Print Page | Close Window

How LOW Can Your Libido Go??

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: FORUMS on 30th RAZZIES Choices
Forum Name: MISS MARCH
Forum Discription: Nominated for WORST SUPPORTING ACTOR / Hugh Hefner (as Himself)
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3526
Printed Date: December 22 2014 at 2:55pm


Topic: How LOW Can Your Libido Go??
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: How LOW Can Your Libido Go??
Date Posted: March 13 2009 at 4:30am

THIS LOWEST-COMMON-DENOMINATOR MOVIE RAISES SEVERAL CURIOUS QUESTIONS:

1) WHY WAS  http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=344 - , WHICH MAKES http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088000/movieconnections - LOOK LIKE INGMAR BERGMAN, RELEASED by FOX SEARCHLIGHT (THE SAME "SPECIALTY DIVISION" THAT  RELEASED http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1010048/awards - )?

2) HOW DID a SCRIPT THIS BLATANTLY BRAINLESS EVER GET GREEN-LIGHTED by a MAJOR STUDIO? 

3) WHY DID a MOVIE THIS FORMULAIC and UNIMAGINATIVE REQUIRE TWO DIRECTORS? 

4) HOW DID FOX JUSTIFY COSTLY RE-SHOOTS on THIS TURKEY WHEN PLAYBOY PATRIARCH HUGH HEFNER AGREED to PLAY HIMSELF in SEVERAL SCENES (RESULTING in the SCRAPPING of FOOTAGE with REVERSE MORTGAGE PITCHMAN ROBERT WAGNER PLAYING the PART)?

5) IF the STUDIO WASN'T CONVINCED THIS ONE SUCT, WHY DID IT OPEN "IN GENERAL RELEASE" with NO PRINT AD in THE L.A. TIMES?? 

6) IF HEFNER SURVIVES 'TILL NEXT MONTH, MIGHT HE ACTUALLY SHOW UP to COLLECT the WORST SUPPORTING ACTOR RAZZIE® HE DESERVES a SHOT at "WINNING" for THIS??

...AND FINALLY: 

7) WHAT'RE YOU WAITIN' FOR???  GO AHEAD -- HAVE at IT!!!


HEF: "Is it just me, or does this look like we're doing a remake 

of WEEKEND AT BERNIE'S ...and I'm playing the dead guy Bernie!"



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



Replies:
Posted By: sportsartist24
Date Posted: March 13 2009 at 11:25am
Looks like I'll be the first one to comment on this one. Perhaps for a second year in a row, we may have two directors nominated for Worst Director for a single film. Last year, two movies directed by two directors were nominated -- Aaron Seltzer and Jason Friedberg for both Disaster Movie and Meet the Spartans (who've never been good at directing, and never will be).

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


Posted By: CptnHotsauce
Date Posted: March 13 2009 at 12:10pm
the whole premise sounds like the marketing department decided to make a movie after hearing Angel Little Centerfold one too many times


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 13 2009 at 5:36pm
I'm just surprised Hef is still among the living. You would think he would O.D. on a little blue pill by now, or at least be numb from the waist down and be in a wheelchair. Gee, first "The House Bunny", now this movie. Does Playboy really need to make 90 minute long ads for itself in theaters? You would think a magazine that exists for the sole reason of showcasing naked women would be able to sell itself after all these years.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 13 2009 at 8:15pm
Does Playboy need to make 90 minute ads? Actually, they probably do. Playboy is veeerrryy quickly fading into obscurity and becoming obsolete. Is there ANY reason to still need a subscription to Playboy with the internet out there? Doesn't an issue cost like... a lot of dollars? (I've never been a fan, I've understood the whole "online" thing since before the internet got big and it happened just as I became old enough to care.)

I'm curious about this movie, as a Whitest Kids U Know fan. I almost wonder if Trevor and Zach weren't asked to make a movie at first, and they turned it down. If you look at WKUK sketches and compare it to this hackneyed idea, it's way, way below their normal level of creativity. The premise of this movie is just so incredibly forced. And if they were really serious about making a movie with people in WKUK, they'd clearly need to include "Timmy Dance," and it'd need to be in the commercials.


Posted By: sportsartist24
Date Posted: March 15 2009 at 4:34pm
After the weekend's box office results, this movie barely made it in the top 10, but only made $2.3 million in its opening weekend.

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


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 16 2009 at 3:19am
Is no one paying attention to the fact that Paul Blart is still in the top 10? Didn't that movie come out when the stock market really started to tumble? I think I have my scape goat.


Posted By: wolfee37
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 10:47am
The film was kind of funy. The two leads were annoying but they had funny lines and it was a good forgetable film. High Hefner was brutal though.


Posted By: wolfee37
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 10:47am

Hugh Hefner**



Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 11:01am
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Is no one paying attention to the fact that Paul Blart is still in the top 10? Didn't that movie come out when the stock market really started to tumble? I think I have my scape goat.


Are you suggesting that Paul Blart is actually at fault for the Stock Market nose-dive?

That actually makes sense! Someone get the Pitchforks and Torches! We need ourselves an Angry Mob! :)


-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 3:35pm

Originally posted by CriticalFrank


Are you suggesting that Paul Blart is actually at fault for the Stock Market nose-dive?

Actually, the success of "Paul Blart" is the result of what happens when movie goers are willing to pay to turn off their brains for 90 minutes. You see now why I'm against stupid movies?



Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 12:28am
Originally posted by Michaels

Originally posted by CriticalFrank


Are you suggesting that Paul Blart is actually at fault for the Stock Market nose-dive?

Actually, the success of "Paul Blart" is the result of what happens when movie goers are willing to pay to turn off their brains for 90 minutes. You see now why I'm against stupid movies?



I think I could understand your hatred of stupid movies more, if you were blaming Paul Blart for economic hardships. Blaming the economic hardships for the success of Paul Blart... that seems less natural. But hey, whatever floats your boat. :)


-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 1:47am

Originally posted by CriticalFrank


I think I could understand your hatred of stupid movies more, if you were blaming Paul Blart for economic hardships. Blaming the economic hardships for the success of Paul Blart... that seems less natural. But hey, whatever floats your boat. :)

I don't know, during these hard times, one could just as easily rent a classic, good comedy if all they want to do is sit back and laugh. You would also have to consider Blart's PG rating (hence tickets are sold in fours since kids can join) and the fact it was the only comedy among all Oscar baiter dramas.



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 2:50am
Yea, but that was like 10 months ago, when PB:MC first came out... But it's still out... Still in the top 10... I dunno, to me, it's like exporting Jerry Springer to the Middle East... If that's not about the most embarrassing thing a country can do...


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 7:58am
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Yea, but that was like 10 months ago, when PB:MC first came out... But it's still out... Still in the top 10... I dunno, to me, it's like exporting Jerry Springer to the Middle East... If that's not about the most embarrassing thing a country can do...


Oh, there's much more embarrassing things a country could do, such as:

1: Greenlight Seltzerberg "movies"
2: Export those same Seltzerberg "movies" to any country
3: Having to report that the Seltzerberg "comedies" are in the top 10.

Sending Jerry Springer to the Middle east pales in comparrison. As far as Paul Blart goes... it's only been out for 10 weeks... And people seem to love stupidity like that.

And for a final thing that would be more embarrassing, but on a personal level, rather than a country-wide level....

Be found dead in your house/apartment, with a copy of Meet The Spartans in your Blu-Ray player, and a broken copy of Disaster Movie embedded in your skull...

Sorry, had to toss in that last one, after the image came to me while typing out the rest of that... My mind is a horrible horrible place...


-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 1:06pm
Originally posted by CriticalFrank


Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Is no one paying attention to the fact that Paul Blart is still in the top 10? Didn't that movie come out when the stock market really started to tumble? I think I have my scape goat.
Are you suggesting that Paul Blart is actually at fault for the Stock Market nose-dive? That actually makes sense! Someone get the Pitchforks and Torches! We need ourselves an Angry Mob! :)


I'm not sayin, but I'm sayin... I think the market materialized in human form, watched that movie, and slit its wrists.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 2:18pm

Originally posted by dEd Grimley


I think the market materialized in human form, watched that movie, and slit its wrists.

There's an Ed Wood movie in there somewhere. But then again, didn't the stock market really begin to tank around August of last year? I think in that case, "Disaster Movie" is to blame. Any excuse to bad mouth that flick.



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 4:58pm
Paul Blart must be some sort of demon seed spewed from the ashes of DM.


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 21 2009 at 12:42am
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Paul Blart must be some sort of demon seed spewed from the ashes of DM.
You are giving too much credit to Paul Blart... I think calling him a Demon seed is a little too much.


-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 21 2009 at 1:32am

Originally posted by CriticalFrank

You are giving too much credit to Paul Blart... I think calling him a Demon seed is a little too much.

I wouldn't call him a demon seed, but I would call him the evil off-spring of Adam Sandler, seeing as how he produced the movie.



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 21 2009 at 3:21am
The man has been in the top 10 for 10 weeks now. He's not a demon seed, he's the actual devil. And Kevin James has been around for a loooong time, he had a career pre-Sandler. Now, Sandler may have had a hand in making Blart, but it's a PG movie, and James is MUCH more clean than Sandler. Sorry, I gotta go with Paul Blart is the devil. I'm sure if this were an episode of the Simpsons, Lisa would be able to find some way to make Paul Blart into an anagram for Beelzebub.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 21 2009 at 8:04am

Gee, I would think for sure Seltzerberg or Uwe Boll would be Demon seeds. Seltzerberg seems very close to being an angram for Beelzebub.



Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 21 2009 at 9:33am
Let me see here... Seltzerberg+Uwe Boll+Paul Blart.... Rearrange the letters... Substitute for numeric values... Carry the seven... Oh no! This is a list of every major disaster for the last 20 years in order!

Wait...no... My bad, no that would just be a bad Nic Cage movie idea...

Beezlebub got raper warts lull.... That just makes no sense... (actual anagram of the three names above...)



-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 22 2009 at 2:45am
THE ANSWER IF YOU ADD SOME OF THEM TOGETHER AND THEN SUBTRACT SOME OF THE OTHERS IS 23!!! PROBABLY!!!!

By the way, I'd just like to say that one of the critics I enjoy, Movie Preview Critic, actually liked Miss March. This might end up making it into my cheap theater viewing after all.


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 22 2009 at 3:07am
I can't stand the cheap theaters... Probably because the one near me always smells like pee. So hard to enjoy a moive when you have to wonder where the pee smell is coming from... 

-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: April 28 2009 at 7:00am

I'd have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of Blart, dEd; I personally enjoyed it a lot when I saw it in the theater.  Sure, they didn't quite go as far with some jokes as they could have, and sure the villains were rather bland (although it is an encouraging sign that Hollywood can actually admit that the angry young slacker type can be a bad guy rather than the big evil establishment figures being blamed for everything; anyway, I could cover up their blandness with a little Mental In-Film Inferior Character Replacement (TM), imagining a more interestign set of rogues were at it; in this case, DeVito's Penguin and his Circus Gang), but I found it had a good strong heart to it, something that's had to find in family comedies anymore. 

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

The man has been in the top 10 for 10 weeks now. He's not a demon seed, he's the actual devil. And Kevin James has been around for a loooong time, he had a career pre-Sandler. Now, Sandler may have had a hand in making Blart, but it's a PG movie, and James is MUCH more clean than Sandler. Sorry, I gotta go with Paul Blart is the devil. I'm sure if this were an episode of the Simpsons, Lisa would be able to find some way to make Paul Blart into an anagram for Beelzebub.

 

 



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


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: April 28 2009 at 12:00pm

Might I recommend, using that Mental Replacement to also replace Kevin James with The Grimace?

I am totally committed to the concept that The Grimace can make even the worst movies more palatable.

Originally posted by wetbandit82

I'd have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of Blart, dEd; I personally enjoyed it a lot when I saw it in the theater.  Sure, they didn't quite go as far with some jokes as they could have, and sure the villains were rather bland (although it is an encouraging sign that Hollywood can actually admit that the angry young slacker type can be a bad guy rather than the big evil establishment figures being blamed for everything; anyway, I could cover up their blandness with a little Mental In-Film Inferior Character Replacement (TM), imagining a more interestign set of rogues were at it; in this case, DeVito's Penguin and his Circus Gang), but I found it had a good strong heart to it, something that's had to find in family comedies anymore. 





-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: April 29 2009 at 12:19am

Assuming "Blart" was even KIND of funny, there's no way in Hell it deserved to be in the top 10 for 10 weeks and make over $130m. I've never been even remotely prompted to crack half a smile at any of the previews, and especially considering the take it's already made, I'll never pay to see it. When it's on Comedy Central, maybe I'll watch it to see what the fuss was about, but there's NO WAY this movie deserved the grosses it got.

Originally posted by wetbandit82

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

The man has been in the top 10 for 10 weeks now. He's not a demon seed, he's the actual devil. And Kevin James has been around for a loooong time, he had a career pre-Sandler. Now, Sandler may have had a hand in making Blart, but it's a PG movie, and James is MUCH more clean than Sandler. Sorry, I gotta go with Paul Blart is the devil. I'm sure if this were an episode of the Simpsons, Lisa would be able to find some way to make Paul Blart into an anagram for Beelzebub.


 


I'd have to respectfully disagree with this assessment of Blart; I personally enjoyed it a lot when I saw it in the theater.  Sure, they didn't quite go as far with some jokes as they could have, and sure the villains were rather bland (although it is an encouraging sign that Hollywood can actually admit that the angry young slacker type can be a bad guy rather than the big evil establishment figures being blamed for everything; anyway, I could cover up their blandness with a little Mental In-Film Inferior Character Replacement (TM), imagining a more interestign set of rogues were at it; in this case, DeVito's Penguin and his Circus Gang), but I found it had a good strong heart to it, something that's had to find in family comedies anymore. 





-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: April 29 2009 at 2:44am

If that's how you feel; I do respect your opinion, since everyone sees the world of film a little bit differently, something the executives should keep in mind when trying to plan out their slates.  I just hope the gross doesn't delude them into inevitable sequel mode, since there was really no way to continue after the end (although doubtless they'll try to get a second one out regardless, whether it makes any logical sense or not).   



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: April 29 2009 at 6:16am
Well that's just the thing. When you let something like this turn into the unwieldy behemoth that it did, there's no getting around it. Hollywood is in full lockdown/red alert mode right now because of the economy, and have completely casterated themselves. And then people are going to see the sequel because everyone they know saw the first one.
I may be paranoid and completely unspiritual, but I believe in the "Moviepocalypse." Because Hollywood is the most free market sector of the economy right now, they're only going to put out what's being paid for. Sometimes you've gotta let a movie go if it doesn't look good enough. You've really gotta be picky, or things are just going to continue to get worse. And they HAVE been getting worse and worse over the past couple of years.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: April 29 2009 at 1:53pm

I pretty much agree with you. Never has H-Wood pumped out as many sequels, spin-offs, remakes, and adaptations as it has this past decade. It's as if the studios have given up entirely on new ideas of high quality and are only concerned with what they believe will sell. And when they do try something original, it's usually half-assed and/or all the marketing budgets favor the blockbuster movies the studio heads want you to see instead.

It's a grim future for movies and it's one of the reasons why I have limited my theater going, and stick to ordering new movies on PPV (or simply watching classic movies on cable or On Demand).



-------------
"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: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: May 01 2009 at 10:29am
If people keep paying to see crap, we're going to get crap. As much as I can empathize with Frank seeing all that merde that he does in the theater, as I used to, it's still best to chose your battles wisely.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: May 02 2009 at 12:15am
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

If people keep paying to see crap, we're going to get crap. As much as I can empathize with Frank seeing all that merde that he does in the theater, as I used to, it's still best to chose your battles wisely.


The more the years go on, the more I begin to recognize the sheer necessity of the Razzies... The movies seem to have so much more crap then there is quality...


-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: May 02 2009 at 1:31am
Well, as I like to point to - if you look at RT and the top 10 movies, RARELY are there more than 2 with favorable ratings. Right now, Monsters v Aliens, State of Play, Earth, and the future Oscar favorite Crank: High Voltage are in the top 10, and are all positive, but I have the feeling that we'll lose at least 2 this weekend. Wolverine isn't gonna make it back out the green. Ghosts of Girlfriend's past looks about as bad as it gets (the positive reviews I've seen say, "Garner is charming." And that's really the extent of the praise). Battle for Terra will undoubtedly get Delgo-like numbers. I doubt that breaks the top 5.
It makes me pine for the days of Miss March.

*Takes a bow as the crowd applauds his masterful segue back on topic*

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: May 02 2009 at 1:36am
Originally posted by dEd Grimley


It makes me pine for the days of Miss March.

*Takes a bow as the crowd applauds his masterful segue back on topic*


Missing Miss March? I know I missed Miss March, but the missing was on purpose...


-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: May 02 2009 at 1:39am
I think you're making a mistake misinterpreting my misdirection.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: May 02 2009 at 9:47am
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

I think you're making a mistake misinterpreting my misdirection.


Well Mister, I suppose I might have been misinformed, my mistake.


-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: May 03 2009 at 1:44am
This joke is too hard to keep up. I quit.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: May 03 2009 at 7:06am
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

This joke is too hard to keep up. I quit.


Victory is mine!


-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: JoBloMovieGoer
Date Posted: August 11 2009 at 5:07am

BOY DOES THIS ONE BELONG on OUR NOMINATING BALLOT!!

Just saw the "un-rated" version of this on DVD. All I can say is OMG DOES IT SUCK!  Every character was stupid, obnoxious, sex-obsessed...or all three. The plot was retarded, the look of the film was garrish and I honestly don't remember laughing even ONCE.

I did, however, cringe repeatedly at how bone-headed and criminally UN-funny it was...

 



Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: January 24 2010 at 11:51am
I should've known 2009's first full-fledged sex comedy would hold out as the worst! If Hannah Montana: The Movie or Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience can't get nominations for worst picture, I'll have to settle for this. Most of all, I believe this deserves Worst Director for Zach Cregger and Trevor Moore.

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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 24 2010 at 12:05pm
Even though crap like "Trannies 2" and "GI Joe" are more than worthy to get Razzed, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if "Miss March" pulls a "Love Guru" and ends up the big "winner" this year, considering how everyone who sees this movie rips it apart.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: January 24 2010 at 1:58pm
Originally posted by Michaels

Even though crap like "Trannies 2" and "GI Joe" are more than worthy to get Razzed, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if "Miss March" pulls a "Love Guru" and ends up the big "winner" this year, considering how everyone who sees this movie rips it apart.


Crap as Love Guru was, I feel its Razzing was more crap. Razz something that made a bunch of money that it didn't deserve, or something with a huge budget that failed miserably. Not a corny sex comedy who's biggest expense was likely keeping a defibrillator on hand at all times in case Hef died again.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 24 2010 at 2:11pm
Originally posted by dEd Grimley


Crap as Love Guru was, I feel its Razzing was more crap. Razz something that made a bunch of money that it didn't deserve, or something with a huge budget that failed miserably. Not a corny sex comedy who's biggest expense was likely keeping a defibrillator on hand at all times in case Hef died again.

My thoughts exactly!


Posted By: tomsmo35
Date Posted: March 03 2010 at 12:21pm

I was on Hugh Hefner Twitter page and he made two posting about his Razzies Nom you can read them both here http://twitter.com/hughhefner/ - http://twitter.com/hughhefner/



Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 03 2010 at 8:22pm
You know, I wouldn't mind old Hef winning Worst Supporting Actor. Sure, the guy created the first success, mainstream porn magazine, but does he really need to appear in movies or TV series. It's mainstream porn, the s*** sells itself without it's 80 something year old creator whoring himself out in that stupid bath robe of his. Does he even wash that thing?!

-------------
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: December 15 2010 at 8:01am
I just saw this, and gave it 8/10. Go ahead,crucify me!LOL

Do I even have to talk about how wrong it was to nominate Hugh Hefner for this?



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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 15 2010 at 1:05pm
1. Okay, I admit it wasn't among the worst of all-time, but that high of a rating needs to be explained!

 
2. No, Hefner was line-reading in a monotone voice, and he deserved his Razzie nomination.

Originally posted by Vits

1. I just saw it and gave it 8/10.Go ahead,crucify me!LOL

2. Do I even have to talk about how wrong it is to nominate Hugh Hefner for this?



-------------
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: December 17 2010 at 2:20pm
This is a teen sex comedy with a cliched plot and stupid jokes...but on purpose. Not to mention is funny! A certain scene made fall out of my bed laughing, and that rarely happens. I wanted to give a higher rating, but it loses points because some jokes weren't funny, some were (but they re-used them too many times) and some were too gross or too sexist. Also,Zach & Trevor shouldn't do so many jobs on one movie, because their directing was sloppy. 

Now that you mentioned it...it's true -- Hefner was doing bad line readings.  



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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 17 2010 at 2:24pm
This is why I highly question the high ratings you give to some movies. When I ask you why you gave that review, you admit there are many flaws to the movie. If that is the case, then the movie clearly shouldn't be getting that high of a rating. The Ford Pinto had a number of problems to it, but no car critic overlooked them an said "All problems aside, it's a fun ride, I give it 4 out of 5 stars!".

-------------
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: December 18 2010 at 7:51am
Based only on laughs, I would've give this 10, but I lowered it to 8. Also, I reviewed it as the "teen sex comedy" it is.

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 18 2010 at 7:59am
Again, like MWG, you're giving the movie entirely too many points just for being "entertaining." For only being entertaining, it should get only one point, not ten. I wouldn't reward a heavily flawed movie just because it has one redeeming quality.

-------------
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: December 18 2010 at 2:18pm
Film is two things:Entertainment and art.Both aspects equally matter.Also,this is a comedy,so it's main purpose is to make you laugh.

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 18 2010 at 4:54pm
Originally posted by Vits

Film is two things:Entertainment and art.Both aspects equally matter.Also,this is a comedy,so it's main purpose is to make you laugh.
Yeah, but EQUAL parts entertainment AND art. So that means it's still a failure because it had no balance of the two. There was no art and it wasn't even THAT entertaining. On the realistic movie review scale, it's a 1 star or F+.

-------------
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: Vheid
Date Posted: December 19 2010 at 4:11am
Agree with you Burn and Vits, but have to say that both "art" and "entertainment" doesn't seem like real guidelines for making a good film. Mainly because both terms are very vague.

I went to an art school and one of the first questions they ask there is "What is art?". It shouldn't be a suprise that this is a question that is very hard to answer and oftenly leads to very heavy discussions. Mainly because there is just not one universal answer for this question.

Entertainment is a very personal thing. I find The Room very entertaining (because I find it extremelly funny) but someone else would just be bored by it.

As for your rating Vits, giving a film something like a 10 would means you saw something extraordinary, Something that had a deep effect on you as a filmwatcher, something you couldn't stop thinking about, something you would remember 30 years from now, something that remained on your mind days after you saw it, something that changed the way you look at things etc.

I havn't seen Miss March, but i doubt you felt any of these thing when you watched the movie. Am I wrong?

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Originally posted by Vits

Film is two things:Entertainment and art.Both aspects equally matter.Also,this is a comedy,so it's main purpose is to make you laugh.
Yeah, but EQUAL parts entertainment AND art. So that means it's still a failure because it had no balance of the two. There was no art and it wasn't even THAT entertaining. On the realistic movie review scale, it's a 1 star or F+.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 19 2010 at 9:53am
Well, Vheid, by "art", I mean the quality of filmmaking. The choices in editing, writing, acting, etc. Here, they are all VERY poor. As I said Hugh Hefner was just line reading in a monotone voice. The sidekick character acts like he is on speed throughout the movie, and there are running gags galore that stopped being funny the third or fourth time they are used. As for entertainment, to me at least, it's not all that funny, I chuckled only once or twice. Vits apparently thought elsewise. But no, it's a movie unworthy of an 8 out of 10 rating (or say 4 out 5 stars or B+, the REAL rating systems that make sense), and you're not missing anything from not watching it.

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


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: December 19 2010 at 10:27am
I find this statement a little harsh. I think there is a surden personal preference in every ratingsystem. That doesn't mean one system is better than the other (as long as you can get your message across).

In my highschool they graded tests/exams with a one through ten rating. I myself would use this anytime before using a one through ten rating or rating something with letters, simply because I am more comfertable/used to this system. It doesn't mean my rating counts to a lesser extend because I don't use the same system that critics use (or the system that American high schools use).

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Well, Vheid, by "art", I mean the quality of filmmaking. The choices in editing, writing, acting, etc. Here, they are all VERY poor. As I said Hugh Hefner was just line reading in a monotone voice. The sidekick character acts like he is on speed throughout the movie, and there are running gags galore that stopped being funny the third or fourth time they are used. As for entertainment, to me at least, it's not all that funny, I chuckled only once or twice. Vits apparently thought elsewise. But no, it's a movie unworthy of an 8 out of 10 rating (or say 4 out 5 stars or B+, the REAL rating systems that make sense), and you're not missing anything from not watching it.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 19 2010 at 10:32am
Originally posted by Vheid

I find this statement a little harsh. I think there is a surden personal preference in every ratingsystem. That doesn't mean one system is better than the other (as long as you can get your message across).

In my highschool they graded tests/exams with a one through ten rating. I myself would use this anytime before using a one through ten rating or rating something with letters, simply because I am more comfertable/used to this system. It doesn't mean my rating counts to a lesser extend because I don't use the same system that critics use (or the system that American high schools use).
I guess it varies from person to person. To me, 1 to 10 ratings make no damn sense. At what point is the movie bad or good? 1-3 is bad? 4-7 is okay? 8-10 is good? 1 to 5 is so much simpler. 1 is bad, 2 is alright, 3 is okay, 4 is good, 5 is great. See, simple. Same goes for letter grades. A is great, B is good, C is okay, D is alright, F is bad.
 
And as for school grade point averages, as you have seen from my debates with MWG, I apply them to RT ratings. Where as he would consider 50% to be a good thing, I see it as an "F", since that was the GPA method in school. To each his own I suppose.


-------------
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: Vheid
Date Posted: December 19 2010 at 11:02am
I didn't mind that you believe your own system works better than other systems. It's just that claiming there is just one REAL system comes over as a bit judgemental (or even arrogant).

I asume this wasn't your intention, because so far you came over as a reasonable/rational person.

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

I guess it varies from person to person. To me, 1 to 10 ratings make no damn sense. At what point is the movie bad or good? 1-3 is bad? 4-7 is okay? 8-10 is good? 1 to 5 is so much simpler. 1 is bad, 2 is alright, 3 is okay, 4 is good, 5 is great. See, simple. Same goes for letter grades. A is great, B is good, C is okay, D is alright, F is bad.
 
And as for school grade point averages, as you have seen from my debates with MWG, I apply them to RT ratings. Where as he would consider 50% to be a good thing, I see it as an "F", since that was the GPA method in school. To each his own I suppose.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 19 2010 at 11:15am
I usually use the rating system from my country:

7,0=100%
6,5=90%
6,0=80%
5,5=70%
5,0=60%
4,5=50%
4,0=40%
3,0=30%
2,0=20%
1,0=10%
0=0%

By in sites like this I choose to write one that you all understand.

Art is an abstract concept,and in movies I consider it the quality of the technical aspects.

Laughs:90%
Directing:40%
Acting:50%


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 19 2010 at 1:20pm
Vheid, sorry if my wording upset you, but I was just going by what I was taught to be the correct movie rating system that is embraced by professional critics. You do have to admit, having five degrees of quality is easier to understand than 10 degrees, that's why it's the system that critics use.
 
Vits, my opinion, it was more like this according to that system. Laughs: 10%, Directing: 20%, Acting: 5%. 35% = F.


-------------
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: Vheid
Date Posted: December 20 2010 at 3:13am
I still prefer 10 degrees for myself, but will admit that I understand why critics use it. It is a clearer system.

I do also have to admit that I never understood why a reviews always included a rating of the film. It doesn't make the words printed on paper stronger. So to me it always seemed a bit unnecessary.

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Vheid, sorry if my wording upset you, but I was just going by what I was taught to be the correct movie rating system that is embraced by professional critics. You do have to admit, having five degrees of quality is easier to understand than 10 degrees, that's why it's the system that critics use.
 
Vits, my opinion, it was more like this according to that system. Laughs: 10%, Directing: 20%, Acting: 5%. 35% = F.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 20 2010 at 12:04pm
Yeah.At first I used to use that system too.I prefer the 0-10 because my opinion on a movie sounds more specific to me.

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


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: December 20 2010 at 12:16pm
Okey, intresting Vits. Can you explain how you mean specific?
I myself prefer the 1-10 system because I rarely give film a 9 out of 10. So one can imagine how much status the few films have that get a 10 out of 10 (same goes the other way around for a 1 out of 10 rating)

Originally posted by Vits

Yeah.At first I used to use that system too.I prefer the 0-10 because my opinion on a movie sounds more specific to me.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 20 2010 at 12:20pm
Suits yourselves, guys. It's just in my opinion, you can't get more specific than "1-5 = great, good, okay, alright, bad", rather than "1-10 = within the range of being good, within the range of being bad", etc.

-------------
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: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: December 21 2010 at 1:46am
And as for school grade point averages, as you have seen from my debates with MWG, I apply them to RT ratings. Where as he would consider 50% to be a good thing, I see it as an "F", since that was the GPA method in school. To each his own I suppose.

I always thought the whole taking rotten tomatoes as a literal grade to be kinda silly, the one thing that metacritic does right over RT is that they explain what the score means rather than provide a vauge consensus. for example a 50% means mixed or average, which is far from an F (Not saying it's a good rating, just saying that your looking at it the wrong way)

A 50%ish score on RT doesn't mean an F, it means that about half the critics didn't like it and half of the critics did, thats means that critics were split on the movie, and not a failing grade. So in a way maybe Gee-Wiz does have a point to some extent... although just saying that in itself is an oxy-moron LOL


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 21 2010 at 9:31am
If I use the 5 stars it's: Very Good, Good, Average, Bad and Very Bad. Most people I know prefer that. But as a reviewer (I don't call myself a critic because it's not my job) I analyze everything in the movie, so it's One Of The Best, Excellent, Great, Good, Okay, Average, Mediocre, Bad, Awful, Horrible, One Of The Worst.

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 21 2010 at 12:00pm
Yeah, 50% on RT is nothing to get all excited about. That's far from being able to go all "See, see! 50%, that means the movie is good and not razzie worthy!" (a common excuse used by Gee-Wiz). But as I have been saying, my perferred methods of movie rating systems are 1-5 stars or letter grades, hence why I translate percentages into letter grades. But hey, that's just me. I'm sure everyone uses RT ratings differently ... like Gee-Wiz thinking anything not below 20% MUST be "good". 

Originally posted by Mayhem5185

I always thought the whole taking rotten tomatoes as a literal grade to be kinda silly, the one thing that metacritic does right over RT is that they explain what the score means rather than provide a vauge consensus. for example a 50% means mixed or average, which is farfrom an F (Not saying it's a good rating, just saying that your looking at it the wrong way)

A 50%ish score on RT doesn't mean an F, it means that about half the critics didn't like it and half of the critics did, thats means that critics were split on the movie, and not a failing grade. So in a way maybe Gee-Wiz does have a point to some extent... although just saying that in itself is an oxy-moron.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 21 2010 at 12:08pm
That's fine, that works. But as for things like "one of the best, one of the worst, etc.", that's really not a movie review thing, it's more of year in review or decade in review thing. As a reviewer, you're suppose to judge the movie on it's own merits in the PRESENT DAY, not what it's place in movie history will be ten years from now. You're spreading the quality meter too thin. "Excellent" and "great" are interchangeable as one degree; "good" is a stand alone degree; "okay", "average" and "mediocre" can all be combined into one degree; "bad" is a stand alone degree; "awful" and "horrible" are interchangeable as one degree. You see what I mean?  

Originally posted by Vits

If I use the 5 stars it's: Very Good, Good, Average, Bad and Very Bad.


-------------
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: December 21 2010 at 1:44pm
Wow!You turned my 10 ratings into 5!Snap!

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 21 2010 at 1:50pm
Yes, yes I did. Do I get my cookie now?

-------------
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: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: December 21 2010 at 2:07pm
I already ate it... 




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


Posted By: Grounder the Critic
Date Posted: December 21 2010 at 5:17pm
I ate mine too.

-------------
Pictures move, do they?



Print Page | Close Window