From Jan. 1 - Dec. 31st, 2008

I only think that critics would be corrupt if their reviews were hard to agree with or contained insults or exposed unnecessary information or showed a bias towards the cast, crew, or genre.

As for the case of Disaster Movie, the critics and the community agree that the film should get punished, seeing that the creators practically murdered cinema (figure of speech).  The critics are calling it the most universally panned film since "Freddy Got Fingered".  It looks like a big Razzie favorite compared to most of the other films (some articles say that no other bad films come close).

Considering the circumstances for next week, the battle for Box Office Supremacy will be between Bride Wars, The Unborn, and possibly Gran Torino.

As for DVDs this Tuesday, we have the Worst Refuge to Get Away from Something Even Worse (Babylon A.D.), Worst Impeding of Their Own Work (The Pang Brothers, Bangkok Dangerous), Worst Downfall of a Movie Legend (Al Pacino, Righteous Kill), Worst Excuse for an Actual Movie, Most Flatulent Teen-targeted Movie, Worst Disregard of Human Life and Just About Everything Else, Worst Thing to Defy its MPAA Rating, and Worst Menace to Entertainment (Disaster Movie).

My lord, FOUR worst DVD movies of the week?! Perfect viewing right before Razzie voting...   

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu As for DVDs this Tuesday, we have the Worst Refuge to Get Away from Something Even Worse (Babylon A.D.), Worst Impeding of Their Own Work (The Pang Brothers, Bangkok Dangerous), Worst Downfall of a Movie Legend (Al Pacino, Righteous Kill), Worst Excuse for an Actual Movie, Most Flatulent Teen-targeted Movie, Worst Disregard of Human Life and Just About Everything Else, Worst Thing to Defy its MPAA Rating, and Worst Menace to Entertainment (Disaster Movie).

 

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu I only think that critics would be corrupt if their reviews were hard to agree with or contained insults or exposed unnecessary information or showed a bias towards the cast, crew, or genre.

With all due respect, it rather sounds as if you have established a standard which essentially says, "If I agree with the bulk of the critics, they are doing a good job. If I don't, they are "corrupt" hacks."

Sometimes I like movies that get panned. I just assume that said movies can be charged off as guilty pleasures. As long as I'm entertained, I don't care that much what anyone else may think.

That said, I think that movie critics have a rather difficult job. I don't mean that in the sense that a lot of people out there have really demanding, backbreaking or tedious occupations. I'm sure a lot of people out there assume that getting paid to watch movies is a pretty good gig. But they also have to do a lot of research AND write interesting columns that people want to read...generally 3 or so times a week. More often than not, they are probably trying to write interesting material about movies that don't interest them in the least. So, my hat is off to movie critics...especially the really good ones like Roger Ebert, with whom I don't always agree, but his writing is always first rate. 

Well, Ernie's spot on the ballot might be my fault to some degree...however, if you have seen this movie (and I'd advise against it ) I think you'd be appalled by just how out of place he was in this trainwreck of a film -- for starters, he actually has talent.

It's hard to imagine what was on his mind when he accepted this role, beyond having the opportunity to put on the "Look World, I'm Still Alive!" tee shirt. As I pointed out in a previous post, Ernie is reaching the age where this might be all the younger folk will remember him for, and that would be a monumental tragedy. 

His appearance in this travesty was an embarrassment of Ruthian proportions, and I think he deserves a Razzie nomination for that alone...

Originally posted by dEd Grimley Ernie B? Yea, I'm not giving Ernie B a Razzie -- no matter how lame that movie might've been.

I like to look at each critic individually, and judge their reviews overall.  If their reviews are agreeable enough, and their reasons are understandable, then I figure people can relate to them and agree.  But if they aren't, then those critics should expect to be in for an angry reception...

Originally posted by saturnwatcher Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu I only think that critics would be corrupt if their reviews were hard to agree with or contained insults or exposed unnecessary information or showed a bias towards the cast, crew, or genre. With all due respect, it rather sounds as if you have established a standard which essentially says, "If I agree with the bulk of the critics, they are doing a good job. If I don't, they are "corrupt" hacks." Sometimes I like movies that get panned. I just assume that said movies can be charged off as guilty pleasures. As long as I'm entertained, I don't care that much what anyone else may think. That said, I think that movie critics have a rather difficult job. I don't mean that in the sense that a lot of people out there have really demanding, backbreaking or tedious occupations. I'm sure a lot of people out there assume that getting paid to watch movies is a pretty good gig. But they also have to do a lot of research AND write interesting columns that people want to read...generally 3 or so times a week. More often than not, they are probably trying to write interesting material about movies that don't interest them in the least. So, my hat is off to movie critics...especially the really good ones like Roger Ebert, with whom I don't always agree, but his writing is always first rate.

 

There still are the critics out there who got into their position through sheer luck, and get paid (by the studios) for the reviews that you actually hear about. There IS a level of corruption amongst them to some extent. Though not quite what Miguel's getting at, perhaps.

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu I like to look at each critic individually, and judge their reviews overall.  If their reviews are agreeable enough, and their reasons are understandable, then I figure people can relate to them and agree.  But if they aren't, then those critics should expect to be in for an angry reception...

Recalling some of the blanket indictments that you have issued against the critics represented by RT (which is just about every regularly published critic in America) that statement doesn't really wash  (Yes, I can quote you)