Lindsay in "Dramatic" Mode...OH, OH!

Okay, the score so far...Keep in mind, each review shown as evidence counts for 1 point, and actually SEEING the movie counts for 2 points. If this is annoying people, I'll stop.

cvcjr13: 5

ArtGirl138: 1

saturnwatcher: 2

moviewizguy: Still 0

TOTAL SCORES:

Against G.R.: 8

For G.R.: 0

Let us know when you have reviews from a reputable source, moviewizguy.

And, saturnwatcher, if the movie was that bad...wow, I can see why Lindsay was away from the set as much as possible...

I really meant critics like Roeper and the visited filmmaker, Brad Silberling...which Head RAZZ, you didn't like Lemony Snicket...ANYWAY, I'm just saying what they said: Lindsay's performance was actually her best in this film (said Reoper).

In Entertainment Weekly: "Lohan hits a true note of spiteful princess narissism."

Roeper: "It's a shame Lohan's best work TO DATE..."

A.O. Scott (New York Times) was favorable.

Although Roeper gave it a thumbs down, it wasn't one of the worst films this year. I'm not saying it's good. I'm just saying it's not as bad as people said it was.

moviewizguy claims:
But I really didn't want to start this debate in the first place.

You didn't want to start this debate in the first place?

Well, phrases like "Oh, you people are the crudest people ever!" start debates.  It's a personal insult.  You also implied we didn't know what we were talking about when you wrote "Have you seen the movie?! NO!"  So, that's an implied insult, which could start a debate.  The phrase "It was never meant to be a comedy!" doesn't make any sense when we read Richard Roeper's review, one of the very same critics you cite to support that Lindsay Lohan was great.  So, you take his appraisal of Lohan's performance and ignore that he called Georgia Rule a comedy about sexual abuse?  That's debatable.  And just about all the other critics who panned this movie said the same thing.  And then you said, "It helps if you really want to give a decent debate!"  Well, if you don't want to start a debate, why are you telling us how to have a debate?

In other words, if you didn't want to start a debate, you probably should have completely reworded that entire paragraph. . . .

I think I can settle the "debate" quite definitively. Here is a link to a website containing a communication sent by Morgan Creek Productions to Ms. Lohan, in regards to her actions and performance during the time of her filming of Georgia Rule. It appears to me that they weren't very happy with her:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0728061lohan1.html

I really didn't start the debate. Here's the last thing I posted before it started:

Ok, when do movies actually get suggested for Razzie? 30% and lower? And if that is right, there will be MANY movies under 30%! I mean, it's half the year and there are like tons of movie already suggested for nominations! That's a lot of movies. Instead of having 1 or 2 or 3 movies suggested each week, just rarely suggest them because there are way too many movies suggested right now. lol

Now, here's the next post by AnyGirl138:

So? Just because the movies might not end up Razzie-nominated doesn't mean we can't talk about how bad they are. If my understanding is correct, this forum isn't strictly meant for Razzie noms - it's meant for discussing crap in general.

And moviewizguy - I asked you once, and I'll ask you again, why don't you suggest some nominees?

Now, onto the film - y'know, I keep hoping Lindsay Lohan will FINALLY see the light and focus more on being a good actress than being a "party girl". Alas, it doesn't seem that she's returned from the dark side yet, as the trouble on the set of this movie proved.

Of course, now that I know more about this movie, I can see why it's being bashed - a "comedy" about sexual abuse? Say it with me - EWWWWWW.

See, that started the debate. I was really suggesting movies that are actually worh getting nominated. Yeah, there will be many that could be suggested but I really can't handle it if by the end of the year 17,517 films get suggested for a Razzie.

Response from Head RAZZberry: Seriously, moviewizguy, what is it you do want by taking part in this Forum??  First you call us "the crudest people ever," suggesting you have no respect for our opinions. Then you turn around and say you "really can't handle it" if we discuss too many titles on this Forum by year's end. Do you or don't you care about what we're doing here? If you don't, why bother to continue posting (and why should it bother you how many titles we talk about)?. If you do, then let's see you, for once, get into the spirit of what we're all about. We're not here to defend people like Lindsay Lohan (who has highly paid agents, publicists and lawyers for that kind of thing). When Hollywood tries to fob off total crap like GEORGIA RULE on us, the movie-going public, we call them on it.

Since I have yet to see you post a single word actually criticizing any movie, I'm beginning to wonder about your fascination with the RAZZIE Forum -- Is it some kind of self-flagellation problem, or an obsessive/compulsive disorder, or what?? 

(It's spelled "ArtGirl138", by the way)

cvcjr13, the main reason I posted that was because I'm one of a few forum members that are getting pretty tired of moviewizguy. He is no friend to the Razzies, and most of his posts are in defense of Razzie nominees.

BUT, I never wanted to start this debate. Note that THIS was the only part that addressed him:

So? Just because the movies might not end up Razzie-nominated doesn't mean we can't talk about how bad they are. If my understanding is correct, this forum isn't strictly meant for Razzie noms - it's meant for discussing crap in general.

And moviewizguy - I asked you once, and I'll ask you again, why don't you suggest some nominees?

And I wasn't even expecting a response to the first paragraph! I just wanted him to suggest what his worst of 2007 were so far, and, y'know, actually contribute to this forum.