Print Page | Close Window

...and Only FOOLS Will Pay 2 See It!

Printed From: Official RAZZIEŽ Forum
Category: FORUMS on 29th ANNUAL RAZZIEŽ NOMINEES
Forum Name: FOOL'S GOLD
Forum Discription: Nominated for WORST ACTRESS (Kate Hudson)
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2500
Printed Date: April 16 2014 at 3:06pm


Topic: ...and Only FOOLS Will Pay 2 See It!
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: ...and Only FOOLS Will Pay 2 See It!
Date Posted: February 05 2008 at 3:49pm

HERE's an IRRESTABLE INVITATION to an AUDIENCE: WANNA SPEND 100 MINUTES with CHARACTERS YOU WOULDN'T WASTE 10 MINUTES ON IN REAL LIFE -- SQUABBLING, MONEY-GRUBBING, ASS-GRABBING JERKS with ONLY TWO THINGS on THEIR MINDS??

BUT WE DIGRESS...BASICALLY, http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=257&PN=1 - FOOL'S GOLD IS a PAINFULLY UN-ENTERTAINING "ROMANTIC ADVENTURE" --  an INADVERTENT REMAKE of KATE HUDSON's OWN MOTHER GOLDIE HAWN's 1987 DUD http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093693/ - OVERBOARD  -- and JUST AS MUCH of a PAIN in the ASS to SIT THROUGH...

FEEL FREE to AGREE, DISAGREE (or SIMPLY DISS) BELOW...

HUDSON: "See, this is where the script starts to go wrong -- Right here on Page 2..." 



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



Replies:
Posted By: moat
Date Posted: February 05 2008 at 7:09pm
Hey! You guys remember SAHARA?

Neither do I.


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: February 06 2008 at 8:00am
I liked "Sahara", but this will suck.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Up-next: Reefer Madness


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: February 06 2008 at 9:17am
This looks like a dead on remake of Romancing the Stone which airs almost daily on one or another of the Turner networks. Once again, originality is no where to be found.

-------------
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: yotypeocom
Date Posted: February 06 2008 at 9:25am
Will this be as BAD as Failure to Launch? now that was a weak, lame and shameless piece of CRAP! I hope this one at least is funny or ridiculous because even Sahara was at least entertaining. Matthew McConaguey is on a string of mess!


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 06 2008 at 12:37pm
I hated Failure to Launch but I immensly enjoyed How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days. I don't know, people seem to not enjoy sitcom comedy in movies....probably because sitcoms are for tv (movies like Monster-in-Law, Duplex, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, etc...). I look forward to this film because I enjoy the duo coming back together, even though it has bad reviews.


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: February 06 2008 at 1:11pm

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

This looks like a dead on remake of Romancing the Stone which airs almost daily on one or another of the Turner networks. Once again, originality is no where to be found.

Yeah, Looks like another "Pay Check" of the week movie for both Kate and Matt, Got to keep up the lifestyle you know!



-------------
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: jb razz
Date Posted: February 06 2008 at 11:45pm
I actually think that this looks like a fun movie, though I agree that the two
main characters probably get annoying after a while. Plus it has Donald
Sutherland and Ray Winstone in what look like fun supporting roles, though
they may end up being the only good part of the movie.


Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: February 07 2008 at 11:41am
"Come on, you know you're not going to hit me." WHACK.  No, it doesn't work.  You usually need some semblence of subtlety for this sort of story to work (Romancing the Stone did, and made the characters three dimensional as well), and it clearly has none of that.   


Posted By: bts228
Date Posted: February 13 2008 at 11:37am
I actually did pay to this awful piece of sh*t. Everything about it was terrible.
But a special RAZZIE needs to go to Alexis Dziena for Worst Supporting
Actress. This was possibly the worst acting I've ever seen on screen. This
bitch was f**king someone.


Posted By: mmscheema
Date Posted: April 21 2008 at 1:16pm

What a waste of good talent like Matthew McConaguey. Looked like an awful rehash of a number of good movies.



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


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: June 20 2008 at 2:48pm
I just watched this movie from Netflix; it was ok, wasn't horrible, but wasn't
the best either, and I can see where people are coming from when they point
out the movie's flaws...


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: June 26 2008 at 2:55pm
Damn this movie was AWFUL! Matt and Kate were awful, Donald Sutherland was miscast, and the b*tch who played his daughter DESERVES a Worst Supporting Actress win. For a film marketed as a light comedy, there was a large amount of blood. Matt shoots a man's ear off, Ray Winstone gets a harpoon to leg, explosions happen in close proximity to human beings, and when the main bad guy is stuck in a geyser, (SPOILER!) the geyser shoots a stream of blood and a flipper. To anyone that called "10,000 B.C." stupid needs to watch this and they will think that film was brilliant. This film defies multiple laws of physics. Guns at the bottom of the ocean work just fine (this gets worse when you remember Hollywood knows this doesn't work; the had jokes about wet clips not working in "Pirates Of The Carribean: At Word's End" and "Shoot'Em Up"), when Winstone gets the harpoon to the leg, with exception of a pissy look on his face, he just keeps going after the guy who shoot at him, Matt doesn't appear unfaced after getting launched up into the air by an explosion, and wouldn't body parts come out of the geyser as well? Nominees: Worst Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, Screenplay, Screen Couple, and Rip-Off (of "The Deep", "National Treasure", "Romancing The Stone", and "Sahara").

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Up-next: Reefer Madness


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: June 27 2008 at 4:22am

Yeah, this movie was marketed a a comedy but it was actually an action/adventure. I was surprised by the huge amounts of blood and violence (compared to other PG-13 movies). But I thought the daughter was actually pretty funny... 

 



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


Posted By: myworksucks
Date Posted: June 30 2008 at 4:11am
This movie was so stupid. The jokes fell flat and not even the shot of a shirtless Matt M could save this stinker.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 12:56pm
Any movie that depends on its stars running around shirtless or in bikinis is doomed. Just because it worked for "Baywatch", doesn't mean it works for major motion pictures.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 03 2008 at 2:35pm

This is even worse.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005028/ - Kate Hudson and http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000190/ - Matthew McConaughey are planning another movie together - a remake of http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077578/ - Foul Play .

Ironically, Hudson's mother http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000443/ - Goldie Hawn starred in the original 1978 comedy.

Hudson and McConaughey have played lovers in http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0770752/ - Fool's Gold and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0251127/ - How To Lose A Guy in 10 Days .

The actress confirms negotiations have started about the new film project, but "we don't even have a writer yet".

That writer has big trouble on his hands. And since when are Hudson and McConaughey the new Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan?

 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Date Posted: July 04 2008 at 3:11am

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: "Ironically," nothing -- If indeed this project is "in the works," it's probably because of the idea of having Hudson re-create one of her mother's most popular roles. As for having McConaughey replace Chevy Chase -- I have yet to see any evidence that he has any comedic abilities. And for those who remember the original http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077578/ - FOUL PLAY , just who are they thinking could play the film's third major role, which played a major part in elevating Dudley Moore to stardom three decades ago??? 

 



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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 5:14pm
Tim Allen.  Why not?  The movie is a bust from the get-go.  Might as well throw bad money after bad. . . .

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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 10 2008 at 4:06pm

Or, if you want to go with totally talentless and unfunny: Dane Cook.   

Originally posted by cvcjr13

Tim Allen.  Why not?  The movie is a bust from the get-go.  Might as well throw bad money after bad. . . .



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: September 08 2008 at 12:52pm
Originally posted by cvcjr13

Tim Allen.  Why not?  The movie is a bust from the get
go.  Might as well throw bad money after bad. . . .


Tim Allen is facing what Robin Williams is; both are pretty funny comedians,
but a lot of their movies don't reflect that.


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: November 08 2008 at 5:44pm

The only categories this film has a shot for are Worst Screen Couple (Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson) and possibly Worst Actress (Kate Hudson). 



Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: November 09 2008 at 4:21am
I can't decide who's worse in the movie, Kate Hudson or Matthew
McConaughey, but it is for sure that Kate Hudson will receive a four-way
Worst Screen couple nomination with Matthew McConaughey, Dane Cook,
and Jason Biggs from My Best
Friends Girl
.


Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: November 23 2008 at 3:44pm

No doubt along with whatever poor saps they tap to play the albino hitman (with our luck probably Eddie Murphy trying a desperate, laughable attempt to recreate his classic SNL "becoming a white guy" routine) and the midget bible salesman (perhaps a cameo for Chevy, digitally shrunk to midget proportions to "ironically" no doubt reflect how he feels about himself at the moment).   



Posted By: wolfee37
Date Posted: January 14 2009 at 4:45pm
Kate Hudson was good in this! But Donald Sutherland and the girl who plays his daughter totally deserve their nominations! You guys better not forget about them, or I will have to create my own razzies cause you guys alawys snub the real deserving ones :P


Posted By: Pete
Date Posted: May 08 2009 at 3:51am

Were flying!

Yep!

How do we get out of this trainwreck?

Yep!



-------------
City of angels, I'll see you again, on the last frontier


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 08 2010 at 10:18am
Have we really come to this?Hatin'movie just because Matthew is shirtless the entire time(if there are other reasons,that's the main one)?

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 08 2010 at 1:29pm
Originally posted by Vits

Have we really come to this?Hatin'movie just because Matthew is shirtless the entire time(if there are other reasons,that's the main one)?
Considering it didn't win anything, there really isn't much "hate" on it.


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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 08 2010 at 1:53pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Originally posted by Vits

Have we really come to this?Hatin'movie just because Matthew is shirtless the entire time(if there are other reasons,that's the main one)?
Considering it didn't win anything, there really isn't much "hate" on it.
 
What are you talkin'bout?A movie's failure isn't just messured on how many Razzies it won,just like a movie's success isn't just messured on how many Oscars it won.
 
I don't know how it did at the box office,but I know it had bad reviews,and in a lot of'em I read "It sucks'cuz Matthew is shirtless the entire time",and tons of those were written by experts.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 08 2010 at 2:04pm
I'm just saying, it's not worth bringing up, since it's been over a year since it was released and it didn't win any Razzies. We should be focusing on what's up for Razzies this year.

-------------
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 08 2010 at 3:03pm
Actually,there's a forum for that.This one is for this movie,and for the awards it won or should have.

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



Print Page | Close Window