Print Page | Close Window

The All-Time 100 BERRY Worst??

Printed From: Official RAZZIEŽ Forum
Category: General MOVIE & DVD Discussions
Forum Name: ROTTEN TOMATOES' RANKING of 100 WORST REVIEWED MOVIES EVER
Forum Discription: Discuss, Dissemble, Disagree -- Dis is de Place 2 Dew It...
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1764
Printed Date: October 20 2014 at 2:34pm


Topic: The All-Time 100 BERRY Worst??
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: The All-Time 100 BERRY Worst??
Date Posted: March 09 2007 at 5:45am

ROTTEN TOMATOES HAS LONG BEEN ONE of OUR BERRY FAVORITE WEB SITES, BUT THEIR RECENTLY COMPILED LIST of WHAT THEY CALL "THE 100 WORST-REVIEWED FILMS of ALL TIME"  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/features/special/2007/wotw/ - (LINK) HAS LOTS of PROBLEMS. WHY DO THEY INCLUDE DIRECT-to-VIDEO TITLES? WHY ISN'T THERE ANYTHING EARLIER THAN ABOUT 1997 LISTED? WHY ARE SO MANY FREDDIE PRINZE MOVIES INCLUDED? AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY of ALL, WHY DO THEY SO OFTEN IGNORE THEIR OWN USUAL RANKING SYSTEM? (EXAMPLE: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/zoom/ - ZOOM  HAD a 2% APPROVAL RATING as a 2006 RELEASE, YET DOESN'T MAKE THEIR TOP 10).

FEEL FREE to POST YOUR THOUGHTS, DISAGREEMENTS, WHAT-EVERs BELOW. AS for US, WE LIKE THE IDEA...BUT WE'RE NOT THAT THRILLED WITH ITS EXECUTION...

HALLE: "How did I end up at the tail end of the litter box??"

SHARON: "Ha! Ha! I finally beat you...You're only #100, and I'm ranked #69..." 

HALLE: "Well, at least your NUMBER is appropriate!"



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: tomsmo
Date Posted: March 09 2007 at 7:36am
I read The List. Wow, I'd have never guessed what was number 1... I thought for sure it was going to be this year's Worst Picture "winner" B-I-2. Boy, was I wrong!  

-------------


Posted By: JoBloMovieGoer
Date Posted: March 09 2007 at 7:42am

How can Rotten Tomatoes claim this is an "All Time" list, when there's literally nothing older than 1999 included? And the fact that several of this year's movies made the list undermines my faith in the memory span of RT's critics: How can "Because I Said So" be included, but nothing by Ed Wood, Irwin Allen or any other pre-1990 film-makers? And who cares if their choice as #1 got the worst reviews ever if almost NO ONE has actually seen it??

I used to be a big fan of RT, but the list is so poorly compiled, ranked and presented, it makes me question my loyalty to the site...



-------------


Posted By: #1-Movie-Fan!
Date Posted: March 09 2007 at 7:55am

RT's claim that this is an "all time" list is totally bogus! I read their so-called "formula" for coming up with the rankings, and I think they got a little too clever with how they weighed things. I bet their critics roster is top-heavy with Internet "critics" who have no memory of anything more than 5-6 years old. 

Bottom Line: I just cannot accept the RT list as anything more than a fun (though arguably pointless) way to waste some time on the Net...



-------------


Posted By: JoeBacon
Date Posted: March 09 2007 at 5:05pm
Wow, How did THE LONELY LADY manage to elude the list???????

-------------
2014 Pic: LEFT BEHIND Actor: NICHOLAS CAGE Director: VIC ARMSTRONG, DAMN THIS SHOULD WIN EVERY RAZZIE!!!!!


Posted By: Vidiot
Date Posted: March 10 2007 at 1:29am
My pals and I have a "B" movie night every few weeks. We all bring the worst peice of crap we can find and then watch them together and heckle ala "Mystery Science Theater 3000."

Some top of the dung-heap winners are;

1) http://imdb.com/title/tt0105175/ - Beyond Justice (1992) - absolutely hilarious it is so bad. The score is from another movie, the editing has jump-cuts everywhere and watch out for the bullet-proof camels!

2) http://imdb.com/title/tt0100975/" onclick="set_args'tt0100975',1,1 - Xtro II: The Second Encounter (1990) - Jan Michael Vincent is soooooooooo wasted that other actors literally deliver his lines. Plus there is an obligatory shower scene right out of left field during the climax.

3) http://imdb.com/title/tt0107505/" onclick="set_args'tt0107505',1,1 - Mandroid (1993) -  The tag goes " After Terminator, after Robocop, there was MANDROID!" I would change that to; "After Terminator, after Robocop, after Mannequin, after Universal Soldier, after Cyborg 2, after Robot Monster, after a totaled 1981 Ford Granada rusting in a junkyard is Mandroid!"

4)
http://imdb.com/title/tt0101988/" onclick="set_args'tt0101988',3,1 - Guyver (1991) - Those crazy Japanese and their wacky cyborg superheros.... who's mask looks like a vagina.

There are many more but those immediately come to mind.


Posted By: Razzilla
Date Posted: March 15 2007 at 10:46pm
How the hell did they miss The Santa Clause 3...The Dukes Of Hazzard (or as I call it "Jackass: Rednecks On Tour") OR Larry The Cable Guy: Health Inspector and leave a good movie such as See No Evil on it???

It's clear the so-called brain trust at RT has REALLY gone CLICK...

Here's looking for them to do the REAL lifetime list soon...at least to get their credibility back...IF they had any to begin with...

-------------
Comparing Uwe Boll's movies to a sack of horse manure will only get you sued by every fertilizer company in existence...


Posted By: jb razz
Date Posted: March 15 2007 at 11:39pm
SEE NO EVIL is a good movie? I heard that it was one of the worst horror movies of the year.

-------------


Posted By: tomsmo
Date Posted: March 16 2007 at 5:00am
I just saw on RT that SEE NO EVIL's Approval Ratingwas 8%, and The Marine got 21%.

-------------


Posted By: Vidiot
Date Posted: March 16 2007 at 8:50am
Originally posted by Razzilla

How the hell did they miss The Santa Clause 3...


Tim Allen should have is own special wing at the "Worst Movie Hall of Fame," with an Interpretive Center that replays clips from all his bombs... narrated, naturally, by Martin Short.


Posted By: Razzilla
Date Posted: March 16 2007 at 7:32pm
Originally posted by jb razz

SEE NO EVIL is a good movie? I heard that it was one of the worst horror movies of the year.


I didn't feel that see No Evil deserved to be on the list...as the ones I listed were much MUCH worse...and even a bit scarier... It just turned out slightly better than I thought it was going to be...which was so far the ONLY movie I saw in the last three years that made that claim... SNE is not even in my bottom 100...but closer to the bottom of the next 100...

-------------
Comparing Uwe Boll's movies to a sack of horse manure will only get you sued by every fertilizer company in existence...


Posted By: Razzilla
Date Posted: March 16 2007 at 7:37pm
Him and Bill Cosby both... Both made good TV shows...but somehow turned out to be box office poison...

Originally posted by Vidiot




Originally posted by Razzilla

How the hell did they miss The Santa Clause 3...
Tim Allen should have is own special wing at the "Worst Movie Hall of Fame," with an <font size="-1">Interpretive Center that replays clips from all his bombs... narrated, naturally, by Martin Short.


-------------
Comparing Uwe Boll's movies to a sack of horse manure will only get you sued by every fertilizer company in existence...


Posted By: tomsmo
Date Posted: March 17 2007 at 5:39am
I thought "The Devil and Max Devlin," starring http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0001070/ - Bill Cosby  and http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0001285/ - Elliott Gould , was an okay Movie...

-------------


Posted By: Razzilla
Date Posted: March 18 2007 at 1:12am
I forgot the name of the other good one the Cos did...but unfortunately it was never shown in the US... It was an all-black western... From what I hear...it got raves overseas...

The only other times I felt Bill Cosby did great was when he did his concert films...doing what he does best...stand-up/sit-down comedy...

-------------
Comparing Uwe Boll's movies to a sack of horse manure will only get you sued by every fertilizer company in existence...


Posted By: Vidiot
Date Posted: March 23 2007 at 12:52am
Originally posted by Razzilla

I forgot the name of the other good one the Cos did...but unfortunately it was never shown in the US... It was an all-black western... From what I hear...it got raves overseas...


Are you are refering to "Man and Boy"? ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068907/ )

Originally posted by Razzilla

The only other times I felt Bill Cosby did great was when he did his concert films...doing what he does best...stand-up/sit-down comedy...


The only time anything Cosby ever made me laugh wasn't even Cosby... it was a parody of Cosby... in the hilarious Family Guy "Brian Does Hollywood" episode. (when Stewie auditions for "Kids say the Darndest Things")


Posted By: Razzilla
Date Posted: March 24 2007 at 11:40am
I have a couple of his comedy albums...and unfortunately have had to suffer through his rendition of Hooray For the Salvation Army Band... Between him and William Shatner...I'm not sure which one puts out a worse musical performance...

Man and Boy is the movie I was thinking about...and I knew the owner of the film company... He also put out the disaster Hammersmith Is Out...where Peter Ustinov's ego got in the way of production...and it showed in the final product...

-------------
Comparing Uwe Boll's movies to a sack of horse manure will only get you sued by every fertilizer company in existence...


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 21 2007 at 3:19am

I always felt lists not based on pure statistics reflect personal tastes, in this case, collectively.  When I look at these lists, I pay attention to their top 20, which reflects on the list as a whole.  And the number one worst movie on this list, let alone the top ten, makes me feel this list is just a list.

The exclusion of anything older than 1999 causes me to wonder about the legitimacy of the list, especially when such celluloid fodder as "Santa Clause Vs. The Martians", "Troll 2", "Mommie Dearest" or anything by Edward D. Wood, Jr. has been excluded.  I would feel Rotten Tomatoes would have been better served if they encouraged their choice critics to review some of the older clunkers before putting together this list.

They do have three Uwe Boll films, though, and most of the worst clunkers are present on this list.

However, I'd be more interested in the HeadRAZZ's worst 100.  After all, he specializes in bad movies. 



-------------


Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 5:04am

You'll find a list of my 100 "Favorite" Bad Movies of All Time in my current book, THE OFFICIAL RAZZIE MOVIE GUIDE. These are what I consider the hundred most entertaning turkies of all time. Here's a convenient http://www.amazon.com/Official-Razzie-Movie-Guide-Hollywoods/dp/0446693340/ref=sr_1_1/002-9142764-3628869?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177873806&sr=1-1 - LINK to check it out at Amazon.com...



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 04 2007 at 2:26am

What a plug!  I ordered it.

You may also have solved a mystery for me:  I couldn't understand why 2006 was such a watershed year for bad movies.  I don't remember the last time I'd seen so many bad movies in a single year, not counting the SciFi Channel's original movies (should come with a warning: "Can cause brain rot").  Then I looked at when your book was published... 

THE MOVIE STUDIOS DELAYED RELEASING ALL THOSE STINKERS UNTIL THEY WERE CERTAIN YOU COULDN'T INCLUDE THEM IN YOUR BOOK!

That must be it.  Yep.  That's it all right. . . .



-------------


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 14 2007 at 2:03pm

The Razzie Guide book is actually a lot of fun.  Definitely better than the Rotten Tomatoes list!  Part of me wishes you ranked the movies, but then I thought how can you rank movies that are already rank? . . .

When you update your book, you might want to add a chapter for movies that came out after the first edition . . . 

 



-------------


Posted By: ZookGuy
Date Posted: August 14 2007 at 2:39am
I can't believe 'Manos: The Hands of Fate' isn't on there (the Rotten Tomatoes list), I mean it has a 9% 'Rotten' rating! And how the heck could 'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians' (THE WORST MOVIE OF ALL TIME) not be on there? When I checked the profile for it... IT HAD A 26% FAVORABLE RATING! WHAT THE HECK!?!

-------------


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: September 11 2007 at 11:16am
Originally posted by Razzilla

Originally posted by jb razz

SEE NO EVIL is a good movie? I heard that it was one of the worst horror movies of the year.


I didn't feel that see No Evil deserved to be on the list...as the ones I listed were much MUCH worse...and even a bit scarier... It just turned out slightly better than I thought it was going to be...which was so far the ONLY movie I saw in the last three years that made that claim... SNE is not even in my bottom 100...but closer to the bottom of the next 100...
                                                               I, too, found "See No Evil" to be better than expected.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: Brierfox
Date Posted: November 19 2007 at 5:51am
I must be slipping. No movies I'd seen appeared on the list until "Christmas With the Kranks", "The Whole Ten Yards" and "Rollerball".
Oh, I almost forgot,"Battlefield Earth." But I saw that at a bad movie party, so it shouldn't count.
.
I think they should break up their list into genres, with horror movies especially, getting their own list.
.
Looking at how they weighted their ratings, the movies that were least likely to be seen in a movie theater wound up in the top ten.


-------------
"We aren't in Kansas anymore Toto... Toto??"


Posted By: Razzilla
Date Posted: September 25 2009 at 2:45pm

HeadRazz...

How did you miss the Liberace cameo in The Loved One (as a casket salesman ) in the Sincerely Yours synopsis for the RAZZIE Guide???  This one was also done in 1965...and might have gotten lost in the shuffle...

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Actually, it was an oversight on my part. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059410/ - THE LOVED ONE has long been one of my favorite "deliberately tasteless movies." Here's a http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1116&PN=1 - LINK to a discussion regarding LOVED ONE elsewhere on our Forum...



-------------
Comparing Uwe Boll's movies to a sack of horse manure will only get you sued by every fertilizer company in existence...


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 26 2009 at 1:52pm

Where did you hear that SEE NO EVIL was one of the worst horror movies of the year? SEE NO EVIL has some of the most ingenious death scenes in slasher film history, including a prolonged, epic one for an important character in the film. As a slasher movie, I thought it was pretty good, but the kills are just fantastic compared to other slashers.


 



-------------


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 26 2009 at 2:41pm

Originally posted by moviewizguy


SEE NO EVIL has some of the most ingenious death scenes in slasher film history, including a prolonged, epic one for an important character in the film. As a slasher, I thought it was pretty good but the kills are just fantastic compared to other slashers.

*sigh* At this moment I have become too depressed to even respond to this post.



-------------
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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 26 2009 at 2:52pm

In fairness, I think that a point of clarification has to be offered here. RT is not offering this as a list of the worst movies of all time. They are presenting it as the worst reviewed films of the past decade. An all time list would certainly be interesting, but the list, taken for what it is supposed to represent, isn't all that disagreeable.

If the introduction is carefully read and the headers observed, it becomes absolutely clear that RT is only attempting to create a rating for films released since 2000, which is why there are no films on the list released prior to that. 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: If you'll go back and check the initial posting on this thread, you'll see that it was referring to what RT claimed (back in 2007) was a listing of the 100 Worst Reviewed Movies of All Time. The current Worst list on RT (posted within the past week) is what you are referring to, a list of the 100 Worst of just the last decade...

 



-------------
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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 26 2009 at 3:21pm

Okay...I've recovered my wits enough to offer an observation about mwg's post above. You see, there is something just deeply, deeply troubling to me about an enthusiastic endorsement for the way a film handles death scenes. I'm really and truly appalled by seeing that anyone is capable of threading the words "fantastic" and "kills" into the same sentence.

Maybe it's just because I'm an old codger who is facing the bleak prospect of my own mortality and there is something personally troubling about anyone finding a measure of entertainment in the depiction of death. Maybe I just never found myself at a stage in life where that kind of thing was valued as entertainment. But I recognize that mwg isn't alone in that kind of value, and that really bothers me about where we are as a society.

I think that when we've reached a point where we've become that desensitized to suffering and death, it stops being completely bewildering to me that we can, as a society, step back and allow that a monster like Michael Vick has "paid his debt to society" and has the "right" to resume a lucrative career entertaining the masses by playing a children's game and becoming ridiculously wealthy and admired doing it.

I think that when we become that desensitized as a society, we are dangerously close to rounding up groups of people we don't like very much and staging televised contests in large stadiums involving hungry wild animals and poorly armed people for the sake of entertainment of the masses.

Okay, so I'm old and out of touch and I need to get off my soapbox...but sometimes I wonder if humanity is worth saving from itself.



-------------
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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 26 2009 at 4:24pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

I'm really and truly appalled by seeing that anyone is capable of threading the words "fantastic" and "kills" into the same sentence.

Hahaha.

Maybe it's just because I'm an old codger who is facing the bleak prospect of my own mortality and there is something personally troubling about anyone finding a measure of entertainment in the depiction of death. Maybe I just never found myself at a stage in life where that kind of thing was valued as entertainment. But I recognize that mwg isn't alone in that kind of value, and that really bothers me about where we are as a society.

Maybe...IMO, half the fun of a slasher film are the death scenes. That's probably the main reason I see them in the first place. I didn't like the remake to Friday the 13th because the kills were uninspired and the movie was predictable. Although See No Evil was also predictable, the movie made it up with the kills, some of which, like I stated earlier, were just ingenious and so very awesome. And you're saying as if I'm this freak who loves to see people die in ingenious, creative ways. It's far from that. There's a difference killing people off in glorious fashion and the first kill of Scream, which was pretty brutal.



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 26 2009 at 4:45pm

I clearly remember, about 25 years ago, Gene Siskell and Roger Ebert expressed deep regrets about their enthusiastic endorsements for the original Halloween (which wasn't all that graphic) because they felt that they shared a degree of responsibility for launching the entire slasher film genre. I can't quote them exactly, but the words "sick" and "irresponsible" figured into the expressions of their remorse for the unintended consequence of helping to launch that genre.

IMHO, the very existance of slasher films not only exposes something deeply unhealthy in our society, but of considerably less important  consequence is  the fact that the slasher films have led to the wholesale destruction of the horror genre as legitimate film entertainment. There is simply no such thing as representing murder in a "glorious fashion." There is truly no such thing as dying in glorious fashion, as depicted by the ancient lie, "Dolce et decorum est Pro Patria mori."  Sorry, MWG, but to derive the kind of enjoyment you seem to receive from that kind of imagery is just plain sick.



-------------
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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: September 27 2009 at 3:51am

Once again, I find myself on the side of the wise saturnwatcher. "See No Evil", that was a Razzie contender if I ever saw one. Need even more proof? The original title was going to be "Eye Scream Man". Wow, not even a SyFy Channel made for TV movie would have a title that stupid (then again, maybe they would).

Point is, since when does "ingenius murder scenes" equal great movie? I mean by those standards the "Hostel" movies are works of art because of how ever the top violent they were. Once again, MWG questions why he is not respected here, it's because of comments like this. I don't see any entertainment in watching people get murdered, seeing as how I've worked part-time in hospitals and let me tell you, it's not entertaining to watch people slowly die. This is why I think people who enjoy overly bloody horror movies have something seriously wrong with their mental processing. We're living in an age in which teenagers LAUGH at the likes of "Hostel" and "Saw" because they have become so accustomed to violence. That is just plain sad, and H-Wood just keeps adding fuel to the fire by having a "Saw" movie come out every year like clockwork.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 27 2009 at 6:32am
Originally posted by Michaels

Once again, I find myself on the side of the wise saturnwatcher. "See No Evil", that was a Razzie contender if I ever saw one. Need even more proof?

I don't care if it got nominated or not. You know what movie got nominated for a Razzie? The Shining, a movie that's considered a horror masterpiece. I could care less what gets nominated anymore. I'm just saying it's a good movie. Even two users on here have said it wasn't a bad movie and even one of them said it was slightly scary.

Point is, since when does "ingenius murder scenes" equal great movie?

Ummm....never. It's just my philosophy. The "Final Destination" movies keep making money because people love to see people die in OTT, imaginative ways.

I mean by those standards the "Hostel" movies are works of art because of how ever the top violent they were.

I have seen the movie and no, the death scenes weren't ingenious. What are you talking about?
They were more brutal than fun.

Once again, MWG questions why he is not respected here, it's because of comments like this.

Well, too bad. I'm obviously not the only person to think so. I've supported my side earlier: There's a difference between killing off people in glorious fashion, like the ones in "See No Evil," "Final Destination," and "300," and killing people off in realistic, brutal ways, like the first death scene in "Scream," anything in "Funny Games," anything in the "Saw" movies, and anything in "Cannibal Holocaust." You're making it as if saying having joy seeing people die in great ways is a bad thing. So why do people keep watching the Final Destination movies? They are hardly brutal and disturbing. They're just fun to watch.

I don't see any entertainment in watching people get murdered, seeing as how I've worked part-time in hospitals and let me tell you, it's not entertaining to watch people slowly die.

Ok, first of all, you're comparing 2 completely different things. When people die in imaginative, unrealistic, over-the-top ways, they are fun to watch because you know they can't happen in real life. However, if a film shows people dying by getting stabbed by a knife over and over again, that's a different story. The kills in Zodiac was obviously meant to disturb people. I didn't enjoy seeing them at all. I even turned my head. The kills in the Final Destination films are meant to entertain people. That's why they call them dark comedies.

We're living in an age in which teenagers LAUGH at the likes of "Hostel" and "Saw" because they have become so accustomed to violence.

And I'm not one of them. There was one death scene in "Hostel 2" in which I almost walked out. That's the first time that "walking out" ever happened to me. That scene was sick, brutal, and mean-spirited.

That is just plain sad, and H-Wood just keeps adding fuel to the fire by having a "Saw" movie come out every year like clockwork.

Some people see the Saw movies for the story, not for the death scenes. You're making plain, unsupported generalizations on fans of the series. It's almost offensive when you say that.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 27 2009 at 6:38am
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

There is simply no such thing as representing murder in a "glorious fashion."

Ok, watch 300 or any of the Final Destination movies and come back here and tell me that you can't represent murder in glorious fashion. I dare you.

There is truly no such thing as dying in glorious fashion, as depicted by the ancient lie, "Dolce et decorum est Pro Patria mori."

Yes, there is. Even critics use phrases like that in their reviews.

Sorry, MWG, but to derive the kind of enjoyment you seem to receive from that kind of imagery is just plain sick.

If you even have an ounce of knowledge on what you're talking about, you wouldn't be posting this. You're ignorant because you have no idea what you're talking about. It's as if saying "People who watch the Saw movies are serial killers who have a twisted head." Never in my life have I ever been so offended by your obvious little knowledge of the subject at hand. You're the one that needs help.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: September 27 2009 at 7:48am

Originally posted by moviewizguy


Ok, watch 300 or any of the Final Destination movies and come back here and tell me that you can't represent murder in glorious fashion. I dare you.

I'm not speaking for saturnwatcher, but yeah "300" and "Final Destination" do represent murder in glorifed ways. Does that make them great movies? Not really. Take those "glorious murders" away and what do you have to hold the movie together? Not much besides the overall look of the movies, and teenage movie goers just LOVE looking at pretty colors.

Yes, there is. Even critics use phrases like that in their reviews.

And what phrase would that be, considering most critics HATE horror movies (outside of the fangoria, fearnet communities, of course)?


If you even have an ounce of knowledge on what you're talking about, you wouldn't be posting this. You're ignorant because you have no idea what you're talking about. It's as if saying "People who watch the Saw movies are serial killers who have a twisted head." Never in my life have I ever been so offended by your obvious little knowledge of the subject at hand. You're the one that needs help.

Again with the immature statements like "ounce of knowledge". This is why you're the board's punching bag. I'm pretty sure saturnwatcher can back his statements with any passage from a psychology book that claims people who enjoy watching violent movies MIGHT have a bit of a violent streak of their own, or are prone to copying what they see. I'm saying you, MWG, are violent by nature, but look at the likes of other teenagers who play Grand Theif Auto and then go out commiting crimes based on what happened in the game or teenagers who see "Fast & Furious" movies and then get in car wrecks when copying the stunts.

To me, saturnwatcher is the most intelligent and well-spoken person in this entire forum, but that's just my opinion.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 27 2009 at 10:49am
Originally posted by Michaels

I'm not speaking for saturnwatcher, but yeah "300" and "Final Destination" do represent murder in glorifed ways. Does that make them great movies? Not really. Take those "glorious murders" away and what do you have to hold the movie together? Not much besides the overall look of the movies, and teenage movie goers just LOVE looking at pretty colors.

I don't appreciate you responding to a post which I intended for saturnwatcher. I see how you conveniently ignored my post to you. But anyway, I said, on my first post, that the great death scenes in See No Evil made up for the movie. Now you're agreeing with me yet in your other post, you say enjoying seeing people die makes you sick and twisted, which is far from the truth. It's because the deaths are unrealistic that makes them not scary.

And what phrase would that be, considering most critics HATE horror movies (outside of the fangoria, fearnet communities, of course)?

Some used in the first 3 Final Destination flicks. I'm sure you have read them before too.

Again with the immature statements like "ounce of knowledge". This is why you're the board's punching bag.

And this is why I don't want to bother arguing with you guys anymore. what I say is the truth. So you're saying we're supposed to be scared of the death scenes in the Final Destination series? Because that's what you guys are saying.

I'm pretty sure saturnwatcher can back his statements with any passage from a psychology book that claims people who enjoy watching violent movies MIGHT have a bit of a violent streak of their own, or are prone to copying what they see.

I've also taken the college psychology course during high school. I don't see how that makes a difference.

I'm saying you, MWG, are violent by nature, but look at the likes of other teenagers who play Grand Theif Auto and then go out commiting crimes based on what happened in the game or teenagers who see "Fast & Furious" movies and then get in car wrecks when copying the stunts.

See, this is why I hate you guys. You're ASSUMING, like the whole Breakfast Club movie. You assume teenagers, like YOURSELF, are violent in nature. It would make you look dumb with such a statement because I don't even play games or do things that was shown in movies like curving a bullet.

To me, saturnwatcher is the most intelligent and well-spoken person in this entire forum, but that's just my opinion.

Because you're the dumb one. I don't care if you say the whole "See, this is why we don't like you MWG. You say 'dumb' and words like that all of the time." It's getting old. I'm saying those words because you guys aren't doing a great job making you look the opposite of what I'm calling you guys. You're calling me "violent." Why can't I call you "dumb"? You have no supported evidence nor do you know me yet you call me these things? what makes you so special? Really, what makes you so special? If you call me a violent, twisted person, I can call you the dumb, ignorant one because I don't play "Grand Theft Auto" nor do I speed.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 27 2009 at 11:19am
And what I find disturbing about you two is that you guys call people sick when they enjoy seeing people die in films, which is a FICTIONAL medium. I posted this issue on IMDb and a user made a great point:

Anyone who is influenced by these scenes of violence is already mentally compromised before viewing these scenes. Sometimes I think the furor over violence in film is nothing more than finding a scapegoat to deflect blame from those who deserve it.

Also, you guys should read this: If you guys can`t see the difference between screen fiction and reality, both of you should be put in a small padded room, because you are the ones with the problem.



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 27 2009 at 12:47pm
  • First of all, there is a significant difference between a movie like 300, which is a depiction of an historical event, and a slasher film which is presenting violence in a purely gratutious fashion. However, I would point out that there are no shortage of films that have been produced over the years that have managed to portray historical events similar to those presented in 300 without the graphic qualities that seem to be necessary now. It should also be noted that it isn't unusual for the underlying themes of those films to use the "glory" of those deaths as an ironic message as to their ultimate futility. 
  • Second. I don't think at this point that I've actually called anyone "sick," however I have expressed concerns that the apparent necessity to utilize this sort of graphic realism in films represents a dangerous trend in our society. Whether or not seeing violence on film or in video games can lead to violent behavior remains a debated point, but there is increasing evidence to support it, particularly in children. There is also a significant question in play as to whether art imitates life or visa versa. Maybe there are elements of both. In any event, for a species with a long history of atrocities to it's "credit," it hardly seems rational to me to fuel the fire.

Finally, in one of your recent posts you suggested that I somehow view you as a "freak" because you enjoy this sort of entertainment. To the contrary, my fear is not that you are a freak, but rather that you are becoming the norm.



-------------
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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 27 2009 at 2:00pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

  • First of all, there is a significant difference between a movie like 300, which is a depiction of an historical event, and a slasher film which is presenting violence in a purely gratutious fashion.
Have you even seen recent slasher flicks? They are anything but gratuitous. Most slashers now have a sense of humor. Probably the only slasher that seems to be brutal in their kills is the Scream series.



  • Second. I don't think at this point that I've actually called anyone "sick," however I have expressed concerns that the apparent necessity to utilize this sort of graphic realism in films represents a dangerous trend in our society.
There's nothing graphic and realistic in the Final Destination films along with See No Evil. If you have actually seen the films, you would know that.

Finally, in one of your recent posts you suggested that I somehow view you as a "freak" because you enjoy this sort of entertainment. To the contrary, my fear is not that you are a freak, but rather that you are becoming the norm.

I don't really care because you're the one who's old and a cynic. People enjoy death scenes in slashers because they aren't realistic and they are shot in a hyper-realistic way.



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 27 2009 at 2:18pm

FYI, I did see the first Final Destination movie. There was nothing sufficently entertaining about it that suggested that I needed to see any of the sequels or, imho, that sequels were even necessary.

However, picking two examples out of a very large sample scarcely defines a genre that has been widely criticized, frequently, by film critics who earn their living as experts in the field. The suggestion that the enjoyment of death scenes is justified by lack of realism is special pleading. Significant criticism has been leveled at the slasher movies for their graphic nature and the gratutious depicitons of violence. Significant concerns over the desensitizing effects of this kind of imagery have been voiced by people much wiser than I.

It is entirely possible that you may watch and enjoy these sorts of movies for the remainder of your life (I highly doubt that you ultimately will, in fact, the time will probably come when you find them distasteful), without doing harm to anyone else. However, it does not follow that the entire fan base for these films will be similarly unaffected, and I'm not sure it is worth the risk; particularly when equally entertaining movies can be made without the sort of graphic presentations characteristic of most contemporary slasher flicks.



-------------
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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: September 27 2009 at 3:19pm

Originally posted by moviewizguy


I don't appreciate you responding to a post which I intended for saturnwatcher. I see how you conveniently ignored my post to you. But anyway, I said, on my first post, that the great death scenes in See No Evil made up for the movie. Now you're agreeing with me yet in your other post, you say enjoying seeing people die makes you sick and twisted, which is far from the truth. It's because the deaths are unrealistic that makes them not scary.

So, it's perfectly normal for people to be laughing at other people getting slowly murdered like in "Hostel"? Must be, because if you like a movie for having unrealistic and unscary deaths, it must be for something else.

Some used in the first 3 Final Destination flicks. I'm sure you have read them before too.

And what was this phrase exactly? And please tell me it wasn't in a horror movie bias magazine.

And this is why I don't want to bother arguing with you guys anymore. what I say is the truth. So you're saying we're supposed to be scared of the death scenes in the Final Destination series? Because that's what you guys are saying.

Well, being scared was what the whole idea behind the horror movie, but if you're entertained by such trash, well, to each his own I guess. I'm not scared of them either, because I just find them to be just plain stupid and one step down from porn in terms of filmmaking quality.

I've also taken the college psychology course during high school. I don't see how that makes a difference.

Because you made the comment that he wouldn't know what he's talking about.

See, this is why I hate you guys. You're ASSUMING, like the whole Breakfast Club movie. You assume teenagers, like YOURSELF, are violent in nature. It would make you look dumb with such a statement because I don't even play games or do things that was shown in movies like curving a bullet.

Well see, #1, you're assuming I'm a teenager, in which you couldn't be any more wrong. #2, you're assuming I'm talking directly about you being one of those copy cat teenagers, which I didn't say. So who is doing the assuming here?

Because you're the dumb one. I don't care if you say the whole "See, this is why we don't like you MWG. You say 'dumb' and words like that all of the time." It's getting old. I'm saying those words because you guys aren't doing a great job making you look the opposite of what I'm calling you guys. You're calling me "violent." Why can't I call you "dumb"? You have no supported evidence nor do you know me yet you call me these things? what makes you so special? Really, what makes you so special? If you call me a violent, twisted person, I can call you the dumb, ignorant one because I don't play "Grand Theft Auto" nor do I speed.

See, at no point did we directly say YOU are a violet person. Once again, we don't know you as a person. All we know about you is that you love posting good reviews about bad movies in a forum devoted to mocking the same bad films. And then you bring posts from IMDb about how we are the bad guys. Well buddy, IMDb and the Razzies have too totally opposite goals, which is why you get different replies depending on the forum. Oh, and if you bother to read saturnwatcher's posts, you CAN clearly see he's the most well-spoken person in this forum. Not that you're dumb, which I'm not saying, but while you may have knowledge, he has years of wisdom you haven't gained yet. 



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 28 2009 at 9:10am
Originally posted by Michaels

So, it's perfectly normal for people to be laughing at other people getting slowly murdered like in "Hostel"? Must be, because if you like a movie for having unrealistic and unscary deaths, it must be for something else.

I don't know. Why don't you ask them? I haven't met a person who laughed during the death scenes in Hostel.

And what was this phrase exactly? And please tell me it wasn't in a horror movie bias magazine.

Why won't you search it up yourself?

Well, being scared was what the whole idea behind the horror movie, but if you're entertained by such trash, well, to each his own I guess. I'm not scared of them either, because I just find them to be just plain stupid and one step down from porn in terms of filmmaking quality.

The idea of a horror movie has obviously changed since then. Now, they can be dark comedies, like the Final Destination series, or romantic dramas, like Twilight, comedies, like Shaun of the Dead and Zombieland, etc.

Because you made the comment that he wouldn't know what he's talking about.

Because he doesn't. He's just assuming things.

Well see, #1, you're assuming I'm a teenager, in which you couldn't be any more wrong.

I remember that you said you were in college. I still consider that being a teen.

you're assuming I'm talking directly about you being one of those copy cat teenagers, which I didn't say. So who is doing the assuming here?

So why was your comment directed towards me about the whole Grand Theft Auto and Fast and Furious movies?

See, at no point did we directly say YOU are a violet person.

Yes, you did. Read the above posts.

Well buddy, IMDb and the Razzies have too totally opposite goals, which is why you get different replies depending on the forum.

No, they aren't. There was a user who posted something of this subject some months ago which enraged a lot of people.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 28 2009 at 9:31am
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

FYI, I did see the first Final Destination movie. There was nothing sufficently entertaining about it that suggested that I needed to see any of the sequels or, imho, that sequels were even necessary.

You're in the minority because FD was one of the more smarter horror movies that have come out.

However, picking two examples out of a very large sample scarcely defines a genre that has been widely criticized, frequently, by film critics who earn their living as experts in the field.

I just offered examples of films that glorifies death scenes. You're the one who's saying enjoying those death scenes makes one sick, which couldn't be further from the truth. I'm probably the nicest person you would ever meet in real life. I have seen "Finding Nemo" about 100 times and have cried during "UP" and my favorite film is "Titanic." Need I say more?

The suggestion that the enjoyment of death scenes is justified by lack of realism is special pleading.

Like I said, go watch 300 and I'll bet you $100 that you will smile during one of the decapitation scenes.

Significant criticism has been leveled at the slasher movies for their graphic nature and the gratutious depicitons of violence. Significant concerns over the desensitizing effects of this kind of imagery have been voiced by people much wiser than I.

Either you get it or you don't. Some people are afraid of riding rollar coasters yet some people ride them every day. Same goes for the horror genre.

However, it does not follow that the entire fan base for these films will be similarly unaffected, and I'm not sure it is worth the risk; particularly when equally entertaining movies can be made without the sort of graphic presentations characteristic of most contemporary slasher flicks.

"A Clockwork Orange" is considered a masterpiece yet it shows violence off graphically.



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 28 2009 at 12:01pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

 

 You're the one who's saying enjoying those death scenes makes one sick, which couldn't be further from the truth. I'm probably the nicest person you would ever meet in real life. I have seen "Finding Nemo" about 100 times and have cried during "UP" and my favorite film is "Titanic." Need I say more?

Actually, what I have been saying for quite some time is that the growing levels of graphic violence in our artforms is a possible symptom of something possibly very sick within our society that could have very disturbing consequences in the ability to lead individuals to commit violent acts. It is a point that is being signficantly studied and has the support of a lot of PhD's out there who spend a lot of time studying the matter. (Mine is in a quite different field, but I still read a lot of the published findings in various science journals. My opinions are not, as you have charged, based entirely upon ignorance.)

Incidentally, I also believe that I have fully acknowledged that not everyone who views violent films or video games will be influenced in a fashion that could lead to unfortunate events. However, it must be acknowledged that we live in a society where one individual can do a lot of damage in a very short time. With that at stake, it behooves us to understand this issue much better than we presently do.

 

Like I said, go watch 300 and I'll bet you $100 that you will smile during one of the decapitation scenes.

PAY UP!!!! I saw 300. Nothing about the movie made me smile and I left it feeling pretty crappy. My public email address is: mailto:saturnwatcher@excite.com - saturnwatcher@excite.com . I'll send you a personal address where you can pay off that bet. Actually, since I really don't want your money, I'd be perfectly happy if you make a contribution to the Jane Goodall Institute, an organization who's various activities support wildlife conservation and study, environmental preservation, community involvement and improvement and fostering peaceful solutions to conflicts on our planet . I'll happily forward you that address if you contact me at the address above. Incidentally, in the future you may wish to temper your tendency to make unfounded assumptions which might spare you having to pay off a lot of c-note bets, not that I have the slightest inclination to believe you'll actually put your money where your mouth is this time.

 

Either you get it or you don't. Some people are afraid of riding rollar coasters yet some people ride them every day. Same goes for the horror genre.

The original intent of the horror genre in both literature and movies was to provoke fear reactions, which many people (including me) find fun. The slasher genre simply evokes shock and gross out elements.

 

"A Clockwork Orange" is considered a masterpiece yet it shows violence off graphically.

A Clockwork Orange used violence (which was far less graphic than some of the milder things presented on the screen today) to make several specific points. First, there was an expression of concerns about rising levels of violence (particularly in younger people) and the degenerative effects it was having on society. Second, there were moral implications raised by the question of whether or not it might, in some cases, be just as bad to unmake a monster as to make one. I'm sorry you missed that point, since it is very central to really understanding the film.

I've noted this point before, but apparently it needs to be restated. The problem isn't necessarily violence in film or art. The potential problem is how graphically that violence is presented, and the context in which it is being presented. Schindler's List was a violent movie, but it wasn't intended to entertain. It was intended to inform and warn. The context of A Clockwork Orange was similar.

Incidentally, just as an addendum, box-office for the original Final Destination was just over $53 million domestic and practically nothing overseas. Its critical reaction was, at best, lukewarm (charitably...29% at RT). That doesn't speak to your suggestion that it was a wild success or that my views are in the minority.



-------------
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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 28 2009 at 1:53pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Actually, what I have been saying for quite some time is that the growing levels of graphic violence in our artforms is a possible symptom of something possibly very sick within our society that could have very disturbing consequences in the ability to lead individuals to commit violent acts. It is a point that is being signficantly studied and has the support of a lot of PhD's out there who spend a lot of time studying the matter. (Mine is in a quite different field, but I still read a lot of the published findings in various science journals. My opinions are not, as you have charged, based entirely upon ignorance.)

What a coincidence. I wrote an essay in my class about violence in society, but using the book "Lord of the Flies" to do so. I'm also surprised you don't like "The Village" because it addresses the issue on violence but I guess you don't because in that film, it suggests humans are inherently evil and not influenced by society.

PAY UP!!!! I saw 300. Nothing about the movie made me smile and I left it feeling pretty crappy. My public email address is: mailto:saturnwatcher@excite.com - saturnwatcher@excite.com . I'll send you a personal address where you can pay off that bet. Actually, since I really don't want your money, I'd be perfectly happy if you make a contribution to the Jane Goodall Institute, an organization who's various activities support wildlife conservation and study, environmental preservation, community involvement and improvement and fostering peaceful solutions to conflicts on our planet . I'll happily forward you that address if you contact me at the address above. Incidentally, in the future you may wish to temper your tendency to make unfounded assumptions which might spare you having to pay off a lot of c-note bets, not that I have the slightest inclination to believe you'll actually put your money where your mouth is this time.

Well, you know, you could be lying. But I'd rather not, although I'm happy to say we both have similar issues we like to deal with (conservation, helping the planet). This reminds me, I need to get myself a recycling box!

The original intent of the horror genre in both literature and movies was to provoke fear reactions, which many people (including me) find fun. The slasher genre simply evokes shock and gross out elements.

I disagree. I watch slashers because of the fun and the thrills. I like laughing at the cliches like when a person trips or do something stupid. I mean, the first 10 minutes of Scream kept me to the edge of my seats and I think it scarred me for life when I saw it when I was 7 years old. However, I rarely do think the slasher genre has anything "gross" in it.

Incidentally, just as an addendum, box-office for the original Final Destination was just over $53 million domestic and practically nothing overseas. Its critical reaction was, at best, lukewarm (charitably...29% at RT). That doesn't speak to your suggestion that it was a wild success or that my views are in the minority.

FD is as much famous in the US as it is worldwide. I suggest you look at the information again. The critical reaction is lukewarm but the public's reaction is more favorable because the idea used in the film was novel and ingenious and smart. It's an intelligent slasher film, as Roger Ebert says, only without the slasher.



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 28 2009 at 3:41pm

1. I didn't like The Village because it was a piece of crap movie. Lord of the Flies is a wonderful book. I read it back in about, oh, 7th grade. To assume that human nature has an overriding "inherently  evil" aspect is to erroneously assume that there is only one human nature (A point strongly refuted even in Lord of the Flies). Were that the case, we would likely be gone by now. That suggestion also fails to explain the myriad of human beings who have dedicated their lives to service and altruism. However, our continued survival probably relies strongly on the ability to recognize and check as many R-complex triggers as possible.

2. No...I'm not lying. Like many people, including quite a few of the regulars here, I saw 300 and I didn't really care for it. However, it doesn't surprise me that you are back peddling from your wager. I predicted as much.

3. Here is the link to RT's Final Destination page, which presents the summation of 82 critical reviews: 24 positive, 54 rotten for 29%

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/final_destination/ - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/final_destination/

Here is a link to Box Office Mojo's summation of box office performance for the original Final Destination. As you can see, the domestic totals are as I stated above. The international totals were in the $59 million range, hardly establishing this film as an international hit. Since the U.S. represents about 5% of the world's population, and out of the other 95% of the world's population only about as many people paid to see it as did in the U.S. I don't think this can really be classified as an international phenomenon:

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=finaldestination.htm - http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=finaldestination.htm http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/final_destination/ -

I'll leave it to the other readers here to weigh the facts as documented here against the claims of mwg which he has not documented in any way shape or form.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/final_destination/ -  



-------------
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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: September 29 2009 at 3:17am

Originally posted by moviewizguy

You're in the minority because FD was one of the more smarter horror movies that have come out.

Right, so then H-Wood did what it does best, ruin a smart movie by following it up with three dumbed down sequels, to the point you yourself said the last movie was a disappoint.

I just offered examples of films that glorifies death scenes. You're the one who's saying enjoying those death scenes makes one sick, which couldn't be further from the truth. I'm probably the nicest person you would ever meet in real life. I have seen "Finding Nemo" about 100 times and have cried during "UP" and my favorite film is "Titanic." Need I say more?

Okay, so you have seen other movies besides horror movies, but you always go running back to the horror movies, as if they are the best kind of movie out there. Again, we're not judging you as a person, just as a poor film critic, I've said this a million times, yet you consider our posts as personal attacks on you.

Like I said, go watch 300 and I'll bet you $100 that you will smile during one of the decapitation scenes.

I saw that scene, I did not smile. Why would someone smile at that? All I can think was "was that really called for?". What did you think? "Haha, look at that guy's head go flying off, so funny".

Either you get it or you don't. Some people are afraid of riding rollar coasters yet some people ride them every day. Same goes for the horror genre.

People usually ride rollar coasters for the thrill of the speed and height they provide. However, these days, horror movies aren't providing many scares any more and have become a self-parody of themeselves. Do you seriously think the "Saw" series is still going on because of how scary they are (well, of course YOU do, but that's besides the point). No, the FIRST movie as scary, but after that, it's nothing but "what over the top ways can we kill people off".

"A Clockwork Orange" is considered a masterpiece yet it shows violence off graphically.

Yes, but the violence was not the main focus of the movie, the characters and story are. Horror movie characters and stories are as 1-D as paper, hence they have to make up for it with the over the top deaths, otherwise you would forget the movie seconds after leaving the theater.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: September 29 2009 at 3:33am

Originally posted by moviewizguy

What a coincidence. I wrote an essay in my class about violence in society, but using the book "Lord of the Flies" to do so. I'm also surprised you don't like "The Village" because it addresses the issue on violence but I guess you don't because in that film, it suggests humans are inherently evil and not influenced by society.

Why must everything go back to an M. Night movie when you know for a fact we think very little of his post-"Signs" films? and that issue of violence it addressed, was on-screen for like one second, and was one little stab, unlike a horror movie, which goes as for as bodily dismemberment.

Well, you know, you could be lying. But I'd rather not, although I'm happy to say we both have similar issues we like to deal with (conservation, helping the planet). This reminds me, I need to get myself a recycling box!

Again, seeing as how saturnwatcher is the most well-spoken person here and is very much against graphic violence in movies, I really doubt he would crack a smile over a person getting their head cut off, seeing as how put off he was about the violence in "Rambo 4" and "District 9".

I disagree. I watch slashers because of the fun and the thrills. I like laughing at the cliches like when a person trips or do something stupid. I mean, the first 10 minutes of Scream kept me to the edge of my seats and I think it scarred me for life when I saw it when I was 7 years old. However, I rarely do think the slasher genre has anything "gross" in it.

Yes, but see, we like films of quality, not movies that are so full of cliches that they are self-parodying themseleves. Perhaps that is why these movies are causing laugther rather than screams, or maybe it is my first theory that our younger society members are just no longer put off by violence and gore. And saying the slasher genre doesn't have anything gross about it, well, that's just some serious denial, considering they are all about sex, drugs, and murder. Yeah, that's some happy go lucky content for you.

FD is as much famous in the US as it is worldwide. I suggest you look at the information again. The critical reaction is lukewarm but the public's reaction is more favorable because the idea used in the film was novel and ingenious and smart. It's an intelligent slasher film, as Roger Ebert says, only without the slasher.

Yes, but again, what did the studio do? It made three sequels that were each dumber than the last. Slasher movies can hit a runhome once, but afterwards, they strike out. Why, because you can only carry a movie about people dying left and right for only so long ... one movie. After that, then it's just about what creative ways you can kill people off, ie. the "Saw" sequels.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 29 2009 at 9:38am
Originally posted by Michaels

I saw that scene, I did not smile. Why would someone smile at that? All I can think was "was that really called for?". What did you think? "Haha, look at that guy's head go flying off, so funny".

Well, smiling as in "Wow. That's the most beautiful decapitation I've ever seen in a movie!" kind of smile. The scenes play in slow motion and not bloody at all and you can see the beautiful faces thrown in the air.

Do you seriously think the "Saw" series is still going on because of how scary they are (well, of course YOU do, but that's besides the point). No, the FIRST movie as scary, but after that, it's nothing but "what over the top ways can we kill people off".

No. I didn't find Saw scary. I found the story interesting. I don't think the Saw films classify as horror movies. They're like "Zodiac" and "Silence of the Lambs." They're more like detective crime movies than anything else.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 29 2009 at 9:39am
Originally posted by Michaels

Yes, but again, what did the studio do? It made three sequels that were each dumber than the last. Slasher movies can hit a runhome once, but afterwards, they strike out. Why, because you can only carry a movie about people dying left and right for only so long ... one movie. After that, then it's just about what creative ways you can kill people off, ie. the "Saw" sequels.


I disagree. FD2 was smarter than FD1, to a point I almost was confused and couldn't get the movie until like my 5th viewing.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 30 2009 at 1:23am
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Well, smiling as in "Wow. That's the most beautiful decapitation I've ever seen in a movie!" kind of smile. The scenes play in slow motion and not bloody at all and you can see the beautiful faces thrown in the air.

I'm done with this discussion, but I wanted the above statement by mwg reposted as the point upon which I rest my entire case.



-------------
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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: September 30 2009 at 3:04pm

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Well, smiling as in "Wow. That's the most beautiful decapitation I've ever seen in a movie!" kind of smile. The scenes play in slow motion and not bloody at all and you can see the beautiful faces thrown in the air.
I'm done with this discussion, but I wanted the above statement by mwg reposted as the point upon which I rest my entire case.

Yeah, that comment really is game, set, and match in your favor.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 01 2009 at 9:15am
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

I'm done with this discussion, but I wanted the above statement by mwg reposted as the point upon which I rest my entire case.


I don't get it...


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: October 01 2009 at 3:36pm

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

I'm done with this discussion, but I wanted the above statement by mwg reposted as the point upon which I rest my entire case.

I don't get it...

His whole arguement was that you don't find movie violence to be ugly and distrubing, rather you find it "beautiful" and entertaining.



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: October 01 2009 at 4:53pm
Movie violence can be a beautiful thing (in a way), or it can be a style over substance kinda thing.

It's like any art, it's a fine line. A "creative kill" can be a good thing when it serves a purpose, but again... very fine line. It's being crossed the majority of the time these days.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: October 02 2009 at 1:12pm
Yeah, that's the thing. These days that line is being crossed so many times that it almost doesn't exist any more, and audiences are finding "creative kills" to be entertaining, if not funny. And that is what saturnwatcher and I disapprove of.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 10 2010 at 12:11pm
Are you kiddin'?!BALLISTIC was bad,but not the worst of the decade!Luckily the worst of that year!

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 10 2010 at 12:36pm
Originally posted by Vits

Are you kiddin'?!BALLISTIC was bad,but not the worst of the decade!Luckily the worst of that year!

True. The Razzies' choices of "Battlefield Earth" and "Freddy Got Finered" are far worse. Although, "Transformers 2" was pretty s***y.


-------------
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.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 10 2010 at 1:15pm
BIG MOMMA'S HOUSE 2(#80),CHRISTMAS WITH THE KRANKS(#58)and MASTER OF DISGUISE(#18)were funny!
 
YU-GI-OH:THE MOVIE(#68)made a mistake by bein'enjoyable for fans only,unlike POKEMON:THE FIRST MOVIE,but is far from bein'bad.
 
YOURS,MINE AND OURS(#63)wasn't very good.It came out the same year that http://www.razzies.com/forum/cheaper-by-the-dozen-too_forum69.html - CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN 2 ,and ev'ryone thought it was either a rip-off,or a lame money-makin'strategy.But is not worse than the ones from #64-100!
 
After I saw 88 MINUTES(#59)I thought it just had a bad endin',but after a lot of analyzin',I realize it could've been less slow-paced and more...whatever the word is to make Al Pacino pass from that so-so performance(which showed only the bad sides from his performance in S1M0NE)that made him seem high and/or drunk,to what we all know he can do.
 
BECAUSE I SAID SO(#56)had a few bad moments,and Diane Keaton's performance...wow!I think the director was so excited for workin'with her,but when he noticed the bad actin',he was afraid to speak up(like with Shirley MacLane's character in http://www.razzies.com/forum/bewitched_forum10.html - BEWITCHED ).She shouldn't have done SMOTHER the same year,that's another reason why both movies floped.But all together,it's a good movie.Whenever is on T.V.,I try to watch the scene where DAPHNE accidentally puts porn on her computer.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 10 2010 at 1:45pm
Originally posted by Vits

BIG MOMMA'S HOUSE 2(#80),CHRISTMAS WITH THE KRANKS(#58)and MASTER OF DISGUISE(#18)were funny!
 

Sorry, dude, but those movies weren't even remotely funny at all. Not even so much as a chuckle, unless it's to laugh at how low the careers of Martin Lawerance, Tim Allen, and Dana ... whatever his name was have fallen.


-------------
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.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 10 2010 at 2:04pm
You're right,I said it wrong.
 
I don't know if Dana Carvey's impressions ability can be called good acting(if so,he's awesome),but he was berry funny.
 
BIG MOMMA'S HOUSE 2 wasn't as funny as the first one,but it was O.K.,especially since it had a more emotional endin'.
 
CHRISTMAS WITH THE KRANKS wasn't hilarious,but I di laugh a lil'.And it had the touchin'moments that make Christmas movies so great.
 
Anyway,none of these can be considered one.At least tell me that "C.W.T.K" can pass.
 
Dana Carvey's carrer didn't fall.After that movie,he just realized he prefered stand-up.
 
I thought Tim Allen's carrer fell in 2006 with the 3 family failures that earned him a Razzie nom..


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 13 2010 at 12:06pm
I forgot to mention the movies I think should be here:
-THE EDGE OF LOVE(2008).
-MULHOLLAND DR.(2001).
-ONCE(2006).

BOTTLE ROCKET(1996) and LOLITA(1962) are also in my "All-Time Worst" list,but can't be here,'cuz they're not from this decade.The same with PRINCESS(2008),but that's a TV movie,and UNA SEMANA SOLOS(2009),but that's from Argentina.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 14 2010 at 11:21am
Originally posted by Vits

I forgot to mention the movies I think should be here:
-THE EDGE OF LOVE(2008).
-MULHOLLAND DR.(2001).
-ONCE(2006).

BOTTLE ROCKET(1996) and LOLITA(1962) are also in my "All-Time Worst" list,but can't be here,'cuz they're not from this decade.The same with PRINCESS(2008),but that's a TV movie,and UNA SEMANA SOLOS(2009),but that's from Argentina.
"Edge of Love", never heard of it. "Mulholland Drive", it's a David Lynch movie, which means you need to be high to understand and/or enjoy it. "Once", never saw it. "Bottle Rocket", it was the first movie for Wes Anderson and the Wilson Bros., and it shows. "Lolita", old school movie, dated by today's standards, and is about a taboo subject that could rub people the wrong way.

-------------
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.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 14 2010 at 2:26pm
The movies you don't know,look'em up,and then come back,'cuz I'd really like to discuss them,and please tell me your list..

What you said'bout MULHOLLAN'DR. makes it seem like you didn't see it,but you've seen other Lynch movies.Nevertheless,I didn't like it for one simple fact:When a movie's ending has loose ends,that's fine,'cuz you have the rest of the movie as a reference to help you make up your own theories,but if the entire movie has scenes that make no sense,how can you know what they mean without a point of reference?

I hated that LOLITA but loved the one from 1997,'cuz that one was actually passionate.In the 1962 one,all they do is talk.Stanley Kubrick himself said that if he had known how the censorship was back then,he would've never make the movie.

BOTTLE ROCKET shows what?


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 14 2010 at 3:20pm
Actually, I just remembered, I have seen "Once". Yeah, I didn't care for it either. There's no real story to it, just filler in between each song. As I mention with any David Lynch movie, you have to high understand them, because they are usually random scenes that don't add up to anything. "Bottle Rocket" was the first movie of Wes Ander and Owen and Luke Wilson, and it showed how new they were to their craft because it could have been much better.

My all time least favorite movies are "Bongwater" and "Spun". Both movies are about drugs, both have ensemble casts of well known actors, both are made up of random scenes, and both are not even slightly entertaining in any way! I will not watch either of those two movies ever again for as long as I live!


-------------
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.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 14 2010 at 3:25pm
I've never seen those movies.Is it a coincidence that Britanny Murphy(R.I.P.)is in both of them?Do you not like her?

What about PRINCESS(2008)and UNA SEMANA SOLOS(2009)?


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 14 2010 at 4:28pm
"Princess" was a TV movie, so that doesn't count. I don't watch anything on the ABC Family Channel, 'cause their TV movies always suck. As for "Una Semana Solos", I don't count non-American movies, usually because they not shown in America for me to see.
 
As for Brittany Murphy, no, I did like her. In fact, after she died, I watched "The Dead Girl" (her best performance) in her honor. But "Bongwater" and "Spun" were just two bad choices for movies on an epic scale that she agreed to do. I'm pretty sure she just needed money for her rent and that's why she (and everyone else who starred in those two movies) took the jobs.


-------------
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.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 15 2010 at 6:41am
As for MULHOLLAN'DR....well,I don't know if it's called surrealist or art film,but I do like movies like that where weird things without explanation happens.I love Charlie Kauffman's movies,and even though I didn't think EYES WIDE SHUT was excellent,I liked it.You see,even though one tries to uncessfully find an explanation for the weird things,it's not really that important,at least when there's a great story hapenning around.But what if the stories themselves are the weird things without explanation?How can you enjoy it?

When I said I wanted to know your list of worst movies,I was talkin'to ev'ryone in this forum.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 15 2010 at 7:49am
I don't care for surrealist movies. I may watch them once, but not again afterwards. I like movies for their stories, not a bunch of weird imagary that makes no sense.

-------------
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.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 15 2010 at 8:42am
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Actually, I just remembered, I have seen "Once". Yeah, I didn't care for it either. There's no real story to it, just filler in between each song.

No, there actually was a story.

As I mention with any David Lynch movie, you have to high understand them, because they are usually random scenes that don't add up to anything.

Not really. I saw Mulholland Dr. with no history with David Lynch and I loved the movie.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 15 2010 at 11:27am
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Actually, I just remembered, I have seen "Once". Yeah, I didn't care for it either. There's no real story to it, just filler in between each song.

No, there actually was a story.
Yes, there was. But it was a very simple story and came across as just something to fill up time in between the songs.

-------------
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.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 15 2010 at 1:25pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Actually, I just remembered, I have seen "Once". Yeah, I didn't care for it either. There's no real story to it, just filler in between each song.

No, there actually was a story.
Yes, there was. But it was a very simple story and came across as just something to fill up time in between the songs.

It's true.If you use a timer,you'll see that more than half of the movie is used on the musical numbers,which aren't bad individually,but the music style doesn't changes,and it's hard to enjoy it.

That's what you get when the director/script writer is a musician.

Originally posted by moviewizguy

 
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

As I mention with any David Lynch movie, you have to high understand them, because they are usually random scenes that don't add up to anything.
Not really. I saw Mulholland Dr. with no history with David Lynch and I loved the movie.

Maybe so,but you had to go into a deep analyzing first.You can't posibly tell me that you left the theatre happy,that you didn't feel shocked and/or angry the second it ended.If you say yes,you won't admit you didn't like it.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 15 2010 at 1:29pm
Originally posted by Vits

It's true.If you use a timer,you'll see that more than half of the movie is used on the musical numbers,which aren't bad individually,but the music style doesn't changes,and it's hard to enjoy it.

That's what you get when the director/script writer is a musician.

That doesn't make it a bad movie.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 15 2010 at 1:40pm
It's not bad when they focus more on the music than on the script?I mean,one thing is to write songs,and then write a script built on those songs,like the classic SINGIN'IN THE RAIN,but they still worked more on the script.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 15 2010 at 1:59pm
Yeah, I got to agree with Vits. Musicals should be an even balance between songs and story, but with "Once", it was all about the songs and the story was an afterthought.

-------------
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.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 16 2010 at 12:38pm
I forgot to say that http://razzies.com/forum/semipro_forum263.html - SEMI-PRO should be there too.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 16 2010 at 6:09pm
Originally posted by Vits

I forgot to say that http://razzies.com/forum/semipro_forum263.html - SEMI-PRO should be there too.
Yeah, that was when Will Ferrell's "Look at me! I'm playing a stupid, famous, sports playing person! Isn't that funny?" gimmick got stale.

-------------
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.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 16 2010 at 7:29pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Yeah, I got to agree with Vits. Musicals should be an even balance between songs and story, but with "Once", it was all about the songs and the story was an afterthought.

But Once was actually critically praised. It was on many critic's top 10 movies of that year and it won an Oscar for one of it's brilliant songs. I can't help but see you two being in the minority when you two think it wasn't that great. It's really realistic as a musical because the cast doesn't break and sing in the middle of the streets. It's real and authentic and it's really sweet. 97% on RT sure helps my case as well.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 16 2010 at 7:38pm
Are we really gon'na get into another debate of whether a movie with good reviews is good?
 
Let's say it's true.So what?I have no problem likin'a bad movie and hatin'a good movie,and I'm sure it's the same with B.H.B..
 
It got good reviews'cuz experts believe the best movies are slow-paced.
 
I didn't say the songs were bad.I do like FALLIN'SLOWLY,but it was like watchin'DREAMGIRLS.The style never changed,and it started to sound like the same song over and over.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 16 2010 at 8:38pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy


But Once was actually critically praised. It was on many critic's top 10 movies of that year and it won an Oscar for one of it's brilliant songs. I can't help but see you two being in the minority when you two think it wasn't that great. It's really realistic as a musical because the cast doesn't break and sing in the middle of the streets. It's real and authentic and it's really sweet. 97% on RT sure helps my case as well.
Well, this is not one of my usual "this movie sucked b***s and is proof Hollywood needs to die" posts. In my humble opinion, I just didn't like the movie. Like you said, it's not the phony "everyone suddenly jumping into sing and dancing in unison" musical, but at the same time, I just didn't care for the movie overall. Everyone knew well in advance how it was going to end, and as I said before, the movie just seemed like a way to showcase the songs, like a demo tape with motion pictures than a motion picture with a background soundtrack. Maybe it's because I don't really care for music that much, I like movie scores better, like the John Williams' classics.

-------------
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.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 16 2010 at 8:53pm
And the movie,just like BOTTLE ROCKET,breaks the #1 rule:If you watch a movie,and you(even a little kid)don't know if it's a comedy or a drama,then the movie is bad.
 
I don't know what it is,'cuz the very few moments that are supossed to be funny or dramatic,aren't.Ev'rythin's just a set-up for the next song.
 
At the end of the movie,the 2 leads don't get together.I accept that...in deep dramas that bait for Oscars!Not indie musicals that are marketed to be a feel-good movie!


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 1:53pm
I just added another to my list:THE VISITOR(2008).

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 2:00pm
Originally posted by Vits

  
I don't know what it is,'cuz the very few moments that are supossed to be funny or dramatic,aren't.Ev'rythin's just a set-up for the next song.
Exactly! That's why I didn't like it.


-------------
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.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 2:19pm
It tends to happen a lot in indies.UNA SEMANA SOLOS is also like that.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 3:25pm
Well, unlike the s*** Hollywood puts out, indie movies try to be different and have style and a message to them. But it can be like a double edged sword, because the indies don't have studio bosses or producers to tell them what might be wrong with their movies. So you could have a good, creative, indie movie, but no one might like it because it wasn't custom made to please audiences.

-------------
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.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 12:20pm
Actually,half of the movies in my "Worst" list are indies with good reviews.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 2:50pm
Originally posted by Vits

Actually,half of the movies in my "Worst" list are indies with good reviews.
Sometimes, it all comes down to a matter of personal taste, I guess.

-------------
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.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 2:59pm
Absolutely,and even though most of the movies in my "Worst" list had good reviews,I can take all the hate against me.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 4:26pm
Originally posted by Vits

I just added another to my list:THE VISITOR(2008).

WTF?!! Why do you hate good movies?!?!?!?! I loved that movie!


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 4:30pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Sometimes, it all comes down to a matter of personal taste, I guess.

So why do you bash me when I like certain films?


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 5:09pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

So why do you bash me when I like certain films?
Well, no disrespect to you, but at least Vits is willing to admit he might be wrong in his choices and might say "Okay, the movie isn't great, I just enjoyed it and I understand others won't agree with me". You seem to go more for "Well, everyone on IMDb loves it and Ebert loves it, so it MUST be great and you guys are all wrong" or "You guys don't know what you're talking about, I know exactly what I'm talking about". I wouldn't give such a hard time if you would just admit "Hey, M. Night Shy's movies are far from perfect, and he is far from being the next Hitchcock. I just like his movies for his spirited imagination and if you people at the Razzies hate him or disrespect him for the flaws in his storytelling, you have a right to that opinion, I'm not going to harp on for pages on end trying to convince you otherwise". That's all.

-------------
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.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 25 2010 at 8:46am
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Originally posted by moviewizguy

So why do you bash me when I like certain films?
Well, no disrespect to you, but at least Vits is willing to admit he might be wrong in his choices and might say "Okay, the movie isn't great, I just enjoyed it and I understand others won't agree with me". You seem to go more for "Well, everyone on IMDb loves it and Ebert loves it, so it MUST be great and you guys are all wrong" or "You guys don't know what you're talking about, I know exactly what I'm talking about". I wouldn't give such a hard time if you would just admit "Hey, M. Night Shy's movies are far from perfect, and he is far from being the next Hitchcock. I just like his movies for his spirited imagination and if you people at the Razzies hate him or disrespect him for the flaws in his storytelling, you have a right to that opinion, I'm not going to harp on for pages on end trying to convince you otherwise". That's all.

Thanks,man.

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by Vits

I just added another to my list:THE VISITOR(2008).

WTF?!! Why do you hate good movies?!?!?!?! I loved that movie!

I think the easiest thing to do for you is click http://www.rottentomatoes.com/user/812172/reviews - here .


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 25 2010 at 11:15am
Originally posted by Vits

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Originally posted by moviewizguy

So why do you bash me when I like certain films?
Well, no disrespect to you, but at least Vits is willing to admit he might be wrong in his choices and might say "Okay, the movie isn't great, I just enjoyed it and I understand others won't agree with me". You seem to go more for "Well, everyone on IMDb loves it and Ebert loves it, so it MUST be great and you guys are all wrong" or "You guys don't know what you're talking about, I know exactly what I'm talking about". I wouldn't give such a hard time if you would just admit "Hey, M. Night Shy's movies are far from perfect, and he is far from being the next Hitchcock. I just like his movies for his spirited imagination and if you people at the Razzies hate him or disrespect him for the flaws in his storytelling, you have a right to that opinion, I'm not going to harp on for pages on end trying to convince you otherwise". That's all.
Thanks,man.
You're welcome. 


-------------
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.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 27 2010 at 3:18pm
I just added another to my list,which is from my country:EL CHACAL DE NAHUELTORO.it's from the'60's.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 09 2010 at 2:43pm
And another,a french movie:LA FILLE COUPEE EN DEUX(A GIRL CUT IN TWO(2007))

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 09 2010 at 4:01pm
Wow. You hate a lot of good movies. I went to your RT profile and read your reviews. It seems as if you give the movies a 0/10 just because you want to. Even I haven't given a movie a 0/10 and I've seen really bad ones.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 09 2010 at 4:13pm
Actually,I give them 0/100,and it's because that's how bad I think they are,but people in that site know it's just an opinion.

It's to hard to say if a movie is either 53 or 54,or if it's 89 or 90.So I just write 0,10,20,30,etc..

You should also read the reviews.They're not long.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 09 2010 at 4:41pm
Originally posted by Vits

Actually,I give them 0/100,and it's because that's how bad I think they are,but people in that site know it's just an opinion.

It's to hard to say if a movie is either 53 or 54,or if it's 89 or 90.So I just write 0,10,20,30,etc..

You should also read the reviews.They're not long.

I do, but nothing suggests you hating them. You tone is mostly lukewarm. It's like you're saying, "This movie has good performances, but the plot points were never explained and I didn't like that. 0/10" You really don't like a movie because plot points aren't explained? Really?


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 09 2010 at 4:55pm
If you mean especifically THE VISITOR,it's'cuz none of the plots(not plot points)got developed.

I'm foreigner,so I don't know what "Lukewarm" means.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 10 2010 at 1:23pm
I just reviewed another one,and I'm sayin'it'cuz I an't review it here,since it's from before 2005.What do you think about it?

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 12:32pm
Actually,I recovered all the work I lost in the'quake in two days,so I now I'll try to rate and/or review movies ev'ryday.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile



Print Page | Close Window