WITH OVER 15,000 RATINGS at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1099212/ - and an OVERALL SCORE of JUST 5.8 OUT of 10 (and ONLY PRE-SCREENED IT for CRITICS at the BERRY LAST MINUTE) http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=320 -  COULD BE CONSIDERED the SURPRISE TOOTHLESS WONDER of FALL 2008...

WE LIKE to THINK of IT as the VAMPIRE EQUIVALENT of http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=315 - -- BUT in THIS CASE, the TEEN-AGED CHARACTERS LITERALLY SUCK! 

SO GO AHEAD, SINK YOUR TEETH into THIS ONE: AGREE, DISAGREE or POST TOTAL GIBBERISH...WE PROMISE -- WE WON'T BITE BACK!

"Think of us as the kids from THE O.C. -- but with much 

bigger hair, no curfew...and way sharper teeth!"

This one sure looks like a nice, juicy, PERFECT Razzie target.

If all those young actors spent any more time "posing" than they do, this movie might be mistaken for "House of Whacks"!! 

Although this movie has been getting buzz like crazy and is everywhere I look, it screams "Razzie". 1. It's target audience is ... 14 year old girls, the same who made "HSM 3" #1 at the Box Office two weeks in a row, and made "Titanic" the top grossing movie of all time. 2. It already has two sequels lined up, ie. the studio is already milking it as a cash cow. 3. It looks like "The OC", "One Tree Hill", "Gossip Girl", "90210", etc. but with vampires. Yawn!

My forecast: teenage girls make it #1 movie of the week, only to have critics rip it a new one the following week. Special Razzie nod: "Worst Teenaged Bait Movie" (add "HSM 3" to that list as well).

OMG! I SOOOO WANNA SEE THIS MOVIE! ARGGHHHH! I WAITED 8546050 HOURS TO SEE THE STARS IN THE MALL!!!! I'VE ORDERED TICKETS FOR A MIDNIGHT SHOWING TONIGHT FOR $4540654!!!!!!! I CAN'T FREAKING WAIT!!!

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Okay, I'm confused -- Is this posting moviewizeguy acting like he's a 14-year-old TWILIGHT fan...or has he been bitten by a teen vampire and actually morphed into a 14-year-old girl??? 

I am confused as well. I'm hoping it's the former, because the latter is just plain scary! 

I think moviewizguy is over-reacting to the situation.

But if this movie does get nominated, HeadRazz, get ready to face the wrath of angry teenage girls... 

Wow, you're stereotyping horror movies as bad.  I'm not surprised.  I know you guys don't take kindly to horror flicks, but to criticize one that has a lot of anticipation, I ought to give you a piece of my mind:  You are so corrupt! You hardly ever change your opinions once you put a forum up.  You stereotype films based on their genre, cast, or crew.  Every time certain genres, actors/actresses, or directors/screenwriters come up with a new movie, you post a forum on the film and make it a Razzie prospect, no matter what. 

You should televise your Movie Awards of the Damned so everyone can see how corrupt you guys are!    

Damn you all! 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Coming from you, sir, I'll take that as a compliment! 

To react to the last sentence first, be careful. I'm not convinced you have a great deal to spare...   

Nonetheless, the horror genre took a sharp downward turn following the release of the original Halloween 30 years ago. It represents Hollywood's lowest common denominator targeting at its worst and I don't see any reason that this movie will be an exception. In fact, this movie appears to represent everything that has gone wrong with their approach to the genre. Bela Lugosi isn't just spinning in his grave over this one, it wouldn't surprise me if he got up out of it.

I'd kind of like to see you present your definition of "corrupt" because I think that if you look it up in a good dictionary, you'll find that it isn't a particularly appropriate expression, and you've misused it repeatedly. However, it isn't so much that we stereotype films, it is that Hollywood has routinely pigeon-holed various genres into hoary formulas that tend to pull in audiences, but are artistically and creatively void.

If the Razzies were televised, they'd probably be a bigger ratings success than some of the other lame shows out there...e.g. the Golden Globs, which are such a yawn that they have to notify the winners in advance in order to get any celebs just to show up. There are, as acknowledged, certain actors or directors that have a strong enough track record to catch our attention whenever their work is released. However, if it turns out not to be Razzie worthy, as has happened with some frequency since I've been haunting these digs, it has been readily acknowledged.

Sorry you are pissed off -- but deal with it!! 

Yes. I was using sarcasm. I thought it was obvious...   

You could say that we stereotype horror movies before seeing them, but if you look at the vast majority of horror movies, you'll find that nine out of ten of them are abortive than scary.

And if a horror movie actually turns out to be decent (which rarely happens lately), then there is a low chance that it will even get nominated.

Ah, the usual saturnwatcher vs. Miguel debate, one of the best thing about this fourm.

And no, we are not bashing it because it's a "horror" movie (which it isn't), we're bashing it because it's every teenage soap opera you see on The CW -- except with vampires as the leads.

CW has nothing to do with this.  Come to think of it, if you look at the numbers on Rotten Tomatoes, you can see the community stooping to the critics' level.  I mean, look at those meaningless middle fingers they're holding up!

The CW has become the token "pretty-rich-teenagers-who-have-nothing-better-to-do-but-sho p-and-sleep-around-then-whine-when--it-backfires-on-them-bec ause-their parents'-credit-cards-max-out-or-they-get-preggers-or-an-STD " network.

When your cast is made up entirely of too pretty teenagers ... CW alert!

Plus, what is about Rotten Tomatoes that you hate so much? It's just a collection of critics' reviews! 

Yo, MiguelAntilsu -- Take a moment, take a deep breath...and let that giant knot in your panties unravel! 

I'm worried you're about to have a coronary thrombosis or  a stroke...and I find your postings here so amusing, that'd be a great loss to us all!!

Well, let's not go too far! Probably the only show on the CW that is actually interesting happens to be Supernatural. Basically, it's better than Twilight.

I'm not saying CW's other shows are bad. Probably the only actors and actresses good on the network are Blake Lively (dopey pout aside, she CAN act), Erica Durance (next to Dana Delaney and Margot Kidder, the best portrayal of Lois Lane) Kristin Kreuk (I'm curious to see what she can do with the character of Chun-Li in the next Street Fighter film) Leighton Meester (her portrayal of Blair Wooldorf is riveting), Penn Badgeley (he has kind of a Jensen Ackles-type sarcasm; he'd work as one of the comic relief Justice Leaguers in a Justice League film, add a Red Bull) Sophia Bush (a solid actress who has a bad taste in scripts - The Hitcher, anyone?), and Tom Welling (the only good Superman out there). Did I miss any? 

Well, there's one little problem as to why we can't. See, most major TV stations are also owned by motion picture studios and companies. Seeing as how our awards are to mock the worst of what the studios make, I don't think any of them would be willing to air an award show on one of their TV networks that points out their own short comings.

As for RoadDog's list of the CW's few talents, I'll give those actors and actresses more credit once they escape the evil realm of teenage soap operas. 

And about Scientologists, not just Tom Cruise, but even South Park has dealt with that and eventually spoofing it with the episode "Trapped in the Closet". It did cause Isaac Hayes to opt out of his contract from South Park since he too was a Scientologist causing Chef to be retired from the series, and right after Bernie Mac died, he passed on as well. Rest in peace, Chef.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/82/Chef.svg">

About soap operas, Days of Our Lives is on the verge of collapse after firing two of its cast members.  Yahoo.com told me that this TV genre may be on the verge of apocalypse after the aforementioned events.

...HUH?   
Chef was eaten to death by his Thetans... 

These are the Movie Preview Critic's thoughts about the movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR2P20QeXxY - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR2P20QeXxY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKlI4E-pLfs - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKlI4E-pLfs

Now, before you jump all over it, yes I know his opinion is based solely on what he has seen in the trailers. He has explained that since the movie trailer is a major selling point of a movie, if the trailer sucks, chances are so does the movie, because you can study a trailer and decode it to figure out what the movie will be like.

I agree with him that if you are a fan of the book, chances are you will love the movie, but if you don't have any clue what the book is like, then chances are the movie will be the same old, same old teenage lovers movie that has been made a million times before ... or say, the same old, same old teenage soap opera on the CW.

PS: There's a teenager version of "The X-Men" in the works, by the same producer who created "The OC" and "Gossip Girl". UGH!!!!

And even though Soul Men wasn't a very good film, I'm glad it wasn't nominated for any Razzies because that would just be absurd.

As for Twilight, it's basically a gothic chick flick.

The anticipation that the fans of the book had seemed to overpower the anticipation of...anybody else.  The fact that its based on a book and not a foriegn film might keep this film from getting a Razzie nomination.

When you say "before you jump all over it", are you talking to me?

So there are CW elements in it.

When you say "Teenager version of 'The X-Men'", do you mean in the lines of High School Musical or something like that (I don't even want to imagine it)?

They've done "X-Men as teenagers" shows before as cartoons... More than once, I believe. I'm assuming it's something like that. But the way I imagine it, with that team mentioned behind it, it sounds like a couple of boys with superpowers saving their teenage girl superpowers, and vice versa, and everyone dates everyone. And that takes prominence over the whole point of the X-Men, with its overall theme of tolerance. 

[/QUOTE] When you say "before you jump all over it", are you talking to me? So there are CW elements in it. When you say "Teenager version of 'The X-Men'", do you mean in the lines of High School Musical or something like that (I don't even want to imagine it)?[/QUOTE]

Seventeen-year-old Isabella "Bella" Swan moves to the small town of
Forks, Washington, to live with her father. There, she finds herself
drawn to a mysterious classmate, Edward Cullen, who is revealed to be a
108-year-old vampire but is physically seventeen. Although Edward
discourages the romance at first, they soon fall deeply in love. When
the arrival of three nomadic vampires puts Bella's life in danger,
Edward and his family put their lives at stake to save her.

You may question yourself now, "What is with this hype?", "Have the
world gone mad?", or even "Should I even see this?" You don't know what
this is all about but you're curious. This is where I come in, and
other millions of reviews you can read to gain answers from these
questions and even millions more. No, I have not read the books.
Actually, I have chosen to try to watch movies before I read their
original sources because comparing the two can cause huge problems.
*cough*Harry Potter*cough* No, I'm not a fan, so I WAS in the same boat
as you. To start this off, I wasn't looking forward to this film. So
why did I see this? My brother read the book and wanted to see the
movie. But now I can say I left the theater with a huge smile on my
face.

So what is this hype? It's nothing different than the "Harry Potter"
frenzy and any other frenzy you can think of (LotR, Star Wars, etc).
This is basically a vampire love story for this year's generation, and
I'm part of it (which might be another reason the movie appealed to
me). So what's different about this than other vampire love stories? I
guess it has to deal with the young cast, which gives off a hint of
freshness, if you ask me. No doubt, the target demographic for this
film are the fans of the books, plus millions of teenage girls. If
you're not apart of it, well, I guess you can do yourself a favor and
skip this movie. It's not for you. Howver, there is a small chance for
teenage guys and people who haven't read the books but are curious to
see this movie to like the film. Hello, I'm one of them so take that
risk if you will.

The love story presented in the movie has a timeless feel to it. I'm a
sentimental fellow so it's no surprise I was brought into it very
quickly. However, that doesn't mean the movie is flawless. There are
some moments in the film that is just downright cheesy and awkward.
Take this scene, for example: The first time Kristen Stewart and Robert
Pattinson meet each other is awkward, but this is probably a bad
example because I think it was supposed to be that way. There are some
lines in here that was also very awkward and cheesy. There's one about
heroine. You don't want to know. But apart from those flaws, the film
does a great job giving us a fantastic romance.

A high point in this film is, surprisingly, the performances by almost
everyone in the movie. Judging by the movie trailer, Kristen Stewart
and Robert Pattinson might give off some bad vibes but that's because
you're not watching the movie as a whole. Trust me, Kristen Stewart and
Robert Pattinson both give off some fantastic performances, not to
mention a great chemistry. The supporting cast also do a very great job
as well, for what they're given.

The music choices for this movie is very weird, but you'll get used to
it. It's a mix of rock and perhaps Gothic (I couldn't tell, exactly).
The direction by Catherine Hardwicke does a great job showing us some
fantastic views of nature. In total, I was swept away by four fantastic
sequences in the movie. I won't tell you because it'll ruin the
surprise. One thing that bothered me about this film was that, and it
may be just me, the film should've gotten a better distributer because
the film looks low budget compared to other film adaptations and it is
(a budget of about $37 million). I just wished that the film could've
gotten a more well known distributer so that it could've gotten a
bigger budget so the film would look less amateur and better special
effects. Like I said, it may be only me.

Overall, the film surprised me big time, surpassing way over my
expectations and probably some other people that are going to see it
too. If you're a fan of the books and/or a teenage girl, there's no
doubt you should see this movie. If you're not, you probably will not
like the movie, although there's still a small chance that this miracle
can happen. If you're one of those people who feels like it's the end
of the world because of this huge fan base and this huge success for
this movie, don't complain because we all know this movie isn't for you
so just stop whining that there will be an apocalypse. In the end, this
movie is basically a huge setup for the next three movies (hopefully,
they will get made) but that's not a bad thing because you get a great
romance with a fantastic showdown in the end. 8/10

From what I've seen, the film appears to be somewhat overdirected; slavishly building up your hero in "he's a terrific guy" shots as seen a little more than was needed is about as redundant as repeatedly trying to win the audience's sympathy by having other characters say point blank that he's terrific before we've even met him/her. 

Yes, I know of that series, but this is going to be LIVE ACTION. Here's the story.

http://www.zap2it.com/movies/news/zap-schwartzxmenfirstclass,0,4852557.story?track=rss - http://www.zap2it.com/movies/news/zap-schwartzxmenfirstclass ,0,4852557.story?track=rss

Back to the Movie Preview Critic, he does make an excellent point. Studios are just looking for a movie to be the big payoff of the year, and then they leech on it for as long as they can. And rather than taking chances on original ideas, they go with remakes, sequels, and adaptations with proven fanbases. But sadly, somewhere along the ride, they mess up big time and the final product sucks. 

Say what? We don't like this piece of dreck, with Mr. Emo Anne Rice-esque poser vampire, and that's an indictment of all horror movies in general?

Frankly, this movie is an insult to the horror genre -- UGH! And that's if you even seriously consider it to be horror - I don't.

You're clearly clueless and ignorant, bub.

Yeah, just because vampires are part of the story, that doesn't mean it's horror. It's just a chick flick with vampires in it. It's to make 14 year old girls all dreamy eyed over the male leads. Same as "Underworld" is an action movie that just happens to have vampires and werewolves in it; it's not meant to be scary. I think we finally agree on something, stupid people who jump the gun and claim something to be a certain gerne just because it has classic motifs from a certain gerne. Anyone who calls "Underworld" the worst horror movie ever had no idea what they we paying to see in the first place: just a guilty pleasure action flick.

I like it when people who argue with each other finally agree on something different. This rarely happens to me on IMDb!

Anyway, I liked Underworld 2 better because it had more action. Stupid reason, I guess, but action is the only entertainment I got out from those movies. I never cared about the plot.

Ya know, since we're off subject anyway, I feel like bringing this up... I liked Underworld 1 and 2, but I STILL can't get over the whole vampires using guns thing. I mean, it just seems silly to me in the first place, but especially in Underworld 2, the guns do NOTHING... She just sits there shooting and shooting and the guy isn't even phased. I just pisses me off to no end. I'm hearing that if they actually ever make Underworld 3, it's going to be set in the past pre-Kate Beckinsdale in the middle ages, so I think that could actually be kinda cool. Maybe.

Exactly! I saw Twilight last weekend, and it was as bad as everyone said. Basically, if you though Peter Parker's evil side from Spider-Man 3 was chill inducing, you should see Twilight. The two characters are oh-so pathetic and glum, they register more as glorified Hot Topic stereotypes than real people. It was such a depressing film, even when it tried to bounce off the screen. So much for Kristen Stewart's breakout role (Adventureland, however, is over the horizon; it's directed by Superbad director Greg Motolla). For the people who like this, High School Musical, and Hannah Montana: Good luck finding someone else to find your questionable taste of everything pop culture, because you're gonna wind up as lonely and pathetic as Edward and Bella.

Okay, maybe this isn't exactly a horror flick (despite the elements). 

CW, Comedy Central, Disney, and other pop culture channel induced movies are getting out of hand and going out of style.  HSM3's theatrical release jumped the shark, Hannah Montana's wrapped up Worst Excuse for a Documentary (if you have that category), Twilight's already getting Teen Choice Award nods, The Women mixes Days of Our Lives with total chaos, What Happens in Vegas puts Sin City into a bad position, College Road Trip is That's So Raven in hell, and Meet the Spartans and Disaster Movie ended the careers of MadTV's cast.

Yeah, "Underworld 2" was just a fun excuse to watch Beckinsale run around in a skin-tight outfit and shoot to werewolves left and right. I guess if you can't kill your enemies at close range, even a vampire needs a gun then. "UW 3" will suck through, 1. because of the lack of Beckinsale, the only silver lining to the series, and 2. it looks more like "Twilight" with an R rating. 

As hot as Beckinsale is, Bill Nighy has also been doing a lot for me in that series, albeit in a different sort of way. He's just been one of the most bad-ass sorta vampires, in Viktor, that I've ever seen. Great delivery!

I had the time of my life with "College Road Trip." I found it immensly entertaining and I know I'm watching a movie that isn't trying to do anything but to entertain people. I laughed (out loud, actually) at the very stupid jokes. I guess I was in a light mood that time because, well, it was such an uplifting film and I laughed the whole way through. I was literally high when the credits started rolling. And that random singing sequence, although I would pull a "WTF" moment if I were to watch another movie, I enjoyed too.

Where I work, I am actually FORCED to watch "That's So Raven" on Saturdays...and the experience is PA-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-AINFUL! 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I am curious -- Where do you work that you are forced to watch 'tween TV fare on the job??  

Oh yes, watching any of the live action Disney 'tween shows (Raven, Hannah Montana, Zack and Cody, etc.) for more than a minute is painful. Such B-A-D acting and writing! Makes me wish there was an "Emmy edition" of the Razzies -- those series would sweep every year! 

Oh, Gosh. I enjoy "That's So Raven" a lot. It's hilarious! 

Why am I not surprised?          

Why am I not surprised that you're not surprised?  

Maybe we're getting closer to proving that some members of this Forum are not old enough to know a good movie from a bad one.

Haha! I signed up just so I could post on this Forum.

I was one of those girls that bought a ticket ahead of time so I could be the 1st one to see it. I was excited when the movie began, and excited when the title hit the screen, since I do love the book (& No i didn't squeal like a 14yo).

No, submitting your money at the box office is like voting, once it's cast, you can't take it back. There's no way studios would encourage theaters to give refunds. The best way to avoid wating money on bad movies: Don't go to see them in theaters -- wait for them to show up on Pay-Per-View At least then you only waste $3 or $4... 

Or maybe some members just think they know which movie is good or bad by judging things, such as the previews, trailers, the cast or crew, etc.

And then they do see the movie, and they are proven right. 

Or maybe they say they do and really didn't just to make themselves look right.

Painful? You wanna talk about painful? Then I dare you to watch The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, the one with Adam Sandler's kid(s) from Big Daddy. Let's just say the whole thing is one big slapsticky cartoon with no subtlety, cartoonish stereotypes, dumb jokes, and Brenda Song...

As if the whole environment there isn't silly enough, we have this no-talent Asian actress just pushing the overacting accelerator into the ground. I've never seen anyone so manic and idiotic in Disney fare before. What's worse, her character (London Tipton, which sounds like Paris Hilton - subtle, huh?) has a live blog that is on the Disney Channel website (If you dare, it's http://tv.disney.go.com/disneychannel/suitelife/index. html). I respect women with every bone in my body, but if I had the opportunity to pimpslap one into oblivion, it's London Tipton. And I'd save those poor boys, Ashley Tisdale (seriously, she's way more talented amongst the insipid HSM cast), and the black dude who appeared on Scrubs.

Seriously, can you believe most of our hardpaying money goes to keeping pieces of sh*t like this show on the air? That's why I watch Pixar movies, cause at least I don't squirm in my seat if I'm forced to watch them. Hell, they even get nominated for awards even.

So then they waste time and money on an award show that gives "awards" to those same movies that they said were bad? I think not.

And maybe some members have the common sense not to post on a forum whose sole purpose is to bash bad movies if they feel that people shouldn't bash movies at all. Kinda like a person who is allergic to shellfish who goes into Red Lobster and orders the all you can eat shrimp special, and then wonders why all of a sudden he can't breathe.

Yeah, I mentioned Zack and Cody. Add to the evil trio of Disney 'Tween shows: Hannah Montana, in which Miley Cryus overacts with every expression and every line she says. And she has this Clark Kent thing going in which all she has to do is put on a blonde wig and no one can tell she's still Miley Cryus. And don't get me started on that Miley Cryus/Hannah Montana concert movie! Parents having to pay out their @$$ just so their kids can see Miley "sing" with a blonde wig on, and then "sing" again without the wig on...

And now we have a Jones Bros. series to look forward to. UGH!!!

This'll be the last time I'll post anything about the Disney Channel in an unrelated board...

Compared to TSLOZAC, Hannah Montana is ultimately more sedate and less irritating. Sure, all you said above is true, as well as that little kid almost matches Brenda Song in the overacting tween department... Ah, who am I kidding, that show's not any better either. 

By the way, if you listen to The Howard Stern Show on Sirius, you have to have heard Howard rant on about Billy Ray Cyrus - how his song "Achy Brakey Heart" was garbage and he writes all of Miley Cyrus's songs. It was the funniest thing I've ever heard, but the fact of the matter is, it's all true.

But what I can't imagine is how Miley delivers a halfway decent performance in Bolt, and she can't even do a similar job on that POS sitcom. I don't watch it, but I hear things.

There, that's it. But what about my little rant about Brenda Song? Or is that one less cyanide pill we have to swallow?

I know very little about Brenda Song, other than she is one of Disney's recycled "talents" that they use over and over because they are too cheap to hire new "talent." I recall she was in "College Road Trip", and the TV movie "Wendy Wu," both Disney productions. I swear, I think Disney is on a par with daytime soap operas, hiring their actors and actresses for their looks and not for their acting skills. It's like they try to hire the cutest jail bait they can find, in hopes they will sucker in dirty old men and get their ratings up. And yes, their shows seem to be written by 6 year olds, even though they are supposed to be for 'tweens. 

Boy, has this thread gone off course!

Yeah, sorry about that. When someone brought up Disney Channel, I wanted to put my two cents in. You do make a good point about "cutest jailbait" - I'm wondering how I should react to Selena Gomez.  Besides the fact that she's not as agonizing as the rest of Disney's stew, she's 15 -- and she's frickin' hot! Of course, I've been to high school, and I knew some girls who were very attractive at 15.

All right...everyone can go back to bitchin' about Twilight now.

There's no problem in bitchin' about Disney. The problem is that "Twilight" is a success, so expect the other three books in the series to get movie treatments, too.

All we can do is give all of them Worst Sequel awards.

Lest ye forget, "Seltzerberg" still exists, and while their "Movie movies" aren't technically sequels, they ARE the worst "sequels" out there. Amongst many other worsts that they merit... 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Although it's kinda moot with our awards for Prequel/Sequel and Remake/Rip-Off  likely being conjoined into a single category this year, I would argue that those "Seltzerberg" movies belong more logically under the Remake/Rip-Off banner than they do under Prequel/Sequel... 

I would file "Seltzerberg" movies under the "Worst Excuse For A Movie" catagory than Remake.

Well, there was Worst Excuse for an Actual Movie in 2003.  Maybe we should bring that back?

...I can't think of a reason to have ever gotten rid of that category. 

Yeah, I think Worst Excuse for a Movie should be made a permanent category in the line-up, as well as Worst On-Screen Couple be changed to Worst Ensemble Cast. 

Let's see, that would list the awards as:

Worst Picture, Worst Actor, Worst Actress, Worst Supporting Actor, Worst Supporting Actress, Worst Ensemble Cast, Worst Remake/Sequel/Ripoff, Worst Excuse For A Movie, Worst Screenplay, Worst Director.

So that's 10 Awards right there for the permanent line-up. Maybe every year, 2 bonus categories could be added, like Worst Movie That Made Over $100 Million, Worst Teenager Bait Movie, Worst Studio, etc.

There was something similar (Most Flatulent Teen-Targeted Movie) in 2002, but there was a limitation to that (it had to be disgusting).  The Love Guru, Disaster Movie, and Meet the Spartans would be vying for that prize.

Worst Movie Grossing Over $100 Million was used in the 90s.  If used now, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor would be the victor.

Worst Studio would have to be Lionsgate, Regency Releasing, RoadSide Attractions, Summit Entertainment, or Twentieth Century Fox.

Yeah, I do. I think it was used as a catagory a few years back. Examples would be like the "Fast and Furious" movies, or say, "Twilight" this year. 

Nah, I gotcha... I was just trying to work in a "Go Away! Batin!" joke.

For once, I'll have to agree with you. "Disaster Movie" really does fall under Worst Teen Targeted Movie as well as Worst Excuse For A Movie. "The Mummy 3" would be perfect for Worst Movie To Make $100 Million. And your choices for Worst Studio are dead on; that catagory and those choices should be on the voters' ballot this year. 

 Good one, dEd.

This film, had it's unintentionally hilarious moments; Dr White Chocolate-face; the 'growl' off, the "I'm a genius and figured out you're a vampire" scenes, the lipstick looking better on him than on her, and so on.

The piano piece was fine, but there wasnt enough here to sustain anything other than a big laugh, especially at that screenplay. The, "No you arent", "Yes I am", "No you dont", "Yes I do" etc, was horrible.

A second one you say? Without Hardwicke? Okay......

I don't think the subject material will be good in the hands of any director.

...marketed directly to 13-year-old girls who moon over posterboys on their bedroom walls...

No wonder there's a mass increase of virgins!

Remove the vampire material, and what you've got here is a Disney Channel Original Movie, complete with swooning lovers, a howler of a screenplay, and utter shallowness (one review on IMDB said that any normal person is "an annoying, unintelligent, judgmental dumb-wit who has no real attractive features whatsoever.").

It's weird that critics went wild over the craziness that goes on in High School Musical, yet they were indifferent to similar films like this and Bratz. That's mass schizophrenia, ladies and gentlemen!

If Hannah Montana: The Movie and its over-the-top look at life of a pop star scores with critics...I don't have anything witty or smart to say, so I'll leave it at that.

From what I heard, "Twilight" is just "Buffy: The Vampire Slayer"... minus a vampire slayer. 

$^%&#ify indeed! I couldn't have said it better myself! This movie (and the associated books) are helping to ruin the concept of vampires for everyone.

We must fight against any further $^%&#-ification of Vampires!

You mean when you're not hooking up with 16 year old school girls, even though you're 200+ years old, thus making you the world's oldest pedophile?

PS: I'm not kidding, that's the plot of this movie...

So, could they change the tag line to something like " Twilight: Making Extreme Pedophilia sexy!"  or perhaps "Twilight: That old dude Anna Nichole married had NOTHING on Edward"?

OOOH! I got it! "Twilight: When 200 years old you are, hook up with younger girls you will not, mmm."

Damn... My Yoda impression doesn't translate well to forums...

You mean when you're not hooking up with 16 year old school girls, even though you're 200+ years old, thus making you the world's oldest pedophile?

PS: I'm not kidding, that is the plot to the movie.

Or maybe "Twilight: Vampires Who Look Overtly Sexy, Yet Don't Actually Have Sex Because The Stories Are Written By A Mormon"?

"Twilight: Girls, violence against women is wrong... unless your boyfriend really want to eat you, then it is OK!

Ya know, I REALLY try to keep my humor cleaner and less dark on this site... You make it very hard with that one.