Print Page | Close Window

Bet She Wishes She’d Valet Parked!!

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: 2007 RAZZIE® MOVIE FORUMS w/LYNX!
Forum Name: P2
Forum Discription: Despite Having a Number in Its Title, This is NOT a Sequel to the Movie "P"
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2222
Printed Date: September 02 2014 at 11:04pm


Topic: Bet She Wishes She’d Valet Parked!!
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Bet She Wishes She’d Valet Parked!!
Date Posted: October 24 2007 at 2:52am

SURE, IT'S GOT a NUMBER RIGHT THERE in ITS TITLE, BUT DON'T LET THAT FOOL YOU: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=229&PN=1 - IS NOT A SEQUEL. IT'S a TOTALLY ORIGINAL FILM...INVOLVING a NUBILE YOUNG WOMAN LURED INTO a TRAP, STRIPPED DOWN to HER UNDERWEAR and FORCED INTO a BLOODY FIGHT for HER LIFE.

OH, WAIT...THAT'S ALSO the PLOT of THOSE 837 OTHER CHICK-IN-DANGER FLICKS. 

OKAY, IT'S STILL the FIRST MOVIE WHOSE TITLE REFERS to a LEVEL in a PARKING GARAGE. AT LEAST THAT PART IS ORIGINAL...

AND NOW, FORUM MEMBERS, START YOUR CRITICAL ENGINES...


"HELP ME! I can't seem to remember where I left my car...or my dress!!"



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



Replies:
Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 24 2007 at 11:47am
I'm so excited for this movie! Films that have girls in danger are always fun (maybe not for you). Sure, some are old, but you can't tell unless you've seen it. This seems even more exciting than Saw 4, (though I hated High Tension, and didn't like Hills Have Eyes)...

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


Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: October 25 2007 at 12:56pm

I'd like to see P, if it's out there...as long as it's brought to us by Sesame Street (the only ones who could do this title just right). 



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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: October 25 2007 at 5:30pm
I P.  U P 2? . . .


Posted By: JoeBacon
Date Posted: October 26 2007 at 12:42am

I doubt Sesame Street would be part of a "P" film that also involved "S" and "M"...

 



-------------
2014 Pic: LEGEND OF HERCULES! Actor: Aaron Echkardt, Director: Renny Harlin, Remake: Transcendence


Posted By: JoBloMovieGoer
Date Posted: November 07 2007 at 4:28am

What were they thinking making this film -- the first-ever combo family Christmas/graphic violence movie??  I can't see WHO the audience is supposed to be... 

 



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 07 2007 at 12:49pm
Well....there was Black Christmas....but that didn't seem to be finding an audience either.


Posted By: thomsonmg2000
Date Posted: November 08 2007 at 10:27am

You guys say this is the worst film of the week, but two other films, Fred Clause and Lions for the Lamb, are receiving even worse reviews! As of Thursday, this film has a 43% rating on RT (which really surprised me that this film would receive a two digit rating) while Fred Clause and Lions for the Lamb received 34% and 28% respectively. A third film, Lake Dead, does not have any review yet (thus making it a stinker). Maybe those three other films are more deserving to be mentioned in these forums than P2.

Response from Head RAZZberry: I just just added http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=231 - FRED CLAUS (which now stands BELOW 25% Approval at RT) to our Discussion Forum. As for LIONS FOR LAMBS, I plan to wait 'till the dust settles (by Monday) to see if its combined box office and reviews justify its inclusion herein...


 



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

OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!

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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 08 2007 at 2:18pm
^^THANK YOU. These films (P2, Hills Have Eyes, and High Tension) usually make it between the 45%-55% range.


Posted By: thomsonmg2000
Date Posted: November 09 2007 at 10:06am
Lake Dead has NO reviews out yet, so looks like it will be another stinker.

Wow, we have four pretty crappy movies coming out this week: Fred Clause, this movie, Lake Dead, and Lions for Lamb. Just wondering, is this a record?


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: November 10 2007 at 12:01am
Yahoo really hated "Lions For Lambs". It has a D score and it's on their bottom rated of all time with a 15! The only films that beat it are: "Clifford's Really Big Movie", "Feardotcom", "Bratz", "Marci X", "Son Of The Mask", "Alone In The Dark", "Battlefield Earth", "From Justin To Kelly", "Home Alone 4", "Swept Away", "Starship Troopers 2: Heros Of The Federation", "The House Of The Dead", "Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2", and "Gigli"!

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


Posted By: thomsonmg2000
Date Posted: November 11 2007 at 9:26am

Well, Lions for Lambs was behind Fred Clause in this weekend's box office. And currently at RT, it has a lower percentage rating than this movie. So maybe that justifies its inclusion into these forums?

Response from Head RAZZberry: I just just added http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=231 - FRED CLAUS (which now stands BELOW 25% Approval at RT) to our Discussion Forum. As for LIONS FOR LAMBS, I plan to wait 'till the dust settles (by Monday) to see if its combined box office and reviews justify its inclusion herein...




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

OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!

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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: December 01 2007 at 4:09am

Saw the film (7/10):

The story centers on a corporate climber who gets stuck working late on
Christmas Eve and finds herself the target of an unhinged security
guard. With no help in sight, the woman must overcome physical and
psychological challenges to survive.

I'm surprised to see this film rated so low for critics and average
movie goers. I'm here to say these reports are nonsense! This is one of
few horror movies, in quite a long time, that is free of clichés you've
mostly seen in other horror movies! Why is that such a bad thing?

Here, in this rare horror movie, people do the right thing. The heroine
is actually smart. She thinks things out before she does it. Here, the
villain is also very smart. And I never knew this could happen but the
police in here actually do the right thing! They aren't one of those
people who don't believe that this is happening and leaves right out
the spot.

Saying that, this movie works. With such a limited amount a space - it
is just parking areas - I found the imagination and creativity really
good. Also, the plot doesn't go downhill. It doesn't cheat. It doesn't
have any twists or turns. It's a straight forward horror/thriller
movie.

One reason people may find this bad is the gore level. It's unusually
high for such a small movie. And yes, the violence will turn you off
and make you get sick. Horror fans, on the other hand, will love it.
The suspense in here is also high enough because I usually do not get
in the edge of my seats that easily.

One of the writers in the film is Alexandre Aja. He directed High
Tension, which I dreadfully hate and The Hills Have Eyes, which is tons
better than High Tension but wasn't a good horror movie. Now he wrote
this, giving his friend, Franck Khalfoun, a chance to direct. You know
what? This is the first film I've actually liked involving with Aja.

The performance by Wes Bentley is very weird and freaky. It's not like
your usual villain. Rachel Nichols' performance is good but nothing
special. All in all, this is a good horror/thriller movie. No, it's not
a classic, nor is it a torture porn movie, although the trailer might
suggest that. Still, it's a lot better than what gets released these
days.



Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 02 2010 at 1:50pm
Spoilers ahead:
 
Wes Bentley is on the edge of being good and he almost get there.Rachel Nichols isn't just a bad actress,I hate looking at her because of the same reason with Paula Patton in http://www.razzies.com/forum/mirrors_forum300.html - MIRRORS :They're both using white thight clothes and are wet for marketing reasons only.And yes...I'm a guy!
 
The premise is clever on the fact is has those 2 trapped,theatre play style.But there's no depth.We don't even find out what's with him.He's just some random psycho.
 
A common thing I've seen in Alexandre Aja's films is that his characters don't realize that,during their self-defense,they end up as psychotic as the villians.When Angela gets back at him...did you see her face?I also would've killed the dog,but I wouldn't have moved that thing around.She almost takes his brains out!
 
For Aja's fans this movie prooves that he's a better director than writer.That's why I'm looking forward to PIRANHA 3D...unless I like it.Then he'll be off my list of "Worst Filmmakers".No!
 
Not only I gave it 0%,I gave it my award for "Worst Thriller/Horror Movie Of All-Time",which was previously held by Hitchcock's REAR WINDOW.Really.There's nothing scary.The gore made me cringe more than most films,I give it that...wait!That's a bad thing!


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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 02 2010 at 1:57pm
I have nothing to say.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 02 2010 at 4:48pm
You left MWG speechless! Well done, Vits! Clap

-------------
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: August 02 2010 at 6:00pm
I had nothing to say because Vits put Rear Window in his "Worst thrillers of all time." If you bothered to read his review, you would know. Also, his review seemed very incoherent. He stated that Aja's protagonists become as crazy as the villains themselves, which sounded like a compliment to me, but then he slaps the film with a 0/10? WTF?


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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 02 2010 at 6:43pm
Compliment? How on Earth are we supposed to root for people who turn into slaughterers? At the end of this movie, ANGELA chokes THOMAS and handcuffs him to a car. That's slef-defense,which is O.K.. Then he yells "C*nt" at her, and she burns him alive. 

As for REAR WINDOW,I did research and changed the grade from 0% to 30%.  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: If you're referring to Alfred Hitchcock's seminal 1954 James Stewart/Grace Kelly thriller http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047396/ -



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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 02 2010 at 6:46pm
That's the main point of most horror films. If you experience a horrific event, you'll never be the same at the end of the day! You don't just go off and say, "Whew! That was scary but I'm going on with my day if nothing ever happened, even though a killer almost tried to slaughter me." Really? And you have to learn that not every character in movies are 100% goody two shoes. That's what makes them interesting! Interesting characters are complex and flawed.  

Originally posted by Vits

Compliment?How on Earth are we suppose to root for people who turn into slaughterers?At the end of this movie,ANGELA chokes THOMAS and handcuffs him to a car.That's slef-defense,which is O.K..Then he yells "C*nt" at her and she burns him alive.

As for REAR WINDOW,I did a research and changed the grade from 0% to 30%.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 02 2010 at 6:55pm
No, Vits has a point. How are we suppose to relate to her if in the the end, she ends up being no better than the villain? If she killed him by accident, okay, but to go all out and burn him alive ... over-reacting much? If he wasn't tied down and it came down to him or her, yeah, that's fine, but after he's defeated, not really. Granted, if someone breaks into my house with a gun and we fight and I end up shooting him, okay, self-defense, but lighting him on fire afterwards when he's already defeated? Slightly overkill.

-------------
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: August 02 2010 at 7:30pm
That's what you get for calling her the c-word?  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

No, Vits has a point. How are we suppose to relate to her if in the the end, she ends up being no better than the villain? If she killed him by accident, okay, but to go all out and burn him alive ... over-reacting much? If he wasn't tied down and it came down to him or her, yeah, that's fine, but after he's defeated, not really. Granted, if someone breaks into my house with a gun and we fight and I end up shooting him, okay, self-defense, but lighting him on fire afterwards when he's already defeated? Slightly overkill.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 02 2010 at 8:28pm
Yes, because you know, the trying to kidnap and hold her against her will and then trying to kill when she tried to escape, that she can live with. But calling her the c-word, well, that was too much! 

See, it sounds even dumber when you try to explain! 

Originally posted by moviewizguy

That's what you get for calling her the c-word?


-------------
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: August 02 2010 at 10:10pm
I wasn't trying to explain it. I was giving a sarcastic explanation.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 02 2010 at 10:49pm
And you failed because it only helpped further prove how dumb that plot point was.  

Originally posted by moviewizguy


I wasn't trying to explain it. I was giving a sarcastic explanation.


-------------
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: August 03 2010 at 10:30am
Well, if you think a single action by the protagonist can ruin the movie, then you can just think that.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 03 2010 at 10:55am
No, the movie as a whole is s***,  the single action of the protagonist is just a final insult to the audience's already suffering brains.

-------------
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: August 03 2010 at 1:40pm
Not that I don't appriciate you guys saying once a month that us foreigners don't understand your movies...But here's the thing: 
 
The reason I change the rating from 0% to 30% is because a new rule I have with movies made before 1970, because I just can't be in the shoes of people from that time. So I give them extra points.
 
Hitchcock's great at suspense and horror, but mostly at suspense, and this movie and THE BIRDS(20%) prove it.Cutting the music to create suspense is a good technique,but in those movies he also cut the music while something was happening(suspense means being afraid of what will happen,not what's happening). Watching James Stewart being choked with no music(after the whole movie had cheerful comedy music) and listening to nothing but his grouching felt ridiculous!
 
There's also Grace Kelly's performance which,just like Wes Bentley was on the edge of being good, she was on the edge of being bad, but neither of them crossed it. However, this morning my acting teacher told me Hitchcock was a sexist and that's why her character was one-dimensional and she was always related to objects. That could be it. The villian is also one-dimensional. We never learn how or why he killed his wife.
 
I'm not saying the movie is bad. I'm saying I didn't like it, so you don't have to tell me the world's concensus. And I have liked movies from that time. A few weeks ago I gave 100% to 12 ANGRY MEN. 

Originally posted by Vits

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: If you're referring to Alfred Hitchcock's seminal 1954 James Stewart/Grace Kelly thriller  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047396/ -



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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 03 2010 at 2:34pm
OK -- you're welcome to have your opinion. 


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 03 2010 at 5:31pm
Hmmm, I like this MWG better than the "oh, you people are morons and don't know what you're talking about!" one.  

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

No, the movie as a whole is s***, the single action of the protagonist is just the final insult to the suffering brain.

OK -- you're welcome to have your opinion.


-------------
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: August 03 2010 at 5:36pm
I couldn't disagree with you more, Vits. I like no music during dramatic moments, it adds realism to the movie. I mean, come on, when in the dramatic moments in your life do you hear music playing in the background, as if it's on cue? It is the climax of the movie, everything has been working up to this moment, so there's no need for MORE suspense through music. 

By the way, 20% for "Birds"? WTF?!
 
But 100% for "12 Angry Men", can't disagree with that, one of the greatest movies ever. 

Originally posted by Vits

Hitchcock's great at suspense and horror,but mostly at suspense,and this movie and THE BIRDS(20%)prove it.Cutting the music to create suspense is a good technique,but in those movies he also cut the music while something was happening(suspense means being afraid of what will happen,not what's happening).Watching James Stewart being chocked with no music(after the whole movie had cheerful comedy music)and listening to nothing but his grouching felt ridiculous!


-------------
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: August 04 2010 at 10:26am
I think you got it backwards.There was no music during the climax and that's what I hated about it.
 
I was ready to give a good rating to THE BIRDS,but the ending ruined everything.In case you're thinking I hate Hitchcock,I gave 60% to THE WRONG MAN and 70% to NORTH BY NORTHWEST.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 04 2010 at 1:21pm
1. I like the no music in the climax. It's not needed. To me, music is not important to the overall movie, it's just something to use here and there.  

2. Yeah, the ending to the "Birds" is open-ended, but giving it a 0% just for that is a bit much. The movie is still good up to that point.  

Originally posted by Vits

I think you got it backwards.There was no music during the climax and that's what I hated about it.
 
I was ready to give a good rating to THE BIRDS,but the ending ruined everything.In case you're thinking I hate Hitchcock,I gave 60% to THE WRONG MAN and 70% to NORTH BY NORTHWEST.


-------------
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: August 04 2010 at 1:30pm
1)It's not about the music score in general, it's about the use of music to create suspense, and that sucked in REAR WINDOW. Actually,the whole score sucked (too cheerful for a thriller). 

2)I gave this 20%, not 0%. And it wasn't because it was open-ended. The original ending was also open-ended, and I liked it a lot. That ending still had closure, unlike the one they ended up using.


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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 10:39am
I made a list of the worst performances of all times:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/user/812172/blogs/?id=674392

Rachel Nichols is in it.


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


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: November 22 2011 at 6:02pm
Aw, what a hilariously unscary movie. I know that I've been putting this one off for a while, but good things take time. Ocarina Of Time changed its release schedule a crap load of times and that's the best video game ever.
 
The good:
 
Rachel Nichols is good to look at: That's the only good thing here.
 
The bad:
 
The script: This script is bad, dumb, and as predictable as an episode of Keeping Up With Kardashians.
 
Rachel Nichols: She may be good to look at, but she's annoying as Hell. Also, is it me, or is her only good performance in Star Trek, where she had about two minutes of screen-time.
 
Director Franck Khalfoun: His directing skills are as bad as his name is pronouncable. A good director would have done something good with the concept. Too bad he's not.
 
The ugly:
 
Wes Bentley: Bentley is hilariously bad here. The scene where he sings Elvis was especially dumb.
 
What a dumb movie. Grade: D
 
Next-up: Breaking Wind Fart 1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 23 2011 at 7:37am
Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

Rachel Nichols is good to look at: That's the only good thing here.

I sort of disagree here. As I posted before, one of the things that bothered me the most was how shameless the filmmakers were by coming up with excuses to have her in an extremely tight dress... and wet!
Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

This script is bad, dumb, and as predictable as an episode of Keeping Up With Kardashians.

What do you mean? That's a reality show. Realities don't have scripts. [...] What? Oh, sorry. I didn't write that. That was me when I was a teenager.LOL
Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

Rachel Nichols: She may be good to look at, but she's annoying as Hell. Also, is it me, or is her only good performance in Star Trek, where she had about two minutes of screen-time.

I'd say it was in TRAVELING PANTS 2. That was also a small role.


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


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: November 23 2011 at 7:56am
As for Nichols appearence, I was grasping for straws to write something positive about the movie.
 
In retrospect, I should have put The Hills there instead of Keeping Up With The Kardashians. They've all but admitted they were fake!
 
I've never seen either of The Sisterhood Of The Traveling Pants movies.


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



Print Page | Close Window