you, your dreams will come true. . . .

Even so, this movie doesn't come close to worst of the year, with such stellar movies as The Hottie & The Nottie, Strange Wilderness, 88 Minutes, Meet The Spartans and Witless Protection crowding the field, not to mention TWO Uwe Boll films, In the Name of the King and Postal, AND Sly Stallone's resurrection of Rambo.  Even among wastes of money pictures, 10,000 B.C. wasn't anywhere near as bad as Speed Racer.  In the end, blandness hamstrings this picture, and even in its best moments, it never transcends being a very expensive B movie.