Print Page | Close Window

Here’s Where 2 Put In Yer 2-Cents...

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: FEEDBACK on 2008 RAZZIE® NOMs & "WINNERS"...
Forum Name: TELL US WHATCHA THINK of OUR CHOICES
Forum Discription: Delighted We Remembered a Dud You Hated...or Enraged We Ragged on a Personal Favorite? EXPRESS YOURSELF HERE!
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3424
Printed Date: September 22 2014 at 11:31pm


Topic: Here’s Where 2 Put In Yer 2-Cents...
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Here’s Where 2 Put In Yer 2-Cents...
Date Posted: January 18 2009 at 12:55am

UNLIKE http://www.oscars.org/ - , WE REALIZE YOU, the MOVIE-GOING PUBLIC, DON'T ALWAZE AGREE with OUR CHOICES. SO, WE'RE GIVING YOU a PLACE to PUBLICLY BLOW US "AIR KISSES," BLOW US OUT of the WATER...or TELL US WHICH ORIFICE WE CAN BLOW IT OUT OF!!  

BELOW IS YOUR CHANCE to LET LOOSE with YOUR INVECTIVE, PRAISE (OR INDIFFERENCE) REGARDING WHAT OUR VOTING MEMBERS SELECTED as 2008's BERRY WORST.

 

ALSO UNLIKE THOSE OTHER SNOOTY AWARD SHOWS, WE'LL LET ANYONE VOTE...WELL, ANYONE with a VISA, MASTER CARD or CHECK-THAT'LL-CLEAR WHO's WILLING to PART with $25.00.

SO, IF YOU WANNA BECOME a VOTING RAZZIE® MEMBER YOURSELF, HERE'S a  http://razzies.com/join.asp - (a.k.a. SHAMELESS PLUG) THAT'S YOUR CHANCE to JOIN US in SELECTING THIS YEAR's EVENTUAL "WINNERS."

WHO NOSE -- IF YOU JOIN NOW, YOU MIGHT EVEN MEET YOUR LEAST FAVORITE MOVIE STAR in PERSON at http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=876&PN=1 - ...



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



Replies:
Posted By: khaliel
Date Posted: January 21 2009 at 12:09am

"on our 29th Annual Nominations for Worst Achievements in Film, just announced this morning."

Uh ok... it was announced but... where can we find this nomination list on the website? It's nowhere! Hard to give any feedback if we can't see the nominations...



Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Date Posted: January 21 2009 at 12:35am
RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: The nominations posted at 5:30am/PST, and can be accessed from a RAZZberry pink banner at the top center of our Main Page. To spare you a little hassle, here's the http://www.razzies.com/history/29thNoms.asp - LINK . Khaliel showed up about 21 minutes too early...

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


Posted By: Nasty Man
Date Posted: January 21 2009 at 1:12am

WOW! Looks like Uwe Boll could sweep this year's Razzies the way Eddie Murphy and Lindsay Lohan did last year's.

My one big disappointment: As awful as "In the Name of the King" is, Boll's "Postal" was actually way worse -- Yet it only got a handful of nominations.

Also, if you gize could add how many nominations each picture received to your info, that would be helpful. It's difficult, the way it's presented right now, to tally up that info if you're interested in it...

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: We'll take your request for additional info under advisement and see if it can be added later today. Right now our Web Master is sleeping off a long night creating the materials that auto-posted at 5:30am today...

 



-------------
Everything SUX!


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 21 2009 at 2:14am

Okay, surprises first: "Meet The Spartans" and "Disaster Movie" share a Worst Picture nomination, but "In The Name Of The King" and "Postal" don't? Also, no nods for "High School Musical 3" at all?! Lastly, Eddie Murphy takes full blame for "Meet Dave", and no one else.

Other than that, everything that should have gotten a nod, did get a nod. Worst Supporting Actress is full of talentless blow-up dolls that have no right to be in the business (except Leelee, her agent just sucks at getting her good roles). Seltzerberg and Uwe Boll are all over the place, as they should be, and (much to moviewizguy's dislike) "The Happening" is also multiply-nominated. I can't wait for his latest rant about how it was the most misunderstood movie of 2008 and we don't know what we are doing by giving it so many nods (or wins).

One last thing: I know that giving five actresses one "award" is tempting, but I seriously do think that the entire cast of "The Women" as Worst Actress is a bit much. I know I've hammered this idea here on the forum as much as moviewizguy has tried to hammer us with the thought that "The Happening" was a good movie, but for next year, I think Worst On-Screen Duo should be permently replaced with Worst Ensemble Cast. That covers more ground and then it makes more sense when entire casts are considered worthy of being razzed.

PS: Uwe Boll for Worse Career ... justice is served! He's not getting away from us this time. Now, it's just a matter of me having to choose: Who will to vote for more, Boll or Seltzerberg?

 



-------------
"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: Adam Schramm
Date Posted: January 21 2009 at 10:15am

[QUOTE=Michaels]Worst Supporting Actress is full of talentless blow-up dolls that have no right to be in the business (except Leelee, her agent just sucks at getting her good roles). /QUOTE]

While this may or may not be true, LeeLee's outstandingly horrid acting in 88 Minutes springs solely from her own "merits."  No agent, director or other outside influence could possibly have coaxed such a  Golden Turkey performance as LeeLee's was in the last 20 minutes of this film.  It's hard to say she is at all a good actress.  (I only remember her early and almost-equally awful work in Deep Impact.)  Her high school play-like acting in 88M truly was, as I've stated before, a performance for the ages.



Posted By: JoeBacon
Date Posted: January 21 2009 at 4:40pm
Oh, I just am in total anticipation of what Uwe Boll will say about these nominations!!   

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


Posted By: yotypeocom
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 4:02am

Im glad that THE LOVE GURU is present, I think it's the worst garbage done after the Austin Power movies (...) It was flat out stupid and shameless. I hope Kate Hudson wins because she has been doing nothing but crap cheap comedies that give no laughs. And, I hope Jenny McCarthy wins again! I read she said on an interview she is scared of getting another RAZZIE!

 



Posted By: andresbayona14
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 5:45am

Overall your nominations are not bad -- Each of the nominees deserves to be on the list. However I think that the Razzie® Members forgot others that needed to be there! Films like Get Smart, One Missed Call, Shutter, Made of Honor, The Strangers, You Don't Mess with the Zohan, 10.000 B.C, and Mirrors. I mean, those films had to be there!!!

Maybe you should add more nominees. I'm serious, many of these films are worse than The happening, or other nominated ones there...

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: As I try to explain every year around this time, even we cannot dis-honor EVERY bad film that comes along. Every one of the titles you mentioned above did at least have a Forum discussion as a possible RAZZIE contender -- but in the end, none made the "final five" in any category. So while we agreee with you that the films you listed did suck, apparently our Voting Members didn't feel they sucked enough to wind up being actual nominees...



-------------
ambb04®


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 10:27am
As glad I am that The Happening is nominated for Worst Picture, I am still disappointed that Prom Night
and Made of Honor managed to get by without a single nod. Prom Night had a premise that could have
been a creepy time at the movies, but by the time I left the theater, my gut was sore from laughing so
hard. As for Made of Honor, if it weren't for its two leads, this would be in the same league as The Hottie
and the Nottie. Its premise is made of one hundred percent, recycled cliches, particularly for My Best
Friend's Wedding. And while they aren't quite as awful to replace the five Worst Picture Noms, I think
they could have at least fit them in the Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-Off or Sequel, replacing Indy 4 and
the Day the Earth Blowed Up Real Good.


Posted By: thomsonmg2000
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 10:39am
It's finally nice to see the two Seltzerturd movies be nominated for worst picture collectively, after having them go scott free in the last two years. They're essentially the same movie, filled with crappy cultural references that have little to do with the film's plot.

I'm glad the Razzies did not go after Sly or Tom Cruise this year. I was worried that they would hog up space in the Worst Actor and Picture categories, when there were many more deserving films out there.

One nomination from this year I kinda question is Indy 4's nomination for Worst Sequel. Sure it had some ridiculous plot lines and stunts, but I thought it was not as big of a disappointment as Quantam of Solace was compared to Casino Royale.


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

OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!

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


Posted By: StinkersRule
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 10:41am
Somebody explain to me how Cameron Diaz made the Worst Actress cut (the script was the worst thing about What Happens in Vegas, NOT her!), when Eva Longoria Parker and her stupid spray-tan was CLEARLY the worst thing in the megadud Over Her Dead Body; in fact, ELP was worse than ANY of the nominess, including Paris! Also, I second Michael's comment about adding a Worst Ensemble category, rather than cramming 4-5 actresses in one nomination spot year after year...


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 10:48am

That's an okay list of nominations.  You were able to avoid punches from the internet bloggers, but your snubbing of 10,000 B.C., Saw V, and High School Musical 3 among others will leave some people questioning your judgment.  However, you did get some respect with Sylvester Stallone being absent from the final ballot (a lot of people were annoyed when they saw him on the preliminary ballot).  Your grip on The Day the Earth Stood Still and Speed Racer loosened despite traces of those films being on the ballot.  Uwe Boll, Mike Myers, and Seltzerberg should be in for a beating when the awards take place in about a month.

I am however, disappointed with your counterparts at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.  Everyone's pissed seeing that The Dark Knight isn't nominated for Best Picture.  I'm kinda surprised that Sally Hawkins didn't get nominated for Best Actress and Bruce Springsteen's "The Wrestler" didn't get nominated for Best Song.  They lost respect while you guys did not.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 11:47am
Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

That's an okay list of nominations.  You were able to avoid punches from the internet bloggers, but your snubbing of 10,000 B.C., Saw V, and High School Musical 3 among others will leave some people questioning your judgment.  However, you did get some respect with Sylvester Stallone being absent from the final ballot (a lot of people were annoyed when they saw him on the preliminary ballot).  Your grip on The Day the Earth Stood Still and Speed Racer loosened despite traces of those films being on the ballot.  Uwe Boll, Mike Myers, and Seltzerberg should be in for a beating when the awards take place in about a month.

I am however, disappointed with your counterparts at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.  Everyone's pissed seeing that The Dark Knight isn't nominated for Best Picture.  I'm kinda surprised that Sally Hawkins didn't get nominated for Best Actress and Bruce Springsteen's "The Wrestler" didn't get nominated for Best Song.  They lost respect while you guys did not.

Well, the "judgement" was the voting of over 600 members, not HeadRazz himself. Sure, stuff like "Saw 5" and "High School Musical 3" got away from us, but I think it is a fair exchange in order to have better shots at Seltzerberg and Uwe Boll. I also agree it good Stallone got off, since is kinda two-faced for us to say Seltzerberg are beating a dead horse with a stick, and yet we are still razzing the Sly Guy, to which he couldn't care less.

And back to my comment with Leelee, I guess I'm seeing her as if she's part of the old elementary school test of "okay, students, which of the following doesn't belong" ... to which the answer is "the only woman on the Worst Supporting Actress list who didn't become famous for posing nude in Playboy or appearing in homemade porn". Sure, Leelee was good in that TV movie "Joan of Arc", but she has gone down hill since then with movies like "Joy Ride", "The Glass House", and of course, "The Wicker Man" (although it's impossible to single her out in that movie, because everyone in it sucked). It's just as shame she's listed along side that list of talentless attention whores.

Oh, and yes, the Oscars dropped the ball BIG TIME. Where the hell did "The Reader" come from?! No "Wall-E" for Best Picture or Sally Hawkins for Best Actress? And don't get me started on "Dark Knight" not being up for Best Picture, Director, or Screenplay. But "Titantic" got 11 awards ... go figure! I guess they don't want high TV ratings. Here's a Yahoo article about it.

http://oscars.movies.yahoo.com/photos/53-dont-you-forget-about-me-this-years-oscar-snubs - http://oscars.movies.yahoo.com/photos/53-dont-you-forget-abo ut-me-this-years-oscar-snubs  



Posted By: Mrs. Magnatech
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 12:44pm

I guess they don't want high TV ratings. Here's a Yahoo article about it.

Gee, I thought the Oscars were supposed to be about quality, not ratings. Oh, and The Dark Knight received 8 nominations, a fact that most of the Dark Knight fanboys seemed to have missed.

 

As for the Razzies, Tom Cruise was truly horrible in Valkyrie, worse than Al Pacino and Mark Wahlberg.



Posted By: wolfee37
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 2:10pm
Ben Kingsly for The Wackness? He was amazing in that movie not too mention that, The Wackness was a f**king amazing movie. We all know Ben was awful in The Love Guru and War Inc., but he was amazing in that movie. Should have left that movie out of that nomination. 


Posted By: kelemenmarc
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 8:45pm
Where is Zac Efron??????????????
Cameron Diaz - WHY????? She's good this film, and i don't know why she deserved a nomination.....Pierce Brosnan, YES. But Rob Schneider, Jason Biggs, Lucas Grabeel NOT???????????????? It's funny.

Where is Adam Sandler? Dane Cook? Zoey Deschamel? HSM3?????

I'ts a very bad nominations list!! 




-------------
FYC:
Worst Movie: The Bounty Hunter
Worst Actor: Johnny Depp (Alice in Wonderland / The Tourist)


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 1:42am

Originally posted by kelemenmarc


I'ts a very bad nominations list.

Yes, some people are missing, but "HSM3" not being on our nods list doesn't equal the injustice that was "The Reader" ROBBING "The Dark Knight" of Best Picture, Director, and Adapted Screenplay.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 1:50am

Originally posted by kelemenmarc

Where is Zac Efron??????????????
Cameron Diaz - WHY????? She's good this film, and i don't know why she deserved a nomination.....Pierce Brosnan, YES. But Rob Schneider, Jason Biggs, Lucas Grabeel NOT???????????????? It's funny.
Where is Adam Sandler? Dane Cook? Zoey Deschamel? HSM3?????
I'ts a very bad nominations list!! 

Lucas Grabeel wasn't even on the nod list ballot (everyone else in "HSM3" was). Now that Disney will use Zac Efron as one of their on-goingly recycled "talents", there will be more times to razz him. Cameron Diaz I think has more to do with the fact she's overpaid. Jason Biggs I guess got by because he wasn't in a movie directed by Uwe Boll or Seltzerberg. So long as studios are dumb enough to put Dane Cook in movies, he will have plenty of times to get razzed, same with Adam Sandler. Zoey, well Worst Supporting Actress is full of talentless, moronic women, there was simply no room for her.

But who was left out of our nods doesn't equal the injustice of who was left out of the Oscar nods. Here's Moviefone's take.

http://movies.aol.com/oscars-academy-awards/photos/snubs-surprises - http://movies.aol.com/oscars-academy-awards/photos/snubs-sur prises



Posted By: jeffeason
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 6:14am
I enjoyed reading over the 2009 Razzie nominations list. I'm wondering how Razzie's tenacious tentacles could have missed Owen Wilson's excruciatingly awful Drillbit Taylor. When I left the theater that day I felt that he owed me an apology and ten dollars.

10,000 B.C. was one of those movies that is so bad that it actually starts to become entertaining again, so I understand why it didn't earn any nominations. At least its casting director gave some Phish fans something to do while the band is on hiatus.

I think the Razzies should have a new category called Worst Movie Starring a former Saturday Night Live cast member. You would never have a shortage of nominations in that category, believe you me!


Posted By: thomsonmg2000
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 9:07am

I'm really now wondering why Indy 4 got into the Worst Sequel category before crap like Saw V and HSM 3. 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Simple -- More people SAW (as opposed to SAW V) INDIANA JONES 4 than saw HSM3 or SAW V -- combined. INDY 4 was, after all, the 3rd biggest grossing movie of 2008 (coming within a million or two of IRON MAN, which ranked #2). And apparently, more people were majorly disappointed by CRYSTAL SKULL than by those other two films...

SHORT ANSWER: All three films sucked, but our voters seemed to think INDY sucked on an epic  level...



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

OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!

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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 2:39pm
I do have a question though, will you be recording this year's ceremony and broadcasting it on YouTube or some other video sharing network? I don't see any reason why you couldn't. Besides, I can't make it to Cali to see the show in person and I'd love to see what will happen if and when Uwe Boll appears to collect his award(s).


Posted By: kelemenmarc
Date Posted: January 24 2009 at 1:11am

I'm sorry, but The Reader is better than TDK

TDK is best picture, screenplay, directing - don't play me!



-------------
FYC:
Worst Movie: The Bounty Hunter
Worst Actor: Johnny Depp (Alice in Wonderland / The Tourist)


Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Date Posted: January 24 2009 at 2:23am

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: To me, the interesting thing about http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/ - DARK KNIGHT not being a Best Picture nominee is what it sez about the Academy members' priorities. Every year, they bitch and whine about their TV ratings being in the toilet, and this year they had the chance to nominate that rare movie that was both a blockbuster ( http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=darkknight.htm - LINK ) and a critical hit ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_knight/ - LINK  -- with a higher positive R.T. rating than 4 of the five eventual Best Picture nominees).

So what do they do? They once again all but yell "Screw you!" to the movie-going public, and nominate five largely unseen, elitist titles that will do nothing to improve their viewership...

 



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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 24 2009 at 3:36am
Originally posted by kelemenmarc

I'm sorry, but The Reader is better than TDK
TDK is best picture, screenplay, directing - don't play me!

And you don't play me. I came across this article and it explains all the REAL reasons why "The Reader" stole "Dark Knight" spots.

" http://oscars.movies.yahoo.com/nominees/406-the-reader - The Reader
The entire reason this movie was made was to get a trophy. It hits a trifecta for Academy voters: it stars Kate Winslet, it features Kate Winslet looking old and weathered under piles of makeup, and it's about the Holocaust. And you should never underestimate the Weinstein brothers, who produced this movie. They will do anything for Oscar wins. Anything. The big question here is if Ricky Gervais' joke at the Golden Globes about how transparently this film is Oscar-grubbing will make voters think twice about being so predictable."

In other words, the only way a comic book movie will get a Best Picture nod is if the upcoming "Captain America" movie is mostly about Cap saving Holocaust victims, and his girlfriend is played by an ugly Kate Winslet, and after Cap awakes from his 60 year sleep inside a block of ice, Winslet's character is now played by Meryl Streep, and she's dying of either AIDS or cancer. Then maybe, just maybe, that will sweep the Oscars.



Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: January 24 2009 at 5:29pm

YES!  YES!  That will be the ultimate Oscar baiter wrapped up as a comic book movie!  YES! . . .

Originally posted by Michaels

[

In other words, the only way a comic book movie will get a Best Picture nod is if the upcoming "Captain America" movie is mostly about Cap saving Holocaust victims, and his girlfriend is played by an ugly Kate Winslet, and after Cap awakes from his 60 year sleep inside a block of ice, Winslet's character is now played by Meryl Streep, and she's dying of either AIDS or cancer. Then maybe, just maybe, that will sweep the Oscars.



Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: January 24 2009 at 5:30pm

...and YES again!!!



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


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: January 24 2009 at 11:24pm

Not a bad Razzie line-up this year. It seems that the only complaints around the web have to do with Indy 4 getting a nod over Mummy 3, and Ben Kingsley being mentioned for The Wackness. But since I have seen neither of those, I could care less. I'm just glad that the hammer has finally come down on Uwe Boll and those two retards pretending to be film directors.

On a slightly related note, I think this video sums up my feelings about "Seltzerberg" and their recent nominations perfectly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgZziBatbf4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgZziBatbf4


 



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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 25 2009 at 9:34am
Considering Kim Kardashian was so happy about getting her nod for "Disaster Movie", we should consider voting for her all the more. If she loved filming that crappy movie so damn much (so much so that she yawned on camera) by all means we should give her the award, she might even accept it, seeing as she's an attention whore anyway. And even she is surprised Leelee is on the list, too.


Posted By: Razzilla
Date Posted: January 25 2009 at 12:15pm

Witless Protection DESERVES worst picture...HANDS DOWN!!!!

 

I was paid $50 to review this steaming pile of manure at the MGM Grand...three weeks before it reached the theaters and REALLY ripped it a new one...  I think the nicest thing I said on the card was that "The seats in the theater were comfortable...  Too bad the movie made me want to get out of them after 15 minutes"...



-------------
Comparing Uwe Boll's movies to a sack of horse manure will only get you sued by every fertilizer company in existence...


Posted By: Movie Man
Date Posted: January 26 2009 at 6:34am
I'm surprised that neither "Fireproof" nor "Beer for My Horses" made the list. The only way Toby Keith might have a chance at nominations is if his movie got limited release in November, premiered on CMT in February, then premiered on DVD one or two weeks later...

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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: January 27 2009 at 2:01pm

Pardon my absense for the past several days, many other matters have been pressing...oh, how sweet it was to finally watch The Dummy and The Devil board that helicopter and fly away once and for all!

I had only one significant disappointment with the final list of nominees. I have long expressed my objection to Uwe Boll winning the career award at this time. I feel it sets a dangerous precedent for 3 reasons:

1. He is still young enough to right the ship...unlikely, but not impossible.

2. Despite claims that his career is near its end, I seriously doubt that. In fact, I suspect that this guy is going to be around for awhile, and the worst is yet to come. By definition, Career Achievemen Awards are one time shots, and we may well be dishonoring Boll far too early.

3. We simply haven't even discussed much more appropriate candidates.

Nonetheless, the voting body has spoken...still, I reiterate, the precedent may be unfortunate, and we now open the door to the possibility of similar awards being voted to individuals with even smaller resumes.



-------------
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: Michaels
Date Posted: January 28 2009 at 2:44am
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

I had only one significant disappointment with the final list of nominees. I have long expressed my objection to Uwe Boll winning the career award at this time. I feel it sets a dangerous precedent for 3 reasons:

1. He is still young enough to right the ship...unlikely, but not impossible. 2. Despite claims that his career is near its end, I seriously doubt that. In fact, I suspect that this guy is going to be around for awhile, and the worst is yet to come. By definition, Career Achievemen Awards are one time shots, and we may well be dishonoring Boll far too early. 3. We simply haven't even discussed much more appropriate candidates.

Sorry saturnwatcher, that the man you thought was least worthy of the Career Award won. Yes, he's still young, and although his career is on life support, it's not 100% over; but then again, with the list we were given to choose from, only Madonna officially retired from movies. But, every one of Uwe Boll's movies suck big time. Every aspect from the script, the acting, the editing and even the props. Boll might have had a boyhood dream of making movies, however he thinks the process is just pointing the camera at something and yelling "action" and "cut" without putting any thought into it.

He does have projects lined up, but if they are going to be produced or released in theaters or DVD at all is up in the air. His last movie "Tunnel Rats" opened in only ONE theater. "Fear Cry" and "Seed" are all but DVD bound. "BloodRayne 3" and "Zombie Massacre" are in pre-production Hades for who knows how long, etc. I wouldn't say his career is over just yet, but it certainly isn't going anywhere fast.

I do understand why he got the award in the first place. His "following" is mostly through the Internet, and since no TV network will host an award show that mocks movies that are released by the same studios that own the TV networks, the Razzies' following is online as well. So you would think it's natural for a hack director whose following is online would win in an award show whose following is also online.

If you ask me, since the Oscars give out an honorary Oscar every year, perhaps the Razzies should counter it by giving out a Career Award every year as well. If we do that, the likes of Stallone and Madonna won't be able to avoid us forever. But I for one, who has seen most of Boll's work, agree with the choice voters made, and I am glad that a man who has NO right whatsoever to be given a greenlight is getting the disrespect that he rightfully deserves.



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: January 28 2009 at 9:38am

I have acknowledged Boll's victory and stated my concerns. I object less to Boll's victory than I do to the simple fact that no real criteria have been established for eligibility. I think that going foward, criteria need to be established if the Razzies are going to present Lifetime Achievement Awards, lest we end up with a string of "flavor of the month" candidates.

In general, I believe that Head Razz has set up the various awards to reflect the same criteria established for awarding the other categories. Similarly, AMPAS does have criteria for their special awards, under which Boll almost certainly would not have been eligible at this date. It is certainly too late to overturn this particular decison now, but there is now opportunity to make similar awards to individuals who turn in one bad performance, at which point there is no reason to permit the award in the future.



-------------
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: Michaels
Date Posted: January 28 2009 at 12:56pm

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

In general, I believe that Head Razz has set up the various awards to reflect the same criteria established for awarding the other categories. Similarly, AMPAS does have criteria for their special awards, under which Boll almost certainly would not have been eligible at this date. It is certainly too late to overturn this particular decison now, but there is now opportunity to make similar awards to individuals who turn in one bad performance, at which point there is no reason to permit the award in the future.

I guess so. Thing is, this is the same award that was last given to a shark prop. What criteria would the award be under? Head Razz, you're thoughts? 



Posted By: Headbanger14
Date Posted: January 30 2009 at 4:22am

I think it's also worth noting that Pierce Brosnan was the narrator in the Thomas & Friends movie "The Great Discovery" this year (yes, I still watch the show, bite me)

He did an ok job although he narrated a bit too quietly but I still I liked the movie and it was better than the first two which were boring and badly written.

And if you guys as much as go anywhere near any of my favourite childhood shows with your Rassberries, I'll give ya a Golden Turkey to the noggin!



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: January 30 2009 at 7:25am

Brosnan was nominated because of his dreadful singing in Momma Mia. In general, he hasn't turned in a lot of bad acting performances in his various roles over the years, but anyone with such a complete lack of talent for singing should have known better than to take on a signficant role in a musical.

Your favorite childhood shows are probably safe from our wrath, providing that no one attempts to translate them into bad movies.



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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: January 30 2009 at 7:34am

I guess I should express one other disappointment in this year's field of nominees. It is almost incomprehensible that the year's most apalling stinker, Strange Wilderness didn't manage to find a single spot anywhere on the final ballot. I realize that I must endure the dubious distinction of being one of a very small handful of people that actually saw this trainwreck of a movie, but to let it slip by unscathed is difficult to comprehend.

I suppose that what we have here can be attributed to a phenomenon that might appropriately be henceforth referred to as "A Sound of Thunder Syndrome": any movie so unabashedly awful that not enough voters end up seeing it to give it the Razzing it deserves. I'm not entirely comfortable with the distinction of being perhaps the only human being on the planet that has seen both of these films.



-------------
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: Michaels
Date Posted: February 02 2009 at 10:34am

Then again, Strange Wilderness was released in theaters (and onto DVD soon there after) in such a sneaky manner that it almost escaped the Razzie radar altogether. But, in the end, the movies that deserve being razzed the most -the works of Uwe Boll and Seltzerberg- have all the best spots and best chances of being razzed -- and that's what counts. 

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

I guess I should express one other disappointment in this year's field of nominees. It is almost incomprehensible that the year's most apalling stinker, Strange Wilderness didn't manage to find a single spot anywhere on the final ballot. I realize that I must endure the dubious distinction of being one of a very small handful of people that actually saw this trainwreck of a movie, but to let it slip by unscathed is difficult to comprehend.

 



-------------
"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: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: February 04 2009 at 12:16pm

I don't know if it was exactly sneaked into theaters, but most of the theatrical trailers were never played. It got a little television advertising post release, but it bombed so completely that it didn't stay long in theaters. For my money, it was easily the worst film of the year. For what it is worth, and this may come as a surprise to many, I ended up casting my vote for Disaster Movie/Meet the Spartans as Worst Picture, not because I felt either or both were the worst movie/movies of the year, but because they were the worst of the final five....what a strange year it was...I finally got to cast a vote for President for a man I actually admire and respect, but I think we sort of missed the boat on the Worst Picture nominees here.

 



-------------
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: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: February 04 2009 at 4:35pm

My Razzie ballot just came in and I'm coming up with some questions to set the moment:

Which of these is the film equivalent of the Detroit Lions?  Which film is so bad, it's gonna have a hard time finding a spot on cable TV?  Which film should have been questioned before showing itself in theatres?  Who's career is about to end with a bang?  Who needs to leave Hollywood and not come back?  Which film's tagline is "Watch at your own risk"?  Who thinks the Oscars are a Spanish awards show?  Who can't last 15 minutes watching their own film?  Did Disaster Movie live up to it's name?  Is this the fall of Mock Sparta?  Would people rather not know what's Happening?  Is it bad enough that the Hottie and the Nottie lacks a hottie?  Will Chris Taylor get his revenge on Uwe Boll?  Does the thought of two elephants humping each other seem bad enough to get the Big Five?  It's time to decide the recipients and it's time to vote for the Weakest Link.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: February 05 2009 at 1:13am

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

Which of these is the film equivalent of the Detroit Lions? 

Seeing as how it didn't break even with it's budget, "In The Name Of The King".

Which film is so bad, it's gonna have a hard time finding a spot on cable TV?

"Disaster Movie", some serious editing has to be done to it.

Which film should have been questioned before showing itself in theatres?

That would be "all of the above". 

Who's career is about to end with a bang?  Who needs to leave Hollywood and not come back?

Oh, that's easy, Uwe Boll, and WE are the ones who will provide the "bang".

 

Which film's tagline is "Watch at your own risk"?

Again, "all of the above".

Who thinks the Oscars are a Spanish awards show?

No doubt Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian.

Who can't last 15 minutes watching their own film?

Once again, "all of the above".

Did Disaster Movie live up to it's name?

Oh yes!

Would people rather not know what's Happening?

It would help if something we like to call "logic" happened in the movie.

 

Is it bad enough that the Hottie and the Nottie lacks a hottie?

How about the fact the movie was made, period?  

Will Chris Taylor get his revenge on Uwe Boll?

Not if Boll gives him some of his pot .... holders .... that he has been selling lately in order to make ends meet for the budget to "BloodRayne 3". 

Does the thought of two elephants humping each other seem bad enough to get the Big Five?

Seeing as how it wasn't a Discovery Channel: After Dark program, yeah!

Hope that answers everything for you.



Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: February 05 2009 at 4:23pm
I didn't necessarily expect someone to give answers, but okay.


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 7:08am
With the Razzie Awards Ceremony on the horizon, I decided to make  http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/401801 - this .  The purpose of this poll is to find out the outside public's thoughts on who should win what.  If you're a non-voting member and would like to cast your vote for who you think should win these awards, go to the link above.  You can only vote for one nominee per category.  Worst Picture, Worst Actor, and Worst Actress are required categories meaning you cannot submit your vote without answering those questions.  There is also a bonus category for films that did not get nominated for Razzies, also called a Dishonorable Mention.  This is not for voting Razzie members because I'd rather find out what you selected when the ceremony takes place (that's also when the poll closes).  I'm not going to the ceremony, but I'll give you my reaction when I see the press release.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 5:56pm

http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/401801/results - http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/401801/results  

Above is the link to the results as to who "wins" MiguelAntilsu's poll...

 



-------------
"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: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: February 17 2009 at 2:39am
Ummm...does the phrase "underwhelming statistical sample" come to anyone else's mind here?

-------------
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: Razzilla
Date Posted: February 21 2009 at 3:36pm

How The Love Guru can win worst picture while Witless Protection makes that steaming pile of elephant dung look like a serious documentary on hockey by comparison makes me lose a little faith in the RAZZIES...  Larry the Cable Guy deserved every award he could get his hands on...and I felt that he got RIPPED OFF!!!



-------------
Comparing Uwe Boll's movies to a sack of horse manure will only get you sued by every fertilizer company in existence...


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: February 21 2009 at 4:04pm

Mike Myers, Paris Hilton, and Uwe Boll get the sh*t, while Disaster Movie, Meet the Spartans, and The Happening leave the show empty-handed.  Now all we have to do is see if the Oscars turn out okay.

Note: The Love Guru has the highest RT Critics percentage of all the Worst Picture winners this decade (14%).



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: February 21 2009 at 4:34pm

Wow, people say the Oscars are paint by numbers these days and you can spot the winners from miles away. Not so with the Razzies! "Disaster Movie" had a total of 6 chances of getting razzed, but they got away scott-free. Wow! Is Mike Myers mocking of the Hindu faith that much worse than random pop culture characters getting kicked in the nuts during every other scene? And Uwe Boll only got one of the three extra chances of getting razzed, other than his Career Award. Amazing! Is Pierce Bronsan's singing THAT bad, and Paris Hilton THAT unwatchable whenever she's onscreen?

I guess in the end, more voters avoided "Disaster Movie" as if it were the grim reaper itself. I can't really blame them. Well, I'm sure Seltzerberg are throwing together yet another "script" for their next "spoof" movie, and since Kim Kardashian had so much fun filming "DM", she might appear in the next movie too, so there's still plenty of chances for razzing those three talentless hacks who have no right to be in show business to begin with. 

PS: The "win" I agree with the most is hands down "Indiana Jones 4" for Worst Sequel. 20 years in the making and all it will be remembered for is the new standard for over the top plot gimmicks: Nuking the Fridge.

PPS: The very thought of Paris Hilton playing Rayne in "BloodRayne 3" makes me laugh until I cry. My friends and I joked if Hilton did team up with Uwe Boll, the movie would be about Hilton having sex with Kristanna Loken's Rayne and the result is an undead STD that turns everyone on Earth into sex-crazed zombies or something like that. It sure sounds like something Boll would direct and Hilton would star in.



Posted By: thomsonmg2000
Date Posted: February 22 2009 at 8:33am
I don't get why everyone is so harsh on Indy 4. OK, maybe it was stupid for putting in aliens and nuked fridges, and it wasn't as awesome as the 3 original movies, but giving it a Razzie over two Seltzerberg works, for Worst Sequel (as opposed to Most Disappointing Sequel)? Talk about a double standard!   

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

OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!

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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: February 22 2009 at 2:51pm

Was Pierce Brosnan's singing that bad? Yes

Was Paris Hilton that unwatchable? Yes

And yes, Indy 4 was not just a bad film, it was a bad idea for a film.

Finally, I really appreciate the fact that the Razzie voters chose an honest effort at filmmaking as it's Worst Picture over a series of bad SNL skits. I think that affirms the fact that the voters here really are recognizing that there is a difference between bad filmmaking and simply throwing together bad films.



-------------
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: PopcornAvenger
Date Posted: February 22 2009 at 11:43pm

Originally posted by HeadRAZZBerry

So what do they do? They once again all but yell "Screw you!" to the movie-going public, and nominate five largely unseen, elitist titles that will do nothing to improve their viewership...

I really believe that the Awards could care less about their own ratings. They also didn't show any movie shorts, which left me a bit . I was hoping to see Ledger's final farewell and the reaction of the audience; instead, all we got was a photo, the award, a standing ovation.

As soon as that was over, my TV was turned off.

 I remember the year Chariot of Fire took best picture. HBO ran a viewer's poll for Best Movie, and Raiders of the Lost Ark clobbered it, garnishing something lilke 85-90% of the votes. Raiders, easily the best movie of 1981, was snubbed. The Academy has continued it's tradition of elitism over the past two decades: it's laughable that the likes of The Reader and Milk were nominated over The Dark Knight. Yet not unexpected.

 



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


Posted By: Razzilla
Date Posted: February 23 2009 at 2:06am

It's about time that Uwe "Germany's revenge for losing TWO world wars" Boll got his lifetime achievement award...AND worst director nod this year...

I think this year I disagreed with all but THREE of the calls for awards this year (Pierce "your ears" Brosnan for worst supporting actor...Uwe Boll for worst director....AND the worst screenplay for The Love Guru By Mike Myers and Graham Gordy)...an all-time worst since I started following the RAZZIES...BUT all but one of those blown calls would have been my second choice...and that lone one out from that would have been #3...

I STILL believe a snub of Witless Protection (the MOST deserving movie in the lot) was in the works... 
 


-------------
Comparing Uwe Boll's movies to a sack of horse manure will only get you sued by every fertilizer company in existence...


Posted By: Razzilla
Date Posted: February 23 2009 at 2:18am

Originally posted by Michaels

I guess in the end, more voters avoided "Disaster Movie" as if it were the grim reaper itself. I can't really blame them.

I think the same went for Witless Protection...  If enough people saw it...it would have been a sure-fire winner...



-------------
Comparing Uwe Boll's movies to a sack of horse manure will only get you sued by every fertilizer company in existence...


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: February 23 2009 at 9:11am

Originally posted by Razzilla

I think the same went for Witless Protection...  If enough people saw it...it would have been a sure-fire winner...

I'm thinking "Love Guru" won because out of all the Worst Picture noms, it was the most high profile. But it is kinda funny that both the Best Picture and the Worst Picture of 2008 had to do with Indian culture.



Posted By: wolfee37
Date Posted: February 24 2009 at 11:24am

I was happy with the wins. I haven't seen any of Paris Hilton's films (except for House of Wax which was better than most horror films). But she looked terrible in the preview for Hottie and the Nottie, and it is hard for someone to look bad in a preview! They put in herr "best" scenes, they added music and sound effects -- and she still looked bad. Brutal!!   

BUT Head RAZZ Dude, I have a question: I was on cinematical.com and they were talking about the awards, and they said "Let's just say Sarah Michelle Gellar and Jessica Alba both got away with one there." I am not sure if you wrote that or they did, but why was Sarah Michelle Gellar even mentioned? Her only film she had come out last year was The Air I Breathe, it came out last January, and she was good in it. Just wondering if you knew anything about that??

RESPONSE from "Head RAZZ Dude"  It wasn't me being quoted there. Geller has never even been nominated for a RAZZIE ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001264/awards - IMDb LINK )... 


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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: February 24 2009 at 3:31pm
Originally posted by Razzilla

 

I think the same went for Witless Protection...  If enough people saw it...it would have been a sure-fire winner...

I think that Witless Protection and Strange Wilderness suffered similar fates. Both movies fell victim to disasterously low (but well deserved) box-office numbers. A few years ago A Sound of Thunder suffered a similar fate. It wasn't just the worst movie of the year, but truly among the worst movies ever; unfortunately, only about 6 of us actually saw it and we didn't have the opportunity to beat the drum loud enough. I guess it is something of a structual flaw going forward with the size of the organization that some deserving films will fall through the cracks on an annual basis, but at least films will tend to win that have recognizable names.

Even so, I made a prediction early in the year that is showing some insight. When I recounted this year's winners to my wife, her reaction to Uwe Boll's career victory was, "Who's he?"



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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: February 24 2009 at 3:54pm

I have to take issue here to a degree, because it needs to be pointed out that the purpose of the Oscars is to reward artistic achievement, which isn't necessarily in step with popular appeal. If it were, the painting of the dogs playing poker would be hanging in the Louvre. That isn't to say that AMPAS hasn't made some pretty poor choices, BUT, simply because a movie has significant box-office impact doesn't necessarily make it Best Picture worthy. 

 
Originally posted by PopcornAvenger

I remember the year Chariot of Fire took best picture. HBO ran a viewer's poll for Best Movie, and Raiders of the Lost Ark clobbered it, garnishing something lilke 85-90% of the votes. Raiders, easily the best movie of 1981, was snubbed. The Academy has continued it's tradition of elitism over the past two decades: it's laughable that the likes of The Reader and Milk were nominated over The Dark Knight. Yet not unexpected.

 



-------------
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: sportsartist24
Date Posted: March 11 2009 at 2:37pm

Pierce Brosnan, well known for films such as Mrs. Doubtfire, and those two James Bond films which at least won a RAZZIE, The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day, looked like he deserved the RAZZIE, not just for bad acting, but for bad singing. Meryl Streep was just watchable throughout the movie.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull for Worst Remake/Ripoff/Prequel or Sequel, Geroge Lucas is one of the reasons why this movie was actually bad. Throughout the past before filming on this movie began, he didn't like the screenplay for a 4th Indiana Jones movie, and it has been in delay for a long time. I think, from my point of view, it looked like it was worth a 19-year wait, but a bad movie and a bad idea for a movie. and for the first time in RAZZIE history, a film directed by Steven Spielberg actually "wins" a RAZZIE after he had like 3 other films nominated like HOOK, THE LOST WORLD: JURASSIC PARK and WAR OF THE WORLDS, and let's not forget about some of those other films nominated for a RAZZIE or two he worked as a producer and executive producer, like JURASSIC PARK III and MEN IN BLACK II.

Mike Myers follows Shrek co-star Eddie Murphy for the Worst Actor trophy. Other Shrek co-star Cameron Diaz nominated for Worst Actress was definitely deservable, but Paris Hilton, not just bad acting, but being unwatchable, deserved both Worst Actress and Worst Supporting Actress RAZZIEs.

Uwe Boll was definitely Germany's revenge for losing World War II, but in a bad way, and now, along with Worst Career Achievement, he finally wins Worst Director, beating off the other director who beat him off 2 years ago, M. Night Shymalan (or however it's spelled).



-------------
The Mormons were'nt really popular in the beginning, they're now becoming more popular, even in Hollywood.


Posted By: PopcornAvenger
Date Posted: April 07 2009 at 3:49am
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

I have to take issue here to a degree, because it needs to be pointed out that the purpose of the Oscars is to reward artistic achievement, which isn't necessarily in step with popular appeal. If it were, the painting of the dogs playing poker would be hanging in the Louvre. That isn't to say that AMPAS hasn't made some pretty poor choices, BUT, simply because a movie has significant box-office impact doesn't necessarily make it Best Picture worthy.

I understand, and also agree - to a point. I don't think the masses are always wrong, though. I did like Chariots of Fire; I just don't think it even belonged in the same league as Raiders. At the time, Raiders was fresh, innovative, and one hell of a roller coaster ride.

Doesn't mean I like oscar-noticed "artsy snoozefests" either. I liked Meet Joe Black and was especially fond of Remains of the Day.



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


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: January 17 2010 at 7:38am
I personnally think that almost all the Stallone's and Costner's wins and nominations were stupid and undeservable! And I'm talking as a Stallone and Costner fan!

And I think it's time for Orlando Bloom and Christian Bale to receive a Razzie!


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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 17 2010 at 8:03am
Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD


I think it's time for Orlando Bloom and Christian Bale to receive a Razzie!
Why such hate on Christian Bale? The guy has done great performances like "American Psycho" and "The Machinist". Does it have to do with his poor performance as John Connor (because that can easily be blamed on McG) or does it have to do with his infamous rant? Or, are you one of the many out there who simply hated his "Bat Voice" in the Nolan Batman movies?


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: January 17 2010 at 2:59pm
I hate this guys because he is a jerk in the real life, and also because he has no expression and no tallent!

Name me a watchable performance that he did except maybe The Machinist and American Psycho (witch you named)!!


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: January 17 2010 at 3:54pm
Far be it from me to answering on behalf of Michaels, but Bale's work in the two recent Batman movies was quite good. I also thought he was pretty good in Public Enemies. As to his personal life, I don't recall a lot of negative publicity surrounding him, but admittedly, I don't keep close track of his personal life. However, I can attest to exemplary work he has done on behalf of The Diane Fossey Gorilla Fund and The World Wildlife Federation.

-------------
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: Michaels
Date Posted: January 17 2010 at 4:29pm
Ah, see there: "American Psycho", "The Machinist", and "Public Enemies", three good performances by Christian Bale ... and all in the same decade. As for his rant, well, he did apologize for it. These awards are about actors and actresses giving overly bad performances, not for what they do in their personal lives.


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: January 18 2010 at 5:14pm
Bale is giving awful performances so I think he deserves all the Razzies!

Ok I agree he's not such bad as Orlando Bloom but not far!


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 18 2010 at 7:30pm
Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD

Bale is giving awful performances so I think he deserves all the Razzies!

Ok I agree he's not such bad as Orlando Bloom but not far!
And what performances are you talking about? I don't recall him making anything so unwatchable that it made me want to jump onto this forum and say "Oh my lord, we HAVE to razz this guy!". I mean, are you hating on him solely for the Bat voice?


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: January 19 2010 at 7:40pm
Sorry, but when I see him in Public Enemies, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight (a masterpiece with all those great actors around him, and he is the only jerk who cannot act), The Prestige, Terminator 4, 3:10 To Yuma (great movie instead)... the only thing that I think, is ''Please, someone, STOP THIS GUY!!!! He is AWFUL!!!!!''!




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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 20 2010 at 5:19am
Well, sorry dude, but Bale was the star of the second highest grossing (soon to be the third highest grossing) movie of all time in the USA, so he's not going anywhere. Expect to see him in many more movies. Perhaps he's one of those Keanu-Reeves-like actors, who is better depending on who is directing him? 
 
RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Sorry, dude, but I gotta ask -- In what film was Keanu ever "better"...and as compared to what????? 


-------------
"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: Raptor
Date Posted: January 20 2010 at 7:13pm
Huh?!  Bale is widely considered one of the top actors of  his generation (not  based on fan opinion alone-based on the reviews he gets from the majority of mainstream critics) and he has been for several years.  I can't recall seeing a single  post even suggesting Bale was anything close to a bad actor prior to the "on-set rant" released in 2009, so I call BS on opinions like yours.  They are beyond insane. (but thinking Stalllone is a great actor is, too, so I guess it fits).
 
 And you think he was awful in in The Prestige and 3:10 to Yuma?  I have honestly never read or heard a single  negative comment about his performance in either of those films.  So congrats on being the first one LOLLOL 
 
 
Sorry, but when I see him in Public Enemies, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight (masterpiece with all the great actors around him and he is the only jerk who cannot act), The Prestige, Terminator 4, 3:10 To Yuma (great movie insted)... Only thing that I think, is ''Please, someone, STOP THIS GUY!!!! He'e AWFUL!!!!!''


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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 20 2010 at 7:38pm
Thank you, Raptor, for making sense out of this. It seems to me this guy just has a grudge against Bale for his infamous rant, and nothing else. He claims Bale has an emothionless face and a bad voice, but then puts up Stallone as "a great actor." Come on! In every movie Stallone does, he has only two facial expressions: a long face of dumbfound-ness, as if he's clueless about what's going on around him, or a look of anger/pain. And then he mumbles everything he says. But of the two of them, Bale is the worse actor?
 
Come one, man, one mishap that happened off screen doesn't effect your work on screen (well, unless you're Lindsay Lohan). 


-------------
"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: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: January 23 2010 at 7:58am
Even if my reasons could be stupid to hate Bale, it's the same thing that you did to Stallone for years... so!
 
And I don't see any Oscar nominations for Bale! He never got one!
 
So claim as he is one of the greatest actor is really stupid, and doesn't worth the status of great actor, and he is by far worse than Orlando Bloom in the actors of the new generation... Leonardo DiCaprio, THIS is a great actor! 
 
Originally posted by Michaels

It seems to me this guy just has a grudge against Bale for his infamous rant and nothing else.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 23 2010 at 11:56am

There have been plenty of good actors who have neither gotten an Oscar nod, nor won one. That doesn't mean anything. 

I never said Bale was one of the greats, I'm simply stating that he's far from the overly bad actor you claim him to be. Also, why even bother hating on Orlando Bloom? He was only in six movies and has apparently disappeared off the face of the earth! 

Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD

Even if my reasons could be stupid to hate Stallone, it's the same thing that you did to Stallone for years... so!

And I don't see any Oscar nominations for Bale! He never got one!
 
So call him as he is one of the greatest actor is really stupid, and doesn't worth the status of great actor and he is far the worse than Orlando Bloom in the actors of the new generation... Leonardo DiCaprio, THIS is a great actor!



-------------
"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: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: January 23 2010 at 4:38pm
Originally posted by Michaels

 Also, why even bother hating on Orlando Bloom? He was only in six movies and has apparently disappeared off the face of the earth! 
And thanks god!


Posted By: Raptor
Date Posted: January 24 2010 at 7:43pm
Bale was flat out robbed of a Best Actor nomination at least 3 times-for Empire of the Sun, American Psycho, and The Machinist.
 
The Oscars are not an indication of acting talent, sadly.  The list of actors who have never been nominated vs the list of horrible actors who have been nominated should prove that.  Unless you think Mark Wahlberg is a greater actor than Gary Oldman....Confused
 
Bale is *easily* one of the top 10 best actors under 45 and I would argue he is in the top 5 of that group.  But one thing is very clear-he has never given a razzie worthy performance.  Terminator Salvation was probably the poorest showing of his career, but due almost totally to a really badly scripted character.  Any actor would have looked bad with those lines.
 
Orlando Bloom isn't even in Bale's league in terms of acting talent. I'm pretty sure even Bloom's fans would agree with that LOL


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: January 25 2010 at 3:10pm
Originally posted by Raptor

 
The Oscars are not an indication of acting talent, sadly.  The list of actors who have never been nominated vs the list of horrible actors who have been nominated should prove that.  Unless you think Mark Wahlberg is a greater actor than Gary Oldman....Confused
 


Actually... I totally agree with you on this! Yeah really... Oscar are not fair sometimes....

In fact, even today I cannot understand this nomination Mark Walhberg got for The Departed.... he was bad or at least the worst of the actors who played in The Departed (wich is for me the worst movie to have win Best Picture) and he is the only one who got a nomination for ''Best Supporting Actor''... kinda weird... Because his performance wasn't the best supporting performance of the year and there were a lot of performances that were AT LEAST equaly worthy ''Best Supporting Actor'' oscar nomination!

Some of wins for acting are also REALLY retarded wins... I'm thinking about Jammie Foxx for Ray who won against Leonardo DiCaprio (LEONARDO FREAKING DICAPRIO!!!!) for Aviator, Roberto Begini for Life is Beautiful.... And I'm sure I'm forgetting others!

Originally posted by Raptor

 Orlando Bloom isn't even in Bale's league in terms of acting talent. I'm pretty sure even Bloom's fans would agree with that LOL


Even if I hate Bale, I would totally agree on this! LOL


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 25 2010 at 5:54pm
Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD


Some of wins for acting are also REALLY retarded wins... I'm thinking about Jammie Foxx for Ray who won against Leonardo DiCaprio (LEONARDO FREAKING DICAPRIO!!!!) for Aviator, Roberto Begini for Life is Beautiful.... And I'm sure I'm forgetting others!
Sorry to disagree with you once again, but Jamie Foxx won that award fair and square. I mean, if it weren't for the fact that Ray Charles had died a year earlier, I would have sworn that was him on the big screen! As for Dicaprio, I'm sure he will pull a "Kate Winslet" some day and the Oscars will finally go "Okay, you're pretty good and you keep getting nods, but never win, so here, have an award". That, or like Peter "Always a Bride's Maid, Never a Bride" O'Toole, they'll give him a Lifetime Award some 30 years from now ... if that whole thing about 2012 turns out to be a bunch of bull.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 14 2010 at 3:01pm
What a shock!Paris Hilton won!I didn't see those movies,but I hope she was bad,'cuz I wouldn't want her to be awarded just for bein'her.

Jus'cuz Pierce Brosnan can't sing doesn't mean he can't act.

Why didn't Seltz-berg win?

Al Pacino and Kate Hudson deserve their noms.,but you know who didn't:
1) http://www.razzies.com/forum/speed-racer_forum279.html - SPEED RACER (wasn't that bad).
2) http://www.razzies.com/forum/what-happens-in-vegas_forum277.html - WHAT HAPPENS IN VEGAS (average).
3)INDIANA JONES 4 and  http://www.razzies.com/forum/the-women-2008_forum307.html - THE WOMEN (those were good).
4) http://www.razzies.com/forum/meet-dave_forum292.html - MEET DAVE (one of the best comedies of 2008).

Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD


Oscar are not fair sometimes.... 


Yeah.There's tons of movies with over 90% at R.T. that weren't nominated for "Best Picture",includin'one of my favs.:HAIRSPRAY.There's also tons of movies with less that were nominated.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 14 2010 at 4:25pm
"Meet Dave" was one of the best comedies of 2008? What movie were you watching?

-------------
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: November 03 2010 at 1:46pm
I changed my mind,it was average.But I still defend it,and the others.

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 3:44pm
You need to see more comedies from 2008, because I don't think you have seen enough if you're claiming "Meet Dave" was the best of that 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: November 05 2010 at 11:04am
The best comedies I saw in '08 were FORGETTING "SARAH MARSHALL" and TROPIC THUNDER.I gave them 9/10.

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: November 05 2010 at 3:28pm
Okay, MUCH better choices than "Meet Dave", and actually FUNNY movies, too! 

Originally posted by Vits

The best comedies I saw in '08 were FORGETTING "SARAH MARSHALL" and TROPIC THUNDER.I gave them 9/10. 


-------------
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.



Print Page | Close Window