Print Page | Close Window

No Blood ’n’ Guts...No Vainglory!

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: FORUMS on NON-NOMINATED 2008 RELEASES w/LYNX!
Forum Name: RAMBO the 4th
Forum Discription: aka RAMBO GOES TO BURMA... aka PROJECT: OVERKILL... aka PARDON ME, BUT YOUR ARROW's THRU MY HEAD...
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1921
Printed Date: December 18 2014 at 9:20am


Topic: No Blood ’n’ Guts...No Vainglory!
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: No Blood ’n’ Guts...No Vainglory!
Date Posted: May 23 2007 at 6:04am

SLY IS BACK, WRITING and DIRECTING in the STYLE THAT'S ALREADY GARNERED HIM a CAREER TOTAL of 30 RAZZIE NOMINATIONS and a http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1110&PN=1 - RECORD 10 RAZZIE "WINS."  CHECK OUT the UN-RATED ON-LINE PROMO for JOHN RAMBO ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q967SF6s63U - LINK ) THEN POST YOUR THOUGHTS BELOW.

A THOUGHT to START OUR DISCUSSION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462499/ - RAMBO IV  , by ACTUAL TALLY, HAS a HIGHER BODY COUNT THAN ALL THREE PREVIOUS http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=RAMBO&btnG=Search+Razzies.com&domains=razzies.com&sitesearch=razzies.com - RAMBO MOVIES COMBINED...

RAMBO: "Peek and boo -- I slew you!" 

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

 



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



Replies:
Posted By: #1-Movie-Fan!
Date Posted: May 23 2007 at 6:34am

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

Response from Head RAZZberry: Given the timing of its release, I assume the promo was made to be shown at the 2007 Cannes Film Festival, to drum up international interest (and possibly financial backing) for the film. Since it was not made for theatrical release, and production on the film is still on-going, the MPAA has no reason to rate the promo. By the way, the http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462499/ - IMDb page for JOHN RAMBO orginally said its US release was set for Memorial Day weekend of 2008...



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


Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: May 23 2007 at 1:38pm

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

Response from Head RAZZberry: Sadly, the RAMBO series has alwaze been at least as popular in foreign territories as it is here in North America. 1985 Worst Picture "winner" http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=335&PN=2 - RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II had a worldwide gross of $300 million -- half of which was from foreign venues ( http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=rambo2.htm - LINK ). 1988 Worst Picture nominee http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=338&PN=2 - RAMBO III had a worldwide gross of nearly $190 million -- $135 million (or 71%) of which was earned outside the United States ( http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=rambo3.htm - LINK ).

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

 



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


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

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


Posted By: JoeBacon
Date Posted: May 26 2007 at 2:25pm
I'm still trying to recover from Rambo 2 or 3 (Lord, I cannot remember which
one because they were all the same movie), I was stupid enough to watch it
at the Pacific Theater in Hollywood and I remember all the wolf whistles
coming from guys when Stallone tears his shirt off.


Posted By: tomsmobr
Date Posted: May 28 2007 at 4:47am
I thought First Blood was pretty good Movie, but here some thing I will bet you never thought about when watched Rambo First Blood Part 2 is that Rambo had done a Reverse A Team what I mean by this is he was able shoot every one and no one was able shoot at him, but I will have to admit this I thought The Cartoon was pretty sweet.


Posted By: #1 Sly Fan
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 5:01am

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

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

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

 



-------------
YO: Quit Pickin' on Stallone!!


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 5:04pm
Originally posted by #1 Sly Fan

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

1. I'll bet we aren't.

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

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



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


Posted By: #1 Sly Fan
Date Posted: June 03 2007 at 6:12am

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

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



-------------
YO: Quit Pickin' on Stallone!!


Posted By: #1 Sly Fan
Date Posted: June 03 2007 at 6:28am

woah! You must've been "lurkin" when I posted my last item, to respond so fast, Head RAZZberry. FYI, here's a http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18667351/ - LINK to an MSNBC item in which Stallone says he was carrying the drugs, as prescribed by a doctor years ago, for a medical condition. That answer your question?? 

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

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



-------------
YO: Quit Pickin' on Stallone!!


Posted By: #1 Sly Fan
Date Posted: June 03 2007 at 6:32am

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

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



-------------
YO: Quit Pickin' on Stallone!!


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: June 04 2007 at 2:35am

#1 Sly Fan Wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Random House definition, "smuggle":

smug•gle

Pronunciation: (smug'ul), http://www.infoplease.com/pronkey.html" target=_blank onclick="return openPopup'/pronkey.html?win=pop','pronKey'; - [key]
v., -gled, -gling.


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

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



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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: June 04 2007 at 4:20pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Date Posted: June 05 2007 at 5:15am
Interesting concept, the idea of "re-negotiating our contract" with current celebs. But after 26 years of doing the RAZZIES, and seeing no indication that we've had much of an impact on the industry's attitudes and output, I wouldn't start holding my breath just yet...

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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: June 05 2007 at 3:07pm

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

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



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


Posted By: JoeBacon
Date Posted: June 05 2007 at 4:14pm



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

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

That clip alone has busted my gut so many times I may have to wear a
truss for the rest of my life.


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: June 06 2007 at 2:37am
We'll, it looks like the gang is all here once again to do battle against the merits of our all time Razzie King Sylvester "Dah Sly Guy" Stallone (Now I feel like we are all in a sequel). All we need now is a guest appearance from "Fan of 30 Years" and we should have a successful run of this franchise until the release of this turkey...Ooops, I mean movie...next year.

-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: June 06 2007 at 10:03am

Welcome back, ITbeast. For awhile there, I feared I'd have to face the onslaught alone.

Reluctant as I am to quote Bible, a verse from Ecclesiastes comes to mind: Perhaps someone should put it on a billboard on some well traveled ingress to Hollywood:

What has been is what will be,
         and what has been done is what will be done;
         there is nothing new under the sun.

Response from Head RAZZberry: If there were only one quote from the Bible I'd be willing to bet every Heathen in Hollywood could quote, that'd be the one... 
 



-------------
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: ITbeast
Date Posted: June 06 2007 at 4:06pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Welcome back, ITbeast. For awhile there, I feared I'd have to face the onslaught alone.

Nay my good Saturnwatcher...for in all things that is "Sly" (and usually silly),  I shall always have your back!. However...it looks like you and our esteemed King of RAZZ, have been doing a fine job (as usual) beating down #1 Sly Fan with out me using the hard cold facts that he seems to obviously over look (like his sacred idols "prescribed medications"). I wonder if #1 Sly Fan "prescribes" himself the same stuff. It would explain a lot of the fairy tale Bull S**t he would like us sane people to believe!

 



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: #1 Sly Fan
Date Posted: June 07 2007 at 2:43am

Now you're implying that I am a drug addict of some kind?? As if there's no other explanation for my being a Stallone fan! If that were true, then the world, with its tens of millions of us Sly Lovers around the globe, must have an abundance of drug addicts...

You people have no shame!



-------------
YO: Quit Pickin' on Stallone!!


Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: June 07 2007 at 4:49am
Don't you just love these places where there's a lot of love in the air?... 


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: June 07 2007 at 2:31pm

I'm quite confident that ITBeast's post was meant as a joke* (see definition below). Incidentally, the world is, in fact, chuck full of drug addicts. In reality, they grossly outnumber Stallone fans. Many of them are hopeless wretches who spend their days begging for pennies or commiting terrible crimes to support their habits. In other words, there are more people that would rather pollute their minds and bodies with terrible chemicals than go to see a Stallone movie. Perhaps they have a point. 

Originally posted by #1 Sly Fan

Now you're implying that I am a drug addict of some kind?? As if there's no other explanation for my being a Stallone fan! If that were true, then the world, with its tens of millions of us Sly Lovers around the globe, must have an abundance of drug addicts...

You people have no shame!

From Webster's Dictionary:

*joke
Pronunciation: 'jOk
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin jocus; perhaps akin to Old High German gehan to say, Sanskrit yAcati he asks
1 a : something said or done to provoke laughter; especially : a brief oral narrative with a climactic humorous twist b (1) : the humorous or ridiculous element in something (2) : an instance of jesting : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/kidding - KIDDING <can't take a joke> c : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/practical+joke - PRACTICAL JOKE d : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/laughingstock - LAUGHINGSTOCK
2 : something not to be taken seriously : a trifling matter <consider his skiing a joke -- Harold Callender> -- often used in negative constructions <it is no joke to be lost in the desert>



-------------
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: ITbeast
Date Posted: June 07 2007 at 6:52pm

#1 Sly Fan, First of all I want to start off by saying...I missed you . Now that I have gotten that out of the way I would like to first start off by thanking Saturnwatcher for being observant and realizing that I was indeed joking (This also goes to prove that most of the Stallone fans out there indeed have no since of humor ), and second proves one of Saturnwatchers theories correct, You do not read our post very well. 

Originally posted by #1 Sly Fan

Now you're implying that I am a drug addict of some kind??

Now I want you to read this very carefully, I would be devastated further if you took this the wrong way. Now what I meant by saying, "I wonder if #1 Sly Fan "prescribes" himself the same stuff" is that your continued insistence of misinterpretation of the facts of Mr. Stallone achievements (I.E. Big Box Office Champ of all time, Humanitarian, Biggest Razzie recipient...Oops, Sorry about that...the last part was true!...Anyways) after me and just about everybody in this forum have proven otherwise, you just continue to totally boggle my mind.

Please do not let this misunderstanding come between us, for I feel in your own unique way, that you represent the ideals, dreams, and goals of Mr. Stallone almost as well as Mr. Stallone himself and that you make us at this forum, more than ever stick to our original conclusions that we came to long ago about your idol.

 



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: #1 Sly Fan
Date Posted: June 09 2007 at 4:56am

If I thought you were sincere, I might accept your apology. But since almost every person who posts on this site is a wise-ass Stallone-hater, how can I??

As for your slurring my good name, no one knows who I am, so what damage has really been done? But in slandering the name of a world-class movie star and role model like Stallone, you have stepped over the line.

It's one thing to make fun of a famous person's public persona. You Razzie people and I simply disagree: While I find Stallone's movies compelling and his off-screen behavior admirable, you don't care for him and apparently never have.  But it's quite another thing to make groundless accusations about a celebrity's personal life and private habits.

When you are ready to apologize to both myself and my idol, maybe then I'll be willing to listen...



-------------
YO: Quit Pickin' on Stallone!!


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: June 09 2007 at 6:27am

#1 Sly Fan, I just want say that I (Along with just about everybody in this forum) probably represent that "Wise-ass" slurr in one degree or another (with pride of course), but saying that I am a "Stallone-Hater" just hurts me to the essential essence of my soul .

Originally posted by #1 Sly Fan

If I thought you were sincere, I might accept your apology. But since almost every person who posts on this site is a wise-ass Stallone-hater, how can I??

As for your slurring my good name, no one knows who I am, so what damage has really been done? But in slandering the name of a world-class movie star and role model like Stallone, you have stepped over the line.

It's one thing to make fun of a famous person's public persona. You Razzie people and I simply disagree: While I find Stallone's movies compelling and his off-screen behavior admirable, you don't care for him and apparently never have.  But it's quite another thing to make groundless accusations about a celebrity's personal life and private habits.

When you are ready to apologize to both myself and my idol, maybe then I'll be willing to listen...

As I have stated to you in several topic threads we have had on your beloved Idol that I (And a lot of other members, can't speak for everybody of course) do not hate Sylvester Stallone. Now once again with that being said I want to clarify that I do find about 85-90% percent of his work poorly executed, without thought, self-gratifying, and extremely UNBELIEVABLE!!. For someone early in his career that did make a good movie like the 1st 2 Rocky's, Nighthawks, and just recently Rocky Balboa (I will probably hear some crap over the last one from Saturnwatcher and Head RAZZ) to reward the rest of the General public with all the other trash for last 25 years (with the exception of Rocky Balboa). I just can't buy into your obsessive delusions that can excuse Mr. Stallone for his actions both on and off the screen like you can when all the facts state otherwise. I have not said or stated anything that your Idol has not already done for himself.

But please, continue with your pride and devotion to Mr. Stallone, Like I told "Fan of 30 years" once, we all need heroes, just please stop trying to push your fever on us, because we are not buying into it. Now, I will step off my soap box.

Honestly, I think at the end of the day #1 Sly Fan, you just need one EXTREMELY BIG group hug .



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: ArtGirl138
Date Posted: June 10 2007 at 9:22am

Geez, where do these people come from?!

#1 Sly Fan, this forum doesn't hate Sylvester Stallone as a person. We just happen to think that most of his work is dreck at best. (You can't honestly tell me ALL his movies are good...) 

As for the "slander" bit, I believe saturnwatcher was simply making an observation on the amount of drugs Sly had. I have my own thoughts about the incident, but I guess I can't say them without getting accused of libel. 

And your explanation for how he's a *snerk* "humanitarian"? You're saying all his movies were inspiring?  

Yeah...I was REAL inspired by Spy Kids 3-D...



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


Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: June 10 2007 at 2:01pm

NEIL SIMON:  Uplifting?  Much like Liberace's Cross-Your-Heart bra? 

(SCTV holiday episode #1, sort of) 

 

I myself wonder deeply what could possibly have convinced him to take the Spy Kids gig, which seems like nothing he'd be interested in ordinarily.  Perhaps the international dealers he got the drugs off of currently blackmailed him into it back then, which would seem the most rational explanation, really. 



Posted By: #1 Sly Fan
Date Posted: June 11 2007 at 2:16am

Yo, Artgirl: I never said ALL of his movies were good, just that they're nowhere near as bad as you Razzie people have made them out to be, and that he was an inspiration to me and millions of others by creating characters like Rocky.

As for the newest accusation, that Sly is some kind of international drug smuggler on the side and takes movie roles because he's black-mailed into doing so by his suppliers, I assume this is another of your "jokes"... 

Response from Head RAZZberry: As the #1 Defender of Hiz Sly-Ness on this Forum, this will probably upset you no end, but I can't resist, given Artgirl's mention of SPY KIDS 3-D. When I was preparing that year's RAZZIE Nominating Ballot, I considered listing Stallone individually for each of the 5 characters he played in that film, just to see if Stallone alone could fill the entire category of Worst Supporting Actor all by himself. I eventually decided, funny as the idea was, it would be unfair to four other sucky actors who'd otherwise get the "recognition" they so badly deserved. Listed once for those five wretched impersonations, he still "won" his 28th or 29th RAZZIE nomination, and his 10th Award, cementing his place as our Awl-Time Cham-Peen ( http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1110&PN=1&TPN=1 - LINK )...

 



-------------
YO: Quit Pickin' on Stallone!!


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: June 11 2007 at 4:28am

As much as I hate agreeing with Sly-ness's #1 Fan, I do agree that Stallone being a international drug dealer would be a big stretch of the imagination, even for Sylvester Stallone (who lost his imagination way back in the early 80's...some would say he never had it to begin with!).  

Originally posted by wetbandit82

I myself wonder deeply what could possibly have convinced him to take the Spy Kids gig, which seems like nothing he'd be interested in ordinarily.  Perhaps the international dealers he got the drugs off of currently blackmailed him into it back then, which would seem the most rational explanation, really. 

On the subject of Stallone’s all time RAZZIE awarded multi-dysfunctional performance in Spy Kids 3D, In all seriousness I am about 100% sure he did it for the big fat pay check that Rodriguez gave him to be in it (Why I can not answer, Maybe Stallone gave Rodriquez a sample of that specially prescribed "Workout Milkshake" that he takes).

NOTE to HeadRAZZberry: I suggest we add a category next year for the 2007 RAZZIE awards for the worst of the worst RAZZIE Nominated/Awarded Roles of Sylvester Stallone.

UPDATE: Here is Stallone's "official" reason from the http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338459/trivia - IMDB  website as to the reason why Stallone accepted the role In Spy Kids 3D: "Sylvester Stallone said in an interview that he asked his kids about the previous Spy Kids movies and if he should accept the role in the third installment."



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: June 11 2007 at 12:23pm

Just this morning I came up with this thought for a 5th film in this series should they decide for whatever reason to keep it going:  RAMBO VS. BILLY JACK (after all, what could be more amusing than perhaps the 2 most negative characters in screen history tearing away at each other?).  The premise:  Billy's Freedom School Schizophrenics uncover some big and absurd government cover-up in the Pentagon.  Colonel Trautman convinced Rambo to go shut down the investigation for them.  Our two leads meet up and spend the next 3 hours pointlessly beating, strangling and otherwise trying to violently incapacitate each other, taking time every now and then to wax prophetic about their nihilistic philosophies.  Eventually with 10 minutes to go, they realize the Evil Establishment has been using them and react with extreme prejudice, wiping out the entire government and army and half of Washington in the pursuit of "equity," then close with pandering speeches.   



Posted By: azabkk
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 8:48am

This is sad, i just watched the preview on youtube and seriously, he's too old. I think I could kick his ass....

Response from Head RAZZberry: Sadder still, after watching the preview ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxpUaLD6LhI - LINK ) he looks so old that I think maybe even Jessica Simpson could kick his ass... 



-------------
www.ihatejessicasimpson.com


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 1:45pm
Just saw the trailer and the 1st half was tolerable...The last half was completely mindless. Needless to say this will most likely will not be receiving a PG-13 rating.

-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: June 19 2007 at 9:08am

Back from vacation...

Obviously, a few points are worth reiterating: 

1. I don't personally "hate"  Stallone, although I don't have a great deal of respect for his career body of work, nor do I feel there is reason to respect his off-screen conduct over the past few years.  That does not constitute hate for the man. Just a profound lack of respect. There is a signficant difference. I hate Osama Bin Laden because he masterminded the slaughter of 3000 innocent people. I hate Adolph Hitler because he ordered the deaths of 6 million innocent souls, and touched off a war that caused 25 million people to die needlessly. My feelings for the current occupant of the White House are approaching hatred, because he initiated a pointless, unwinnable conflict in the Middle East which has needlessly ended the lives of more Americans than bin Laden's actions. I just view Stallone as a sort of self-consumed jerk without a great deal of talent. I hope you can fathom the very significant difference.

2. Any reference to Stallone as an international drug smuggler is, sadly, perfectly legitimate. He was convicted by Australian courts.

3. With all due respect, ItBeast, no one has accused him of being a dealer although he certainly owes the public, from which he profited handsomely over the course of his very public life, some more suitable explanation for his actions than we have heard.

4. At the point in which any individual accepts the benefits of celebrity, they pretty much surrender any authority to object when the public questions their misbehavior. Whether or not that is fair or just is immaterial. If the individual involved objects, they have three options:

(a) Exercise extreme discretion when behaving in a socially unacceptable or illegal manner

(b) Don't behave in a socially unacceptable or illegal manner

(c) Bow out of the spotlight and sacrifice the rewards and perks of celebrity.

5. Yes, I personally not only confess to the label of "wiseass." I will wear it with some pride.

6. I was personally incorrect about Rocky Balboa. It wasn't a great film, probably not even a good one, but certainly not a Razzable one.

 



-------------
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: ITbeast
Date Posted: June 20 2007 at 3:06am

Saturnwatcher, Welcome back from your vacation, hope the time off gave you an opportunity to clear your mind and feed the soul (or so it goes)...As you can see I was holding down the fort while you were re-charging your batteries in the land of sun and fun (At least I hope it was sun and some fun).

Have not heard a peep from Stallone's #1 wayward son since my last post back to him (Probably off somewhere thinking of new things that Stallone has never achieved or never done for humanity). Hope we did not hurt his feelings too bad.

Again, Welcome back!



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: June 20 2007 at 10:39am

Thank you, it's good to be home. My wife and I spent a couple days on Nantucket Island, then the rest of the week exploring Boston. There wasn't a whole lot of sunshine during the course of the week, but the Rockies pounded the Red Sox twice, which made the trip more than worthwhile.

Actually, Boston is always a very interesting place to visit because of the incredible amount of history in the area. On the downside, the people there drive like crap, and there isn't an accurate map of the city in existance. Still, it was a very enjoyable week.



-------------
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: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 1:59am

Originally posted by HeadRAZZBerry

Interesting concept, the idea of "re-negotiating our contract" with current celebs. But after 26 years of doing the RAZZIES, and seeing no indication that we've had much of an impact on the industry's attitudes and output, I wouldn't start holding my breath just yet...

While reading this thread, something occurred to me.  As much as "re-negotiating our contract" with celebrities over their bad behavior, it occurred to me that many of our best artists, whether they be authors, poets, painters, sculptors, musicians, composers or actors, have been severely mentally ill, and it seemed they took their mental illness and turned it into art.  What do we do with these people?

Of course, when I talk about these artists, I'm not talking about Sly. . . .



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 2:18am

I think that you are absolutely correct in noting that great genious in any endeavor, whether it be music, art or even science and other areas has often been accompanied by at least a tinge of mental illness. Nonetheless, I think we can draw critical distinctions between the likes of Mozart, Paris Hilton and Mel Gibson. One of these things is not like the others.

In our society, we tend to give our celebrities so much free reign that they develop a sense of entitlement. The area where it bothers me most of late is professional sports, where those who eventually become professional athletes have often been singled out for their talents and granted all sorts of privilages from an early age. By the time they reach young adulthood, they are spoiled brats with a lot of money and no social conscious whatsoever.

Society has never been particularly good at recognizing sublime contributions temporally, but I daresay that we won't be listening to a lot of rap music 50 years from now (I'll go out on a limb and predict I won't be listening to any music that doesn't come from a harp by then, and even that propostion is doubtful, according to many), nor are crowds going to gather for any distant future Adam Sandler film festival. If we are going to grant these people some sort of heroic stature amongst us, I don't think its generally too much to ask that they at least make some effort to act the part. Then when that one truly great genious with natural eccentricities arrives amongst us, hopefully we will be more willing to tolerate them.



-------------
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: June 27 2007 at 12:23am

Sometimes belaboring a point almost becomes a matter of public service, and, golly gee, every once in awhile even we of the "wiseass" persuasion actually have an inking of knowledge about what we blow off about. How sadly amusing.

If one has been living in a cave the past few days, said individual might well puzzle over how a discussion of the terrible tragedy that befell the Chris Benoit family could possibly tie in to our discussions of Sylvestor Stallone and his recent legal challenges overseas. For those living in the light of day, the matter should be relatively obvious.

Among the possesions found in the Benoit household was a quantity of steroids. Perhaps not HGH specifically (although the police mentioned "other prescription medications" as yet not identified), but HGH is an anabolic steroid alternative, works chemically on the body almost identically and has the same side effects.  These are extraordinarily dangerous substances even when administered  and used properly. Their misuse can create walking timebombs. It can not be established that Benoit's unfortunate meltdown was directly attributable to steroid use, however, that it was a contributing factor is a reasonable hypothesis. It has long been suspected that these drugs can lead to violence as a frequent side effect.

Naturally, the WWE immediately issued a statement that Benoit had recently tested negative for steroid use. The notion that the WWE actively attempts to discourage its performers from using steroids is the biggest load of B.S. we have heard since, well, the last time either Bush or Cheney opened their piehole (Vince McMahon did not develop his physique by workout alone). If anyone from the WWE wants to take offense at that statement, click on my name and you'll discover my email addy. I'll gladly supply you with further contact details. And when we meet in court, I hope you'll remember the part about having to put your hand on the Bible and issuing an oath prior to saying whatever you intend to say. Most of your previous and current performers are going to say something very different.

The bottom line here is that if Stallone is using HGH in quantities suggested by what he tried to smuggle into Australia, someone needs to sit the man down and have a serious discussion with him. If he didn't have them for personal use, just what WERE his intentions? I think it's time someone comes forward with some answers.

Out of courtesy and time constraints, I'll spare you a listing of the links, but a Google search on "steroids and violence" will yield 1,190,000 relevant links. Yes, a correlation has been established.



-------------
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: #1 Sly Fan
Date Posted: June 27 2007 at 1:33am

Okay, so a "correlation" between steroid abuse and violence has been established. How does this necessarily make Stallone some kind of villain? And why do you keep suggesting, with no real evidence to back it up, that Sly was trying to smuggle drugs to possibly deal them? Why would someone of his wealth and stature do something so boneheaded??

By the way, your use of words like "correlation" supports my contention that you Razzie people are all "wiseasses." Using words that ordinary folks can understand suggestes you care to be understood, rather than revered. Using words that 90% of the population have never heard before (let alone ever use in daily conversation) makes you all seem effite and smart ass... 

Response from Head RAZZberry: Trying to convince us you're a Regular Joe and we're all Super Snobs, you wind up using a word like "effete" -- A word that, by your using it, belies your very point. I must say, I am both impressed and perplexed that someone with your command of language would spend his time defending someone like Sylvester Stallone, whose films' dialogue (most of which he himself "writes") rarely rises above the level of grunts, platitudes and vulgarisms... 



-------------
YO: Quit Pickin' on Stallone!!


Posted By: #1 Sly Fan
Date Posted: June 27 2007 at 1:41am
SNOBS!!!

-------------
YO: Quit Pickin' on Stallone!!


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: June 27 2007 at 3:12am

Well, so much for thinking that #1 Sly Fan was of higher Education and eloquence. My take take on this is that #1 Sly Fan was or is a big fat nerdy kid (some what like my boy Alfred E. Newman, posted below)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206&version=31">Alfred E. Neuman

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.eui.eu/Personal/Researchers/malamud/Alfred%2520E.%2520Neuman%2520milk.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.eui.eu/Personal/Researchers/malamud/Idols.html&h=807&w=623&sz=153&tbnid=Z5OEXhUD0g0nwM:&tbnh=143&tbnw=110&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dalfred%2Be.%2Bneuman%26um%3D1&start=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=1 -  

 and the only person he could look up to while being picked on, bullied, and ridiculed was a person that was his exact opposite in intelligence and looks (Like #1 Sly Fan's Boy, also Posted below)

Sylvester Stallone - Rocky III Photo

to be like in his mind the person that #1 Sly Fan would think that everybody would respect or idolize.

In the end I think what #1 Sly Fan Needs is what I have stated before in this thread, just ONE BIG GROUP HUG!!!

 



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: June 27 2007 at 5:15am

First of all, let me state AGAIN Stallone WAS convicted of smuggling. As for the suggestion of selling, I point out for the umpteenth time that the quantity of the drug he possessed was excessive and dangerous. I just want to know what he was doing with it. If that quantity was maintained for personal use, the man could well be on a path to becoming a danger to himself and others. That surely is a red flag an acre wide. If he had other intents, I think he ought to come clean.

Okay, so a "correlation" between steroid abuse and violence has been established. How does this necessarily make Stallone some kind of villain? And why do you keep suggesting, with no real evidence to back it up, that Sly was trying to smuggle drugs to possibly deal them?

I wasn't personally aware that "correlation" is a particularly uncommon word. However, I am not in the practise of talking down to people, a charge I suspect you would be equally willing to level given the opportunity. Having followed the discourse here for some time, I am quite confident that most of the people who regularly post here can follow my contributions without difficulty...barring those times that typos or poor proof reading render them nearly unintelligible. I owe a debt of gratitude to our Head Razz for bailing me out once or twice in those instances.

Incidentally, I've already pleaded guilty to the charge of "smart ass" or at least "wise ass" but surely there is no signficant difference. It doesn't affect my point in this instance. 

By the way, your use of words like "correlation" supports my contention that you Razzie people are all "wiseasses." Using words that ordinary folks can understand suggests you care to be understood, rather than revered.



-------------
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: ITbeast
Date Posted: June 27 2007 at 5:54am

I too have already pleaded "No Contest" (On all 30 or so counts) on the charge of being a "Smart Ass" and/or "Wise Ass" (either way it's all about my a$$!). I too also owe a great debt of thanks to the HeadRAZZ for bailing my a$$ (there's that a$$ again) out on a constant basis because fixing my horrible grammar skills.

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

I wasn't personally aware that "correlation" is a particularly uncommon word. However, I am not in the practise of talking down to people, a charge I suspect you would be equally willing to level given the opportunity. Having followed the discourse here for some time, I am quite confident that most of the people who regularly post here can follow my contributions without difficulty...barring those times that typos or poor proof reading render them nearly unintelligible. I owe a debt of gratitude to our Head Razz for bailing me out once or twice in those instances.

Incidentally, I've already pleaded guilty to the charge of "smart ass" or at least "wise ass" but surely there is no significant difference. It doesn't affect my point in this instance.

 



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: June 27 2007 at 9:32am

Hmmm..."effete"

I have been a human being on this planet for 50 years and some odd months. I have put pen to paper, pounded a typewriter, assembled and launched countless words into cyberspace and yet, this is the first time I have ever constructed that particular word. Funny how the best things in life can just pass you by.

#1 Sly Fan has painted the contributers to this board with a rather broad brush, calling all of us snobs based upon, as close as I can determine, our abilities to use and comprehend words containing more than one syllable. I confess that I have never treated myself to the experience of sampling a Stallone fan board, but the impression is suggested that one would read a lot of posts along the line of:

Yo! Sly rocks!

I guess I shall continue to exhaust a few idol moments now and then here with the rest of the snobs and wise-a$$es. However, a really sticky issue presents itself. I certainly don't want to discourage the Sly fans from coming here and defending their man and his work, should they feel so inclined. Perhaps in the future, I'll hire on the 3rd grader two condos down to edit my posts for their edification.

Without clear intent, I think #1 Sly Fan has done a much more effective job of slamming his commerades on the Sly board than us.



-------------
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: ITbeast
Date Posted: June 27 2007 at 9:42am
HERE HERE! 

-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: #1 Sly Fan
Date Posted: July 09 2007 at 7:09am

Yo, Dudes...I'm back from my vacation. 

I notice the string discussing Sly's latest may have gone stale...Did ya miss me??? 

 



-------------
YO: Quit Pickin' on Stallone!!


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: July 09 2007 at 8:57am

Always!!!...Sly Bashing is just not the same without you to throw in your misguided (If not just plain wrong) facts about how Stallone is the King of Your Universe!

On a serious note, hope you enjoyed your vacation.

While you have been gone we have been hit-ten up Robin Williams and Michael Bay for their latest efforts (Except Michael Bay may have actually produced something decent this time around).

Now Something that may totally blow your Stallone Bandanna off yer head: We've actually been promoting "Live Free or Die Hard" as the summer action flick of the year (HeadRAZZ approved!!!).  Also, if I remember right, Bruce Willis is a Pal of yours?!?

We'll be looking for yah!



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: September 06 2007 at 12:11pm
Originally posted by #1 Sly Fan

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

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

                                                                                           I Second that!

-------------
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: wetbandit82
Date Posted: October 12 2007 at 1:13pm

This project's just been retitled, and will now be known as RAMBO:  TO HELL AND BACK.  Seems accurate, given how purely hellish previous entries have proven to be! 

 



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


Posted By: tomsmobr
Date Posted: November 14 2007 at 3:32pm

I have The Offical Trailer at my site. Just go to: Slamline.com...  



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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: November 15 2007 at 12:53pm

That one scene where he's pounding out his own machete...is that supposed to put him in the same league as the Samurai?

 



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


Posted By: tomsmobr
Date Posted: November 15 2007 at 1:04pm
Did you get all the way to the end, where Stallone makes the corny speech?? 

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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: November 15 2007 at 6:40pm

Yeah.  Something like, "Either live for nothing...or die for something." 

 



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


Posted By: underage
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 12:06am

SYLVESTER STALLONE WILL BE BACK AND AS FAMOUS AS HE WAS IN THE 80's... 

wait and see! 



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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 2:27am
You know, Sly did prove us wrong with Rocky Balboa.  I don't see how he could do the same with Rambo, though. 

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


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 4:56pm
I was genuinely surprised with how much I liked Rocky Balboa, in fact I thought that it should have been given a special Razzie award for biggest disappointment (Rocky 6 DOESN'T suck... what happened?) That being said, I'm not sure this will have the same success. Although that one line he said to the Christian dude did have me laughing, in a good way:

"You guys bringing guns?"

"No, of course not."

"Then you ain't changing nothing."


-------------
I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic f**king hatreds! George Carlin


Posted By: #1 Sly Fan
Date Posted: November 19 2007 at 12:20pm

Message for "underage" -- You go, boy!

WE'RE RIGHT and these Razzie guys (as usual) are ALL WRONG!!! 

 



-------------
YO: Quit Pickin' on Stallone!!


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: November 20 2007 at 5:06pm
Stop talking to yourself #1 Sly Fan! You're not fooling anyone, and besides, the only major thing the Razzies got wrong for 2006 was giving Worst Director to M. Night. Yes, Lady in the Water sucked something else. But come on -- you give him the Razzie over Uwe Boll? That was a travesty! But, back to the subject at hand: Sly Fan, please just shut up. You're making yourself look like an idiot.


-------------
I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic f**king hatreds! George Carlin


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 1:49am

cvcjr13 wrote:

That one scene where he's pounding out his own machete

A scene with Sly pounding his machete? Well, at least THAT is something we haven't seen on film. Not that we'd want to.

#1Slyfan wrote:

WE'RE RIGHT and these Razzie guys (as usual) are ALL WRONG!!! 

Sorry to disappoint you #1, but our track record in regard to Sly's movies is pretty good. As we have all admitted, Rocky Balboa was better than we expected, but it was a long way, a long long way, a long long long way from the Academy Award contender, big box office smash you were predicting. To call it a mediocre effort would be a fair assessment; that borders upon spectacular for a Stallone effort, but it's not much to write home about by the general standards of the artform.

Revel in and celebrate a career body of trash if you so wish...I couldn't personally care less where anyone's tastes fall.

But don't criticize us for declining to wallow with you. 



-------------
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: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: December 11 2007 at 1:48pm

Looks like Sly's finally returning to the bad/good movies he made in the 80s'. "Over The Top" was more hilarious than "Hot Rod!" 

 



-------------
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: tomsmobr
Date Posted: December 11 2007 at 2:50pm
Here's a LINK to see the new Trailer on The Rambo Offical Website, which features "Let The Body Hit The Floor":       http://movies.break.com/rambo/ - http://movies.break.com/rambo/

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


Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Date Posted: January 08 2008 at 4:54am

One of our Voting Members attended a pre-release screening, and sent us this review:

"Just saw it.  Yikes!  Excruciating.  Atrocities for atrocities' sake for "effect" and "statement". It may be the most violent movie ever made.  Bodies blown up real good. The bad filmmaking is equally matched by the bad taste.  Seems like the movie is 25 years old already.  Best line: "How much longer in this ancient piece of sh*t?".

It also makes a number of "statements," among them:

  1. Pacifists are naïve assholes.  Who don’t listen and deserve to get blown up.
  2. Americans are good...Except asshole Pacifists.
  3. Blondes are hot – especially to Asians
  4. Asians are evil.  Well, the ones who don’t speak English.  The rest are good...as guides.
  5. South Africans are arrogant.  Especially the ones with shaved heads.
  6. You can’t come be happy 'til you  “wrestle your demons”.
  7. Rambo’s 30 year-old duffle bag is still in good shape.
  8. CGI effects can really make blown-apart bodies look realistic.

I can't add more than that...except one last word:  CONTENDER!" 



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


Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: January 08 2008 at 12:42pm
What was the exact body count, did they say?  It would interesting to know, if nothing else, whether it breaks Part II's record--or even Hollywood's record for it might be in the first place.   


Posted By: tomsmobr
Date Posted: January 08 2008 at 1:45pm

Also I was wondering if Rambo shoots others, but nobody's able to shoot him?? Sly did that repeatedly in Rambo Part 2...

 



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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: January 09 2008 at 7:41am

Most violent movie ever made? Crickey! Stallone is not only trying to outdo himself, he's going after Mel Gibson! That should make for an interesting confrontation in Rambo IV.

Yet, I am depressed. Stallone's fans, or at least one of his most ardent ones, have labeled me a "wisea$$." Now Stallone himself has taken up George W. Bush's clarion call to accuse me of being a bad American, simply because I regard the ancient practise of war as an obsolete and usually unnecessary instrument of statecraft. How much better might the world be were we to follow the notion, "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out." Ah yes, the neo-con/Rambo way!

 

Oh course, there was, once upon a time, a little guy in India who freed the second most populous nation on the planet without firing a shot. He noted that an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth philosophy tended to leave us with a lot of blind, toothless people. An American man with black skin brought the problems of racial inequity to the forefront in the 60's, not with riots or gunfire, but with peaceful marches, sit-ins and work stoppages. Maybe there is something to pacifism that the likes of Stallone and Bush should look into more deeply. I'll put away my soapbox now...we now resume normal programming....



-------------
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: moat
Date Posted: January 12 2008 at 9:18pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Now Stallone himself has taken up George W. Bush's clarion call to accuse me of being a bad American, simply because I regard the ancient practise of war as an obsolete and usually unnecessary instrument of statecraft. How much better might the world be were we to follow the notion, "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out." Ah yes, the neo-con/Rambo way!


What's amazing is how this film's Reagan-era ethics are still applicable in the neo-con world we now live in. The right-wing's attitude toward violence hasn't really changed despite the new philosophy ruling their faction. However, I think this film is a little late to the party. The thing is, right now the majority country is in a state of distrust toward violence as a solution (that's what people are saying, anyway), at least more so than before the ongoing vendetta against the people of the Middle East began. This leads me to wonder how audiences will respond to the film's pro-violence implications. Most likely viewers won't bother connecting the film's ideology to real world situations, but on the off chance people's tastes in cinema reflect their ethics, this film's degree of success (failure) may very well be telling of the true state of mind the nation's people are in. That's assuming that their ethics really are a factor in how they receive films.

On another note, the comparisons between this film and Rocky Balboa's chances at achieving some level of quality aren't valid. I make this conclusion, because the Rocky franchise, unlike the First Blood films, actually began with a good motion picture. First Blood was not a very good film, so this notion that the new Rambo could somehow be a return to glory in a similar fashion to Stallone's most recent boxing opus is a false assertion. Also, Rocky Balboa was overrated. There, I said it.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: January 13 2008 at 5:14pm

Originally posted by moat

. Also, Rocky Balboa was overrated. There, I said it.

Agreed. Actually, nobody here, aside from the few ardent Stallone worshippers that pop in now and then, spent much time singing the praises of Rocky Balboa. At best, most of us simply acknowledged that it wasn't anywhere near as bad as we thought it would be. In my estimation, it would be far more accurate to label the original Rocky as "overrated."

Not a bad film to be sure, but certainly one of the most, if not the most, undeserving Best Picture Oscar winners in the history of little naked men statues. ( Of course, The Greatest Show On Earth and Titanic are in that discussion.) Considering the other films that were nominated the year Rocky was elevated to cinematic immortality, I think it becomes even more evident just how undeserving it really was. 

Response from Head RAZZberry: Yes, indeed! Among the other four films ROCKY "stole" Best Picture from were ALL THE RPESIDENTS' MEN, NETWORK and TAXI DRIVER, all of which, from the perspective of 30 years later, were far better movies. The fifth contender was BOUND FOR GLORY (a quite well made biopic of singer/songwriter Woody Guthrie) which few people today even remember...

 



-------------
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: Berrynoia
Date Posted: January 14 2008 at 11:56pm

I thought of a slim possibility of Stallone actually having a winning streak (emphasis on "slim").  However, I am hearing early reports that Rambo is another one of those films following the Not Screened for Critics trend.



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


Posted By: CDNDestroyer
Date Posted: January 20 2008 at 3:14am
Rocky Balboa I think worked because it didn't really try anything really risky or extravagent other than making a Rocky film 16 years later when Stallone was in his '60s.

It knew it was on shaky ground after the last few weak-to-terrible sequels so it played it safe and focussed on what made the first movie good.  A nice, underdog film about character development in the face of a challenge that requires training and discipline.  It wasn't trying to restart the series, it wasn't trying to revive Stallone's career (though knowing that was a possible side effect) but just a film directed for Rocky fans.

If Rambo does the same thing; pure non-stop violence, shooting and action without any political subtext like that it will be fun for nostalgic or popcorn purposes.  Don't get me wrong, I don't expect a masterpiece nor one I'll remember for the rest of the year.  Just a fun one-shot film.

Right now I'm going to say something very unpopular: I liked Rambo 2.  Maybe it was hated at the time of it's release in 1985, but I actually liked it for what it was.  Yes, Stallone's acting was bad and the violence near the end reached absurd levels...but it wasn't enough for me to call it among the worst ever.



Posted By: Mrs. Magnatech
Date Posted: January 21 2008 at 3:32pm
I'm probably going to see this turd on Friday...I'll report back after I see it


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: January 21 2008 at 3:34pm

At the risk of saying something that might be construed as praise for Stallone, I can't think of anything more risky than making another Rocky sequel after 16 years. I'll give Stallone a measure of credit for navigating that minefield successfully, that being defined by not reducing himself and his career to the unequivocal status of "laughing stock."

...So far. The guess here is that Rambo IV will accomplish the feat.



-------------
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: wetbandit82
Date Posted: January 21 2008 at 5:04pm

Originally posted by Mrs. Magnatech

I'm probably going to see this turd on Friday...I'll report back after I see it
  

 

Try and keep track of the exact body count for us, so we can see if this has what it takes to become the bloodiest movie ever (with all due respect to Charlie Sheen, who thought he did in Hot Shots 2). 



Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: January 24 2008 at 6:41am

I know we have been waiting for over 2 years to give Stallone what he deserves and I think part of the wait is now over, the only thing that sucks is we can't give him is long sought out Life time achievement until 2009. I am going to be seeing this masterpiece Friday, but I just wanted to share some of the early critic blastings....I means praises (even the positive ones) from http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/john_rambo/ - Rotten Tomatoes , here are a few samples...

"The original Rambo movie was actually titled First Blood...This one should be called Entirely Too Much Blood."

" Nonstop shooting, gouging and dynamiting of fleeing civilians, with Rambo not too shy either to get into a little ripping out of throats with bare hands and selective disemboweling too."

" Stays on the verge of being a rousing dumbass flick at all times -- you've never seen so many mid-air organs -- yet its combination of outrageous bodily trauma and beagle-eyed moments of reflection never quite makes it go over the top."

" The battle sequences are so muddled in execution that we can't tell who's killing whom. Which may have been the point, but knowing Stallone -- and Rambo -- one doubts that very much."

"Rambo earns the Red Badge of Carnage" (That was a fresh review)

"Stallone is back. Rambo is back. It even ends with a nice bookend to First Blood. You might pick apart some of the plot or some of the mercenary dialog, but that's not the point. The point is to give Rambo fans the ultimate Rambo movie" (or in this case, Stallone Fans!, another Fresh Review)

"He's BAAAACCCCKKKK"!

 

 

 



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: January 24 2008 at 6:54am
Originally posted by underage

SYLVESTER STALLONE WILL BE BACK AND AS FAMOUS AS HE WAS IN THE 80's... 

wait and see! 

Hey wait a minute....I thought Stallone was in his 80's and just famous for being bad (At film making)!



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: January 24 2008 at 7:01am

Originally posted by CDNDestroyer


Right now I'm going to say something very unpopular: I liked Rambo 2.  Maybe it was hated at the time of it's release in 1985, but I actually liked it for what it was.  Yes, Stallone's acting was bad and the violence near the end reached absurd levels...but it wasn't enough for me to call it among the worst ever.

Don't worry you weren't the only one that year...Allot of us made the same mistake and actually paid good money that year to see that movie, including me. Never been the same since.

 



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: thomsonmg2000
Date Posted: January 24 2008 at 1:00pm
I was hoping for this film, like Rocky Balboa, to be surprisingly good. Unfortunately, judging by the reviews, it's gonna suck 

-------------
Seltzerberg is back?

OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!

http://www.disastermovie.org
http://www.vampiressuck.org/


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: January 25 2008 at 2:23am

Rambo IV stands at 29% at RT this morning, and the guess from this quarter is that it will hang around at about that number, or drop a bit. Even the postive reviews are making reference to the extreme violence, evidently even topping the bar set by Mel Gibson in his recent efforts. Personally, I find that appalling.



-------------
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: tomsmobr
Date Posted: January 25 2008 at 5:33am

I saw this morning that Rambo has gone to 33% where as Untracable which stars one of my favorite actresses Diane Lane has gone to 13%



Posted By: Mrs. Magnatech
Date Posted: January 25 2008 at 12:42pm

I just got back from seeing this. First of all, let me just say that this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen, and I've seen a ton of bad movies.  The "plot" involves Sly beating people, blowing up people, maiming people, ripping people's heads off, shooting people, and stabbing people, punctuated by pseudo-arty black-and-white flashbacks, leaden dialogue, and lots of close-ups of Sly staring into space, trying to look "pensive." Oh, and there's this missionary guy who tries to tell Sly that violence is wrong, but by the end of the movie he is beating a guy to death with a rock. Sly not only starred in this crap, he also co-wrote and directed it, which means he's eligible for not one, but three Razzies next year. I'm sure he tried to outsmart us by releasing Rambo in January, hoping we'd forget about it by December...but we won't forget, Sly! We won't forget!

I saw this morning that Rambo has gone to 33% where as Untracable which stars one of my favorite actresses Diane Lane has gone to 13%

Any "critic" who gave this a good review deserves to be fired, pronto



Posted By: Sanndman228715
Date Posted: January 25 2008 at 1:38pm
To be fair, there are two movies that came out on Friday that are getting worse reviews (Meet the spartans, and Untraceable), adding on One Missed Call, and Dungeon Siege, 2008 isn't shaping up to be a great year for Cinema so far.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: January 25 2008 at 2:34pm
At this pace, 2008 may give 2006 a run for its Razzies. . . .


Posted By: Mrs. Magnatech
Date Posted: January 25 2008 at 4:16pm

To be fair, there are two movies that came out on Friday that are getting worse reviews (Meet the spartans, and Untraceable)

 

Reviews mean nothing. Rambo is as bad as a movie can possibly be. Meet the Spartans might be as bad as Rambo, but I seriously doubt Untraceable is that bad. 



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: January 25 2008 at 4:58pm

In the trailer, he also appeared to be trying to kill a lake with a bow and arrow.  This movie did climb a little to 33%, although it scored only in the upper 20's with the top critics, and the only critics that seemed to be entertained by it were actually praising the violence level.  I find that pretty disturbing. This may not end up being the worst movie of the year, Strange Wilderness (which comes out soon) may score the knock-out, but I think Sly may earn the Worst Career Achievement Razzie with this effort, if for no other reason than demonstrating that he can create a more violent movie than Mel Gibson! 

Curiously, not even the ardent Sly apologists have been around to defend this one. The guess here is that, unless they are direct blood decendants of Vlad the Impaler, even they may be a little embarrased by the over-the-top violence of this effort. 

Originally posted by Mrs. Magnatech

  The "plot" involves Sly beating people, blowing up people, maiming people, ripping people's heads off, shooting people, and stabbing people...



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


Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: January 27 2008 at 3:50pm

The IMDB user rating and the RT crix ratings are pointing in opposite directions, as of the time of this post.

RT: 38% positive, average score 4.9
IMDB: 8.5/10, Top 250: #195

That means that an early Razzie contender is ranked among classics like the original Terminator and Toy Story!



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


Posted By: moat
Date Posted: January 27 2008 at 7:53pm

This film's presence in the top 250 says more about the IMDb voters than it does about RAMBO. They may as well get rid of their rankings if their voters are going to be this idiotic! 

Response from Head RAZZberry: Has it occurred to anyone that a concerted effort to "skew" the votes at IMDb could be going on? While IMDb users are clearly of a different stripe than the critics at RT, the disparity between the rankings is striking enough that it makes me wonder: Could the movie ranking equivalent of Florida 2000 be happening right before our eyes?? 


 



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


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: January 28 2008 at 6:34am

When I have more time I will give a more indeph review, but in short it was the most mindlessly violent film of just not of the Rambo series (All 3 combined does not even come close to this bad boy) but of any film of the supposed "genre." How it missed a NC-17 rating escapes the tar out of me. Out of the 1hr and 33mins of the movie about 1hr and 10mins was completely focused on human carnage, blood-letting, and destruction that was totally unnecessary. I am guessing about anywhere from about 150-200 people were killed (Skewered).

I stopped counting after the 1st 50. Anyways more later

 

NOTE to HeadRAZZberry -- New Catagory for 29th Razzies: "Worst Achievement in Blood & Carnage" 

Response from Head RAZZberry: We actually had a category kinda like that 10 years ago -- Worst Reckless Disregard for Human Life and Public Property. The nominees included BATMAN & ROBIN, JURASSIC PARK II, TURBULENCE and VOLCANO. It ended up being "won" by CON AIR... 

 



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: January 28 2008 at 9:01am

HeadRAZZberry wrote:

Has it occurred to anyone that a concerted effort to "skew" the votes at IMDb could be going on?

The same thing occured to me, and I was thinking along the lines of what happened with a poll you posted on this site some time ago. All the sudden a huge pro-Stallone trend showed up, although his supporters, who were mysteriously and suddenly around in rather signficant quantities denied responsibility. I don't read the Stallone fan boards, but I'm guessing an appeal has gone out to get everyone voting early and often in support of this movie over at IMDB.



-------------
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: ITbeast
Date Posted: January 29 2008 at 5:30am
Originally posted by Head RAZZberry

NOTE to HeadRAZZberry -- New Catagory for 29th Razzies: "Worst Achievement in Blood & Carnage" 

Response from Head RAZZberry: We actually had a category kinda like that 10 years ago -- Worst Reckless Disregard for Human Life and Public Property. The nominees included BATMAN & ROBIN, JURASSIC PARK II, TURBULENCE and VOLCANO. It ended up being "won" by CON AIR... 

 

I would honestly bring it back next year (Or a update to it) for this movie in 2009, I got a feeling that Sly Bone is going to strike Razzie Gold with this one.



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: January 30 2008 at 1:59am
Maybe it would be best to hold off another year and bring that category back in 2010. Then it could span the first decade of the 21st century. That way, consideration could be given to Rambo IVPassion of the Christ and several others. Even A Sound of Thunder might be revived for consideration, given that it showed disregard both for the cast and the audience.

-------------
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: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: January 30 2008 at 1:00pm
I just made the High Honor row which means I get to see two movies. This is one of them. I'm not sure of the other one yet. I'm already seeing "The Dark Knight" and "Iron Man".

-------------
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: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: February 02 2008 at 9:21am
I just saw it. The whole point of the "Rambo" series is to see Sly blow up/dicapitate/disembowle evil S.O.B.s. This accomplishes that. Sly smartly, thought I'd never have those two words in a sentence, makes the bad guys evil as possible so we won't feel any remorse. That's a good thing, because he does some pretty nasty things to them. The only violent thing that made me sickened was when the Burmese army attacked the missionaries. When you see the movie, you'll know what I mean. The ending, however, was beatiful. I give it mild recomendation. Also, I've decided that the other movie I'm seeing is "Wanted". And I was able to convince my dad to see "Jumper", "1,000,000 B.C.", and "Semi-Pro".

-------------
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: moat
Date Posted: February 02 2008 at 3:54pm
Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

...makes the bad guys evil as possible so we won't feel any remorse. That's a good thing, because he does some pretty nasty things to them.

That's a tactic I personally get annoyed at with films. This dehumanization of the villains just so anything done to them is justified in the audience's eyes is nothing more than a way to deliver sadism under a guise of heroism. Remember kids: if someone comes off as a bad person, everything about them is bound to be bad. And violence is always the solution. Join us again next time for storytime with Uncle Sly.


Posted By: JoeBacon
Date Posted: February 03 2008 at 4:07pm
Yeesh, this "film" should have been shown to Alex in "A CLOCKWORK
ORANGE"


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: February 05 2008 at 7:15am
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Curiously, not even the ardent Sly apologists have been around to defend this one. The guess here is that, unless they are direct blood descendants of Vlad the Impaler, even they may be a little embarrassed by the over-the-top violence of this effort. 

Yeah know, I think Saturnwatcher has a point (Every so often he has a good one ) I have not heard one die hard (crazed) Stallone fan come bellowing through this blog concerning how wrong or jealous we were about Stallone's current blood soaked (drenched) effort, Not even his numero uno defender, #1 Sly Fan. I guess there is a point there are not enough excuses to excuse something this monstrous even for a Stallone Fan .



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: February 05 2008 at 8:25am

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462499/trivia - IMDB has got the actual kill (carnage) number for "RAMBRO"...

236 Total, 36 more than what I originally thought. Someone with no Life at all (Worse than me for putting myself through seeing this slaughter fest in the first place) actually was a able to keep up with the body count, my hat goes off to him (or her) because like I said in an earlier post, I lost track after the first 50.

 



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: Bonogamy
Date Posted: February 05 2008 at 1:19pm
Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

I just saw it. The whole point of the "Rambo" series is to see Sly blow up/dicapitate/disembowle evil S.O.B.s. This accomplishes that. Sly smartly...makes the bad guys evil as possible so we won't feel any remorse.


I don't need to see Rambro to pass judgment on it.  I still prefer 80's action movies like Commando since it's less cynical and more of a fun ride of a movie (and more "innocent" if that word is appropriate for  a movie that revels in mindless slaughter.)  I'm not going to see a killing field movie because the bad guys were made "as evil as possible."  I'll feel cynically manipulated by Stallone's pro-Bush-"war on terror" agenda.  Rambro is Stallone as his polarizing worst: either you kill your enemies in the most torturous, sadistic, bloodthirsty fashion possible or you don't deal with adversity at all (i.e. you remain a humble fisherman, apolitical and apathetic.)  Rambro is really a candidate for numerous razzies in my opinion.


-------------
Dreams for Stallone sequels:

Hawk: Over the Top Part II
Marion Cobretti: Cobra Part II
Joe Bomowski: Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot Part II
Nick Martinelli Rides Again: Rhinestone Part II


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: February 05 2008 at 3:04pm

I probably won't see this movie, but a common theme among those who have is the dehumanization of the bad guys, which is insultingly manipulative...the very kind of thing that dragged us into a bottomless pit called "Iraq." The beginning of wisdom in the world we now live in is not so much in being entirely prepared to listen to the ideas and viewpoints of your opposition, but simply acknowledging that they may have viewpoints and ideas. That is the beginning of constructive dialogue rather than pointless exchange of firepower.

If I may I add something of an off topic note here, tonight my wife and I attended the caucases here in Colorado. Four years ago, we were the only attendees from our precinct. Tonight, there were around 40 (roughly evenly split between Obama and Hillary). Give President Moron credit...he certainly seems to be inspiring people to get off their tails and make sure we won't have 4 more years of Republican crap.



-------------
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: ITbeast
Date Posted: February 06 2008 at 4:49am
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

If I may I add something of an off topic note here, tonight my wife and I attended the Caucasus here in Colorado. Four years ago, we were the only attendees from our precinct. Tonight, there were around 40 (roughly evenly split between Obama and Hillary). Give President Moron credit...he certainly seems to be inspiring people to get off their tails and make sure we won't have 4 more years of Republican crap.

I have to agree with most of what you are saying, I am proud veteran of the United States Navy of just a little over 13 years of service. I was proud to serve and do not regret doing it, would have retired out if circumstances had not intervened. However, it rips my heart out to see our children answering our nations call when the reason for that call went from being about protecting/defending our country to what I feel now is nothing more than a personal vendetta with our current leadership and those kids who answered our nations call originally making the Ultimate sacrifice for it. So as a Republican I can honestly say that I still do not regret being a Republican by any means but I also do not want another Bush-Republican era and will most likely vote on the other side of the fence in the November elections.

NOTE TO HEADRAZZBerry:  I also apologize for going off topic, but in some ways what both me and Saturnwatcher said does relate to this topic.



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: CDNDestroyer
Date Posted: February 07 2008 at 5:17am
Originally posted by Sanndman228715

To be fair, there are two movies that came out on Friday that are getting worse reviews (Meet the spartans, and Untraceable), adding on One Missed Call, and Dungeon Siege, 2008 isn't shaping up to be a great year for Cinema so far.


Keep in mind January is notorious for being "crap month" where the studios dump all their bad movies and those with low expectations.  There's very little competition because there is a lull after the lucrative Christmas movie season.

This happens every year, last year we had Norbit and the year before that we had Big Momma's House 2 being picked as Razzie favorites early in the new year.

I will agree this January is a little busier than previous ones, but it's not unprecendented.


Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: February 07 2008 at 11:49am
On the converse, that means that someone with foresight and good backing could release something good at this time and rake in huge dividends.  All it takes is one person willing to take the plunge. 



Print Page | Close Window