The thing is, MWG, sometimes you have to read between the lines a bit. For example, consider the follwing sentence:

 

"I'd much rather get the flu than cancer."

 

 That statement does not, in any way, shape or form suggest that I believe that getting the flu is a good thing.

 

DMTH did get high marks with critics, but a close reading of a lot of the reviews clearly were positive in the sense that the critics were mostly saying, and I paraphrase, "compared to most of the other crap that has been released in the genre lately, this was a notch above." The movie pulled in a whopping $42 million at the box-office, putting it on par with some of Uwe Boll's more successful efforts.

 

As for the Spiderman license, the first two weren't terrible, but that isn't really praise... so I hope MWG can resist the temptation to quote me as saying I "loved" them. Allow me to go on record and state clearly, right now, that I did not. The third one as a cinematic terd.

 

Incidentally, Raimi's 2001 film The Gift did not receive a fresh rating at RT, so yes, I can in fact "name one bad film film from him that did not receive a fresh rating." While my term of him as a hack may well be a personal opinion, I really don't have much respect for his work. Considering that a significant amout of Raimi's work has been in the horror genre, there is a very significant difference between praising someone for high standards as established by the genre historically, and praising someone for high standards established by the genre lately.

The thing is, MWG, sometimes you have to read between the lines a bit. For example, consider the follwing sentence:

 

"I'd much rather get the flu than cancer."

 

 That statement does not, in any way, shape or form suggest that I believe that getting the flu is a good thing.

 

DMTH did get high marks with critics, but a close reading of a lot of the reviews clearly were positive in the sense that the critics were mostly saying, and I paraphrase, "compared to most of the other crap that has been released in the genre lately, this was a notch above." The movie pulled in a whopping $42 million at the box-office, putting it on par with some of Uwe Boll's more successful efforts.

 

As for the Spiderman license, the first two weren't terrible, but isn't really praise... so I hope MWG can resist the temptation to quote me as saying I "loved" them. Allow me to go on record and state clearly, right now, that I did not. The third one as a cinematic terd.

 

Incidentally, Raimi's 2001 film The Gift did not receive a fresh rating at RT, so yes, I can in fact "name one bad film film from him that did not receive a fresh rating." While my term of him as a hack may well be a personal opinion, I really don't have much respect for his work.

Clearly not strong enough in comparison.

It all comes down to creative decisions. Some directors would fade out early in a disturbing while others would rather have the camera linger.

And what of someone like a Uwe Boll who would have sex scenes on camera, nudity for not reason, and have animals and kids die on screen. Is that really creative decisions? Doubtful, just shock value.

I never said critics should do anything. I'm only saying that's how I structure my reviews. I need order in my life and the way I structure my reviews is talk about the movie as a whole first, and then go inside with the performances, effects, production design, costume design, soundtrack, etc. It's my personal decision how I structure my reviews.

Well, isn't the acting and the story the main focus of the movie? Everything else is just garnish and presentation that could make or break the movie.

Well, when I saw Hostel, I was surprised by how much it slowly turned into a black comedy. I went in expecting torture porn but went out smiling because of how the the film shifted its tone to a comedic one. Oh, even Hostel itself presents itself an interesting theme: How people would pay to kill other people. I don't know, but Eli Roth said that he saw an internet ad on that and that was the idea that sparked the rest of the movie.

Yeah, but people killing people in graphic detail should not be considered comedy. That is the ulimate in bad taste.

Yeah, but overall, it was up for Oscars. An other it has some crazy shock value scenes, there was ALOT of good acting in between.

Because those scenes are the point of the entire film. Read my short "thesis" above.

Yeah, they are plot points, sure, btu you can easily get the point across and cut away from it. But no, they stay on it. Why? Shock value.

Maybe that's because I have a structure to my reviews? I don't mention performances by any actors in any of my reviews until the last 2 paragraphs or so.

So what you're saying that with every genre movie, critics should review everything that makes the movie a genre movie first, and all other aspects of the movie should be second?

Let me see you watch this film and call those scenes entertaining...exactly.

Well, apparently there are sick f***s out there that did find it entertaining and paid to see it. Probably the same kind of sick f***s who go see "Hostel" and laugh at all the violence.

Yeah, that's why I have a low opinion of horror movies. It's just cheap jumps and thrills and not much else to them. 

Go for it Burn

 

And as I said before, Vits will eventually admit, "yeah, it's wasn't a great movie". But you on the other hand, will not give up even though an entire message board of people who are more knowlegdable about the movie industry and how it works telling you what the flaws in your arguement are.

Oh, as long as he says they're not really great movies, THEN you let it pass, because the world revolves around you, right? As long as people are willing to admit that their opinions are wrong, you'd let their opinions slide, right? I'm gonna shoot myself. You're nowhere near knowledgeable in films than I am. We're both stuck on the same boat. And flaws in my argument? Excuse me? I suggest you read your arguments. They're flawed as hell and filled with holes as big as a truck driving through a wall.

And it's because of movie goers like you who accept movies like this as quality entertainment that such bad movies exist in the first place. In other words, you're part of the problem, and that is why I (and just about everyone else on the forum) ridicule you.

When did I say the following, or any of these variations in my opinion for this film? "OH MY GOD! This film is freaking awesome! The death scenes were soooo creative and it was soooo cool to see people die in creative ways! I jizzed on my pants every time I saw someone get killed by a gun because that is so freaking creative! It's not as if war films or any other action films have done it before! Oh, I also looooooved the rape scene because it was so freaking funny to see that girl suffer on screen!" You're what's wrong in the world.
]]> Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:31:39 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3519&PID=29907#29907 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3519&PID=29901#29901 Author: saturnwatcher
Subject: 3519
Posted: March 10 2010 at 3:20pm

I would point out that CO was not just a movie about violence in society, but it carried a reverse Frankenstein theme: It dared ask whether it might not be just as morally questionable to unmake a monster as to make one. I would challenge MWG to present a thesis on how LHOTL comes close to presenting as many interesting an relevant themes. ]]> Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:20:17 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3519&PID=29901#29901 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3519&PID=29893#29893 Author: BurnHollywoodBurn
Subject: 3519
Posted: March 10 2010 at 7:49am

I'll just say this. You can't compare "Clockwork Orange" to modern torture porn movies. "CO" was a thinking man's movie that was about violence in society. Torture porn movies are all about shock value for teenagers to spend a few bucks on and then forget about a few hours later. So pulling this card everytime you defend a horror movie is a moot point. Having a graphic rape scene doesn't qualify as being a reason why a movie is good. Sure, "Boys Don't Cry" had a rape scene, but it didnt overpower the rest of the movie, which performances stood on its own, while no one seriously went to see this movie for the performances, just what creative ways people were going to be killed off.

 

And as I said before, Vits will eventually admit, "yeah, it's wasn't a great movie". But you on the other hand, will not give up even though an entire message board of people who are more knowlegdable about the movie industry and how it works telling you what the flaws in your arguement are. And it's because of movie goers like you who accept movies like this as quality entertainment that such bad movies exist in the first place. In other words, you're part of the problem, and that is why I (and just about everyone else on the forum) ridicule you.

]]> Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:49:36 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3519&PID=29893#29893 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3519&PID=29836#29836 Author: moviewizguy
Subject: 3519
Posted: March 09 2010 at 4:57am

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn Hey, kid, clearly saturnwatcher and I would have better luck explaining the meaning of life to our pets than convincing you that don't know what you're talking about, and it's hurting your street credit here.

It's just odd that you would bash my opinion on this film when weeks earlier you said to Vits that you respect peoples' opinions. I know what I'm talking about because I have a film by the brilliant Ingmar Bergman to support it. You posted earlier questioning just what was the point of the violence, and then later providing puns and jokes. I don't know if you've seen Wes Craven's version or Bergman's original version of the story but it really doesn't take a genius to find out what was the point. Even the trailer for this film suggested the following: "If bad people hurt someone you love, how far would you go to hurt them back?" So I'm just astounded how much you have a large stick up you you-know-what, when you question the obvious. It's as if you're asking rhetorical questions.

So if you want to take every bad movie ever made and pull little "facts" out of thin air about how great they are, go right ahead.

Whether a film is bad or not is in the eye of the beholder. And no, I don't pull out little "facts" out of thin air because I actually have links to them. The number one source I have is actually watching this film and judging from your posts, you haven't seen this film, or any of the originals, yet, so I'm in disbelief how you can comment on this issue when you haven't seen the film.

In the end, everyone here will be making fun of you for it. Yeah, I'm done with you too, because after reading your posts, I've realized you're no better than these other people who appear out of nowhere and throw poorly spelled hate messages at us for making fun of their bad movies. Have fun living in ignorant bliss in your support of movies made for the lowest common denominator!

You said the following on this link: http://razzies.com/forum/the-alltime-100-berry-worst_topic1764_page6.html "Sometimes, it all comes down to a matter of personal taste, I guess." What happened to that? Why am I so special for the center of your ridicule? The question I ask to you is "Why?" Are you trying to achieve a purpose for doing so? Have you benefited from bashing my opinions? Has anyone benifited from it?
]]> Tue, 09 Mar 2010 04:57:09 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3519&PID=29836#29836 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3519&PID=29825#29825 Author: BurnHollywoodBurn
Subject: 3519
Posted: March 08 2010 at 7:41pm

Originally posted by moviewizguy Ok. Are you happy now? Did you accomplish what you set out to do? Is you mission in life finally succeeded? I have no idea what you were doing in the conversation in the first place because you did not add a single layer of anything interesting but to spark up a feud. Next time, add some comments that actually contribute to the discussion itself and not attack on one's opinions which have nothing to do with the discussion in the first place. Good bye knowing you, kid, but your immaturity astounds me beyond belief.

Hey, kid, clearly saturnwatcher and I would have better luck explaining the meaning of life to our pets than convincing you that don't know what you're talking about, and it's hurting your street credit here. So if you want to take every bad movie ever made and pull little "facts" out of thin air about how great they are, go right ahead. In the end, everyone here will be making fun of you for it. Yeah, I'm done with you too, because after reading your posts, I've realized you're no better than these other people who appear out of nowhere and throw poorly spelled hate messages at us for making fun of their bad movies. Have fun living in ignorant bliss in your support of movies made for the lowest common denominator!]]> Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:41:26 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3519&PID=29825#29825