 |
|
DISCUSSION of 2004 RAZZIE® Nominees & "Winners" |
Post Reply 
|
Page 123> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Delicious Digg Facebook Furl Google Boomarks Google Buzz MySpace Newsvine reddit StumbleUpon Translate Twitter Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|
HeadRAZZBerry 
Berry Important MODERATOR 
Joined: April 23 2005 Location: United States Online Status: Online Posts: 4493 |
 Post Options
 Quote Reply
 Topic: DISCUSSION of 2004 RAZZIE® Nominees & "Winners"Posted: December 04 2005 at 5:23pm |
|
|
TO SEE the COMPLETE LIST of NOMINEES & "WINNERS" for 2004's WORST ACHIEVEMENTS in FILM, CLICK HERE. TO OFFER YOUR FEEDBACK on OUR CHOICES, FEEL FREE to POST BELOW... |
||
|
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry
|
||
 |
||
|
GTAHater767
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: October 25 2009 Location: I shall not say Online Status: Offline Posts: 1128 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: June 27 2010 at 9:04pm |
|
|
I have numerous gripes here. White Chicks: If non-professional critics unanimously adored this movie, why was it nominated for Worst Picture? Anchorman: One of three movies that wasn't bad enough to get nominated for the Worst of 2004, even if it did star Ben Stiller. Starsky & Hutch: Not bad enough Dodgeball: Again, not a bad enough movie. Worst of the first 1/4 Century: So it's TRUE then! Movies took a turn for the worse overnight with Y2K! But I have one question: Where are the movies released in 2004 under this heading? |
||
|
RAZZIE Dirty Dozen: Battlefield Earth, F G Fingered, Pluto Nash, A Sound of Thunder, Alone in the Dark, Dirty Love, Rise Silver Srfr, Daddy Day Camp, IKWKM, The Love Guru, All About Steve, Airbender
|
||
|
||
|
BurnHollywoodBurn
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: February 03 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3557 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: June 27 2010 at 9:51pm |
|
|
I think the 2000s should be called The Decade When Good Movies Died. We had a great list of excellent movies in 1999, and then the following year, creamy, smelly s*** from then on.
|
||
|
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
|
||
|
||
|
Vits
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: February 01 2010 Location: Chile Online Status: Offline Posts: 4824 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: July 07 2010 at 1:26pm |
|
|
Quinin Aibori Uallans should've won, but WHITE CHICKS was good.
Ben Stilller was good in ALONG CAME POLLY, and in ANCHORMAN he was just a cameo.
Don't even get me started with FARENHEIT 9/11! RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I assume the unfamiliar title you refer to above was a Stinker from Your Native Country??
|
||
|
||
|
Vits
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: February 01 2010 Location: Chile Online Status: Offline Posts: 4824 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: July 08 2010 at 1:33pm |
|
Huh?
|
||
|
||
|
GTAHater767
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: October 25 2009 Location: I shall not say Online Status: Offline Posts: 1128 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: July 22 2010 at 12:13am |
|
|
By the way, was a complete list of eligible 2004 titles ever posted?
|
||
|
RAZZIE Dirty Dozen: Battlefield Earth, F G Fingered, Pluto Nash, A Sound of Thunder, Alone in the Dark, Dirty Love, Rise Silver Srfr, Daddy Day Camp, IKWKM, The Love Guru, All About Steve, Airbender
|
||
|
||
|
Vits
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: February 01 2010 Location: Chile Online Status: Offline Posts: 4824 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: July 22 2010 at 10:26am |
|
|
No.Only from 2005 to the present.
HeadRAZZberry,can you please explain your comment?I honestly didn't get it.
|
||
|
||
|
TaRaN-RoD
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: November 20 2009 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 154 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: July 22 2010 at 1:23pm |
|
|
I totally agree for Arnold!
|
||
|
||
|
BurnHollywoodBurn
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: February 03 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3557 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: July 22 2010 at 4:03pm |
|
|
Yeah, Ah-nuld's a man who can barely speak English, let alone act!
|
||
|
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
|
||
|
||
|
Vits
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: February 01 2010 Location: Chile Online Status: Offline Posts: 4824 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: October 04 2010 at 12:44pm |
|
|
I gave CATWOMAN 3/10. It deserved to "win" Worst Picture, Director and Screenplay. But the performances were passable, and I didn't see anything wrong with Halle and Benjamin as a couple, and Halle and Sharon weren't even a "couple" (I know you really meant "on-screen match"). Why wasn't it nominated for "Remake Or Sequel"? Because of the same reason why it's bad: it has nothing to do with the comics?
|
||
|
||
|
BurnHollywoodBurn
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: February 03 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3557 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: October 04 2010 at 2:11pm |
|
|
No, CATWOMAN deserved to sweep. The acting was either campy as can be, over the top, or sleep-walked through. Hell, the model who was at the club with Sharon's husband gave the best performance of the movie, and she only spoke two lines! It was the worst excuse for a movie that year. If that is what a major movie studio thinks counts as a blockbuster adaptation (of a product that they own, no less!) then they have no right to make another. Thankfully, the creative genius that is Chris Nolan swooped in for "Batman" to show those idiots at Warner Bros. how should be done.
|
||
|
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
|
||
|
||
|
Vits
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: February 01 2010 Location: Chile Online Status: Offline Posts: 4824 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: October 04 2010 at 3:38pm |
|
|
Why wasn't CATWOMAN nominated for "Remake Or Sequel"?? RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Although the character of "Catwoman" had appeared in previous movies (and was played by several different actresses on the mid-1960's TV series BATMAN: IMDb LINK) there had been no previous film centered solely on the character, nor any prior movie with that title -- thus, while clearly not original, CATWOMAN was also not (technically) a remake... |
||
|
||
|
BurnHollywoodBurn
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: February 03 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3557 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: October 04 2010 at 5:42pm |
|
|
Because CATWOMAN is not a remake or sequel to any movie before it. And it's not like it was loyal to the comic book in any way besides the title.
|
||
|
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
|
||
|
||
|
Vits
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: February 01 2010 Location: Chile Online Status: Offline Posts: 4824 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: October 13 2010 at 9:33am |
|
|
I give WHITE CHICKS 5/10. Since film is a visual art, the bad make-up alone should be a reason not to consider it good. Did anyone really think the 2 Wayanses actually looked like the twins?! And although it was funny, there were many plot holes. This is a rare movie that deserves Razzie awards for "Worst Director" and "Screenplay," but not "Worst Picture". Why?Like I said, it was funny. As for the performances...Shawn & Marlon weren't hilarious, and it wasn't like I thought they really were women. like Dustin Hoffman in TOOTSIE, but they were decent. I know "Screen Couple" was just because you hated the movie so much you wanted it to be as nominated as possible,but they had chemistry!
RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: There is a dramatic device called "willing suspension of belief," which refers to the audience's agreement, in certain circumstances (especially comic ones) to overlook minor plot-holes and stretches of credulity. In the case of WHITE CHICKS, the willingness to forgive such errors would have required removing one's brain before entering the cinema -- Like most of what they Wayans brothers make, the basic premise of this film, combined with the hideously unconvincing, zombie-like makeup on the stars when they are posing as the two blonde twins, is simply too much to ask of any audience with an IQ larger than their shoe size... |
||
|
||
|
BurnHollywoodBurn
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: February 03 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3557 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: October 13 2010 at 3:27pm |
|
|
You give White Chicks 5/10?? You have got to be kidding me, that was some of the worst make-up ever done on film. And if it's full of plot holes, why a 5? Are you pulling an MWG and just giving it extra points for a few laughs here and there?
|
||
|
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
|
||
|
||
|
Vits
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: February 01 2010 Location: Chile Online Status: Offline Posts: 4824 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: October 13 2010 at 3:31pm |
|
|
Did you not read the rest of my post?
A few laughs here and there would make a movie worth or 3 maybe 4. But I thought WHITE CHICKS had a lot of funny jokes!
|
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum |
