Print Page | Close Window

Two Minutes from Now, You’ll FORGET This!

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: 2007 RAZZIE® MOVIE FORUMS w/LYNX!
Forum Name: NEXT
Forum Discription: Nominated for 2 RAZZIES® including Worst Actor (Nicolas Cage)
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1936
Printed Date: October 21 2014 at 7:09am


Topic: Two Minutes from Now, You’ll FORGET This!
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Two Minutes from Now, You’ll FORGET This!
Date Posted: May 30 2007 at 6:33am

FOLLOWING UP on HIS HILARIOUSLY AWFUL, RAZZIE®-NOMINATED PERFORMANCE in http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=141 - WICKER MAN LAST YEAR, and HIS FLAMINGLY RAZZIE-ELIGIBLE TURN AS  http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=175 - GHOST RIDER THIS YEAR, http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Nicolas+Cage&btnG=Search+Razzies.com&domains=razzies.com&sitesearch=razzies.com - NICOLAS CAGE LOOKS LIKE a PRIME WORST ACTOR CONTENDER AGAIN for 2007, EVEN WITHOUT THIS ESP-THEMED, CRITICALLY REEMED "THRILLER." 

DO YOU SEE a RAZZIE® in HIS FUTURE, TOO?? FEEL FREE to POST YER COMMENTS BELOW...

http://www.movieweb.com/features/pop.php?p=PHKkQTNLMew2OP">

Cage: "How much longer 'till I finally get my long overdue Worst Actor RAZZIE®??"



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



Replies:
Posted By: bruin_522
Date Posted: May 31 2007 at 2:23pm
What's NEXT for Cage? Well, so much! He has two more films due out this year, there's Bangkok Dangerous, a remake of the 2000 foreign film with the same title, and National Treasure: Book of Secrets, due out at around Christmastime. It follows the 2004 film, National Treasure. I did enjoy National Treasure, it had some outstanding action and thriller scenes, but I also know that not all critics liked the film at all. On RT, NT has a 42% approval from critics, so it wasn't anywhere near being a RAZZIE contender. There's a total of 156 reviews, 65 fresh, and 91 rotten. Here's a LINK to look at the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes for National Treasure... http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/national_treasure/ - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/national_treasure/

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


Posted By: jb razz
Date Posted: June 01 2007 at 12:09pm

There are just so many turkeys  that can be added to this forum (but at least this one was added). I think Cage is purposefully trying to ruin his career. I can't think of any other explanation why he keeps doing one forgetable action movie after another...

I'm also surprised that the HeadRAZZ didn't pick MR. BROOKS as Worst New Movie of the Weak. I figured he would be all over a movie with both Kevin Costner and Demi Moore (two actors the razzies love to hate). Plus, it has Dane Cook as a wannabe serial killer! 

Response from Head RAZZberry:  While many of the reviews on MR. BROOKS have mentioned the RAZZIES ( http://www.pleasantonweekly.com/movies/moviescreener.php?id=002525&type=long - LINK ) its overall approval rating on RT now stands above 50% ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mr_brooks/ - LINK ) -- Low enough to get it rated "Rotten," but hardly low enough to be in RAZZIE territory. And some of those reviews reminding readers of Costner's RAZZIE Pedigree are also calling BROOKS the finest performance of his career (faint praise, albeit, but praise none-the-less).

For those concerned that this week had no Worst of the Weak pick, next week brings http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0498353/ - HOSTEL: PART II and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0423294/ - SURF'S UP -- Neither of which are apparently being screened for critics, and both of which seem to have RAZZIE potential... 

 



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


Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: June 03 2007 at 11:29am
I don't think Nic Cage should get Razzies for this or Ghost Rider. I thought he did an excellent job with these movies. But he's forced to co-star with actresses who cannot act. This goes for Jessica Biel, who is a hot commodity on the red carpet and in tabloids, but was awful in Next. There are plenty of others like her, including Jessica Simpson (who can have a charming presence, if only her dad wouldn't choose her upcoming films) and Keira Knightley (I'm sorry, but words can't express how bad her performance was in the latest Pirates of the Carribean). So don't put all the blame on Cage. After I saw clips of his acting in The Wicker Man, I think he's back to speed. Hopefully he'll pick better projects.

I don't know if Surf's Up will be hidden from critics. Recent promos had early word on the film, which is nothing but praise. But let's hope it can hold onto that promise. A mockumentary in a children's film has chances of working.


-------------
You think you know, but you have no idea.


Posted By: tomsmobr
Date Posted: June 06 2007 at 3:16am
Originally posted by jb razz

There are just so many turkeys  that can be added to this forum (but at least this one was added). I think Cage is purposefully trying to ruin his career. I can't think of any other explanation why he keeps doing one forgetable action movie after another...

I'm also surprised that the HeadRAZZ didn't pick MR. BROOKS as Worst New Movie of the Weak. I figured he would be all over a movie with both Kevin Costner and Demi Moore (two actors the razzies love to hate). Plus, it has Dane Cook as a wannabe serial killer! 

Response from Head RAZZberry:  While many of the reviews on MR. BROOKS have mentioned the RAZZIES ( http://www.pleasantonweekly.com/movies/moviescreener.php?id=002525&type=long - LINK ) its overall approval rating on RT now stands above 50% ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mr_brooks/ - LINK ) -- Low enough to get it rated "Rotten," but hardly low enough to be in RAZZIE territory. And some of those reviews reminding readers of Costner's RAZZIE Pedigree are also calling BROOKS the finest performance of his career (faint praise, albeit, but praise none-the-less).

For those concerned that this week had no Worst of the Weak pick, next week brings http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0498353/ - HOSTEL: PART II and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0423294/ - SURF'S UP -- Neither of which are apparently being screened for critics, and both of which seem to have RAZZIE potential... 

 

Rotten Tomatoes has given both Surf's Up and Ocean 13 pretty good ratings as of today both Surf's up and Ocean 13 are at 69 % 67 %


Posted By: dipitlow555
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 6:12am
This film was boring and pointless.


Posted By: Kenny
Date Posted: August 08 2007 at 7:46am

It felt like a rough cut, unfinished and like it was missing maybe 20-30 minutes. The ending was horrid. Cage probably will get a Razzie nomination. He wasn't really bad in this nor Ghost Rider, but he might deserve it, just because he keeps choosing terrible scripts, one after another.

Both Jessica Biel and (surprisingly) Julianne Moore were terrible. Both worthy Razzie-contenders!

 



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


Posted By: Criss808
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 3:51am
Nic Cage should be considered for WORST ON-SCREEN COUPLE for anyone he shares the screen in this movie and "Ghost Rider".


Posted By: bruin_522
Date Posted: August 28 2007 at 1:48pm
Well, this movie was completely forgotten alright. I'm sure you all know what I mean by that.


Posted By: SaintSmythe
Date Posted: September 23 2007 at 10:07pm
A guy who has the ability to see two minutes into the future uses his ability to gamble and pick up women before being asked by the government to help locate a nuclear warhead that could wipe out billions of people.

That sounds like a pitch for a comedy to me, and I really think this would have been better done as a comedy.

Hell, they could probably make this *into* a comedy in a few years and it would be a smashing success.

You could probably also have Nic Cage and Jessica Biel star in it again. :)


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: September 26 2007 at 10:31am
I almost didn't like this. The ending was atrocious. However, it wasn't as bad as the ending to "Femme Fatale", which was on a few nights ago. I am surprised that escaped Razzie-free...


-------------
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: SlammyFewFew
Date Posted: October 20 2007 at 12:24pm
Very, very forgettable
I completely forgot what I saw
Hated the end
Nick Cage is one of the least believable actors to me
he erks me when he is on screen!


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 19 2007 at 3:48am

I saw this movie and I liked it a lot. It's very sophisticated and thought provoking, if you ask me. I liked the ending (don't know what's wrong with you people!). Probably because it was out of your comfort zone, you guys didn't like it. So spoilers ahead for the ending:

I liked it because they tried a different way to end it "happily". It's very obvious that he stopped the bomb. The point of the ending was to not show you what happens, yet you already know what would happen, and you wouldn't want to see him mess up several more times to go back and do something different the next time. Eventually, he would have found a way to stop the bomb, and that's that. But they ended it the way they did because he wouldn't get it right the first few times...

END SPOILERS

All in all, very fun and entertaining movie.



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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 08 2010 at 9:15am
We understood the meanin'of the endin',but after comin'to this forums,or discussin'with people,but no one uderstood it inmediately,and people left the theatre angry.He could've give a better final narration or somethin'.
 
Even if the endin'was good,it's no excuse for the plot holes,like what's the deal with LIZ?Does she has powers too?The last time I saw plot holes like this was with JUMPER,but that's better'cuz they wanted to make a sequel.This one wasn't planned to have one,and since it flopped,it's not gon'na have one.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 08 2010 at 1:46pm
Yeah, as mentioned above, the HUGE, GAPPING plot hole of Cage only being able to see two minutes into the future, but then was some how able to see DAYS into the future is what ruined this movie. Not the ending being a cliffhanger, but that they set up a rule and then broke it without explaination.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 08 2010 at 5:38pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Yeah, as mentioned above, the HUGE, GAPPING plot hole of Cage only being able to see two minutes into the future, but then was some how able to see DAYS into the future is what ruined this movie. Not the ending being a cliffhanger, but that they set up a rule and then broke it without explaination.

Well, they did explain it, although it ended up being cliched. I'm a huge, huge supporter of this film but Cage stated that when he looks into the future of his girlfriend, it can go on for days. This is why the ending is not a cliffhanger. We, the audience, is left to assume that he'll EVENTUALLY find out a way to stop the bomb from exploding but just not yet. It may seem like a cliffhanger, but, instead, it's a unique way of saying he saved the day. That's why I liked the ending.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 08 2010 at 8:35pm
No, that's still a gapping plot hole since they didn't explain why Jessica Biel's future is an exception to the rule. In the end, he didn't save anything, because the entire movie you just watched didn't happen, which is just a big b**** slap in the face of the audience. Dude, it was a chillfhanger, there was no closure. For all we know, he will fail to stop the bomb no matter what.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 4:58am
I don't know, after reading more of your post, you seem to really like movies that are gimmicked up, with plot twists and "irony" and no closure. For most critics and audiences, we like this thing called "story structure". You know, beginning, middle, and end? Yeah, this movie didn't have that last part, no matter how much you try to defend it, it just didn't. I like movies with structure, not gimmicks.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 7:18am
And even if the endin'was "good",it doesn't matter,'cuz all of you who "understood" it didn't understand until a while later,and that means ev'ryone left the theatre mad.

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 12:58pm

They had every right to be mad, the whole movie was one big c***tease. I don't know why anyone would want to defend a movie with the biggest metor creater sized plot hole in the history of filmmaking ... until "Transformers 2" came along, that was an entire metor shower.



-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 4:56pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

No, that's still a gapping plot hole since they didn't explain why Jessica Biel's future is an exception to the rule. In the end, he didn't save anything, because the entire movie you just watched didn't happen, which is just a big b**** slap in the face of the audience. Dude, it was a chillfhanger, there was no closure. For all we know, he will fail to stop the bomb no matter what.

Uh-huh. You say he wouldn't stop the bomb. Why not? He can go back where he started everytime he fails. how could he not find a way to stop the bomb? The audience is left to assume that he'll eventually find a way to stop the bomb. He may need to take 100 more turns to finally get it right or maybe even one more time, but that doesn't change the fact that he will eventually find a way to defeat the baddies and save the day.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 4:59pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

No, that's still a gapping plot hole since they didn't explain why Jessica Biel's future is an exception to the rule. In the end, he didn't save anything, because the entire movie you just watched didn't happen, which is just a big b**** slap in the face of the audience. Dude, it was a chillfhanger, there was no closure. For all we know, he will fail to stop the bomb no matter what.

Uh-huh. You say he wouldn't stop the bomb. Why not? He can go back where he started everytime he fails. how could he not find a way to stop the bomb? The audience is left to assume that he'll eventually find a way to stop the bomb. He may need to take 100 more turns to finally get it right or maybe even one more time, but that doesn't change the fact that he will eventually find a way to defeat the baddies and save the day.

But it's not 100% sure that he'll stop it,and that's the point.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 5:52pm
Originally posted by Vits


But it's not 100% sure that he'll stop it,and that's the point.
Yes, see, that's my. We have no f***ing clue if he does stop it or not. That is why it's a CLIFFHANGER. But I can point this out a million times, but it looks like it won't matter. And seeing as how this movie is 3 years old and didn't win any Razzies, it's pointless to be talking about it anyway.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 7:53pm
Originally posted by Vits

But it's not 100% sure that he'll stop it,and that's the point.

I find it highly unlikely for a person to not succeed in something if he has unlimited ways to change the way he tries achieve it. It's like a test with multiple choice. You don't know a question so you guess out of 4 choices. You find out you circled in the wrong answer. You go back in time and change it. If it's wrong again, you go back and change it. Eventually, you'll get the right answer and that's what the ending of this film was trying to portray.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 10 2010 at 5:23am
Originally posted by moviewizguy

I find it highly unlikely for a person to not succeed in something if he has unlimited ways to change the way he tries achieve it. It's like a test with multiple choice. You don't know a question so you guess out of 4 choices. You find out you circled in the wrong answer. You go back in time and change it. If it's wrong again, you go back and change it. Eventually, you'll get the right answer and that's what the ending of this film was trying to portray.
Ah, but it was a TIME bomb. It doesn't matter if it's a multipule choice test, if it's timed, and you don't get your answers down within that amount of time, you fail. Again, this is why the ending was a chilffhanger, we have NO IDEA if he makes it to the bomb on time or not, and thus the movie is a waste of our time.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 10 2010 at 6:56am
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by Vits

But it's not 100% sure that he'll stop it,and that's the point.

I find it highly unlikely for a person to not succeed in something if he has unlimited ways to change the way he tries achieve it. It's like a test with multiple choice. You don't know a question so you guess out of 4 choices. You find out you circled in the wrong answer. You go back in time and change it. If it's wrong again, you go back and change it. Eventually, you'll get the right answer and that's what the ending of this film was trying to portray.

All of your statements point out that maybe it's like 99% sure that he stops the bomb,but if it's not 100%...well,why should I say it again?


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 10 2010 at 10:18am
Originally posted by Vits


All of your statements point out that maybe it's like 99% sure that he stops the bomb,but if it's not 100%...well,why should I say it again?
99%? More like 50-50. He has tens of thousands of possible outcomes to follow, and time is against him. He might make it to the bomb on time, or he might not find it at all. In the end, the bomb is just a Hitchock "McGuffin" device and the audience is told that the whole bomb subplot of the movie didn't matter. It's like saying "Hey, remember how we made this whole thing with the bomb seems like a big deal ... yeah, it's not really a big deal at all".

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 12:10pm
Well,I don't think it's 50-50.Remember that he can see ev'ry possible outcome,and there's an infinite number of those.I really think it's closer to 99%.

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 2:51pm
Originally posted by Vits

Well,I don't think it's 50-50.Remember that he can see ev'ry possible outcome,and there's an infinite number of those.I really think it's closer to 99%.
Yes, he can, but it would take time to forsee the RIGHT outcome and then more time to FOLLOW THROUGH on that outcame. By then it could be too late.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 2:56pm
Not really.Remember that when he's around LIZ,he can see more than 2 minutes into the future.From that moment when he wakes up with her,which is when the last scene begins,he can see ev'rythin',and time won't go by.

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 3:52pm
Originally posted by Vits

Not really.Remember that when he's around LIZ,he can see more than 2 minutes into the future.From that moment when he wakes up with her,which is when the last scene begins,he can see ev'rythin',and time won't go by.
Yeah, but then he left Liz. Now it's the return of the plot hole, how long can he see into the future now, why was the rule changed when around Liz? I'm sure you liked the movie and considered it something different, but it's flawed no matter what way you spin it.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


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

Yeah, but then he left Liz. Now it's the return of the plot hole, how long can he see into the future now, why was the rule changed when around Liz? I'm sure you liked the movie and considered it something different, but it's flawed no matter what way you spin it.

It's like saying why does a dead princess come back to life when her true love kisses her. You just go along with it.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 5:01pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy


It's like saying why does a dead princess come back to life when her true love kisses her. You just go along with it.
Well, pardon me for wanting closure and a little explaination to the rules of this pretend universe that is being created. I love the good old days of when sci-fi rules were explained like Arnold explaining how the T-1000's shape shifting powers worked or Yoda explaining how the force works to Luke Skywalker. But those days are long gone and this movie is proof of that. "Oh yeah, I can only see two minutes into future ... unless I'm around Jessica Biel. Why? I don't know, just because. Oh and I may or may not stop this bomb that may or not go off, I don't know, you'll have to use your imagine with that one". Could you imagine how mad people would have been if Luke fired at that weak spot on the Death Star and then the screen cut to black and the credits rolled?! I'm sorry, but that's no way to make a successful movie that everyone will love and cherish for years to come.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 6:55am
PS: Much like your hero, Mister M. Night Shy, you're mixing genres when comparing a fairy tale to a sci-fi action movie. Fairy tales are fantasy, which are based in magic, which can get away without explaining rules because magic can't be explained by science. Sci-fi deals with things that might be impossible, but at least there is some science behind it that could explain how it could be possible.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 8:01pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

PS: Much like your hero, Mister M. Night Shy, you're mixing genres when comparing a fairy tale to a sci-fi action movie. Fairy tales are fantasy, which are based in magic, which can get away without explaining rules because magic can't be explained by science. Sci-fi deals with things that might be impossible, but at least there is some science behind it that could explain how it could be possible.

Most sci-fi movies are scientifically inaccurate anyway. Have you not seen The Core?


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 8:21pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy


Most sci-fi movies are scientifically inaccurate anyway. Have you not seen The Core?
Okay, but at least they tried to explain what was happening and didn't have a cliffhanger ending. A sci-fi movie can be scientifically inaccurate all it wants, so long as they at least try to explain the rules of the make believe world they live in and there's some kind of closure in the end, not gaping plot holes.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 20 2010 at 3:09pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Okay, but at least they tried to explain what was happening and didn't have a cliffhanger ending. A sci-fi movie can be scientifically inaccurate all it wants, so long as they at least try to explain the rules of the make believe world they live in and there's some kind of closure in the end, not gaping plot holes.

Fair enough.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 20 2010 at 2:27pm
I just reviewed this movie at Rotten Tomatoes.Please vote:
www.rottentomatoes.com/user/812172/reviews/view.php?type=2&id=1175887


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



Print Page | Close Window