QuoteReplyTopic: Forum DISCUSSION of MR. POPPER'S PENGUINS Posted: June 16 2011 at 4:36pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher
As of this morning, Mr Popper had fallen to 47% with 19 reviews counted. That is still a small sample, but I doubt that it is going to climb from there.
I never thought I would see the day when a Jim Carrey movie co-starring penguins would be higher rated on RT than the "Green Lantern" movie! How do you mess that up!?
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.
As of this morning, Mr Popper had fallen to 47% with 19 reviews counted. That is still a small sample, but I doubt that it is going to climb from there.
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken
The problem with Jim Carrey is that he will forever be remembered for his roles of being the human cartoon character, be it making funny faces, making odd noises, or just making his body into a pretzel. Yes, it was all funny back in 1994, but it has gotten stale since then. And like Adam Sandler's manchild rountine, Carrey is trapped in that sterotype of the silly man, and audiences won't pay to see him do drama or play any other kind of role. When comedians go to the well too many times, they become one-trick ponies, and that could be the ruin of their careers.
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)
Carrey has been in a lot of adaptations.It's true that he applies his trademarks,but I'm pretty sure it's the writers fault if the characters don't resemble the books.
I agree (yes this is my first time posting, but I've been looking at these forums for years I just decided to finally create a account) I don't understand Headrazzberry's hatred of Jim Carrey (A series of unforunate events is a poor example because it actually had good reviews). Sure this movies looks pretty bad, but he tried to target his last two movies and that went nowhere (Horton and Christmas). Also Jim Carrey getting a nomination for A series of Unforunate Events wouldn't have been pleasing for me (Maybe the reason they didn't make a sequel was because of Jim Carrey's anti-sequel routine, and simply couldn't recast in time).
Hang on.You said you wanted Carrey to be nominated as Worst Actor. He gave a good performance in both movies, even if the characters were wrongly written...
Originally posted by HeadRAZZBerry
The near total lack of respect for the source material was, I think, an enormous factor in the first LEMONY film being the only one.
SNICKET had good reviews. I liked it(7/10), but when I found out it was made from 3 books, I wasn't surprised, based on the movie's confusing narrative. Some well-reviewed movies have been nominated, but you could've nominated SNICKET for Worst Screenplay or Worst Remake,but not Worst Picture.
I heard there wasn't a sequel because it stayed in development hell for too long (buying the rights, deciding if the script would be written from one or more books, and which ones, worrying about dissatisfied fans like you, etc.). Now Liam Aiken and Emily Browning are too old to reprise their roles.
RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: My objection to Carrey in both GRINCH and SNICKET is that he took two characters every literate child is familiar with, and turned them into versions of himself -- how you can call these "good performances" when the actor should have known better than to accept either part is beyond me. An integral part of any actor's job is knowing which roles to accept and which to reject -- which he is capable of enacting, and which he is blatantly unsuited for.
While many found Carrey's Grinch amusing, I found him grating about 20 minutes in, and the film was nearly 2 hours long. As for Count Olaf, in the novels he was an elderly man whose evil seemed obvious only to the 3 children who were the novels' main characters. As played by Carrey, he was about as subtle in his "evilness" as Cruella deVille in the animated 101 DALMATIANS. Besides being about 30 years to young for the part (and the make-up did not solve this problem) Carrey apparently was unwilling to play the role as being purely, hate-ably, despicably malicious. Like too many a comic actor, Carrey wanted to be "liked," even when playing an irredeemable villain -- and Olaf was supposed to be the embodiment of UN-likeable.
So, NO, I disagree with you on the "merit" of either of these Carrey performances...
Why?!Was the COUNT in the movie that different from the books?Well,his GRINCH was too,but that didn't mean he gave a bad performance.
RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Sounds like you have not read the LEMONY SNICKET novels. I read all 13 of them aloud to my son when he was younger, and loved their smart alecky tone, the respect they showed for their readers' intelligence by using large words and then defining them humorously, and the goose-bumpy-fun sense of menace that loomed over everything.
Carrey and his cohorts took this brilliant material and turned it into CRAP -- Excuses for mugging, lame physical humor and dipsh*t jokes. They mooshed three of the series' novels into a single film, and then had the nerve to lop the wedding that ended the initial book and shoved it all the way to the point in the overall plot where the third novel ended.
The near total lack of respect for the source material was, I think, an enormous factor in the first LEMONY film being the only one. By heaping such scorn on the books young movie-goers knew and loved, the film's makers blew their chance at having a HARRY POTTER-like franchise...
Originally posted by HeadRAZZBerry
WE WERE SURPRISED WHEN CARREY's HIDEOUS MOVIE of THE GRINCH DIDN'T "WIN" EITHER of the RAZZIES® for WHICH IT WAS NOMINATED. WE WERE DISAPPOINTED WHEN CARREY FAILED to GET a WORST ACTOR NOD for HIS INDEFENSIBLE BIG SCREEN RAPING of the FIRST 3 LEMONY SNICKET BOOKS
This movie is SO going to be overshadowed by the other penguin movie of the year, "Happy Feet 2". Although, with "Happy Feet", I think everything that needed to be said was already said in the first movie.
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)
The trailer was awful! Not because it wasn't funny (though it wasn't), but because for the first time in my life a trailer gave me no reason at all to see the movie. OK, so a bunch of penguins invade Jim Carrey's apartment. That's it??
I know that anything can be a premise for a movie, but that doesn't mean it should!
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
Share Topic
Printable Version
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Furl
Google Boomarks
Google Buzz
MySpace
Newsvine
reddit
StumbleUpon
Twitter
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Post Options
Quote 
Topic: Forum DISCUSSION of MR. POPPER'S PENGUINS
