Print Page | Close Window

Deja-P.U. All Over Again...

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: FORUMS on 2009 RELEASES
Forum Name: KNOWING
Forum Discription: Nic Cage Already MADE This Movie (and Was Already a Worst Actor Nominee for It). Last Time It was Called NEXT
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3534
Printed Date: August 21 2014 at 9:14pm


Topic: Deja-P.U. All Over Again...
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Deja-P.U. All Over Again...
Date Posted: March 16 2009 at 3:57am

IS http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Nicolas+Cage&btnG=Search+Razzies.com&domains=razzies.com&sitesearch=razzies.com - NICOLAS CAGE SUFFERING from "OSCAR®-HEIMER's"?

HOW ELSE CAN YOU EXPLAIN HIS ARGUABLY RE-MAKING a MOVIE THAT BOMBED (and ALSO GOT HIM a WELL-DESERVED http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0435705/awards - WORST ACTOR RAZZIE http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0435705/awards - ® http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0435705/awards - NOMINATION ) JUST 2 YEARS AGO??

http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=345 - KNOWING LOOKS SUSPICIOUSLY LIKE CAGE's 2007 TURKEY http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=199 - NEXT (with a SPRINKLING of FELLOW 2007 DOG and RAZZIE® NOMINEE  http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=179 - THE NUMBER 23 THROWN in for BAD MEASURE). AND IT's LIKELY to DO AT LEAST AS BADLY AS EITHER of THOSE UTTERLY UN-SUCCESSFUL MOVIES...

THE ONE "BRIGHT" SPOT: KNOWING COULD FINALLY EARN CAGE THAT OVER-DUE RAZZIE® NIC's MOVIE CHOICES HAVE BEEN ALL-BUT-BEGGING-for SINCE ABOUT 1996.

AND NOW...IT's YOUR TURN to PREDICT CAGE's FUTURE!

CAGE: "Oh, my God...this chart predicts the per-screen averages for KNOWING will be even worse than the ones for NEXT..."



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



Replies:
Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 16 2009 at 10:29am

I think it's time for Nic Cage to take a break from big budget movies and stick with some low key indie films for now.

PS: "Super Capers" should be the Bonus Worst Movie of the Weak.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 16 2009 at 11:49am
I thought "Next" was a fantastic sci-fi film -- it broke some barriers and took some risks. I also thought the ending was original and fresh. The sad thing is, people don't like different things, and decided to bash the movie because it didn't stick to their comfort zone.

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


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: March 16 2009 at 1:32pm
People didn't bash "Next" because it was different; they bashed it because it was poorly made. While, the first part was decent, the ending was terrible because it was another f*cking dream ending! I can't stand dream endings, there a big middle finger to the audience: "Oh, you liked the movie, will f*ck you none of it happened.

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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 16 2009 at 3:44pm

Exactly SchumacherH8ter. People go to the movies to see a beginning, a middle and an end, not a movie that is 50% made up of a dream that the main character has and then ends with no closure whatsoever.

"Watchmen" broke all kinds of barriers and took all kinds of riskes that were well out of any comfort zones by being a three hour, R-rated movie about superheroes who spend most of their screentime talking and being morally ambiguous. That makes it "boring", and "hated" by everyone. But "Next" being 90 minutes of events that never happened and leaves you with a cliffhanger (which has been done in movies before, "American Psycho" for example), it's "fantastic" and just misunderstand by everyone. Go figure.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 16 2009 at 4:13pm

Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

People didn't bash "Next" because it was different; they bashed it because it was poorly made. While, the first part was decent, the ending was terrible because it was another f*cking dream ending! I can't stand dream endings, there a big middle finger to the audience: "Oh, you liked the movie, will f*ck you none of it happened.

I said it and I'll say it again:

It wasn't poorly made. The beginning was fantastic, along with the middle. The problem everyone who didn't like the movie is the end. I can understand why but let me give a full analysis, if I may. The ending is FINE. It's different but it's not a cliffhanger. People say that because they don't know what else to say and because it's easier to bash the movie that way.

Those who fully understand the concept will say this: The ending is, in fact, not a cliffhanger, but a different way to show the good guys winning. So what if it was all a premonition whatever you guys may call it? You know Cage and Moore will work together and try another situation. If that failed, he could go back and do another situation and if that failed, he can do it until he finally get the perfect steps to save his girlfriend.

The fact that the movie didn't show the perfect solution just made everyone angry because movies always show the perfect solution. "Deja Vu," in fact, told you the THIRD time Denzel Washington had to go back to get things right. He didn't get it right the first time.

The same applies to "Next." The fact that it didn't show the perfect solution bugs the audience but the filmmakers took the risk and it's a good one because it's different. You know Cage will get it right but you don't know when. You know he's going to save his girlfriend. You know he's going to set things right but the filmmakers decided just to show his first move and why should that be bad? Why is that a bad thing?

Oh, right, because you guys just want resolutions and have things being spoonfed to you. That's sad. That's just sad. The movie didn't deserve the hate because idiotic people like you won't praise it from going a different route with basically the same message. It's a different ending to show the same thing. It's like "Watchmen," in fact. I heard they changed the ending for the movie but the two endings from the movie and book just spell the same message. That's what "Next" did. It took the same message but applied it to something more risky and more inventive.

If audiences like you complain about different endings all of the time, no wonder we always get predictable BS, the very thing you guys are bashing on in the first place. So please, before you ever bash a movie, think about it first because the very thing you guys are bashing on may not be the thing it has it from being wrong.



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 16 2009 at 5:09pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

 "Oh, you liked the movie, will f*ck you none of it 

I said it and I'll say it again:

It wasn't poorly made.

It was crap. If you liked it, fine. I have no problems with that. But let's face it...there is a track record here. You've managed to embrace all sorts of stuff that most of us here have found pretty wanting. Perhaps you might give a little consideration to the possibility that we aren't the ones that are clueless.

 

 

The fact that it didn't show the perfect solution bugs the audience but the filmmakers took the risk and it's a good one because it's different.

For the most part, I generally applaud "different," but I don't live with the illusion that different always = good. Once upon a time, the Hari Karishnas came up with a "different" approach to raising funds. They sold flowers and crappy propoganda books at airports. It didn't inspire me to give them money. It made me want to beat the living daylights out of them, and I'm basically a pacifist. Evidently, a lot of other people felt the same way, because they were banned from airports both for their own and the public's safety and comfort.

 

 

Oh, right, because you guys just want resolutions and have things being spoonfed to you. That's sad. That's just sad. The movie didn't deserve the hate because idiotic people like you won't praise it from going a different route with basically the same message.

Hang on there, Bucky. Personal attacks win no points in debate. They put you on a level with the George Bushs and Rush Limbaughs of the world, which destroys your credibility pretty rapidly.

 

If audiences like you complain about different endings all of the time, no wonder we always get predictable BS, the very thing you guys are bashing on in the first place. So please, before you ever bash a movie, think about it first because the very thing you guys are bashing on may not be the thing it has it from being wrong.

I'm kind of busy thinking about what you just wrote there and trying to figure it out...however....

I don't think any of us mind endings that are different, providing that there is some logical consistancy resulting from what has come prior. For example, there is nothing I hate more than reading some mystery novel where the author leads me this direction and that for 300 pages, then pulls something completely unforeshadowed out of his @ss on page 301. That isn't good nor is it original...it's just jerking your audience around.



-------------
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: tomsmo35
Date Posted: March 17 2009 at 3:04am
I agree I also think Nic Cage needs to take a break. And he also needs to take hold of his career, and not let his people keep talking him into making these kinds of Movies...

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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 17 2009 at 5:03am
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

It was crap. If you liked it, fine. I have no problems with that. But let's face it...there is a track record here. You've managed to embrace all sorts of stuff that most of us here have found pretty wanting. Perhaps you might give a little consideration to the possibility that we aren't the ones that are clueless.

Yet you manage to ignore my point...

For the most part, I generally applaud "different," but I don't live with the illusion that different always = good. Once upon a time, the Hari Karishnas came up with a "different" approach to raising funds. They sold flowers and crappy propoganda books at airports. It didn't inspire me to give them money. It made me want to beat the living daylights out of them, and I'm basically a pacifist. Evidently, a lot of other people felt the same way, because they were banned from airports both for their own and the public's safety and comfort.

Again, you've managed to go off topic and talk about how different doesn't always mean good. Please, I've made a long point. I would appreciate if you read my side of the ending.

I don't think any of us mind endings that are different, providing that there is some logical consistancy resulting from what has come prior. For example, there is nothing I hate more than reading some mystery novel where the author leads me this direction and that for 300 pages, then pulls something completely unforeshadowed out of his @ss on page 301. That isn't good nor is it original...it's just jerking your audience around.

Read my point. It's not a cliffhanger. You just think it's a cliffhanger. That's why you hate the movie along with several other people. I'm just trying to put in a new perspective on the ending, which is hotly debated on the IMDb forums, which is where I got my argument from.

The main argument is this: The movie just showed one of the many possibilites that could happen. There are many ways Cage could've saved his girlfriend. However, the movie didn't show the timeline that he did save his girlfriend which is why the ending bugged a lot of people and I say that's not fair. Here's what someone said that sums up the reactions to the ending:

"I don't think the ending was cut short at all. The fact is we know that he goes off and saves the day, that's your bog standard orthodox ending. To sum it up in terms of the film, it's already happened, it just hasn't happened yet. I applaud such techniques for not insulting the intelligence of the viewer, people need to stop expecting a film to do all the thinking for you."

"We only saw one senario from the time she and he were lying in the bed. How many more did he use her to see other senarios.

But how many more senarios there were, doesn't matter. He had already figured out the solution in determining where the bomb was.. That why the phone call at the end and the condition that she need not be involved.... Because Cage's character already used her to get the solution. And she could be kept in the dark about his abilities.

There only holes if you don't listen to the whole movie."

So, like I said before, it's easy to bash "Next" because of the unorthadox ending. Anyone can do that. It's better if you appreciated it because it has done something different. People need to appreciate it and understand what it's trying to do to really get the whole movie. This is why I think "Next" was one of the most underrated film in 2007.



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 17 2009 at 8:03am
Originally posted by moviewizguy

So, like I said before, it's easy to bash "Next" because of the unorthadox ending. Anyone can do that. It's better if you appreciated it because it has done something different. People need to appreciate it and understand what it's trying to do to really get the whole movie. This is why I think "Next" was one of the most underrated film in 2007.

No, actually, it's easy to bash Next because it was crap. You accuse me of not addressing your points, but to put it as kindly as possible, your ramblings are so close to unintelligible that I can only address brief portions that can be deciphered. That I chose to address some of those points by analogy was intended to keep the proceedings somewhat lighthearted. However, if I like a particular movie that almost everyone else hates, I invariably hesitiate to assume that everyone else is wrong. I usually chalk it up to a quirky quilty pleasure on my end.



-------------
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: March 17 2009 at 8:08am

The ending of "Next" was more of an M. Night Shamlaynading-dong twist than an original ending. In fact, I was expecting M. Night to jump out and yell "50% of this movie was a dream! What a twist!". Why stop at the first time Nic Cage and Jessica Biel slept together? While you're at it, why not make it that the ENTIRE movie was something Cage daydreamed while he was sitting in the diner at the very beginning? It's would be like the studio heads saying "Any wannabe writers in the theater who think they have a good idea for a movie? Well guess what, we just made you pay for a movie that was all about some guy thinking about one, too! HAHA!".

Here's what a REAL outside the box ending would have been: Just after Cage and Juliana Moore save Biel and kill all the bad guys, the nuke goes off. Everything becomes frozen in time. Cage does a final voice-over that goes something like this: "In that very moment, I realized that even a man who can see into the future can't know what will exactly happen as a result of his own actions. I had the choice to use my powers to save peoples' lives. The life of my lover, the lives of many innocents, my own life. But I chose not to, and now I will not live to regret it". BOOM, everyone gets blown away. Hero fails and dies along with everyone else because he didn't act, much like how 9/11 could have been avoided had Bush done something besides spending months on his private ranch. Now THAT is a movie breaking barriers.

A movie that did the different outcomes trick a helluva lot better was "Run, Lola, Run". It showed the same 20 minutes three times, each time had a different ending. It was well crafted, instead of just being a Hollywood gimmick of "what a pointless plot twist near the very end" like saturnwatcher mentioned. Now please, do yourself a favor and stop bringing your IMDb message board debates to our forum.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 17 2009 at 8:20am
Originally posted by Michaels

The ending of "Next" was more of an M. Night Shamlaynading-dong twist than an original ending. In fact, I was expecting M. Night to jump out and yell "50% of this movie was a dream! What a twist!". Why stop at the first time Nic Cage and Jessica Biel slept together? While you're at it, why not make it that the ENTIRE movie was something Cage daydreamed while he was sitting in the diner at the very beginning? It's would be like the studio heads saying "Any wannabe writers in the theater who think they have a good idea for a movie? Well guess what, we just made you pay for a movie that was all about some guy thinking about one, too! HAHA!".

Here's what a REAL outside the box ending would have been: Just after Cage and Juliana Moore save Biel and kill all the bad guys, the nuke goes off. Everything becomes frozen in time. Cage does a final voice-over that goes something like this: "In that very moment, I realized that even a man who can see into the future can't know what will exactly happen as a result of his own actions. I had the choice to use my powers to save peoples' lives. The life of my lover, the lives of many innocents, my own life. But I chose not to, and now I will not live to regret it". BOOM, everyone gets blown away. Hero fails and dies along with everyone else because he didn't act, much like how 9/11 could have been avoided had Bush done something besides spending months on his private ranch. Now THAT is a movie breaking barriers.

A movie that did the different outcomes trick a helluva lot better was "Run, Lola, Run". It showed the same 20 minutes three times, each time had a different ending. It was well crafted, instead of just being a Hollywood gimmick of "what a pointless plot twist near the very end" like saturnwatcher mentioned. Now please, do yourself a favor and stop bringing your IMDb message board debates to our forum.

So you're saying I shouldn't bring IMDb debates on here because we're debating on the same exact thing? I've seen "Run Lola Run" but there were plenty of films that use that process. "Vantage Point," "11:14," "Sliding Doors," etc. And it wasn't a "pointless plot twist." It's only pointless if you want it to be. Like I said, he already saved her girlfriend but he hasn't saved her yet. That's why people liked "Deja Vu" more. in "Deja Vu," they showed the timeline that made the hero succeed. In 'Next," they showed the timeline that the hero failed because it was his first time doing so. They both are basically the same film coming out in the basically the same time frame. One showed the resolution while the other doesn't. If you try to understand this, you would understand why "Next" is not a bad film.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 17 2009 at 8:46am

The real problem with "Next" is that it stated time and time again that Cage can only see two minutes into the future. What he saw when lying in bed took place over many hours. Right there is a HUGE plot hole. That is why people hate it. The movie set up a clear rule, then broke it.

And like it or not, the ending they had was just the biggest set-up for a sequel ever. It could have shown many different outcomes that all resulted in failure just to prove his seeing the future would never help matters. Only ending, good or bad is what people want to see. "Next" had no ending, it had a cliffhanger, plain and simple, you can't work your way about it. All it was missing was clips from the up-coming sequel and a voice-over saying "tune in next time when...".



Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 17 2009 at 10:54am
I'm gonna have to weigh in here, and say that Next was indeed a crap-fest.

I wouldn't call the ending a cliffhanger, though. A cliffhanger implies that it makes the viewer WANT to see more. What Next had was a giant bird flip to the audience that said "HA! We just stole 2 hours of your life that you will never get back." I don't know many people who would want to see more after that.

And yet, somehow that makes this a "Good movie". Why would I give a damn what Nic Cage dreams? In the end, the entire film amounts to a gigantic hallucination, how is that fun? How is it a good time, to go and pay full price for a movie that is like 20 minutes long?

Good story telling involves several key elements. Exposition, climax and Resolution... How can a story be considered worthwhile, if it features only one of those key features? The movie had a lot of exposition... But the Climax and resolution don't happen, except in Nic Cage's mind... that's not a story, that's a trailer for the actual story...



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


Posted By: sportsartist24
Date Posted: March 17 2009 at 11:05am
I'm agreeing with NEXT being completely crappy. From what I saw, it just didn't make any sense at all. It just got me confused.

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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 17 2009 at 12:50pm

Originally posted by Michaels

The real problem with "Next" is that it stated time and time again that Cage can only see two minutes into the future. What he saw when lying in bed took place over many hours. Right there is a HUGE plot hole. That is why people hate it. The movie set up a clear rule, then broke it.

And like it or not, the ending they had was just the biggest set-up for a sequel ever. It could have shown many different outcomes that all resulted in failure just to prove his seeing the future would never help matters. Only ending, good or bad is what people want to see. "Next" had no ending, it had a cliffhanger, plain and simple, you can't work your way about it. All it was missing was clips from the up-coming sequel and a voice-over saying "tune in next time when...".

But I doubt they were going to do a sequel...

Originally posted by CriticalFrank

I'm gonna have to weigh in here, and say that Next was indeed a crap-fest.

I wouldn't call the ending a cliffhanger, though. A cliffhanger implies that it makes the viewer WANT to see more. What Next had was a giant bird flip to the audience that said "HA! We just stole 2 hours of your life that you will never get back." I don't know many people who would want to see more after that.

And yet, somehow that makes this a "Good movie". Why would I give a damn what Nic Cage dreams? In the end, the entire film amounts to a gigantic hallucination, how is that fun? How is it a good time, to go and pay full price for a movie that is like 20 minutes long?

Good story telling involves several key elements. Exposition, climax and Resolution... How can a story be considered worthwhile, if it features only one of those key features? The movie had a lot of exposition... But the Climax and resolution don't happen, except in Nic Cage's mind... that's not a story, that's a trailer for the actual story...

The end was a resolution. Like I said. We know he's going to save his GF. He just hasn't yet. Again, I'll take "Deja Vu." If they had shown the movie the first time he went back in time to save his GF (or friend) and have him fail, but have him also leave clues for the second him to redo the whole thing, people won't like the movie, yet it's the first few steps of how he's going to save her in the first place.

However, "Deja Vu" wasn't like that because the movie brought us in the middle of the situation without letting it explain to the audience the first place so now we're seeing him go back in time the third time. It's implied in the movie he has failed two times before.

Well, "Next" is simply that: It was the first of many moves Cage can make to save his girlfriend. It's not the move to save her but it's the first few moves he know not to do a second time. Now that's not a bad thing, is it? The movie ends with him trying a second plan to save his girlfirned but now deciding to side with Moore. They could make a second movie, sure, and finally show him succeeding or they could've done that in the first place like "Deja Vu" did but it didn't. That's not a bad thing. It's just different.

I think this debate could last a long time...



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 18 2009 at 1:13am
I think I might go out and rent some crap movies today whilst nursing yon hangover... Might actually check out Next, and then maybe Ecks vs Sever or I Know Who Killed Me.
Here's the first reason I know that Next is bad though: IT HAS NIC CAGE IN IT. THE GUY MARRIED LISA MARIE PRESLEY TO GET AT HER DEAD DAD'S STUFF. HE WAS IN BANGKOK DANGEROUS. Defending his work, to me, is mindblowing. I like the premise for Next, but I that doesn't mean it was executed properly. Here's my question... It SOUNDS as if they way they ended the movie was by not ending it... Is it one of those things where the movie actually ENDS, or they just figured they'd made us watch long enough?


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 18 2009 at 1:33am
I Think Next was one of those movies that was made purely as a torture device. After putting Nic Cage in it, they couldn't think of a way to make it much worse, so they gave it a story that just didn't work. Save yourself 90 minutes of your life, and go watch paint dry instead (watching paint dry will actually enrich your life more than watching Next). Hell, I'd actually recommend Ghost Rider over Next... At least Ghost Rider has a story (even if it does suck)...

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


Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: March 18 2009 at 3:11am

I know there is a debate going on with this and NEXT, but I am going to shift things for now.

First of all, what causes people like Cage to turn from Oscar winners to perennial Razzie candidates?  Nowadays, if there are 100 Nicholas Cage movies, there are 100 Razzie candidates.

Second, the future looks bleak: more Nicolas Cage.  The first is a CGI Astro Boy movie (another Americanized anime), where Cage voices Dr. Tenma.  The second is G-Force (not based on the 80s cartoon), which involves guinea pigs trying to save the world from an evil billionaire.  Cage voices Speckles the Mole.

What happened to Nicolas Cage?



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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 18 2009 at 4:17am

Well, one going into the movie must know the plot itself is kind of a cop out, seeing how he can die but then come back to life a second later. But, in my opinion, I love the plotline, and thought the movie was excellent (along with other adaptations of the guy who wrote these books). I mean, "Minority Report" was utterly superb and a masterpiece. I love time movies.

Originally posted by CriticalFrank

I Think Next was one of those movies that was made purely as a torture device. After putting Nic Cage in it, they couldn't think of a way to make it much worse, so they gave it a story that just didn't work. Save yourself 90 minutes of your life, and go watch paint dry instead (watching paint dry will actually enrich your life more than watching Next). Hell, I'd actually recommend Ghost Rider over Next... At least Ghost Rider has a story (even if it does suck)...

 



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


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 18 2009 at 9:51am
Originally posted by moviewizguy

I mean, "Minority Report" was utterly superb and a masterpiece. I love time movies.



See, this is a statement I can mostly agree with. I found Minority Report to be a decent enough movie (even if it had Tom Cruise). Never read the original story, so I don't know about the quality of the adaptation, but as straight entertainment, it was fun.

You may never win me over as a convert to loving "Next", but I want you to know, I can agree with you on at least one point.


 



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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 18 2009 at 12:41pm

Too bad Nic Cage went un-noticed back in 1993, because this performance is the worst of his career. The movie is "Deadfall" and we may never know why Cage decided to chew up every scene he is in.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1fEnhawu_k - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1fEnhawu_k

I mean, wow, when he's not mumbling every word, he sounds like a barking guard dog. Just ... whoa.



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 18 2009 at 1:31pm
So I made myself watch Next today... And I did it JUST for you, MWG, you little scamp you... And I felt it was mediocre, at least... I mean, I still like the premise, but half of the movie is him trying to get with Jessica Biel, which... Just MAN is that idea creepy... Nic Cage still sporting that Bangkok Dangerous haircut with Jessica Biel? That's like Gilbert Gottfried dating Rebecca Romijn. Anyway, it has that other half with the action which was... OKish... But finally... the ending? Come on, man... It's not unique, it's just not DONE. I mean, if you wanted to make a movie with every possible permutation to get the desired result, you really should go the Lola Rennt way and keep em fairly brief. To have the movie build up to the whole, "Let's show the way where she dies, and leave you to assume there's a happy ending"... Why not just have an unhappy ending? I mean, I figure that the find the whole cop-out loophole where he can only see 2 minutes into the future, except when he sees her... But I mean, that's a SERIOUS problem. If the movie wasn't convoluted up until that point, that's just SUCH a convenient trick... And it makes that whole love story thing that much more corny. Sooooo... yea, mediocre.
Also, I DID torture myself through I Know Who Killed Me, and as bad as that was, that wasn't as bad as I think people made it out to be. I give them credit for TRYING to be artsy in it. That's one of those movies I was talking about during this year's Worst Picture Razzie... It wasn't bad because they weren't trying, it was just bad. So it gets a couple of points in my book.


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 12:16am
Next lost too many points with the ending. The ending completely ruined everything else I had seen to that point. And I have mentioned to others Nic Cage and the younger women thing... It's pretty damn creepy, indeed.I figure in about 20 years, he'll be making another movie, where he is trying to get with some barely-legal girl... the type that just turned legal like the day before filming began....

And I have to weigh in on the German film here. Lola Rennt was a great piece of film, that shows that you can have multiple time lines in a single film, and still make a decent film. Oddly, it was also one of the first films I ever paid to see multiple times in the theater.  And dammit, now I want to pull it out and watch it again.


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


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 1:01am
There was some thing on Hollywood dot com I saw the other day... Apparently the record in age difference in a movie is 43 years... Ben Kingley with Mary Kate Olsen in The Wackness. I believe that refers to the character's age.


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 1:14am
43 years...? I think I'm gonna be ill!!!


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


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 1:19am
"Back in MY day, an iPod was something that an alien came out of to take over your body... well, I mean... I was 30 at the time that movie came out... ok, 40... Err.... This Depression has nothing on the last one... er... D'oh!"


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 1:24am

"Back in my day, we couldn't carry phones in our pockets. You darn kids and your Mobile cellular phon-a-majiggers. What's with all this Threejy stuff? Threejy isn't even a word dagnabbit! 3G? Well...That makes even less sense! Damn kids and your music."

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

"Back in MY day, an iPod was something that an alien came out of to take over your body... well, I mean... I was 30 at the time that movie came out... ok, 40... Err.... This Depression has nothing on the last one... er... D'oh!"




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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 2:32am

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

So I made myself watch Next today... And I did it JUST for you, MWG, you little scamp you... And I felt it was mediocre, at least... I mean, I still like the premise, but half of the movie is him trying to get with Jessica Biel, which... Just MAN is that idea creepy... Nic Cage still sporting that Bangkok Dangerous haircut with Jessica Biel? That's like Gilbert Gottfried dating Rebecca Romijn. Anyway, it has that other half with the action which was... OKish... But finally... the ending? Come on, man... It's not unique, it's just not DONE. I mean, if you wanted to make a movie with every possible permutation to get the desired result, you really should go the Lola Rennt way and keep em fairly brief. To have the movie build up to the whole, "Let's show the way where she dies, and leave you to assume there's a happy ending"... Why not just have an unhappy ending? I mean, I figure that the find the whole cop-out loophole where he can only see 2 minutes into the future, except when he sees her... But I mean, that's a SERIOUS problem. If the movie wasn't convoluted up until that point, that's just SUCH a convenient trick... And it makes that whole love story thing that much more corny. Sooooo... yea, mediocre.

Fine.


Also, I DID torture myself through I Know Who Killed Me, and as bad as that was, that wasn't as bad as I think people made it out to be. I give them credit for TRYING to be artsy in it. That's one of those movies I was talking about during this year's Worst Picture Razzie... It wasn't bad because they weren't trying, it was just bad. So it gets a couple of points in my book.

Thank God, there's a sane person here. I've never tried to express my opinions on that film because I didn't really care for it. However, it wasn't as bad as people made it out to be. It looked really artsy, much alike "Blue Velvet." The filmmakers actually tried to make a film compared to other bad movies. The premise was interesting too. I just hated the sex.



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 3:42am
There was sex in that movie?

... It was like 4 seconds of Lohan's freckly back.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 5:02am

Well, from what I remembered, I fast-forwarded, and it still took, like, some time to get past the sex scene...

 



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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 5:28am

Umm...Roger Ebert gave this 4 stars. Here's the http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20 090318/REVIEWS/903189991 - LINK ... http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090318/REVIEWS/903189991 -

I'm speechless! 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Ebert's review notwithstanding, http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/knowing/ - KNOWING does have the lowest RT Rating of any wide release this weekend (currently 26%) -- And it certainly does look suspiciously like a re-hash of http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=199&PN=1 - NEXT (which was not only http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=next.htm - a box office dud , but http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/next/ - a critical bomb and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0435705/awards - a dual RAZZIE as well)...

 



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


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 10:56am

Perhaps Ebert has gone a little nutty in the head? Maybe he tosses back a couple martinis before entering a Nic Cage movie, in an effort to numb the pain??

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Umm...Roger Ebert gave this 4 stars... http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090318/REVIEWS/903189991 - http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20 090318/REVIEWS/903189991

I'm speechless.






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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 11:33am
Actually, because of that, I'm going to see the film now (tomorrow). I would never have seen it if it weren't for that review. Well, I was interested in the premise before...


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 11:48am

Well, sadly I was gonna end up seeing the movie anyway... just not tomorrow. Tomorrow I need a comedy, and I'm hoping that "I Love You, Man" will deliver the funny... if not, then I may have to toss back some alcoholic beverages and watch Knowing... For some reason, Nic Cage movies always make me want to drink... After seeing Ghost Rider, I swear I had a bottle of Jager that mysteriously disappeared... as did the rest of that god-forsaken night.


Originally posted by moviewizguy

Actually, because of that, I'm going to see the film now (tomorrow). I would never have seen it if it weren't for that review. Well, I was interested in the premise before...



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


Posted By: sportsartist24
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 3:51pm

Or how 'bout watching National Treasure and National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets all in one night? I've done that once and I was all like "Wow, interesting but extremely disappointing" for both movies. I also thought the same way for Ghost Rider, interesting but extremely disappointing.



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


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 12:16am
Watching National treasure alone would be enough to inspire massive binge drinking... tossing in the crappy sequel is probably cause for getting locked up in an Asylum...

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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 1:44am

Or, if you really wanna wonder how Cage managed to score an Oscar at all, watch "Dead Fall", then "Wicker Man", then "Ghost Rider".

You'll be dumbfounded by the end of the night.



-------------
"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: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 2:37am

 Really? I think the National Treasure movies are both very awesome because they are so entertaining (and the jokes so cheesy) that you can't help but go along with them. I love the characters and I love the action. These movies are very fun, popcorn movies. I also love the fact they're going to make a third one. 

Originally posted by sportsartist24

Or how 'bout watching National Treasure and National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets all in one night? I've done that once and I was all like "Wow, interesting but extremely disappointing" for both movies. I also thought the same way for Ghost Rider, interesting but extremely disappointing.



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


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 2:45am
I Love You, MAn was good...

I had a brilliant idea... A Cage/Costner joint project... It's called "Ego Wars." It's about two guys out to prove that they're Jesus.


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 7:50am
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

I Love You, MAn was good...

I had a brilliant idea... A Cage/Costner joint project... It's called "Ego Wars." It's about two guys out to prove that they're Jesus.


Seriously, sometimes the crap you come up with... It's frightening. Really it is.  

As far as "I Love You, Man" goes, I'm heading off to see it shortly.

Andas far as National Treasure 2 goes...that movie was on par with Indy 4, for worst adventure movie sequel I have seen. It's like the bastard child of the Da Vinci Code, and Indiana Jones, minus the intelligence... And I'm talking pre-Indy 4 Indiana Jones....


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


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 1:05pm
I really can't bring myself to see a PG action/adventure movie... The Mummy was at least thrice as corny as the tolerable limit allows, and a PG rating just sounds like it gets quadruple bad.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 1:25pm

It's hard to give a synopsis without giving too much way, so I'll try
my best: John Koestler's son has just gotten the most chilling drawing
from a time capsule. It contains numbers that predict deadly events
that have occurred and that will occur.

Brief, yes, but the less you know, the better. This is probably why the
marketing of the film consists of short, mysterious scenes filled with
jaw-dropping special effects yet very little on the actual plot.
However, the critical reaction may make one think the mystery shrouding
this film may not be good. I'll tell you now: Go watch the film if
you're interested/intrigued.

I'm afraid the critics are wrong on this one, and painfully so. The
plot is far-fetched and probably (or hopefully) not realistic but this
is why movies are made, isn't it? Escapism, one says. You sit down for
two hours to escape from the real world to watch something fascinating,
suspenseful, and, sometimes, disturbing, yet you know it can't be true
but you go along with it anyway. This is "Knowing," a film that holds
one's attention until the very end, bringing him or her into a world
filled with some jaw dropping action scenes, with some very disturbing
scenes with it.

"Knowing" is different from your mindless popcorn thrillers because it
isn't mindless. It's sometimes thought provoking and triggers a variety
of emotions from the viewer. The film is funny when it needs to be,
after having watch a very disturbing scene. The action scenes are
amazing, some cringe-worthy, in a good way, actually, because it's not
just "Wow. Cool special effects," although there really are some top
notch effects, but because they are very hard to watch. The film really
pushes the PG-13 rating and sometimes pushes it so far and shot so well
that I was left speechless.

The film also has a lot of fantastic performances, one from Nicolas
Cage, an iffy actor, if you ask me but he manages to pull it off here.
Chandler Canterbury, the kid actor one hopes to act well alongside
Cage, also does a decent job. Rose Byrne finishes off the main cast
with an equally well played role. And the movie isn't just about the
action either. In some very human scenes, it may strike an emotional
cord from some viewers.

This is not your usual apocalyptic flick. No it isn't. It has something
more, something I cannot reveal without spoiling the movie, including
an out-of-the-world ending that will leave some viewers talking. Alex
Proyas, again, does not disappoint. There are some fantastic
performances and some ingenious action scenes, especially in the way
they are shot, along with a very intriguing plot. This, I'm proud to
say, is the best film this year, so far, and one of the most surprising
films I've ever seen. If you're very interested in the film, give it a
watch or you'll regret knowing nothing about it. 9/10



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 2:10pm
Judging by that review, it sounds like this movie was what M. Night was aiming for with "The Happening", but failed big time.


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 21 2009 at 12:32am
So it is an M. Night Shamalamadingdong movie... with Nic Cage. Maybe I will pass on this one....


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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 21 2009 at 1:38am

Originally posted by CriticalFrank

So it is an M. Night Shamalamadingdong movie... with Nic Cage. Maybe I will pass on this one....

Of course it is. The movie is about a man whose son finds a piece of paper that is all numbers that add up to all kinds of disasters that will happen in this century, and sure enough, they happen. Now hopefully, they don't have a Shamalamadingdong style ending in which it's all some plot by aliens or something stupid like that. That will make it lose street credit right there.



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 21 2009 at 3:13am
Without knowing (no pun intended) what the twist is, I'm not inclined to assume it's all that dramatic. I don't really know (no pun intended) how to take a MWG review on stuff like this. Its still pretty roundly panned by most critics, who tend to know (no pun intended) what they're talking about. Yes, I plan on doing that every time I use the word Know from now on in this thread.


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: March 21 2009 at 4:04am

You guys have posted a topic with an unreasonable bias and pushed it into your Box Office Guess-timator article.  You've left me no choice but to come after you.  Watch and critique this film with an open mind and you'll be able to see something worth watching (for once).  Otherwise, your review will be dismissed as inept rubbish.

P.S. I had to break my silence early to post this because I felt the need to.



Posted By: sportsartist24
Date Posted: March 21 2009 at 5:10am
Try watching some other Nic Cage movies, like those in his early career, like Moonstruck, Raising Arizona, etc. Also watch his Oscar-winning performance in Leaving Las Vegas.

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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 21 2009 at 5:35am

There really is no twist...it's just something that one never sees in a film ever, which is why I loved it so much. There's no twist, but the ending is pretty fantastic, although there is a fair share of others that found the ending outrageous.

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Without knowing (no pun intended) what the twist is, I'm not inclined to assume it's all that dramatic. I don't really know (no pun intended) how to take a MWG review on stuff like this. Its still pretty roundly panned by most critics, who tend to know (no pun intended) what they're talking about. Yes, I plan on doing that every time I use the word Know from now on in this thread.

 



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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 21 2009 at 7:57am

SPOILERS!

 

In 1959, Lucinda Embry (Lara Robinson) is a student at a newly opened elementary school. The school establishes a competition amongst its students to celebrate the school's opening. Lucinda's entry, selected by the school, involves burying a time capsule to be opened 50 years later in 2009. All the children in Lucinda's class drew pictures of what they believed would occur in the future except for Lucinda, who wrote rows of random numbers on the entire page, but is prevented from finishing. After the ceremony, a search is done for the missing Lucinda, who is found by her teacher in a closet scratching her fingers bloody on the door while trying to write the last few numbers. Lucinda then begs her teacher to "make them stop whispering."

In 2009, the time capsule is opened and the new generation of students is given the envelopes with the pictures inside. Lucinda's envelope ends up in the hands of Caleb Koestler (Chandler Canterbury). Caleb's father, MIT Professor and astrophysicist John Koestler (Nicolas Cage), looks at the numbers and doesn't think anything about them. John, the son of a preacher, has trouble reconciling his previous beliefs about the world having meaning, or if it is only a result of a random universe. His doubts stem from his wife's death in a fire a year before. John stumbles upon the numbers' meaning, and discovers the encoded message predicts with perfect accuracy the dates, death tolls, and locations of every major disaster occurring in the last 50 years, and that three of the events have not yet taken place; the last one being destruction on a global scale.

John is present when the first event occurs; a commercial plane crashes killing 81 people, confirming the legitimacy of the numbers. He tries to prevent the second event, but fails as a deteriorating Metro system in New York causes one train to collide with another sitting in the station, killing people on both trains and on the platform.

John believes that his family somehow plays a role in these events, because his wife died in one of those events, and his son was chosen to get Lucinda's prophecies so he could learn the truth. Caleb then begins to hear the same whispering that Lucinda did, and is shown a glimpse of the future global catastrophe by a silent man who begins to watch Caleb. John tries contacting the daughter of Lucinda, Diana, to gain more information. Initially rebuffed, Diana and her daughter visit John and Caleb after John is proved right about the second disaster. Diana leads John to her mother's small home in the woods; while examining the home the silent man and three others converge on the truck, wordlessly communicating with the two children. Spooked, Caleb blows the car horn, and John follows the "whisperer." The man turns to face John and opens his mouth to blind John with a flash of light, then disappears.

Diana's daughter is revealed as also being "whispered" to, and unwittingly tips John off that the global disaster will result from a solar flare that will scorch the Earth, killing everything. Diana believes they will be safe a system of caves she knows, so they return to the Koestler's house for supplies. On the way to the caves, John remembers about the door in the school that Lucinda scratched the last numbers on. John goes and breaks into the school, taking the door to his home where he scrapes the paint to reveal the numbers. Diana, however, decides to leave him and take the children where she thinks they will be safe. John is unable to contact her because the solar flare is beginning to interrupt cell phone signals.

While Diana is at a gas station, an emergency broadcast from the government informing citizens of the solar flare is given. Panic at the gas station ensues while Caleb calls John from a public phone. Diana talks to John, who reveals that the numbers point to the longitude and latitude of Lucinda's home. He believes that is where they will be safe from the catastrophe, unlike the caves, which will be unable to protect them due to the radiation resulting from the solar flare. However, two of the "whisperers" hijack Diana's car with the two children. Diana gives chase in another car, but is killed when she tries to run a red light in pursuit. John watches as two paramedic's pronounce her dead exactly at midnight, on the very day that Lucinda said she would die.

John follows the coordinates to Lucinda's house and discovers the children safe in the presence of the "whisperers." The children are comfortable with the "whisperers," and Caleb tells John that "They are here to help us start over. To help everyone to start over."

John simply asks the man "Who are you?," and a giant crystal shaped structure descends to float above them. The "whisperers" invite the children to join them to escape the destruction, but John is not allowed to go, according to the ever-silent man who communicates directly to Caleb that "only those who heard the call may go." John convinces Caleb to go, saying that they will be together again eventually. The "whisperers" then shed their human appearances to reveal themselves as human-like, ethereal beings with faint angelic wings of light. They then leave Earth along with similar crystal shaped "ships." John goes back to be with his father, mother and sister, as anarchy reins outside, and they are all seen hugging before the Solar Flare strikes the Earth and kills everyone. The last scene we see Caleb and Diana's daughter being dropped off on a new Earth as other ships drop off others. The movie ends as the two children run toward a large white tree reminiscent of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Adam and Eve).

 

Oh, gee, so I was kinda right, there are aliens in it ... or angel creatures. Sounds just like an M. Night movie to me.



Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 21 2009 at 9:21am

Unreasonable Bias? What? Have you been smoking something?

**looks at the image up at the graphic at the top of the page**

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that says "RAZZIE" and something up there about "Cremating cinematic crap". And also, what's with the fairly open threat in there? "You've left me no choice but to come after you." Who are you coming after exactly, and why are you announcing your plans to stalk/cause bodily harm in a message board? Isn't that against the stalker/killer rulebook?

I think I will dismiss your post as "inept rubbish".

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

You guys have posted a topic with an unreasonable bias and pushed it into your Box Office Guess-timator article.  You've left me no choice but to come after you.  Watch and critique this film with an open mind and you'll be able to see something worth watching (for once).  Otherwise, your review will be dismissed as inept rubbish.

P.S. I had to break my silence early to post this because I felt the need to.





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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 21 2009 at 10:30am

Frank, meet Miguel. He never likes which movies we pick on as Worst of the Weak, yet for some reason, he just HAS to give his two cents about how wrong we are (usually in the form of making it sound like we are attacking him personally, because we are "corrupt"). I think Saturnwatcher is best when it comes to out-debating Miguel and his "logic".

Originally posted by CriticalFrank

Unreasonable Bias? What? Have you been smoking something?

**looks at the image up at the graphic at the top of the page**

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that says "RAZZIE" and something up there about "Cremating cinematic crap". And also, what's with the fairly open threat in there? "You've left me no choice but to come after you." Who are you coming after exactly, and why are you announcing your plans to stalk/cause bodily harm in a message board? Isn't that against the stalker/killer rulebook?

I think I will dismiss your post as "inept rubbish".

 



-------------
"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: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 21 2009 at 10:59am

Reading Miguel's post made my brain hurt... I think I need to get some Tylenol now...

Can we lock him and Moviewizeguy in a forum all by themselves? That way they can both sit there and sing the virtues of whatever crappy movie they are in love with that week? :) 

Originally posted by Michaels

Originally posted by CriticalFrank


Unreasonable Bias? What? Have you been smoking something?

**looks at the image up at the graphic at the top of the page**

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that says "RAZZIE" and something up there about "Cremating cinematic crap". And also, what's with the fairly open threat in there? "You've left me no choice but to come after you." Who are you coming after exactly, and why are you announcing your plans to stalk/cause bodily harm in a message board? Isn't that against the stalker/killer rulebook?

I think I will dismiss your post as "inept rubbish".

Frank, meet Miguel. He never likes what movies we pick on as the worst of the weak, yet for some reason, he just HAS to give his two cents about how wrong we are, usually in the form of making it sound like we are attacking him personally, because we are "corrupt". Saturnwatcher is the best when it comes to out debating him and his logic.






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


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: March 21 2009 at 11:11am

You guys take down what the critics hate.  I only take down what the public hates.  If you put down a film that doesn't fit the latter, then you can expect me to post an arguement on the public's behalf. 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: The critics (i.e. R.T.) have so far given KNOWING a 75% DIS-Approval Rating (meaning it's within the boundaries of our usual standards for being RAZZ-able). As for the public's opinion on this film, we won't really know that until its second weekend numbers (which are likely to suffer a steep drop-off).

Also, Miguel, exactly who was it among that vast group known as "the public" who annointed you to "make an arguement" on their behalf?

And one last point: I don't believe "arguement" has more than one "e" in it...

 



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


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 21 2009 at 11:15am

Huh? I go after movies that suck, plain and simple. If a movie is actually worth while, I will say my piece in it's defense.

But, seriously, if you don't enjoy ripping apart bad movies... perhaps you should think about possibly hanging around elsewhere?? 

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

You guys take down what the critics hate.  I only take down what the public hates.  If you put down a film that doesn't fit the latter, then you can expect me to post an arguement on the public's behalf.






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


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: March 21 2009 at 2:24pm

I've been doing for seven months (minus the three weeks I took off) and I've got voting rights for the next ceremony.  As I look at the flicks that have come out so far this year, here are my current thoughts:

1. Bride Wars, The Pink Panther 2, and Friday the 13th are nominated with no chance of parole.

2. The Unborn, The Uninvited, and The Last House On the Left each have some probability of making the ballot, but some have more of a chance than the others.

3. Hotel for Dogs is a family film that may drop out quickly.

4. Underworld: Rise of the Lycans comes from an esoteric film series and it may just end up fading away from the ballots.

5. Fired Up has a wierd concept, but Miss March is absolutely repulsive (repulsive enough to have "Razzies" appear in its reviews.

6. The Jonas Brothers were bad enough, but the refuge (Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li) was confusing and forgettable (but I think that because its forgettable, it may get snubbed).

And that's all I have right now.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 21 2009 at 3:25pm
Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

Here are my current thoughts:

1. Bride Wars, The Pink Panther 2, and Friday the 13th are nominated with no chance of parole.

Although I agree with Frank that Miguel and moviewizguy should have their own little forum to themselves so they can talk about what a bunch of "corrupt idiots" we are, when it comes to picking out which movies are the worst of the worst, Miguel isn't too bad in that area. MWG, on the other hand, I think he just likes to argue with us for the sake of arguing with us.



Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 22 2009 at 12:34am
I've only seen one of those three movies, since I could never bring myself to watch Bride Wars, and Pink Panther Two actually looked worse then the one before it. However, I did manage to see Friday the Thirteenth. I'm not going to weigh in too heavily on that one, however, I hardly think it will stand out once the final crop of crap has been picked through.... We're not even a third of the way through the year yet, there is plenty of crap to go around, I mean the 6th Saw movie is gonna be coming out in October, and if the last three were any indication it will make Friday the Thirteenth (remake) look like Citizen Kane...

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


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 22 2009 at 2:43am
Yes, things will be more interesting with both an added rational voice and a lovable demon of the past...
Getting back to Knowing, there is no way in Hell that I'm going to pay $10 Nic Cage piddle out ANOTHER paycheck flick. Especially one that's been slaughtered by the critics. It doesn't look like it REALLY delivers anything new, and as for movies that it may have "borrowed" from, no love for "The Day After Tomorrow?" When it's in the cheap theater, if we're still talking about it, I might go see it just for Miguel and MWG, but at the price of a ticket these days, and for all of mine and Michaels' self-righteous rants about the problems with Hollywood, I'd be a complete hypocrite if I were to pump money into a movie that fits the descriptors of this movie.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 22 2009 at 3:02am

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Yes, things will be more interesting with both an added rational voice and a lovable demon of the past...
Getting back to Knowing, there is no way in Hell that I'm going to pay $10 Nic Cage piddle out ANOTHER paycheck flick. Especially one that's been slaughtered by the critics. It doesn't look like it REALLY delivers anything new, and as for movies that it may have "borrowed" from, no love for "The Day After Tomorrow?" When it's in the cheap theater, if we're still talking about it, I might go see it just for Miguel and MWG, but at the price of a ticket these days, and for all of mine and Michaels' self-righteous rants about the problems with Hollywood, I'd be a complete hypocrite if I were to pump money into a movie that fits the descriptors of this movie.

You don't have to watch it. Nobody's forcing you but I would like for you to consider watching it, seeing how it's unlike any movie you've ever seen and you probably never will see again because stupid people would bash on the ending. I don't know. Maybe Hollywood should go back ending apocalyptic movies with everyone surviving again.

And Michael, your wish is granted. The movie did end with everyone being killed off.



Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 22 2009 at 3:06am
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Yes, things will be more interesting with both an added rational voice and a lovable demon of the past...
Getting back to Knowing, there is no way in Hell that I'm going to pay $10 Nic Cage piddle out ANOTHER paycheck flick. Especially one that's been slaughtered by the critics. It doesn't look like it REALLY delivers anything new, and as for movies that it may have "borrowed" from, no love for "The Day After Tomorrow?" When it's in the cheap theater, if we're still talking about it, I might go see it just for Miguel and MWG, but at the price of a ticket these days, and for all of mine and Michaels' self-righteous rants about the problems with Hollywood, I'd be a complete hypocrite if I were to pump money into a movie that fits the descriptors of this movie.


See, I'm good, because my self-righteous rants tend to be self-contradictory, so I have no worry about being a hypocrite. What I do have to worry about, is that I am actually typing, since I worked all night long, can't sleep, and took off my glasses because they were digging into my ears... so I have no idea what is on the screen at this moment.... I sure hope my typos aren't too bad....


Back to Knowing, I think I'll make this one a Tuesday flick, and not to appease anyone, but just to get back to the point where I can say "I've seen most of the top ten films" I can usually do that once the summer films start hitting, but at this time of year, I am severely lagging. Besides, I have a free pass, and gift certificates, so Nic Cage ain't seein' a dime of my money!


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


Posted By: tomsmo35
Date Posted: March 22 2009 at 6:08am

I saw on Yahoo Movies that Knowing came in at Number One with 24.8 Mil even beating out the critics' choice for the weekend, I Love You, Man, by 6.8 mil. I thought Man would win at the box office easily, considering how it was praised by critics.

Also, here are some Nic Cage films that I thought he was pretty good in: Matchstick Men, Adaptation and Lord of War.



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


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 22 2009 at 6:47am
Originally posted by tomsmo35

I saw on Yahoo Movies that Knowing came in at Number One with 24.8 Mil even beating out The Critics Choice for The Weekend "I Love You, Man," by 6.8 mil which I thought "I Love You, Man," would win The Box Office easily considering how well it was prised by The Critics also here some other Nic Cage film that he was pretty good in Matchstick Men, Adaptation & Lord of War.


I suppose Matchstick Men was probably the last Nic Cage movie I saw, that didn't make me want to shove white-hot railroad spikes through my eyes.

And this is for MWG: Seriously, you don't have to call people stupid just because they don't agree with you. It's not a very good way to earn your argument any weight...


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


Posted By: sportsartist24
Date Posted: March 22 2009 at 7:43am
And if it's possible, it might actually make more money than NEXT, who knows?

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


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 22 2009 at 8:09am

Actually, I think it has already made more than "Next"...

Hell, it made almost as much as Next's entire theatrical run (domestic) on opening day....

Originally posted by sportsartist24

And if it's possible, it might actually make more money than NEXT, who knows?



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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 22 2009 at 8:30am
Yes, the bad news, it's #1 at the box office (so looks like Cage will stick to paycheck movies). Good news, "Paul Blart" is FINALLY out of the top ten.


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 22 2009 at 9:16am
Nic Cage helped to get rid of Paul Blart.... which means Nic Cage is good...


Nic Cage continues to make bad movies.... which means Nic Cage is bad...

I'm confused...


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


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: March 22 2009 at 2:02pm

Based on the Weakened Box Office headline, you all guessed "I Love You, Man" would be No. 1 without considering its 600 screen deficit and its MPAA handicap.  Come on, I know some of you are smart enough to consider these circumstances (I did).



Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 22 2009 at 2:55pm

Or, one could look at Nic Cages previous historical prediction fiasco (aka "Next") Which completely bombed at the box office. And after audiences turned away from that, one would possibly consider they may do the same here. Come on, I know some of you are smart enough to consider that circumstance. (I did)

I mean, even if you tack on the 600 theater advantage that "Knowing" had over "Next", the per theater average for "Next"'s opening weekend was abysmal, just like it's entire theatrical run. Looking at some of Cage's other films, he has a lot of flops in there... Check out the Box Office Mojo numbers on http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Actor&id=nicolascage.htm%20 - Nic Cage ...

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

Based on the Weakened Box Office headline, you all guessed "I Love You, Man" would be No. 1 without considering its 600 screen deficit and its MPAA handicap.  Come on, I know some of you are smart enough to consider these circumstances (I did).






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


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 22 2009 at 7:48pm

We don't have to give Nic Cage credit, it's just that there's finally been enough OTHER movies released to knock what clearly must be one of the best movies of all time off it's throne in the top 10...



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


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 22 2009 at 8:16pm

Paul Blart? One of the best movies of all time? What the hell have you been smoking, dEd?


 



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


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 23 2009 at 12:23pm
Sarcasmocrack.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 23 2009 at 12:26pm
Even though the critics hated this movie, I would love to say the public think otherwise.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 23 2009 at 12:29pm
Seeing something and liking it are two very different things. We just had an "average Jane" movie reviewer on one of our local shows today, and she didn't like it.

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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 23 2009 at 1:43pm

I don't get what you're trying to say...I'm saying the public liked the movie, and now you're talking about seeing it and liking it? Oh. You meant the box office numbers. No. I'm talking about, you know, sites where they gather votes and ratings, although not very reliable, yet for this movie, it is. On IMDb, Yahoo, etc.



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


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 23 2009 at 1:47pm
Just because it had a relatively small box office take, does not mean that people liked it. All it means is that people got duped by the aid campaign, or that people like me got drawn in by morbid curiosity, you know the sort of curiosity that just begs you to find out how ridiculous Nic Cage can get... Knowing Nic Cage, his performance is likely one that will cause cringes in people who actually like movies, and squeals of glee from the same folk that have made Larry the Cable Guy a household name...

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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 23 2009 at 1:54pm

Please read my post again...carefully this time.

A lot of people who've posted opinions online liked this movie...

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I just checked the IMDb User Ratings for KNOWING ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448011/ratings - LINK ) and, while they aren't exactly scathing, they aren't all that enthusiastic, either. As of 10am/PST on the Tuesday after its release, it has a 7.2 out of 10, meaning audiences were neither horribly disappointed nor overly impressed with the film...

 



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


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 23 2009 at 2:02pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by CriticalFrank

Just because it had a relatively small box office take, does not mean that people liked it. All it means is that people got duped by the aid campaign, or that people like me got drawn in by morbid curiosity, you know the sort of curiosity that just begs you to find out how ridiculous Nic Cage can get... Knowing Nic Cage, his performance is likely one that will cause cringes in people who actually like movies, and squeals of glee from the same folk that have made Larry the Cable Guy a household name...

Please read again...carefully this time. A lot of people who have posted their opinions online liked the movie.



Please consider CAREFULLY this time that I was replying to the previous statement not to your last one. Take a look at the time stamps on them and you might notice they were made fairly close together...

And I stand by my statement.


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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 23 2009 at 2:45pm

It's still possible because they are about 5 minutes apart...but anyway, you haven't seen the movie, so whatever you say means very little...

Originally posted by CriticalFrank

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by CriticalFrank

Just because it had a relatively small box office take, does not mean that people liked it. All it means is that people got duped by the aid campaign, or that people like me got drawn in by morbid curiosity, you know the sort of curiosity that just begs you to find out how ridiculous Nic Cage can get... Knowing Nic Cage, his performance is likely one that will cause cringes in people who actually like movies, and squeals of glee from the same folk that have made Larry the Cable Guy a household name...

Please read again...carefully this time. A lot of people who have posted their opinions online liked the movie.



Please consider CAREFULLY this time that I was replying to the previous statement not to your last one. Take a look at the time stamps on them and you might notice they were made fairly close together...

And I stand by my statement.

 



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


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 23 2009 at 3:00pm

Truly what one of little mental capacity would say. Especially since NONE of what I said hinges on having seen the movie. Instead, I talked about likelihoods and possibilities. And about Nic Cage's track record for making crappy films.

For one who tends to get bent out of shape because he thinks I'm not reading his statements, you sure do a great job of not reading mine carefully...

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by CriticalFrank

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by CriticalFrank

Just because it had a relatively small box office take, does not mean that people liked it. All it means is that people got duped by the aid campaign, or that people like me got drawn in by morbid curiosity, you know the sort of curiosity that just begs you to find out how ridiculous Nic Cage can get... Knowing Nic Cage, his performance is likely one that will cause cringes in people who actually like movies, and squeals of glee from the same folk that have made Larry the Cable Guy a household name...

Please read again...carefully this time. A lot of people who have posted their opinions online liked the movie.



Please consider CAREFULLY this time that I was replying to the previous statement not to your last one. Take a look at the time stamps on them and you might notice they were made fairly close together...

And I stand by my statement.

It's still possible because it is about 5 minutes apart...but anyway, you haven't seen the movie so what you say means very little.





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


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 23 2009 at 8:35pm

It's pretty simple.. My point is that just because someone WENT to the movie doesn't mean they walk out of it saying "WOW! THAT WAS AWESOME!" It's possible, JUST POSSIBLE, that people saw it and didn't like it. BO numbers have never meant anything about a movie being good or not.

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Seeing it and liking it are two very different things. We just had an "average Jane" movie reviewer on one of our shows today and she didn't like it.


I don't get what you're trying to say...I'm saying the public liked the movie and now you're talking about seeing it and liking it? Oh. You meant the box office numbers. No. I'm talking about, you know, sites where they gather votes and ratings, although not very reliable, yet for this movie, it is. On IMDb, Yahoo, etc.

[/QUOTE]



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


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 23 2009 at 8:37pm
And also, I know you're not going to look at the RT ratings this time, but you'll note that most of the positive reviews for Knowing, the 23% that there are, are generally backhanded compliments.


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 24 2009 at 4:29am

I'm sure this will be one of those cases where the Rotten Tomatoes mean nothing. Moviewizeguy will probably dismiss them as "idiots" or some such. It's the Public that you have to listen to, apparently... even though I'm sure the public that went to and enjoyed this are probably not the brightest examples of humanity.

Of course, I think I will have seen this film before this day has ended, so I'll be able to say for sure how awful it is.

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

And also, I know you're not going to look at the RT ratings this time, but you'll note that most of the positive reviews for Knowing, the 23% that there are, are generally backhanded compliments.




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


Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Date Posted: March 24 2009 at 5:01am

To determine if the public did or didn't like a movie, look at the pattern of its opening weekend: Having managed a first-run theatre while attending UCLA in the 1970s, I learned that one of the guides to predicting a movie's long-term staying power ("legs" in showbiz parlance) is to look at the opening weekend Sunday numbers compared to those for Friday -- If the film is getting good word-of-mouth, the two figures should be similar. In the case of KNOWING ( http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=knowing.htm - MoJo LINK ) Friday's gross was close to $9 million, while Sunday's was $5.7 (a drop-off of about 35%).

While this does not imply disastrous response to the film, neither does it suggest those who saw KNOWING in its first 48 hours were recommending it highly to their friends, family or neighbors...

 



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


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 24 2009 at 10:47am
Ok, I've seen it... and yeah, it was just about as bad as I could have thought... Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to take a cue from Nic Cage, and begin drinking until I pass out...

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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 24 2009 at 1:51pm

Here's a http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/getback-nicolas-cage.html - LINK to an article about Nic Cage, which goes to show he is a truly ... unique ... person (come on, he named his son after Superman!)...

 



-------------
"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: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 24 2009 at 3:06pm
Well, the Hollywood types are all about the weird-ass names for their children. I think Kal-El is actually fairly tame in comparison to some of the crazy star kids' names.

And I think that perhaps he should stick to the octopus keeping, and bug-eating.


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


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 24 2009 at 8:33pm

Yea. That.  

Originally posted by HeadRAZZBerry

To determine if the public did or didn't like a movie, look at the pattern of its opening weekend: Having managed a first-run theatre while attending UCLA in the 1970s, I learned that one of the guides to predicting a movie's long-term staying power ("legs" in showbiz parlance) is to look at the opening weekend Sunday numbers compared to those for Friday -- If the film is getting good word-of-mouth, the two figures should be similar. In the case of KNOWING ( http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=knowing.htm - MoJo LINK ) Friday's gross was close to $9 million, while Sunday's was $5.7 (a drop-off of about 35%).

While this does not imply disastrous response to the film, neither does it suggest those who saw KNOWING in its first 48 hours were recommending it highly to their friends, family or neighbors...





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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 25 2009 at 8:44am

Originally posted by CriticalFrank

Ok, I've seen it... and yeah, it was just about as bad as I could have thought... Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to take a cue from Nic Cage, and begin drinking until I pass out...

You lie. You live your life full of lies. You should be ashamed of yourself.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 25 2009 at 8:58am

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

And also, I know you're not going to look at the RT ratings this time, but you'll note that most of the positive reviews for Knowing, the 23% that there are, are generally backhanded compliments.

Actually, the positive reviews are very positive...saying it's disturbing, creepy, etc. But you must see it in theaters. If you want the best way to watch the film, watch it in theaters. the disaster sequences are jaw dropping and very disturbing. The plot is very intriguing and I absolutely loved the ending.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 25 2009 at 9:20am
Here's a very interesting read on the follow up of Roger Ebert's review. If you're interested in his reaction to the critic's opinions, like me, you should read this: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090322/COMMENTARY/903229997 - http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20 090322/COMMENTARY/903229997


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 25 2009 at 11:31am

Originally posted by moviewizguy

You lie. You live your life full of lies. You should be ashamed of yourself.

See, it's comments like this that cause you to lose credit among us. 



Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 25 2009 at 1:26pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by CriticalFrank

Ok, I've seen it... and yeah, it was just about as bad as I could have thought... Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to take a cue from Nic Cage, and begin drinking until I pass out...

You lie. You live your life full of lies. You should be ashamed of yourself.



Coming from the likes of you, I will actually take this as a compliment.


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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 25 2009 at 2:36pm
Originally posted by CriticalFrank

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by CriticalFrank

Ok, I've seen it... and yeah, it was just about as bad as I could have thought... Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to take a cue from Nic Cage, and begin drinking until I pass out...

You lie. You live your life full of lies. You should be ashamed of yourself.



Coming from the likes of you, I will actually take this as a compliment.

It's a joke...



Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: March 26 2009 at 8:31am

Originally posted by CriticalFrank

Ok, I've seen it... and yeah, it was just about as bad as I could have thought... Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to take a cue from Nic Cage, and begin drinking until I pass out...

Did I not suggest that you watch and critique this film with an open mind?



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 26 2009 at 10:34am
Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

Originally posted by CriticalFrank

Ok, I've seen it... and yeah, it was just about as bad as I could have thought... Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to take a cue from Nic Cage, and begin drinking until I pass out...

Did I not suggest that you watch and critique this film with an open mind?

Well, you can go into a movie with an opened mind and it will still suck anyway, at least in Frank's opinion.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 26 2009 at 2:17pm
Originally posted by Michaels

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

Originally posted by CriticalFrank

Ok, I've seen it... and yeah, it was just about as bad as I could have thought... Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to take a cue from Nic Cage, and begin drinking until I pass out...

Did I not suggest that you watch and critique this film with an open mind?

Well, you can go into a movie with an opened mind and it will still suck anyway, at least in Frank's opinion.

But that reaction is very superficial. Anybody could've written that, literally. I can do it too! "OMFG! I hate Nicolas Cage! Ughh...This movie made me think! I didn't expect that because the trailers only showed some cool action scenes! Leik, omg. Angels? Aliens? Whatevr! This movie is too confusing for me to think!"



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 26 2009 at 2:59pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

But that reaction is very superficial. Anybody could've written that, literally. I can do it too! "OMFG! I hate Nicolas Cage! Ughh...This movie made me think! I didn't expect that because the trailers only showed some cool action scenes! Leik, omg. Angels? Aliens? Whatevr! This movie is too confusing for me to think!"

First of all, you make an unsubstantiated assumption/accusation; that those of us who didn't like the film "hate" Nicolas Cage. On the contrary, he has done some work I enjoyed. He has also done a lot of work that wasn't very good, especially lately. I don't think anyone went into the film automatically assuming that it would be bad simply because it was a Cage project, as one might more accurately do with a film starring, say, Paris Hilton or Larry the Cable Guy.

Second, sorry, but the film didn't make me think. It mostly made me yawn. Perhaps you saw something here that I missed, or perhaps you saw something that didn't impress the rest of us. Either way, I personally found nothing compelling in it, and I dare say it will be a deservedly forgotten film. In point of fact, it already is.



-------------
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: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 26 2009 at 3:27pm
I did go into the movie with an open mind, and I came out realizing it was just as bad as it could have been. I went in thinking, "I liked Nic Cage in Matchstick Men, maybe this will be another Matchstick Men", it wasn't.

Nic Cage's attempts to portray something even vaguely resembling a human were laughable. I mean...for the love of the flying spaghetti monster, the dude ATTACKS A TREE! What was apparently supposed to be emotional interchanges, came off more like wooden dry reads. The man just did not inject much humanity into the role, and in the process makes all non-believers look worse by comparison.

There was also no thought involved in the film, the action sequences were so CGed to hell, that they were about as believable as the Garfield movie. Not to mention the "Twist" at teh end, was something that actually makes "The Happening" look like a half-way decent movie. The story itself strove so hard to place some religious iconography into the film, that it plays more like a big budget "Left Behind" then a Sci-Fi story. The ending alone could be seen as evoking imagery from at least 3 different biblical stories, and that's just the ones that I saw off the top of my head.

In the end, the mish-mash just DOESN'T work. So yes, my initial reaction upon finishing the movie, was wanting to do like Nic Cage did through at least the first half of the film, and drink myself into oblivion, and wipe the fact taht I wasted part of my life on this movie from my memory.

The ONLY redeeming characteristic I found, in the entire movie, was the Burning Moose... And that's just because the animation was so horribly bad, I couldn't help but bust out laughing.

And I do not disparage others for liking the film, that is their personal experience with the film, the statements above reflect my personal experience with the film.


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



Print Page | Close Window