Official RAZZIE® Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > 2007 RAZZIE® MOVIE FORUMS w/LYNX! > GEORGIA RULE
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Lindsay in "Dramatic" Mode...OH, OH!
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

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

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>
Author
Message
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 Topic: Lindsay in "Dramatic" Mode...OH, OH!
    Posted: May 19 2007 at 10:52am
Lol, ok. It's my 100th post!
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: May 19 2007 at 12:54pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Ok, there are some voting systems (like IMDb) where it's just absolutely ridiculous that you can vote without seeing the movie.

I've been watching IMDb vote tallies for almost two years now.  We all know the IMDb can be driven temporarily by industry people and fanboys.  I've observed that, over time, however, as more people see the movie and vote, the rating stabilizes.  You say it's ridiculous that you can vote without seeing the movie (although I understand many industry types, film festival attendees and movie critics vote before the release of the movie).  I say it's ridiculous to discount 8,653 votes for Little Man just because the first few were before the movie was released.  Besides, IMDb weights their vote averages in such a way that it's not all that easy to stuff the ballot, especially when the top 1000 voters start weighing in.  

I'll ignore your tally of 3000 votes before its release, because that total is ridiculous (I've never seen any movie have that many votes before its mass release).  Coming from you, it desperately needs to  be corrobated.

That's not to mean you don't have a point.  IMDb's rating does need to be compared to other movie ratings, as I did above.  But you're exaggeration, dismissiveness and mischaracterization of the IMDb votes seems to be uncalled for.

Originally posted by moviewizguy

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%.

I don't know how you rate films, but unless it's a B movie, whenever I give a movie a 4 out of 10 rating, either I felt it was bad or I had a serious problem with it.  With the exception of the B movies, I don't start calling a movie "okay" or "good" unless I can at least give it a 5 out of 10.  I imagine the critics and Rotten Tomatoes have a similar view.  I say you're grasping straws at this point.  Interesting straws, but straws nonetheless.

Originally posted by moviewizguy

I've showed you how Disturbia has the same concept as WASC, yet you guys really ignored it.

Now I KNOW you're grasping straws.  How about this: It doesn't matter that Disturbia and WASC have similar plots.  Maybe Disturbia is a BETTER MOVIE than WASC. 

Besides, everyone can see Disturbia is an update of Rear Window.

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


Joined: July 14 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2577
Post Options Post Options   Quote saturnwatcher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 19 2007 at 5:29pm

Two apologies are in order. First, to almost everyone on the board, for a point I am about to belabor. Yet, inspite of heroic efforts on the part of Artgirl and cvcjr, I remain unconvinced that moviewizguy really grasps the implications of a 4/10 rating.

Apology 2 goes out to every female about to read this. For, racking my cranium as I tried, I simply could not come up with a way to explain the matter that didn't involve relapsing 30 years into my past, and diving back into the unenlightened side of the  cloud of testosterone toxicity in which all young males roam.

You see, back there in my young undergrad days, one of our favorite past-times on warm days was to bring our backsides to rest in front of the dormitories, not uncommonly with some 3.2 malt beverage in hand. The primary source of our amusement was watching the parade of scantily dressed coeds on their way to class, or wherever else the duties of the day required. (In defense of young males everywhere, to this day I have some doubt that their provocative state of dress was entirely inspired by the heat of the day.)

There was, of course, a system of rating in place, not entirely dissimilar to the judging sytem employed at Olympic diving or Figure skating events. We were not so brazen as to actually hold up numeric cards, however, coded verbal cues from each of us were passed. The rating system was usually a 1-10 sort of structure.

Passing along a rating equivalent to "4" did not in any sense imply that 4 out of 10 males would likely find the coed in question attractive. It was something closer to, "were I sufficiently drunk, and a paper bag available to hide her face, I might be persuaded." if you get my drift.

Years have passed, and the cloud of testosterone toxicity has broken away, leading to the realization that judging the companionship value of a female, or anyone else purely on physical appearance is shallow and crude. Nonetheless, deeper seeded implications remain in evaluating the assignment of a rating of "4" to a motion picture. It's a howling dog....maybe even Razzie worthy. To rate a film even lower would require an admission that some lapse of mental capability actually permitted one to fork over hard earned cash to see a "2": Something surely, no self respecting human would easily own up to without considerable personal angst.  So, the notion fails in principle that a movie with a rating of "4" has found a small approving audience, but rather as the Bard might have offered, "It sucketh foul."

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
Back to Top
jb razz View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: November 25 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 156
Post Options Post Options   Quote jb razz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 21 2007 at 8:26am

All this debating is making my head spin!

I would like to be able to go inside Moviewizguy's head and see what he actually believes, because he has all of these strong opinions but it is never clear what exactly is the point he is making. The way he makes his argument reminds me of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code: Unsupported statements and very questionable "facts"!

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: May 21 2007 at 8:50am
...I've moved on, can't you see what my 100th post was like?: It was all happy...
Back to Top
bruin_522 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 30 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 360
Post Options Post Options   Quote bruin_522 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 23 2007 at 4:07pm
TRIVIA: Lindsay Lohan received a warning letter from the studio's CEO James G. Robinson (Morgan Creek Productions) for her lack of professionalism. The letter was later released to the media and directly noted Lohan's "discourteous, irresponsible and unprofessional" conduct and went on to say her actions were those of a "spoiled child" which "has endangered the quality of this picture." Robinson also threatened to sue the 20-year-old star if she continued to delay production.
Back to Top
bruin_522 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 30 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 360
Post Options Post Options   Quote bruin_522 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 13 2007 at 4:40pm
Factual errors: The Idaho license plates on the vehicles in the film have an incorrect format. Standard Idaho license plates begin with a two digit number/letter combination identifying the county where the vehicle is registered (i.e. 1A - for Aida county, Boise area). The plates in the film do not use this format.
Back to Top
bruin_522 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 30 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 360
Post Options Post Options   Quote bruin_522 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2007 at 4:23pm

I see that Lindsay Lohan has a second 2007 movie coming out soon, like the end of July. It's called I KNOW WHO KILLED ME -- check out the plot for this movie:

An idyllic small town is rocked when Aubrey Fleming, a bright and promising young woman, is abducted and tortured by a sadistic serial killer. When she manages to escape, the traumatized girl who regains consciousness in the hospital insists that she is not who they think she is and that the real Aubrey Fleming is still in mortal danger.

Check out the poster for that movie. If you dare!

She has also finisned another film, called CHAPTER 27, which is about a young female John Lennon fan who befriends Mark David Chapman on the weekend in 1980 when he kills the former Beatle, Lennon. I think both film look interesting, but I'm not exactly sure about I KNOW WHO KILLED ME being good at all...

Back to Top
dipitlow555 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: June 13 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 147
Post Options Post Options   Quote dipitlow555 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 10 2007 at 3:54am

Maybe you went to the critics to see how the movie was, but did you ever see it for yourself? I don't care what the HeadRazz is saying about it: Watch this movie and figure it out for yourself! Lindsay Lohan's performance in this is AMAZING! It's her best performance yet! So watch the movie, and then come up with your OWN damn opinion! 

Response from Head RAZZberry: While you, like everyone who posts on this Forum, are entitled to your own opinion, I daresay we were hardly alone in "picking on" GEORGIA RULE. It's total box office to date is a paltry $18.9 million ( LINK ) --awfully low for a film starring 3 generations of supposedly appealing actresses. And it's Approval Rating at Rotten Tomatoes now stands at an embarrassingly low 19% ( LINK). RULE was also chosen by AP film critic Christy LeMire as her choice for the Berry Worst Movie of the First Half of 2007 ( LINK ).

Every movie ever made has at least one person who adores it in spite of all the evidence to the contrary -- Apprently, you are that one person where GEORGIA RULE is concerned...

 

Back to Top
dipitlow555 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: June 13 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 147
Post Options Post Options   Quote dipitlow555 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2007 at 3:24pm

OK "HeadRazz", did you see the movie? Because you're running an award show for supposedly "bad" movies, and you probably didn't even see half of them! And your response to me was that one of the reasons you're making fun of this movie is because of how it did at the box office. If I remember correctly, BOBBY (a good movie) didn't do so sweet at the box office, either. And how can you give me such crap as "supposedly appealing actresses" when everyone knows that Jane Fonda, Lindsay Lohan and Felicity Huffman are all FANTASTIC actresses!!! If they weren't, then 2/3 of them wouldn't have been nominated for Oscars. And you base you judgments on what the critics at Rotten Tomatoes think of it. If you even go on Rotten Tomatoes, you will see that I'm not the only one who liked this movie. So I suggest that you actually go see a movie and make your own judgment, instead of being on this website all the time and tearing people down for doing their very best at their job. And yeah, I LOVED GEORGIA RULE's story, talents, performances, EVERYTHING! Problem?

Response from Head RAZZberry: First of all, calm down! This is a movie discussion Forum, not a world-changing situation... 

You are welcome to express your opinions, but NOT welcome to challenge other posters' right to disagree with you. Certainly there are a number of people who actually like GEORGIA RULE (albeit, a small number). And no one said this film's three stars don't have credentials -- rather, I suggested that those credentials would logically lead one to expect far more from any movie in which all three apear. Also, your claim that I haven't even been to Rotten Tomatoes is ludicrous -- I check it out on an almost DAILY basis, and just now confirmed that this film has a lowly 19% Approval Rating from the critics there ( LINK ). If you're talking about average movie-goers' opinions of the film, its box office is a reasonable indicator of that -- And its box office numbers pretty much parallel its RT number ( LINK ).

No, not every film that fails to find an audience is necessarily a "bad" film (some of my own personal all-time favrotie "good" movies were commercial failures). But when a movie achieves the double-whammy of getting lambasted by critics and avoided by audiences, it's more than reasonable for us to include it as a subject of discussion on this Forum...

  

Back to Top
wetbandit82 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: November 10 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 297
Post Options Post Options   Quote wetbandit82 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 17 2007 at 2:49am
We just keep coming back to one thing:  rampant and unappealing character sadism that serves to make it unattractive.  You're certainly entitled to your own opinion; we all respect 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: July 17 2007 at 3:22pm
Originally posted by dipitlow555

Because you're running an award show for supposedly "bad" movies, and you probably didn't even see half of them!   

Hurricane season sure started early.

I've been reading the HeadRAZZ's thoroughly enjoyable book on the 100 "so bad they'll make you laugh" movies up through, what, 2004?, titled "THE OFFICIAL RAZZIE MOVIE GUIDE".  Now, maybe I'm not remembering something correctly, but I could swear somewhere in this book I read he's seen over 4000 movies.  So, it wouldn't surprise me if he's seen just about every one of the movies selected as "worst of the weak," and has probably tormented himself into tears watching a few of them over and over.

But that's just me reading into my bookreading.  I have no idea whether he has a Mommie Dearest film festival at his home every year, complete with a swimming pool race, a merry-go-round and enlisted men.  But it wouldn't surprise me. . . .

Back to Top
dipitlow555 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: June 13 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 147
Post Options Post Options   Quote dipitlow555 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 17 2007 at 4:13pm

OK, let me just say that I meant what I said, but I didn't mean to be so rude. I'm sorry. I was just having a bad day and read your response to my post at the wrong time. I was just saying that you are entitled to your opinion about "Georgia Rule" but just take note and give credit to Lindsay Lohan's performance in this movie, for it is her best to date.


P.S. I also hated "Mommie Dearest!"

Response from Head RAZZberry: Apology accepted. Seeing so many Berry Awful Movies, you can imagine how often I myself have a bad day...

I must again correct you on one minor point though: I don't actually hate MOMMIE DEAREST -- I love it. I consider it one of the most entertaining movies ever made (albeit for reasons its makers never intended)...

Oh...and welcome aboard our Forum, dipitlow555!


 

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: July 18 2007 at 3:17am
Oh, I think one of the major complaints about Georgia Rule is precisely that many critics have said it contains Lindsay Lohan's best performance up to date.  Garry Marshall wasted that performance by inserting it into an awful movie.  I feel Marshall has no excuse.  He took a dark subject, prostitution, and turned it into a touching half drama, half comedy, Pretty Woman.  He apparently failed to do the same for sexual abuse and Georgia Rule
Back to Top
Criss808 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: June 13 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 135
Post Options Post Options   Quote Criss808 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 23 2007 at 4:35am
Poor Lindsay...Her career started off so promising with movies like "Freaky Friday" and "Mean Girls" but then she got into the party scene and started hanging out with RAZZIE-winners Paris Hilton and Britney Spears!!! I think this year she'll definitely be nominated for WORST ACTRESS for her performances in "GEORGIA RULE", the awful-looking "I KNOW WHO KILLED ME", and "CHAPTER 27". At least Jane Fonda redeemed herself from that terrible piece of crap that was "MONSTER-IN-LAW"!!!
Back to Top
dipitlow555 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: June 13 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 147
Post Options Post Options   Quote dipitlow555 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 23 2007 at 5:36am
Can she really be nominated for WORST ACTRESS for giving a good performance in "GEORGIA RULE" and for giving a never-seen performance in "CHAPTER 27"???
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down