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

Hearkening back to the time proven principle that 90% of everything is crap, Hollywood truly provides us with an embarrassment of riches. Nonetheless, a deserving effort that might otherwise escape the attention of the majority of the members is quite often brought to the notice of the group by a single poster.

It should be pointed out that most of the discussion here is purely in fun. We had a pretty good time for several months poking fun at Rocky Balboa  and Snakes on A Plane, two films that ended up not being particularly Razzie worthy. No harm was done to anyone. Rocky Balboa ended up with box-office grosses almost to the penny of what industry experts predicted, and if anything, Snakes On A Plane probably benefited at the box-office from discussions in forums such as this one. Bottom line: lighten up a bit, moviewizguy. If Lindsay Lohan or anyone else in Hollywood ever finds their mail being forwarded to a large cardboard box, I suspect it will come about 100% as the result of their own irresponsible behavior, and 0% because of anything anyone posts on this website.

I hate to be the one to break this two you, moviewizguy, but we weren't the only ones that found the three movies you noted above to be, well, let's say pretty substandard. Here are the evaluations for the terrible trio, as scored by Rotten Tomatoes:

Date Movie: 9%

The Fog: 5%

Little Man: 14%

If a score of 20% or below from the professional critics is to be considered a reasonable guideline for consideration on this site, every one of them is well within our boundaries. Evidently, we are not the ones with questionable cinematic tastes. That is not to say that I have never disagreed with some of the films that have been discussed or even took home awards from this organization. But in general, I know the difference between sour and fresh milk.

One other point of note: The number of films released in 2007 that have their own dedicated forums on the main page is considerably fewer than the average of 2-3 a week you seem to think we ought to be considering. Simple mathematical analysis will bear me out on the point. However, other films have been mentioned in the general discussions. It is notable that winners in categories like Worst Couple, or the supporting actor and actress category may not necessarily coincide with Worst Picture nominees.

The most favorable of the three movies you listed above was panned by 86% of the professional film critics tracked by RT. I don't mean to be insulting, but I think you have painted yourself into a pretty tenuous credibility corner. When deciding which movies I will go see or rent, I don't personally place all that much weight on critical reaction. But at the same time, I do respect the fact that they have a degree of expertise well above that of the average movie goer, which is why I place no credibility whatsoever in ratings provided by viewers at sites like IMDB. If you want to evaluate how intelligently the American people, as a whole, judge quality, look at who is leading the country.

One very quick postscript: I personally am frequently impressed by how often the movies that are selected here as worst of the upcoming week, prior to much critical input, end up with RT scores below 20% In other words, our Head Razzie does a pretty amazing job leading the forum, with the humble input from time to time of we out here in the field. 

This feels like we're playing a video arcade game set at super easy.

Where are you getting your statistics?  Like saturnwatcher said, Rotten Tomatoes currently shows the critics rate Little Man at 14%, the cream of the crop critics at a more forgiving 29%, and regular movie at a far more harsh 15%.  IMDb currently shows that Little Man has finally edged out of its bottom 100 at the still abysmal rating of 2.9 out of 10.  Box Office Mojo grades Little Man at a D.

So, where do you find anywhere that 5 out of 10 critics like Little Man? 

And then you say that the poor remake of When A Stranger Calls (WASC) isn't that bad?  Rotten Tomates shows WASC at 10% for critics in general, 0% for cream of the crop critics and 27% for regular moviegoers, IMDB currently shows WASC at 4.5 out of 10, and Box Office Mojo grades WASC at a C.

This is the Internet, dude.  We can check out whether what you're saying is true or not. 

Next thing we know, you'll be telling us what a great director Uwe Blows is.

Ok, there are some voting systems (like IMDb) where it's just absolutely ridiculous that you can vote without seeing the movie. Perhaps 300, where it got in the top 250 before it got released and Little Man, where it got to the bottom 100 one day after it's released. You wouldn't expect 3,000 who actually voted saw Little Man. They are haters. Even Grindhouse is now on spot #67 in the top 250, surpassing other great films better than GH. What do you call that? Tarantino fans! And Snakes on a Plane which was shot with a high score when it was released! SOAP fans!

Trust me, people vote without seeing the movie meaning the IMDb are crap! Even people who liked GH in the forum stated it's the fans who made the film that far up! Ok, for the other proof, here it is: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/little_man/?beg=0&int=61 &creamcrop_limit=22&page=all

On the cream of the crops section, the critics gave the movie (Little Man) and average rating of a 4/10 which might equal 40%. 27% of them don't like the movie but they actually might gave the movie a 2/4 rating! So please, never use the IMDb excuse because anyone could've voted any movie they want for any rating, like a 1 or a 10. Every user (or most) considers the voting system on IMDb a "joke".

And for WASC, no one has actually commented on that reply. I've showed you how Disturbia has the same concept as WASC, yet you guys really ignored it.