Print Page | Close Window

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

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: 2007 RAZZIE® MOVIE FORUMS w/LYNX!
Forum Name: GEORGIA RULE
Forum Discription: Three Generations of "Talent" Wasted on a LIFETIME TV MOVIE...
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1877
Printed Date: July 31 2014 at 2:59pm


Topic: Lindsay in "Dramatic" Mode...OH, OH!
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Lindsay in "Dramatic" Mode...OH, OH!
Date Posted: May 09 2007 at 11:17am

FELICITY, FONDA and LINDSAY-LO PLAY 3 GENERATIONS of TORMENTED WOMEN -- BUT NOT AS TORMENTED AS AUDIENCES WHEN THEY REALIZE THEY'VE JUST PAID GOOD MONEY to SEE a BAD LIFETIME TV MOVIE*...

 

Lindsay: "So, like, do you two old broads wanna go get wasted with me tonight?? I promised I'll have you back on the set by 2pm tomorrow..." 

*MAKE THAT a BAD LIFETIME TV MOVIE with the ADDED "BONUS" of CRUDE, UNFUNNY "JOKES" ABOUT INCEST, CHILD ABUSE and ORAL SEX WITH MORMON VIRGINS. I FIND MYSELF GIGGLING (OR IS THAT GAGGING?) JUST THINKING ABOUT IT... 



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



Replies:
Posted By: jb razz
Date Posted: May 10 2007 at 2:48am
HeadRAZZ, you are finally back! there are several movies from the past few weeks that I think you should add to the forum, including The Invisible, Are We Done Yet?, The Condemned, Kickin' It Old School, and Perfect Stranger.

As for this movie, it doesn't look like it will be terrible, but it doesn't look one bit enjoyable. Lindsay Lohan should stick to teen movies and not pretend she is a serious actress. Her other starring
role his summer, I Know Who Killed Me. sounds really bad.

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


Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: May 10 2007 at 8:18am

Originally posted by jb razz

HeadRAZZ, you are finally back! there are several movies from the past few weeks that I think you should add to the forum, including The Invisible, Are We Done Yet?, The Condemned, Kickin' It Old School, and Perfect Stranger. 

http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=193 - Perfect Stranger has been added to the list.

As for Georgia Rule...with Lindsay Lohan in it, we might as well put Britney Spears and Paris Hilton in place of Felicity and Fonda!  At least then, it might actually be camp material.



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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 10 2007 at 10:30am

Please, please, don't talk about Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, and Britney Spears. I don't like it when people are mean to them because of what they see on the tabloids. Do you know every time they say "this couple is breaking up!", they are lying and just want gullible minded people to buy their magazines?! You don't know them, and if you met them, they might be nice to you. Who knows?

ANYWAY, yeah, I really don't know why this movie is doing badly. It has 3 fantastic actresses, and a good plot, but critics seem to not like it. I don't know why they don't like The Invisible, either. I really want to see this movie because, although it seems like a comedy, it's more a drama and takes on some serious issues like child abuse/molestation...



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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 10 2007 at 2:46pm
I read that this is a comedy about sexual abuse.  I'm shocked that it was greenlighted, and saddened that only the movie critics are bashing this film mostly because of this.  If this is what this movie is about, and it's as bad as reported, then these three deserve Razzie noms.


Posted By: Movie Man
Date Posted: May 10 2007 at 4:04pm
I've seen the trailers and thought this might be good. Didn't hear about the film being about sexual abuse. If it's handled and shown in a positive light (that abuse is bad) maybe it has some potential.

I still like Lohan, and have hopes for her becoming a serious actress, and I also like Huffman from her star turn (and Oscar-nominated work) in "TransAmerica". I like Jane Fonda as well.

However, if Lohan WAS serious about her acting, a good thing for her to do is to break off her friendship with Paris Hilton. Remember the phone book fiasco a few years back? That should have been the clincher right there...

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


Posted By: Movie Man
Date Posted: May 10 2007 at 4:08pm
Originally posted by Berrynoia

Originally posted by jb razz

HeadRAZZ, you are finally back! there are several movies from the past few weeks that I think you should add to the forum, including The Invisible, Are We Done Yet?, The Condemned, Kickin' It Old School, and Perfect Stranger. 

http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=193 - Perfect Stranger has been added to the list.



Don't forget to add Thr3e. It's came out on video last week, perfect time to watch and add it to here. ('Cause it's really bad)

I also think you should add that "Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters". The worst aniimated film I've ever experienced.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 3:12am

For what it's worth, I agree that The Invisible, Are We Done Yet?, The Condemned and Kickin' It Old Skool also deserve their own Forums. 

It seems to me ATHFCMFFT is what it is, just like Reno: 911!, and I won't condemn it for that. 

And if you think Thr3e, which hardly anyone has seen, was bad, you should rent Funny Money.  But, again, for what it's worth, I don't see how you can make a case for either one, simply because no one has seen them.  You'd have to make a special effort, like the HeadRAZZ did with Dirty Love.  Otherwise, by all means consider both of them.  

I would also like Lucky You to be considered.

And I really, really, really want to add Next, but it's currently sitting right on the bubble at 30% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/next/ - on the RT meter .  As always, it's up to the HeadRAZZ to add it or not.

It seems to me that 2007's "Razzie" movies aren't anywhere near as "Razzie" as 2006's "Razzie" movies (think Basic Instinct 2, Little Man, Zoom, Ultraviolet, The Wicker Man, Grandma's Boy, etc.).  I guess 2006 was a watershed year (a flooded-out year?).  There were so many "Razzie" movies last year that half the ones I just listed didn't even make it onto our Ballot.

Originally posted by Movie Man

Originally posted by Berrynoia

Originally posted by jb razz

HeadRAZZ, you are finally back! there are several movies from the past few weeks that I think you should add to the forum, including The Invisible, Are We Done Yet?, The Condemned, Kickin' It Old School, and Perfect Stranger. 

http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=193 - Perfect Stranger has been added to the list.



Don't forget to add Thr3e. It's came out on video last week, perfect time to watch and add it to here. ('Cause it's really bad)

I also think you should add that "Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters". The worst aniimated film I've ever experienced.



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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 9:22am
Ok, when do movies actually get suggested for Razzie? 30% and lower? And if that is right, there will be MANY movies under 30%! I mean, it's half the year and there are like tons of movie already suggested for nominations! That's a lot of movies. Instead of having 1 or 2 or 3 movies suggested each week, just rarely suggest them because there are way too many movies suggested right now. lol

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


Posted By: ArtGirl138
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 4:23pm

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

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

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

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



-------------
Self-Proclaimed Cartoon Geek


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 5:50pm
If you want some indication of just how low this movie sinks, a child molestor ranks as only the 4th most detestable character.  The people in this movie make Jerry Springer's guests look sane and likeable.

-------------
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: sportsartist24
Date Posted: May 12 2007 at 8:39am

It looks like Lohan's glory daze are over, which were like only THREE films that pleased critics. Anyway, Head RAZZ, I read this one review that says that Georgia Rule is Lohan's Gigli. I think we all know how Gigli ended up: Being bad, bombing at the Box Office, then "winning" 6 RAZZIES.

Still, Head RAZZ, there's much for you to add to our Forum. You should now add ARE WE DONE YET, right now. It hasn't reached the $50 million mark at the U.S. Box Office. Also add VACANCY, 'cause it bombed with critics as well as at the Box Office. And there's like 4 other recent movies you should add to this Forum as well...



-------------
The Mormons were'nt really popular in the beginning, they're now becoming more popular, even in Hollywood.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 12 2007 at 1:53pm
Oh, you people are the crudest people ever! Have you seen the movie?! NO! It was never meant to be a comedy! It's called bad advertising! Critics ACTUALLY said that Lohan's performance is GREAT! The thing they complained about was the script! READ THEM! It helps if you really want to give a decent debate!


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 12 2007 at 3:46pm
Umm... Vacancy actually got decent reviews and because it bombed didn't mean it's bad.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 12 2007 at 5:45pm

Minor spoilers within the quotes from the critics' reviews.

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Oh, you people are the crudest people ever! Have you seen the movie?! NO! It was never meant to be a comedy! It's called bad advertising! Critics ACTUALLY said that Lohan's performance is GREAT! The thing they complained about was the script! READ THEM! It helps if you really want to give a decent debate!

Well, moviewizguy, let's read the "cream of the crop" critics from Rotten Tomatoes:

John Anderson of Variety sez:
"No offense to either of them, but “Georgia Rule” suggests an Ingmar Bergman script as directed by Jerry Lewis. The subject matter is grim, the relationships are gnarled, the worldview is bleak, and, at any given moment, you suspect someone’s going to be hit with a pie."

So, he thinks it's a "dramedy" (his term, not mine).  He thought Lohan performed well, but gave the benefit of the doubt to both Huffman and Fonda.

Stephen Hunter of the Washington Post sez:
Just what we need least: a warm family comedy about child molestation.That's "Georgia Rule," which combines battleship actresses of the "Steel Magnolias" variety, fall-down-go-boom comedy that was obsolete in the '30s, Lindsay Lohan's cleavage and intergenerational fondling just for kicks.

So, he thinks it's a comedy about child molestation.  Unless I missed something, he doesn't comment on anybody's acting.

Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle writes.
But let's talk about tone. It's the hardest thing to convey in a review, especially with a movie as jarring in tone as "Georgia Rule." The film is intended to be light and whimsical, but with a core of sincere emotion. But it's as if the thing were made by Martian anthropologists who assume that human audiences are as twisted as the people onscreen.

And so one of the "funny" scenes involves young Rachel seducing a religious Mormon fellow and performing oral sex on him (off camera). Another "funny" scene, a real knee-slapper, has Rachel confronting a group of prissy Mormon girls by threatening to have carnal relations with all their boyfriends. Only she doesn't say "carnal relations." Wow. Isn't she cool?

So, he thinks its a comedy about sexual abuse.  He doesn't comment on the acting, either.

Lael Lowenstein of the Los Angeles Times writes:
Don't be misled by its upbeat trailer or the supposedly reassuring presence of director Garry Marshall. Weighted down by too much disturbing material to work as a glossy, lighthearted comedy, yet dappled with too many broad comic moments to stand as a serious film, "Georgia Rule" oscillates clumsily from shock to slapstick to schmaltz. The result of these big tonal swings is a cinematic strikeout.

And Joe Morgenstern from the Wall Street Journal, Claudia Puig of USA Today (who faults Lohan's and Huffman's acting), Michael Rechtshaffen of the Hollywood Reporter, and Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times all to one degree or another concur that this movie has the bad taste to be a comedy about sexual abuse.

Mind you, there are critics who support your point of view, too.  But please don't say we haven't read what the critics have said about this movie.  When the HeadRAZZ put this one on the list, I went to the critics.



Posted By: ArtGirl138
Date Posted: May 13 2007 at 4:57am

You said that Lindsay's being praised by the critics?

Ty Burr of the Boston Globe says...

"...As the hellacious brat of 'Georgia Rule,' though, Lohan's line readings are alternately flat and flip, and she slumps through the movie as though the party were elsewhere and she was stuck picking up her room. It's a performance of no thought or depth, as unfixed as the bizarre spray-on tan that seems to mutate from scene to scene."

Hmmm...nope, doesn't sound like praise to me.

And here's what he said about the film's subject matter...

Georgia Rule is a bad idea dreadfully executed -- On Golden Pond with fellatio jokes and whimsical incest melodrama and Fonda playing her dad (who, more and more, she eerily resembles).

Sounds like he's implying it's - gasp! - a comedy about sexual abuse!

So, what's the score so far...

cvcjr13: 5

ArtGirl138: 1

moviewizguy: ...a resounding 0!

And, geez, don't accuse us of not listening to the critics. How do you think I make important Should-I-see-this-movie-or-wait-until-it-costs-less-to-see-i t decisions?

God, moviewizguy, I thought people came here to support the Razzies.



-------------
Self-Proclaimed Cartoon Geek


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: May 13 2007 at 3:07pm

With all due respect, sir, I DID in fact see the movie (Friday night), which inspired my post. I didn't like the movie, I didn't like any of the characters, I didn't particularly like any of the performances and I think this effort is very worthy of discussion in this forum.

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Oh, you people are the crudest people ever! Have you seen the movie?! NO!

It was never meant to be a comedy! It's called bad advertising!

Bad advertising worthy of a bad movie. But you are correct on one point. It certainly wasn't a comedy...or at least not a funny one. Frankly I had a great deal of difficulty trying to figure out just what the director, Garry Marshall, was trying to do with this movie. I don't think he ever made up his mind! 

 

 

Critics ACTUALLY said that Lohan's performance is GREAT!

That is far from a unanimous opinion. In fact, it doesn't even appear to be a consensus opinion.

The thing they complained about was the script! READ THEM! It helps if you really want to give a decent debate!

I believe I am up to the challenge. In any event, it would appear that you are the one being somewhat selective in your assessment of what the reviews are saying.



-------------
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: ArtGirl138
Date Posted: May 14 2007 at 12:14am

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

cvcjr13: 5

ArtGirl138: 1

saturnwatcher: 2

moviewizguy: Still 0

TOTAL SCORES:

Against G.R.: 8

For G.R.: 0

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

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

 



-------------
Self-Proclaimed Cartoon Geek


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: May 14 2007 at 2:37am
There were moments when the movie was almost tolerable, and others when it was just overpoweringly awful. The scene in which Lindsay's character provides oral sex to a grossly stereotyped virginal male rube was bad enough, but her constant effort to seduce the town's veterinarian/doctor went beyond icky to downright stomach turning (He is twice her age). This movie is just a mess, and it's worthy of Razzie discussion if for no other reason than Gary Marshall's abject inability to figure out how to handle delicate subject matter in any sort of appropriate fashion.

-------------
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: May 14 2007 at 10:33am

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

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

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

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

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



Posted By: ArtGirl138
Date Posted: May 14 2007 at 10:46am

Score so far...

Against G.R.: 8

For G.R.: 2 1/2

Sorry, moviewizguy, but you're still outnumbered here.



-------------
Self-Proclaimed Cartoon Geek


Posted By: selectiveViewer
Date Posted: May 14 2007 at 11:16am
I actually saw this film.  I was too embarrassed to ask for a refund because I did not want anyone to know I had bought a ticket.  The storyline was disjointed.  I could not understand why a woman who was driven to alcoholism by her mother (Huffman) would then send her wayward daughter (Lohan) to that very same mother (Fonda).   I just could not make sense of the characters. 

-------------
SelectiveViewer


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 14 2007 at 2:17pm
I know you've seen it and I know you know it's bad. I'm just saying...it could be surprising if you were expecting a chick flick comedy....wait, you aren't saturn. Sorry about that. But I really didn't want to start this debate in the first place.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 14 2007 at 3:35pm

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

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

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

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

 



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


Posted By: ArtGirl138
Date Posted: May 15 2007 at 12:36am

cvcjr13...THAT...was AWESOME!  Couldn't have said it better.

And for anyone still keeping score...

Against G.R.: 10

For G.R: 2 1/2



-------------
Self-Proclaimed Cartoon Geek


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: May 15 2007 at 3:19am

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

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



-------------
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: ArtGirl138
Date Posted: May 15 2007 at 9:02am

Ohhhhhh, trust me - we've seen that.



-------------
Self-Proclaimed Cartoon Geek


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 15 2007 at 10:12am

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

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

Now, here's the next post by AnyGirl138:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: May 15 2007 at 1:45pm

One has to still wonder why, if things really went that far, they didn't just chuck Lohan and recast (apart from there being tens of millions of dollars that they're probably never going to see again at stake in the project)?  Certainly when that little effort goes into a script, whoever's in front of the camera is negligible, and clearly they could have found someone, anyone out there who isn't asking to be the audience at the next big Matt Foley speech. 

 

On the content of the film itself, I have to ask why Hollywood considers abstinence an essentially Satanic sin.  I for one think the best people out there in the world are generally those that do exercise restraint in those matters, because they show levelheadedness and the ability to realize that we all have responsibility to live up to (and certainly, there's no complaining with the fact that you have almost no chance of getting AIDS if you choose a path of virginity).  But of course, in Tinseltown's ridiculous reality, heroes are people that ALWAYS love going for broke (for lack of a better term) every chance they get, and don't care what the consequences might be, either for themselves or others.  Which, of course, explains quite a bit about the people behind these types of films...

Response from Head RAZZberry: As a parent of a pre-teen child, I applaud you for this posting. I wish Hollywood would, even 3% of the time, suggest restraint or responsibility as a path worth following, rather than alwaze glorifying the can't-keep-it-in-his-pants, guns-blazing, cigarette-smoking, miniature-minded morons they so often pass off as heroes in movies today.

Hope I don't sprain my ankle getting down from this soap-box... 

 



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


Posted By: jb razz
Date Posted: May 15 2007 at 2:30pm
Good point, wetbandit, sex is glorified way too much in Hollywwood films these days.

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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 15 2007 at 5:30pm

I dunno, MWG.  Yes, AnyGirl138 was debating with you, so you could say she started the debate.  On the other hand, you expanded the debate from just between you and AnyGirl138 to "you people".  What's more, after expanding it, you commented on the things AnyGirl138 brought up, one of which just so happened to be what everyone else was complaining about -- a comedy about sexual abuse.

It still seems to me that if you really didn't want a debate, you should have completely reworded that one paragraph. 



Posted By: ArtGirl138
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 12:41am

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

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

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

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

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

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



-------------
Self-Proclaimed Cartoon Geek


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 2:06am
Originally posted by moviewizguy

 

 I mean, it's half the year and there are like tons of movie already suggested for nominations! That's a lot of movies. Instead of having 1 or 2 or 3 movies suggested each week, just rarely suggest them because there are way too many movies suggested right now. lol

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

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



-------------
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: HeadRAZZBerry
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 8:45am

Well stated points on those last several posts, gize.

Now, this is getting interesting...

Any response, moviewizguy?? 



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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 11:37am
No...


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 2:37pm
Originally posted by ArtGirl138

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

Oops!  Sorry.

Originally posted by ArtGirl138

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

I discovered that.  After I responded to his posts on this thread, I started noticing a pattern across all the other threads.  It almost seems like he's trying to be a http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861694372 - devil's advocate .  And the devil better start worrying. . . .

Originally posted by ArtGirl138

BUT, I never wanted to start this debate.

Personally, I don't I think I would mind starting a good debate.  Now if we can just start one. . . .

As you already pointed out, though, any debate you may have started was between you and MWG.  You never said anything that drew in the entire forum.

Originally posted by ArtGirl138

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

Don't you hate it when, instead of answering your question, someone talks about something else entirely?

I'll volunteer my answer for what it's worth.  Of the movies I've seen this year, the worst ones were Epic Movie, Funny Money, Blood and Chocolate, Premonition and Code Name: The Cleaner.  If I can work them in time and money-wise, I'll try to catch Perfect Stranger and Are We Done Yet?.  I know that's not MWG contributing his choices, but at least it's a contribution.

Getting back on topic, Georgia Rule may be one movie that I'll just take the critics' word for it and mark it down as a dud without ever seeing it.  Now, there's something to debate about.  Should we razz a movie we've never seen simply because just the thought of it tells us it's razz-able?



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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 4:19pm
If you don't want to take the critics word for Georgia Rule, I guess you can settle for mine. It was truly a piece of crap.  Somehow, the phrase "festering laceration" seems almost appropo.

-------------
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: May 17 2007 at 10:33am

Should we razz a movie we've never seen simply because just the thought of it tells us it's razz-able?

Never! I liked Little Man, Date Movie, The Fog, and almost every movie listed here. They weren't half as bad as people said they were.

Response from Head RAZZberry: By "people," do you mean everyone but yourself, or are you once again suggesting that the rest of us on this Forum are somehow less critically gifted than yourself? Most of the titles we discuss on this Forum are both critical and financial disasters, suggesting they pleased neither the critics nor movie-goers. *

If you've seen as many movies as you claim you have, I am surprised that you dislike as few as you seem to. What have you learned from seeing all these films, if not some standard for judging the films coming out week after week, based on your experience of seeing previous films from the same actors, writers and directors??  If every film is worthy of your praise, then, honestly, your praise means nothing, since you clearly have no standards with which to pass judgment...

*GEORGIA RULE, for example, was slammed by about http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/georgia_rule/ - 80% of Rotten Tomatoes' critics and, in its opening weekend, managed a less-than-stellar http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=georgiarule.htm - $6.7 million playing at 2,523 theatres (since it cost at least $40 million to produce and market, RULE will  wind up losing money for its studio)...

 



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


Posted By: ArtGirl138
Date Posted: May 18 2007 at 12:23am
Then...why are you here? Just to disagree with what we think is razz-able?

-------------
Self-Proclaimed Cartoon Geek


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 18 2007 at 9:31am
Yes, if you look a forums from these "bad" movies, there are a few people who actually thought it wasn't half bad. No critics made a big deal out of Little Man. In fact, their average rating was about 5/10, which isn't close from like 1/10 or 2/10!


Posted By: ArtGirl138
Date Posted: May 18 2007 at 10:33am
If we WANT to see these forums, we'll read them ourselves. Just accept the fact that we hate these movies.

-------------
Self-Proclaimed Cartoon Geek


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 18 2007 at 10:38am

Huh? Oh, and I would like to show you something:

WASC was treated badly, right? Well, almost every critic and people hated it because it's nothing happening for the whole movie until the end. Well, look at Disturbia. Different movie with same concept. Nothing happens until the end. I mean, why?! Disturbia was successful and WASC was not?! I just don't get it! Even the last 20 minutes of WASC was more thrilling and suspenseful than Disturbia (although I liked Disturbia better). I just want to know why. Maybe audiencs like the boy meets girl story than phone ringing.



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: May 18 2007 at 3:58pm

 

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Never! I liked Little Man, Date Movie, The Fog, and almost every movie listed here. They weren't half as bad as people said they were.

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

Date Movie: 9%

The Fog: 5%

Little Man: 14%

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

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

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

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



-------------
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: ArtGirl138
Date Posted: May 19 2007 at 1:31am
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Huh? Oh, and I would like to show you something:

I was telling you that you don't have to tell us about these people who praise the movies we Razz. We already KNOW they exist. (I myself have taken a few trips to the RT forums)

AND I was also telling you to just accept that we hate the movies that you're defending.

Say, this is just a question, MWG...are you Earl Dittman? Or any other quote whore out there?



-------------
Self-Proclaimed Cartoon Geek


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 19 2007 at 2:34am

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Yes, if you look a forums from these "bad" movies, there are a few people who actually thought it wasn't half bad. No critics made a big deal out of Little Man. In fact, their average rating was about 5/10, which isn't close from like 1/10 or 2/10!

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

Where are you getting your statistics?  Like saturnwatcher said, http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/little_man/ - Rotten Tomatoes currently shows the critics rate Little Man at 14%, the cream of the crop critics at a more forgiving 29%, and regular movie at a far more harsh 15%.  http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0430304/ - IMDb currently shows that Little Man has finally edged out of its bottom 100 at the still abysmal rating of 2.9 out of 10.  http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=littleman.htm - Box Office Mojo grades Little Man at a D.

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

And then you say that the poor remake of When A Stranger Calls (WASC) isn't that bad?  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/when_a_stranger_calls/ - Rotten Tomates shows WASC at 10% for critics in general, 0% for cream of the crop critics and 27% for regular moviegoers, http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0455857/ - IMDB currently shows WASC at 4.5 out of 10, and http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=whenastrangercalls06.htm - Box Office Mojo grades WASC at a C.

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

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



Posted By: ArtGirl138
Date Posted: May 19 2007 at 5:13am

Or worse...what a *cough* MASTERPIECE Gigli was *eyetwitch, shudder*

Response from Head RAZZberry: You can't argue the point -- GIGLI was definately a "piece" of...something! 



-------------
Self-Proclaimed Cartoon Geek


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 19 2007 at 7:16am

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

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

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

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



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


Posted By: ArtGirl138
Date Posted: May 19 2007 at 7:39am

I'll admit - I don't usually rely on IMDb for ratings. So there is kind of a good point in that post

The Cream of the Crop ratings - look, 4/10 or 2/4 is STILL a bad rating, no matter how you look at it.

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

You ignored some of our points. It's only fair.



-------------
Self-Proclaimed Cartoon Geek


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 19 2007 at 10:52am
Lol, ok. It's my 100th post!


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 19 2007 at 12:54pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by moviewizguy

On the cream of the crops section, the critics gave the movie (Little Man) and average rating of a 4/10 which might equal 40%.

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

Originally posted by moviewizguy

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

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

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



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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: May 19 2007 at 5:29pm

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

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

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

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

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

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



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: jb razz
Date Posted: May 21 2007 at 8:26am

All this debating is making my head spin!

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



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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 21 2007 at 8:50am
...I've moved on, can't you see what my 100th post was like?: It was all happy...


Posted By: bruin_522
Date Posted: May 23 2007 at 4:07pm
TRIVIA: Lindsay Lohan received a warning letter from the studio's CEO James G. Robinson (Morgan Creek Productions) for her lack of professionalism. The letter was later released to the media and directly noted Lohan's "discourteous, irresponsible and unprofessional" conduct and went on to say her actions were those of a "spoiled child" which "has endangered the quality of this picture." Robinson also threatened to sue the 20-year-old star if she continued to delay production.


Posted By: bruin_522
Date Posted: June 13 2007 at 4:40pm
Factual errors: The Idaho license plates on the vehicles in the film have an incorrect format. Standard Idaho license plates begin with a two digit number/letter combination identifying the county where the vehicle is registered (i.e. 1A - for Aida county, Boise area). The plates in the film do not use this format.


Posted By: bruin_522
Date Posted: July 09 2007 at 4:23pm

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

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

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

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



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


Posted By: dipitlow555
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 3:54am

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

Response from Head RAZZberry: While you, like everyone who posts on this Forum, are entitled to your own opinion, I daresay we were hardly alone in "picking on" GEORGIA RULE. It's total box office to date is a paltry $18.9 million ( http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=georgiarule.htm - LINK ) --awfully low for a film starring 3 generations of supposedly appealing actresses. And it's Approval Rating at Rotten Tomatoes now stands at an embarrassingly low 19% ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/georgia_rule/ - LINK ). RULE was also chosen by AP film critic Christy LeMire as her choice for the Berry Worst Movie of the First Half of 2007 ( http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/bestsofar2007/ - LINK ).

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

 



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


Posted By: dipitlow555
Date Posted: July 16 2007 at 3:24pm

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

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

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

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

  



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


Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: July 17 2007 at 2:49am
We just keep coming back to one thing:  rampant and unappealing character sadism that serves to make it unattractive.  You're certainly entitled to your own opinion; we all respect it. 


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: July 17 2007 at 3:22pm
Originally posted by dipitlow555

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

Hurricane season sure started early.

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

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



Posted By: dipitlow555
Date Posted: July 17 2007 at 4:13pm

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


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

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

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

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


 



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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: July 18 2007 at 3:17am
Oh, I think one of the major complaints about Georgia Rule is precisely that many critics have said it contains Lindsay Lohan's best performance up to date.  Garry Marshall wasted that performance by inserting it into an awful movie.  I feel Marshall has no excuse.  He took a dark subject, prostitution, and turned it into a touching half drama, half comedy, Pretty Woman.  He apparently failed to do the same for sexual abuse and Georgia Rule


Posted By: Criss808
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 4:35am
Poor Lindsay...Her career started off so promising with movies like "Freaky Friday" and "Mean Girls" but then she got into the party scene and started hanging out with RAZZIE-winners Paris Hilton and Britney Spears!!! I think this year she'll definitely be nominated for WORST ACTRESS for her performances in "GEORGIA RULE", the awful-looking "I KNOW WHO KILLED ME", and "CHAPTER 27". At least Jane Fonda redeemed herself from that terrible piece of crap that was "MONSTER-IN-LAW"!!!


Posted By: dipitlow555
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 5:36am
Can she really be nominated for WORST ACTRESS for giving a good performance in "GEORGIA RULE" and for giving a never-seen performance in "CHAPTER 27"???

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


Posted By: Criss808
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 9:15am

I think she will, because the movie was not recieved very well and early reviews for Chapter 27 have been bad. Plus the Razzies always nominate people who are in the media all the time. Remember Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes were nominated for their performances in "War of the Worlds" and "Batman Begins" in 2005? Both those movies were well liked (especially Batman Begins!!!) so I think Lindsay has a good chance of being nominated this year...

Response from Head RAZZberry: It's a tad early to be predicting, but I'd say Lindsay's chance at being a RAZZIE nominee for her "body of work" this year (including the about-to-open I KNOW WHO KILLED ME and her latest DUI over the past weekend) is fair-to-good. Unlike Those OTHER Awards (aka The Giving Out of the ittle Gold Naked Men) we admit that "zeitgeist" (the public mood towards a celebrity in the year they're nominated) does play a role in our members' voting process...

 



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


Posted By: dipitlow555
Date Posted: July 24 2007 at 12:49pm

But can she be nominated for CHAPTER 27 if it wasn't released in the US? That really doesn't make much sense.

Response from Head RAZZberry: Where did I say we were planning to nominate Lohan for CHAPTER 27? You're the one who mentioned it. And you are correct in suggesting that if it isn't theatrically released in the US, it doesn't qualify as a RAZZIE contender...

 



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


Posted By: bruin_522
Date Posted: July 24 2007 at 5:28pm

And now things are even worse for Lohan: She's been arrested in Santa Monica, California on suspicion of drunk driving and cocaine possession, just days after she completed a 45-day rehabilitation program. Now many that are saying that jail might be the only way to save Lohan...but I don't know for sure.

Originally posted by Criss808

Poor Lindsay...Her career started off so promising with movies like "Freaky Friday" and "Mean Girls" but then she got into the party scene and started hanging out with RAZZIE-winners Paris Hilton and Britney Spears!!! I think this year she'll definitely be nominated for WORST ACTRESS for her performances in "GEORGIA RULE", the awful-looking "I KNOW WHO KILLED ME", and "CHAPTER 27". At least Jane Fonda redeemed herself from that terrible piece of crap that was "MONSTER-IN-LAW"!!!

And of her career starting off so promisingly, you left out "The Parent Trap" which was actually the first film of her career. 

 



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


Posted By: dipitlow555
Date Posted: July 27 2007 at 5:11am


No offense HeadRAZZ, but I wasn't the first to mention CHAPTER 27:

Originally posted by Criss808

Poor Lindsay...Her career started off so promising with movies like "Freaky Friday" and "Mean Girls" but then she got into the party scene and started hanging out with RAZZIE-winners Paris Hilton and Britney Spears!!! I think this year she'll definitely be nominated for WORST ACTRESS for her performances in "GEORGIA RULE", the awful-looking "I KNOW WHO KILLED ME", and "CHAPTER 27". At least Jane Fonda redeemed herself from that terrible piece of crap that was "MONSTER-IN-LAW"!!!

 

Response from Head RAZZberry: I stand semi-corrected. I was simply pointing out that I (as Head RAZZberry) had said nothing about listing CHAPTER 27 as an eligible Lohan title for 2007. With  I KNOW WHO KILLED ME not being screened for critics, I'd say that even if 27 isn't released, Lohan certainly looks like a Worst Actress contender this year...


 



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


Posted By: dipitlow555
Date Posted: July 27 2007 at 2:10pm
I know. And as much as I LOVE Lindsay Lohan and the hellish year she's having with her personal life and career, I still have to agree with you 100%. I feel the same way about Mandy Moore (minus the whole sucky personal life thing) for BECAUSE I SAID SO and LICENSE TO WED. But I am happy that Hilary Duff didn't release any movies this year, because ever since A CINDERELLA STORY she's been getting Razzie nominations almost every year. But I do gotta say, Hilary's new movie WAR, INC. looks really good ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=vqrUgzYaeos - LINK ).


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


Posted By: dipitlow555
Date Posted: August 03 2007 at 7:47am
This just in:

GEORGIA RULE will be released on DVD on September 4th


Posted By: Criss808
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 11:13am
This movie was just plain weird. It wanted to be funny but serious at the same time and it failed miserably IMO.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 18 2007 at 1:58pm

Ok, I finish watching this movie and I don't get all the hate. The ONLY main problem in the movie is that it was being dramatic and funny at the wrong places because there's a serious scene and then the next one turns into a comedy, which confuses you.

Should a movie really get a bad rating for that because I remember Independence Day having the same thing, especially wanting us to feel sad for the people while Will Smith works out his comedy in another scene and that wasn't recieved as bad as Georgia Rule, which I gave a decent rating (2.5/4). It's not as bad as people said it was, just because it has mixed tones... 

Response from Head RAZZberry: Okay, moviewizguy, here's my main question for you: Is ANY movie "as bad as they say it is"??  Of the more than 180 postings you've added to this Forum, about 97.8% of them are in defense some mediocre movie or other that bombed with both critics and the movie-going public. If you honestly believe that most of what Hollywood puts out there for our so-called amusement is "not as bad as they say it is," why do you seem to have ambitions of becoming a movie critic??  Your tone sounds to me more appropriate for someone who aspires to replace the late Jack Valenti as the Goodwill Ambassador (i. e. apologist) for the movie biz, rather than someone with valid, critical commentary to impart... 

 



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


Posted By: dipitlow555
Date Posted: September 19 2007 at 3:17pm
I'm actually with moviewizguy on this one. It really wasn't that terrible of a movie, but you already know my defense for "Georgia Rule".


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: September 19 2007 at 4:13pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Response from Head RAZZberry: . . .Your tone sounds to me more appropriate for someone who aspires to replace the late Jack Valenti as the Goodwill Ambassador (i. e. apologist) for the movie biz, rather than someone with valid, critical commentary to impart... 

And all this time, I thought he was trying to be the Paula Abdul of movie critics. . . .

Ever see the movie What's So Bad About Feeling Good?  I think he has the virus. . . .



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 20 2007 at 1:17pm
I don't want to be a movie critic! Who ever said I was going to be one! I certainly, positively don't want to be a movie critic. People are calling this movie one of the worst movies ever. I don't get it. It was mediocre. It wasn't bad because the mixed tones.


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: September 23 2007 at 6:07am

"Delta Farce", "Lady In The Water", "Perfect Stranger", "Showgirls", and "Waterworld", weren't as bad as the critics said they were, but they were still bad. Just because a movie is better than what the critics said, doesn't make it a good movie.

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Ok, I finish watching this movie and I don't get all the hate. The ONLY main problem in the movie is that it was being dramatic and funny at the wrong places because there's a serious scene and then the next one turns into a comedy, which confuses you.

Should a movie really get a bad rating for that because I remember Independence Day having the same thing, especially wanting us to feel sad for the people while Will Smith works out his comedy in another scene and that wasn't recieved as bad as Georgia Rule, which I gave a decent rating (2.5/4). It's not as bad as people said it was, just because it has mixed tones... 

Response from Head RAZZberry: Okay, moviewizguy, here's my main question for you: Is ANY movie "as bad as they say it is"??  Of the more than 180 postings you've added to this Forum, about 97.8% of them are in defense some mediocre movie or other that bombed with both critics and the movie-going public. If you honestly believe that most of what Hollywood puts out there for our so-called amusement is "not as bad as they say it is," why do you seem to have ambitions of becoming a movie critic??  Your tone sounds to me more appropriate for someone who aspires to replace the late Jack Valenti as the Goodwill Ambassador (i. e. apologist) for the movie biz, rather than someone with valid, critical commentary to impart... 

 

                                                                                             

-------------
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
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 23 2007 at 7:14am
Well, that's not what I meant. Sure, there are some bad movies that weren't bad as critics say they were. That's when I mention it. But if I don't mention the movie was bad, it's because the movie was actually good, which goes for Georgia Rule and Lady in the Water, which was one of the best films in 2006! People must be smokin' crack because Lady in the Water was FANTASTIC!!!!


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: September 23 2007 at 8:11am

You must be smokin' crack...

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Well, that's not what I meant. Sure, there are some bad movies that weren't bad as critics say they were. That's when I mention it. But if I don't mention the movie was bad, it's because the movie was actually good, which goes for Georgia Rule and Lady in the Water, which was one of the best films in 2006! People must be smokin' crack because Lady in the Water was FANTASTIC!!!!
                                                                       



-------------
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
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: dipitlow555
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 8:37am

Georgia Rule was....Lady in the Water was not...

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Georgia Rule and Lady in the Water were two of the better recent films! People must be smokin' crack because Lady in the Water was FANTASTIC!!!!
  



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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 12:20pm
...oh, well. I just can't take my mind out of it. Such an original, well executed film.


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: October 06 2007 at 1:43am
What are you talking about: "Lady In The Water" or "Georgia Rule"?

-------------
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
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 06 2007 at 2:20am
Lady in the Water.


Posted By: dipitlow555
Date Posted: October 11 2007 at 12:37pm

Wait...what?

moviewizguy, you're confusing me...


 



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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 12 2007 at 9:50am
Lady in the Water is one of the best films ever made. Gerogia Rule was a decent film with great performances but has its inconsistancies.


Posted By: SlammyFewFew
Date Posted: October 20 2007 at 12:15pm

I do hope you're kidding about Lady in the Water! But Georgia Rule was merely mediocre, and Lohan's performance in it was actually wonderful...

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Lady in the Water is one of the best films ever made. Gerogia Rule was a decent film with great performances but has its inconsistancies.
 

Response from Head RAZZberry: While we are planning to list Lohan on our Nominating Ballot for Worst Actress, it will likely be for her dual performance in http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2052&PN=1 - I KNOW WHO KILLED ME and not for this. GEORGIA RULE was a big disappointment (any film with Jane Fonda, Felicity Huffman and Lindsay Lohan that barely rises above run-of-the-mill would be disappointing) it didn't quite rise (or sink) to the standard of being RAZZable. To me, the worst thing about the film was the confusing and seemingly cavalier way it treated the Lohan character's accusations of sexual abuse against her step-father -- It seems to me that subject is serious enough it should simply NOT be used as fodder for what's being sold as a family comedy for release on Mother's Day weekend...




 



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


Posted By: Jacko
Date Posted: January 08 2008 at 11:35am

Is this place just full of self proclaimed movie critic wannabes? This is just as bad as IMDB when people opine over films they haven't even seen.

The movie wasn't that bad, I couldn't believe it was even nominated in the first place. You people are either prissy gay men or own a bunch of cats.

A comedy about molestation? Obviously you didn't see the film. 

Response from Head RAZZberry: As a matter of fact, I did see this film, and if you didn't find its attempt to combine bald-faced pathos, slapstick comedy  and child molestation both creepy and schizophrenic, then I'd suggest maybe you are the person with the problem... 

P.S. What do "prissy gay men" or owning "a bunch of cats" have to do with not liking GEORGIA RULE?? 

 

 



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


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: January 09 2008 at 1:25am
I just finished watching it and it was creepy and schizophrenic!   

-------------
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
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: January 09 2008 at 4:00pm

I haven't seen Georgia Rule yet.  I'm just going by the trailers, the critics and what my fellow Razzie members have said about the movie.  I don't usually do that, but in this case, I feel confident in the evidence brought before me so much that I cringe at the thought of watching it.  I'll eventually watch it, though.

I have two cats.  I don't know if that qualifies as having a "bunch" of cats.

I'm not gay, though, so I guess that means you're not talking about me. . . .

I'm with the HeadRAZZ, though.  What's that got to do with anything? 

I've been thinking a lot about this film because of the current discussion though.  I mentioned earlier that if anyone could have done this storyline right, it would have been Garry Marshall, since he was able to combine comedy and tragedy about prostitution very well in the movie Pretty Woman.  And, when I state the storyline, it actually sounds like it could work. 

"A young woman becomes so difficult that her alcoholic mother, out of desperation, sends her to her overbearing grandmother.  Although the granddaughter continues to be wild, the structure helps her to change, and eventually she reveals that the mother's boyfriend had been molesting her."

That sounds like a decent storyline to me.  Yet, by everyone's account (well, except for Jacko's, who thinks gay men who are cat lovers can't critique this movie, which makes it difficult to take Jacko seriously), it's out of whack, going from one extreme to the other.  And when the molestation comes out, it causes most people to feel far more repulsion about the movie than it does empathy for the granddaughter.

When something like this happens, I blame the director (which is why I checked off Marshall's name on my ballot).  Marshall is the one responsible for making sure the movie flows well.  If scenes aren't acted well, it's his responsibility to catch that and redo it.  If the script is bad in portions, the same thing.  Marshall failed on this one.

However, I don't hold Marshall totally to blame.  LiLo for some strange reason decided during the production that Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Nicole Richie were great role models.  So, despite having more talent than the other three put together (please don't let that happen), she became addicted to whatever, wild, irresponsible, a danger behind the wheel and a regular on celebrity porn sites.  This behavior disrupted production so much, James G. Robinson released a letter warning that her lack of professionalism endangered production and she would be sued if she caused any further delays.  Now, if you were Marshall, and you had a scene with Lohan in it that you found needed to be redone, not because of performance so much as because it didn't fit together in the whole, would you redo it under the circumstances?  Don't know if Marshall ever had to make that choice, but I do know that, despite giving what I hear is her best performance in a film, the film doesn't fit together as a whole.  "Schizophrenic" seems to be the consensus.

And this despite it having a viable storyline.

This is why I singled out Lohan from the other actresses.  I wish I had penciled onto my ballot "Georgia Rule" after her name, because I can't help but feel that her behavior had an impact in how that film turned out.  Also, she, along with Jane Fonda and Felicity Huffman, should have demanded a better script.

And that's all from having read about it and watching the trailers.



Posted By: Jack Spencer Jr
Date Posted: January 23 2008 at 12:03pm
Schizophrenic is an apt description for this movie, for reasons describe by those better than I previously. It's kind of a shame, because, if they had stuck to the comedy, this movie could have doubled its box office. Sure, it would have been tepid and forgettable, but it would have made money.

The sad thing about this and everything else that has happened to Lindsay Lohan this past year is that people have forgotten that she can act. She demonstrates it in this movie, including one part where she has to act and put her character through a series of emotions while in close-up, but I can't in good conscious recommend this movie to other people.

At least her other clunker, I Know Who Killed Me, was much worse, so Georgia Rule will likely be forgotten in a few years, if I Know is remembered thanks to the Razzies and, if we're lucky, a cartoon series where the twins fight crime and solve mysteries with their bionic implants.


Posted By: Jack Spencer Jr
Date Posted: January 23 2008 at 12:09pm
Originally posted by Jacko

A comedy about molestation? Obviously you didn't see the film.


It disturbs me how similar your name is to mine.

It also disturbs me that you have the unbridled gall to accuse others of not seeing the movie when it's apparent you didn't see the movie, because is it, essentially, a comedy about molestation. Not that the molestation was ever funny, really. It just contained some rather broad comedy which did not gel with the melodramatic parts. The constant and sudden shift in tone undermines both potential stories until the audience ceases to care anymore, which is too bad. I was getting into it for a little while there.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: January 24 2008 at 1:37am

Originally posted by Jack Spencer Jr

The sad thing about this and everything else that has happened to Lindsay Lohan this past year is that people have forgotten that she can act.

One of the frequent complaints by critics in both this movie and IKWKM is that LiLo demonstrates a great ability to act.  I feel it's not her performance at issue here.  It's her ability to pick good roles and scripts to demonstrate her talents.  She needs to remember we're forking over good money to watch her star in crap.

Originally posted by Jack Spencer Jr

At least her other clunker, I Know Who Killed Me, was much worse, so Georgia Rule will likely be forgotten in a few years, if I Know is remembered thanks to the Razzies and, if we're lucky, a cartoon series where the twins fight crime and solve mysteries with their bionic implants.

YES!!  THAT'S IT!!  WHAT WE'RE ALL LOOKING FORWARD TO!! 

 



Posted By: synjones
Date Posted: September 18 2008 at 6:39am
I have gone through the forums from this discussion I've been thinking a lot about this film because of the current discussion though.I felt that earlier that if anyone could have done this storyline correct and not that the molestation was ever funny.
========================================
synjones

http://www.legalx.net - california dui



Print Page | Close Window