Official RAZZIE® Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > 31st Annual RAZZIE® Award Nominees & "WINNERS" > VAMPIRES SUCK
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Given That It's Seltzerberg It's SURE to SUCK!!
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

Given That It's Seltzerberg It's SURE to SUCK!!

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
Author
Message
GTAHater767 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: October 25 2009
Location: I shall not say
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1418
Post Options Post Options   Quote GTAHater767 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Given That It's Seltzerberg It's SURE to SUCK!!
    Posted: August 19 2010 at 12:33pm

I believe, however, that "retarded" is putting Tom Green's humor very mildly, Borat was slightly above average, and the writers...? How many good writers are there?

Back to Top
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Online
Posts: 6999
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2010 at 12:51pm
The concensus is in, and it appears that, although it's bad, it's better than the other 4 Seltzer-Berg movies...though that's saying not much,isn't it? 

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

On another note that isn't terribly relevant, I don't disagree with Head Razz real often, but someday, I wish somebody could explain to me what the appeal of Borat really was. I don't recall a single scene in the entire movie that caused me to laugh out loud. I thought it was dreadful. If a legitimate case could be made that it was one of the better comedies of the past few years, and that might actually be true, it is much more a  sad commentary on the state of the comedy genre than a compliment to the movie.


There's a lot of political satire in the background, making Borat a smart comedy. It's actually among my favorite comedies, ironically, not because of the politics in it, but because I find it hilarious.

Don't worry.We all have different tastes in humour.

Originally posted by cvcjr13

So, Sascha Baron Cohen got rid of the screenwriters.  So, you should have a great comedy. . . . Wink
 
As I hope you can tell, I didn't find Borat all that funny either.


Sacha co-wrote the movie.

Every movie has at least one flaw, right? Whatever flaws BORAT has, they can't be related to the script, since there's wasn't much of a script.  


You can follow me @Vits_Chile
Back to Top
moviewizguy View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2137
Post Options Post Options   Quote moviewizguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2010 at 1:44pm
I don't get the love for Borat either. I looked it up on RT and Metacritic and its scores are really, really high. I was surprised! I personally preferred Bruno, a film that I laughed out loud quite a few times.  

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

I don't disagree with Head Razz real often, but someday, I wish somebody could explain to me what the appeal of Borat really was. I don't recall a single scene in the entire movie that caused me to laugh out loud. I thought it was dreadful. If a legitimate case could be made that it was one of the better comedies of the past few years, and that might actually be true, it is much more a  sad commentary on the state of the comedy genre than a compliment to the movie.
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2010 at 3:04pm

"Retarded" is putting it mildly regarding Tom Green's "humor."  

And on the question of how many good writers there are in Hollywood? I think you could count them on one hand -- so five at the most. And they don't write nearly enough for the entire industry!
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.
Back to Top
cvcjr13 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: September 01 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1190
Post Options Post Options   Quote cvcjr13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 20 2010 at 7:59am
You know, it would be funny if this year's Razzies were split between Seltzerberg Sucks and Twilight: Eek Lips. . . .
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 20 2010 at 11:09am
Yes, it would be ironic! But if "Last FartBender" has any say in the matter, it'll be a sweep!
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.
Back to Top
Gregory View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: August 03 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 60
Post Options Post Options   Quote Gregory Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 22 2010 at 3:10pm

As expected, Vampires Suck got despicable reviews. And a few critics even seized the opportunity to trash Twilight!:

 

Has too much in common with its target. It is a forgettable ploy designed to shamelessly rip money out of teenage wallets before its audience matures and develops a real taste for quality films in the same genre. Boxoffice Magazine

 

I guess it’s a sure thing that Vampires Suck will get Worst Picture, Director, and Screenplay nominations. Ken Jeong could end up getting a Worst Supporting Actor nod for Vampires and Furry Vengeance. The two leads, Matt Lanter and Jenn Proske, are probably longshots, though, wouldn’t it be funny to have Lanter and Robert Pattinson in the Worst Actor category and Proske and Kristen Stewart in the Worst Actress category? Wink

Back to Top
moviewizguy View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2137
Post Options Post Options   Quote moviewizguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 22 2010 at 4:00pm
As much as I disliked this film, it really wouldn't be funny if it got acting nominations, because the strong point in the film (yes, there was actually something good in the film) is that Lanter and Proske played (or mocked) Pattison and Stewert's mannerisms really, really well -- to the point that even some critics said they played the characters better than the actors in the Twilight series themselves! I was really impressed by Proske, especially. She's a promising actress, even though this is her big screen debut.  

Back to Top
TaRaN-RoD View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: November 20 2009
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 174
Post Options Post Options   Quote TaRaN-RoD Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 22 2010 at 9:29pm
I respect this movie not as a movie... but for making people laugh at that piece of crap/worst movie ever which is Twilight!  
 
I hate all those Date Movie, Epic Movie... those are all crap. But I respect Vampires Suck... and even though it didn't beat The Expendables at the Box-Office, I don't see why I shouldn't respect it. 


Back to Top
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Online
Posts: 6999
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 23 2010 at 1:12pm
Ken Jeong -- NO! Please do not nominate him! 

Originally posted by Gregory

Ken Jeong could end up getting a Worst Supporting Actor nod for Vampiresand Furry Vengeance.
You can follow me @Vits_Chile
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 23 2010 at 2:19pm
Yes, it is quite hard to talk in montone and stare off-screen while trying to pass it off as acting ... which might also explain Keanu Reeves' career!  

Originally posted by moviewizguy

As much as I disliked this film, it really wouldn't be funny if it got acting nominations, because the strong point in the film (yes, there was actually something good in the film) is that Lanter and Proske played (or mocked) Pattison and Stewert's mannerisms really, really well -- to the point that even some critics said they played the characters better than the actors in the Twilight series themselves! I was really impressed by Proske, especially. She's a promising actress, even though this is her big screen debut.  
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.
Back to Top
lastmoviecritic View Drop Down
Berry New Comer
Berry New Comer


Joined: July 20 2010
Location: Denver, CO
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5
Post Options Post Options   Quote lastmoviecritic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 23 2010 at 8:24pm
I'll give this film some credit, it got some good Twilight jabs in. It's the directors' best films...but that's not saying much...
Ryan Walter Blair, lastmoviecritic.com, LLC
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 23 2010 at 8:43pm
Originally posted by lastmoviecritic

I'll give this film some credit, it got some good Twilight jabs in. It's the directors' best films...but that's not saying much...
Yeah, there are some good jabs to it, but nothing that hasn't been already said and said better. And as for it being their greatest film ... well, that's like having to choose which method you'd rather be tortured with.
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.
Back to Top
dEd Grimley View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: July 31 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2024
Post Options Post Options   Quote dEd Grimley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2010 at 7:19am
I'm looking for numbers here... I see that it MADE $12.2m (for not calling it Vampire Movie), does anyone have any idea on the budget? I think the others used to be about $20m, and I'm guessing they gave them less for this one, since it's been awhile, which means they'd have less to make up. It's really depressing to me to think that they'll be able to keep doing these movies. I really want this to fail, or at least get them straight-to-DVD.
I went to see Scott Pilgrim the other day with a friend of mine, and a friend of hers, and he was like, "I wanna see that. It's gonna be stupid but it mocks the movies I hate the most", referring to the Twilights. Is that ALL it takes to make money these days? Find something that's popular to one group, but disliked by those outside said group, and make a movie about it that includes a number of other pointless pop culture references, and if I know my Seltzerberg, have them get hurt in some way? I mean, seriously, if I could get a $10m dollar loan to make and advertise this movie, I could do this. Anyone could. These guys are millionaires by making the most pedestrian of entertainment. I'm reading Wealth of Nations, the capitalist bible, at the moment, and he talks about allotting higher pay to entertainers, to be paid for their talent... What does it say about our economy if you can make millions of dollars and have no talent?
-Iron helps us play-
Back to Top
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Online
Posts: 6999
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2010 at 12:25pm
The movie cost $20 million.

Personally,I prefer to mock things I disliked,and therefor,watch parodies of movies I dislike.

Did you know the original title?It was VAMPIRES RULE SUCK?
You can follow me @Vits_Chile
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2010 at 2:53pm
Okay, I wouldn't pay money to see a movie just because it mocks Michael Bay, especially if I knew the writers/directors have a track record of being just as bad at their craft as Bay is. Kinda like Uwe Boll saying his stuff is bad, but Bay and Eli Roth are worse, etc. So I find this whole idea of people thinking "I know it's going to be stupid, but it mocks the movie I hate most, so I'll pay money to see it anyway" to be as retarded as Tom Green's sense of humor. Sadly, it's working, so Seltzerberg knew what they were doing here.
 
Oh, and I'm pretty sure the title Vits is talking about was just something on movie posters, used as a joke, if you can call it that.
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.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down