Official RAZZIE® Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > FORUMS on NON-NOMINATED 2008 RELEASES w/LYNX! > RAMBO the 4th
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: No Blood ’n’ Guts...No Vainglory!
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

No Blood ’n’ Guts...No Vainglory!

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 9>
Author
Message
HeadRAZZBerry View Drop Down
Berry Important MODERATOR
Berry Important MODERATOR


Joined: April 23 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5074
Post Options Post Options   Quote HeadRAZZBerry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: No Blood ’n’ Guts...No Vainglory!
    Posted: May 23 2007 at 6:04am

SLY IS BACK, WRITING and DIRECTING in the STYLE THAT'S ALREADY GARNERED HIM a CAREER TOTAL of 30 RAZZIE NOMINATIONS and a RECORD 10 RAZZIE "WINS."  CHECK OUT the UN-RATED ON-LINE PROMO for JOHN RAMBO (LINK) THEN POST YOUR THOUGHTS BELOW.

A THOUGHT to START OUR DISCUSSION: RAMBO IV , by ACTUAL TALLY, HAS a HIGHER BODY COUNT THAN ALL THREE PREVIOUS RAMBO MOVIES COMBINED...

RAMBO: "Peek and boo -- I slew you!" 

UP-DATE: We're reviving our Worst Career Achievement Award for NEXT year (The 29th Annual RAZZIES®)...and considering finally giving it to Our Awl Time Cam-Peen... 

 

Ye Olde Head RAZZberry
Back to Top
#1-Movie-Fan! View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: April 26 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
Post Options Post Options   Quote #1-Movie-Fan! Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 23 2007 at 6:34am

What is the SOURCE of this "promo" -- and why doesn't it have a green MPAA Rating Card on the front of it??

Response from Head RAZZberry: Given the timing of its release, I assume the promo was made to be shown at the 2007 Cannes Film Festival, to drum up international interest (and possibly financial backing) for the film. Since it was not made for theatrical release, and production on the film is still on-going, the MPAA has no reason to rate the promo. By the way, the IMDb page for JOHN RAMBO orginally said its US release was set for Memorial Day weekend of 2008...

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: May 23 2007 at 1:38pm

International interest for a Rambo film?  Who are they kidding; this likely isn't going to make a cent outside North America except at the next annual Hezbollah barbeque and bingo party. (and as for funding, not likely unless Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus, with their own strong jingoistic values, having any money left to give that they didn't throw away while they were at each other's throats after Cannon fell apart). 

Response from Head RAZZberry: Sadly, the RAMBO series has alwaze been at least as popular in foreign territories as it is here in North America. 1985 Worst Picture "winner" RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II had a worldwide gross of $300 million -- half of which was from foreign venues (LINK). 1988 Worst Picture nominee RAMBO III had a worldwide gross of nearly $190 million -- $135 million (or 71%) of which was earned outside the United States (LINK).

One of the scary things about this is that many foreign movie-goers' only impression of Americans is from seeing our movies -- And movies like the RAMBO series don't exactly endear us to third world nations...

 

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 24 2007 at 3:34am
Pretty clearly, Stallone is suffering from an abject loss of imagination. Not only is it evident that this film will contain little more than flying blood and guts, but Stallone can no longer come up with titles for his movies that are anything more than his characters' names. At least he could have followed the lead  of one of last summer's oft- discussed cinematic celebrations, and called it John Rambo Kills a Bunch of People.
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
JoeBacon View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: July 15 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 546
Post Options Post Options   Quote JoeBacon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 26 2007 at 2:25pm
I'm still trying to recover from Rambo 2 or 3 (Lord, I cannot remember which
one because they were all the same movie), I was stupid enough to watch it
at the Pacific Theater in Hollywood and I remember all the wolf whistles
coming from guys when Stallone tears his shirt off.
Back to Top
tomsmobr View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: March 18 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 255
Post Options Post Options   Quote tomsmobr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2007 at 4:47am
I thought First Blood was pretty good Movie, but here some thing I will bet you never thought about when watched Rambo First Blood Part 2 is that Rambo had done a Reverse A Team what I mean by this is he was able shoot every one and no one was able shoot at him, but I will have to admit this I thought The Cartoon was pretty sweet.
Back to Top
#1 Sly Fan View Drop Down
Berry Best Friend
Berry Best Friend


Joined: July 05 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 39
Post Options Post Options   Quote #1 Sly Fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 02 2007 at 5:01am

Here you go again!  You guys were totally wrong in ripping "Rocky Balboa" last year, and I'll bet you're wrong again knocking "John Rambo" when nobody's seen anything but the promo yet. Give Sly a break! 

Response from Head RAZZberry: Welcome back, #1 Sly Fan -- Where ya bin?? As someone who's made his living doing movie promos for many years now, I think I can spot an out-and-out turkey when I see the promo for one. And JOHN RAMBO couldn't smell more like a RAZZberry if it soaked overnight in RAZZberry-scented bubblebath! 

By the way, in my opening remarks at this year's 27th Annual RAZZIE Awards, I publicly acknowledged that ROCKY BALBOA was the best thing Stallone had done in years, and was thus underserving of RAZZIE attention. I also added, though, that I expected the success of ROCKY XVII to allow Sly to make RAMBO IV (aka JOHN RAMBO) which has RAZZIE written all over it...

 

YO: Quit Pickin' on Stallone!!
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: June 02 2007 at 5:04pm
Originally posted by #1 Sly Fan

Here you go again!  You guys were totally wrong in ripping "Rocky Balboa" last year, and I'll bet you're wrong again knocking "John Rambo" when nobody's seen anything but the promo yet. Give Sly a break! 

1. I'll bet we aren't.

2. Stallone doesn't deserve a break, or your admiration. This is a guy who tried to smuggle  48 vials of Jintropin, a banned and illegal substance, into Australia a few weeks ago. Bad filmmaker, crummy human being, now we can add international drug smuggler; well deserving of our catcalls and far worse.  It's just a shame that the Aussies didn't toss his sorry hiney in jail. But perhaps you'd be willing to explain to me why Sly had a huge quantity of HGH in his possession in the first place? Inquiring minds want to know.

Permit me to slam-dunk the answer you are about to give: I am certainly no expert on the use of HGH, so I asked a friend in the medical profession...48 vials is a lot more than anyone would typically be carrying around for personal use, even if they planned to be away from home for a month or two or six. Since HGH is banned in several countries, a fact not unknown to people who travel internationally with some frequency, just having it in his possession is bad enough, but in that quantity is moronic.

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
#1 Sly Fan View Drop Down
Berry Best Friend
Berry Best Friend


Joined: July 05 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 39
Post Options Post Options   Quote #1 Sly Fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 03 2007 at 6:12am

It's not enough that you guys have razzed my idol to death for nearly 30 years, now you're accusing him of being a dope pusher?? I can't claim to know why he had all those drugs on him at the Auzzie airport, but it seems to me your suggestions could be seen as slanderous (or is that libelous?). Either way, it's a giant leap of logic to go from "he had a lot of drugs on him" to implying that he was planning to sell them. That kind of speculative innuendo is beneath any decent person -- but not Razzie members, who have blindly hated this great humanitarian movie star almost since their silly orgainzation was begun...

Response from Head RAZZberry: I, too, think saturnwatcher's inference that Sly may have been carrying all those steroids for use by someone other than himself to be borderline slanderous, but I have yet to hear Stallone himself offer a credible explanation for the quantity he was carrying (or the fact that he apparently hoped to smuggle them into Australia in unchecked luggage).  As for our having "razzed...this great humanitarian movie star...for nearly 30 years," that, too, is an exagerration: We've only nominated him for 30 different efforts over 23 years, not the "nearly 30" you suggest. Also, I would love to hear you delineate how on Earth this man is, by any steetch, a "humanitarian," let alone a "great...move star"...

YO: Quit Pickin' on Stallone!!
Back to Top
#1 Sly Fan View Drop Down
Berry Best Friend
Berry Best Friend


Joined: July 05 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 39
Post Options Post Options   Quote #1 Sly Fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 03 2007 at 6:28am

woah! You must've been "lurkin" when I posted my last item, to respond so fast, Head RAZZberry. FYI, here's a LINK to an MSNBC item in which Stallone says he was carrying the drugs, as prescribed by a doctor years ago, for a medical condition. That answer your question?? 

Response from Head RAZZberry: Actually...NO. In the article, Stallone fails to "disclose" the "medial condition" for which he claims the steroids were "prescribed." Sounds an awful lot like the old daze in Hollywood, when "Dr. Feelgood" would "prescribe" for celebrities any "medications" they desired, and some of their clients actually died from "over-using" their "prescriptions"...

As for my "lurking," I am often on the Forum on late Sunday morning, Pacific Time, posting the "Weakned Box Office" item to our web site's Main Page. When I double-clicked on "Active Topics" I saw that you were back, and couldn't resist reading your new postings...or resist responding to them!

YO: Quit Pickin' on Stallone!!
Back to Top
#1 Sly Fan View Drop Down
Berry Best Friend
Berry Best Friend


Joined: July 05 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 39
Post Options Post Options   Quote #1 Sly Fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 03 2007 at 6:32am

I almost forgot: On the matter of Sly being a humanitarian, I consider anyone who's given the world as much pleasure and inspiration as he has through his many films (the Rocky movies in particular) to be a "humanitarian"... 

Response from Head RAZZberry: I'm tempted to respond to that, but I'm afraid it's just too easy. Anyone else care to post a reply?? 

YO: Quit Pickin' on Stallone!!
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: June 04 2007 at 2:35am

#1 Sly Fan Wrote:

 It's not enough that you guys have razzed my idol to death for nearly 30 years, now you're accusing him of being a dope pusher?? I can't claim to know why he had all those drugs on him at the Auzzie airport, but it seems to me your suggestions could be seen as slanderous (or is that libelous?). Either way, it's a giant leap of logic to go from "he had a lot of drugs on him" to implying that he was planning to sell them.

With all due respect, Sly guy, would you please, in the future, do me the honor of actually reading my posts?

At no point did I say he intended to sell the drug in question. Maybe he was plannng to give away vials as party favors, or promote international good will, being the humanitarian he is. Maybe he consumes the drug in quantities far greater than mortal men.  If there is an inference of a possible intent to sell, remember that he was convicted of illegally bringing a very significant quantity into the country, and the question is reasonable.  Carrying a large quantity of an illegal substance into a country is, by definition, smuggling*.  I did accuse him of smuggling which does not by definition necessarily imply an intent to sell. The definition below will bear me out on the point. Since Stallone has been essentially legally been convicted in Australia on the matter, I think he would face grave difficulty legally proving any form of libel (Head Razz, please take note as well).

However, as I have pointed out, carrying around a banned substance in that quantity is far beyond what would seemingly be necessary for personal use. As a public figure who trades upon his celebrity status and public good will, Stallone does indeed owe everyone an explanation as just what his intentions were, which has not been forthcoming. There is simply no excuse for him attempting to carry any quantity of the substance into a country where it is illegal, unless he was fully prepared to provide the proper documentation to demonstrate a legitimate medical need. That is true of any legitimate prescription medication (HGH's qualifications on that score are dubious). Failure to do that is called willfully breaking the law. So, for that matter, was his tossing 4 more vials out of his hotel window 4 days later when authorities arrived to search his room. All of his actions in this matter raise legitimate questions, and asking those sorts of questions in the context of the actions of someone who has been convicted of an illegal act again is far from libelous. It would have been one thing if he possessed that quantity with proper documentation and I blew off about it. Carrying extra quantities of prescription medications when traveling overseas is a good idea. But that isn't the case here, is it?

I find it interesting that he considered entertaining our troops in Iraq too personally dangerous, but attempting to sneak a large quantity of an illegal substance into Australia is no problem.

Incidentally, on May 20, when Stallone was convicted and fined on the charges against him (he falied to personally appear) the judge noted that Stallone had failed to show that he had any prescription for the drugs in question.

*Random House definition, "smuggle":

smug•gle

Pronunciation: (smug'ul), [key]
v., -gled, -gling.


v.t.
1. to import or export (goods) secretly, in violation of the law, esp. without payment of legal duty.
2. to bring, take, put, etc., surreptitiously: She smuggled the gun into the jail inside a cake.

v.i.
to import, export, or convey goods surreptitiously or in violation of the law.

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
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: June 04 2007 at 4:20pm

There is another point that has came to me while I should have been thinking about something else today. 

WE, all of us, are enablers. We buy the tickets to movies, concerts and athletic events. We wear the tee-shirts, buy the Happy Meals and the products our celebrities endorse. Celebrity is a pretty sweet deal in this society, whether some of them want to acknowledge that or not. We give them a slug of money, a comfortable lifestyle, big houses, nice cars, our admiration and respect, free reign to act like badly behaving children; and all we ask in return is the right to act goofy in their presence and steal a measure of their privacy.

I think its high time, as a society, that we renegotiate that contract. If we are going to afford these people the sort of wealth and honor we ought to be giving the people who teach our children and those who stand the wall for us, they owe us something more in return. They owe us a lifestyle that can make us proud; not just of them, but of ourselves as well, for making the right choices in terms of the people we promote to that status.

I used to be a big fan of Mel Gibson. I'm not anymore. He demonstrated to me through word and deed that he no longer valued my respect and appreciation. So I no longer offer it. What might happen if tomorrow, Sly Stallone looked in on one of his fan sites and saw 99 consecutive posts in which is most ardent fans were saying, "Gee, this whole Australia thing is just a bit much. It isn't the kind of thing I look for in my heroes, and it isn't the kind of thing I want my children to emmulate. I'm going to think long and hard before Sly gets another cent of my money."

Do you think there might be some forthcoming mea culpas, and maybe a significant alteration of behavior for the better? I'm not suggesting here that we expect our celebrities to be something more than human. But at the point where they are getting drunk and tossing anti-semitic epithets at police officers, at the point where our NFL stars are operating dog fighting rings, the license we have given them is beyond reason.

I think its high time we all start telling the people to whom we grant celebrity that we are no longer going to provide them with the kind of unconditional love a 3 year-old affords his mommy. No, we value ourselves, and we therefore expect more of our heroes. We demand role models. Anytime any of our celebs want to back out on that deal they are free to do so, but we must let them know that the next time we see them in the theater, it will be behind the counter selling popcorn, not on the screen.

So, if folks like #1 Slyfan wish to continue to look the other way when their guy misbehaves, perhaps it is their right, but they become part of the problem. They should not vent their anger upon us when we call their idols on their crap. All they do is take potshots at the messenger, which accomplishes nothing. Perhaps, #1 Sly Fan, its time You turn in the direction of your hero, and ask him why he has put you in a position where you have to defend your support of him. Doesn't he owe YOU much more?

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
HeadRAZZBerry View Drop Down
Berry Important MODERATOR
Berry Important MODERATOR


Joined: April 23 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5074
Post Options Post Options   Quote HeadRAZZBerry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2007 at 5:15am
Interesting concept, the idea of "re-negotiating our contract" with current celebs. But after 26 years of doing the RAZZIES, and seeing no indication that we've had much of an impact on the industry's attitudes and output, I wouldn't start holding my breath just yet...
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry
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: June 05 2007 at 3:07pm

I rather agree, but the behavior of our movie stars, professional athletes and music stars seems to be reaching the point where appalling behavior is almost becoming the norm, rather than the exception. At some point, I think we are going to have to reevaluate whether or not we want to continue to reward them as lavishly as we presently do, considering how minimal their contributions to the general welfare really are.

I have tremendous respect for those who can skillfully create anything...movies, music, a tape measure homerun. But I have a sneaking suspicion that the number of  people coveting the opportunity of becoming a movie star would not be significantly smaller  if the financial rewards were only about, say, 1% of what Tom Cruise pulls down in a year. Some of the most magnificent art, literature and music ever produced by we human folk was produced by people who profited little, if at all, by its creation.

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
JoeBacon View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: July 15 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 546
Post Options Post Options   Quote JoeBacon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2007 at 4:14pm



Pleasure and Inspiration, #1 Sly Fan??????

The only pleasure I have ever gotten from a Stallone movie is the clip from
Rhinestone where your beloved Sly dresses up like a pimp from Sesame
Street and he warbles "DRINKENSTIEN".

That clip alone has busted my gut so many times I may have to wear a
truss for the rest of my life.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 9>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down