Print Page | Close Window

...Sure to Come Plummetting Down!

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: FORUMS on 2009 RELEASES
Forum Name: WHAT GOES UP
Forum Discription: ...Must Come Down. But Where is "Down" from a 00% R.T. Rating??
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3662
Printed Date: July 25 2014 at 1:39pm


Topic: ...Sure to Come Plummetting Down!
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: ...Sure to Come Plummetting Down!
Date Posted: May 28 2009 at 3:14am

UP-DATE: THIS MOVIE HAS SET a NEW RECORD for FASTEST-to GO-from-THEATRES-to-DVD...a MERE 18 DAZE (WOW!) 

WHEN CRITICS HAIL SOMETHING as "UNRELEASABLE 1"  "A MESS 2" and "THE CHEAPEST KIND of AMATUERISHNESS THAT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS SHOT on a CELL PHONE 3" THAT'S SURE to DRAW OUR ATTENTION.

WHEN a FILM's CAST INCLUDES a SEVERAL-TIME PAST RAZZIE® NOMINEE LIKE http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Hilary+Duff&btnG=Search+Razzies.com&domains=razzies.com&sitesearch=razzies.com - HILARY DUFF and a FELLOW TEEN IDOL LIKE http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0669681/ - JOSH PECK , THAT ALSO REGISTERS on OUR RADAR...

AND WHEN a FILM's ONLY HOPE of DOING BUSINESS IS THAT IT's OPENING AGAINST http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/up/ - a FAR SUPERIOR FILM WITH a SIMILAR TITLE (and APPARENTLY HOPING AUDIENCES ARE DUMB ENOUGH to WANDER INTO THEIR FILM by MISTAKE) the RAZZIE® PEDIGREE IS COMPLETE... 

LADIES and GENTLEMEN, MEET the FIRST FILM to TRY and MINE LAUGHTER from the 1986 SPACE SHUTTLE DISASTER, http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=358&PN=1 - WHAT GOES UP . WE PREDICT IT'LL GO DOWN as ONE of 2009's MOST EGREGIOUS FILM FAILURES...

VILLAGE VOICE

2  HOLLYWOOD REPORTER

3 REX REED / NEW YORK OBSERVER

COOGAN: "Hail, Mary, full of grace...Save us from the RAZZIE® race!"

P.S. Berry Special Thanks to Forum Regular (and Voting Member) CVCJR13 for Bringing This One to Our Attention...



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



Replies:
Posted By: tomsmo35
Date Posted: May 28 2009 at 10:32am
The way The Trailer was setup it looked like it should have gone Direct to Video.


Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: May 28 2009 at 1:25pm
The trailer doesn't look THAT bad, does it? Well, there's that nasty Juno-centric humor that makes me cringe. Why it goes over MY head, I'll never know, but characters who keep making quirky quips for 90 minutes isn't really entertainment, it's a lack of good screenwriters.

-------------
You think you know, but you have no idea.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 28 2009 at 4:54pm

Well, RoadDog, the problem seems to be not the quips, but the fact that you have all these stories going on, and none of it comes together.  And every character has a screwy story.  I mean, after you watched the clip, did you come away with any idea what the movie reallly was about?  I just saw a lot of cute kid moments and Jackie Coogan, and then they trotted out the stars, and that was about it.  It left me wondering, "What the hell?"  And then, when I read some of the reviews and realize those cute kid moments really weren't all that cute, that "what the hell?" becomes pretty loud.

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=4326 - I read one review by Nick Schager of Slant  that talks about how the theme is supposed to be how Americans invent icons to meet their own needs, but even that reviewer said the movie made its point with contrivance and nonsense.  It would have been nice if it was a series of set pieces loosely strung together.  It would have been great if these stories revolved around how each character changed in light of the shuttle tragedy.  Instead, you've got a mess, and Hillary Duff is once again getting credit for being a good actress in a mess of a movie.  Like her one-time competitor, Lindsay Lohan, Hillary Duff can act, but doesn't seem to be able to pick any movie worth acting in. 

I have a feeling if you or any of us see this movie, we'll wonder how it took all of these ideas and incredibly went nowhere with it.

Scary thought: Lindsay Lohan and Hillary Duff in a movie together.  Forget that they're supposedly rivals.  Forget that they appear to be completely different people.  Think about the last several films each of them chose to star in, and then think about what kind of movie they would choose to make together.  Ugh.

 

 



Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: May 29 2009 at 12:05am

You say "Jackie Coogan" CVCJR, but, do you perhaps mean "Steve Coogan" because he sure looks like the guy from Hamlet 2... Also, I think Jackie Coogan is long dead....

If Jackie Coogan shows up in the movie, It might just be worth watching! Zombies make everything better!



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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 29 2009 at 2:26am

  You're right.  My mistake.  I guess when I see the last name "Coogan", I will always think of The Kid

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Or better yet, my generation thinks of Coogan as "Uncle Fester" in the 60s sit-com version of http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057729/ - The Addams Family ...

 



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


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: May 29 2009 at 12:43pm
The thought of it having Zombie Uncle Fester was really going to be a huge selling point... But now that it just has the guy from Hamlet 2, Not quite as interesting... Perhaps I could pretend he was a zombie Uncle Fester....

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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 29 2009 at 1:39pm

I bet at this point Steve Coogan wishes he was zombie Uncle Fester.  There have been 17 reviews so far at Rotten Tomatoes, AND NOT A SINGLE CRITIC HAS SAID YET TO SAY THIS MOVIE WAS GOOD!  0% after 17 reviews!

Zombie Uncle Fester. . . . isn't that redundant? . . .

 



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: May 29 2009 at 7:23pm
This film intrigues me. I haven't seen it listed as being in any of the theaters around me, but I may need to keep my eye out. I've really been on a bad movie kick lately. My quest to re-see Battlefield Earth ended in failure, as the video store I went to didn't have it. I DID manage to check out Razzie Nominee "Xanadu," which was amazingly bad enough as it is, but as a fan of the movie "The Warriors," the casting decision made it doubly funny to me. Also, I watched "Ecks vs Sever." I'll comment further on that when I feel the need.

Anyway, What Goes Up sounds interesting enough to me.

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


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: May 30 2009 at 12:18am
Zombie Uncle Fester... I don't think there is a redundancy there... But then again, I was never fully clear what was up with that entire family... I think they might have had some kind of hereditary glandular disorder...

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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 30 2009 at 4:37am

"Hereditary glandular disorder..."   

Oddly, What Goes Up is showing nearby, so I don't have to go all the way down to Los Angeles to experience the misery of a bad independent film. . . .

 



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: May 30 2009 at 7:07pm
So here's the debate for today, which title is worse? Safety Glass or What Goes Up?

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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 30 2009 at 9:15pm

MAJOR SPOILERS!

First, a word about the Maverick 3 Theatre in Moorpark, CA.  The theatre I sat in appeared to look and smell new, with reclining seats, fold back arms and tiered seating in the back section.  The most interesting thing was not that it was new, nor that the theatre was empty except for one group of teenagers who ran away when they saw me in there (am I that scary?) or another threesome who came in and sat in the back row.  The most interesting thing is that the Maverick 3 is a combination theatre and sports club.  Yes, you get a membership with the sports club, and you can exercise a half hour or so and then go watch a movie for matinee pricing.  And I know this because the sports club is right there after you enter the theatre and walk past the concession stand.  But if you miss that, there are advertisements tell you registration is free for a limited time, that the sports club is in the same building, and of the price break on the tickets.  Considering my substantial girth and penchant for watching movies in theatres, this should be an offer worth considering. . . .

Now, What Goes Up would be the first bad movie I've watched in a theatre this year.  Some people would disagree upon seeing the list of movies I watched this year and would insist that Gigantic was the first bad movie.  However, my opinion of Gigantic http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090409/REVIEWS/904099995/1023 - roughly matches Roger Ebert's opinion, that there was much good acting, very intriguing characters and scenes, and was one rewrite short of being a solid good movie. Ebert rated Gigantic with 2-1/2 stars, while I gave it a 6 out of 10.  None of the critics seem to really pick up on the purpose of the character they call the homeless guy, who actually made three different appearances, one as a homeless guy with a metal bar, one as a huntsman with a rifle and another as a telephone repairman with I recall a crowbar, and I felt was a hallucination representing the "stuckness" of Paul Dano's character Brian, especially since after Brian knifes this guy, the body disappears immediately afterwards, but I digress. . . .

But it's appropriate I bring up Gigantic, an indepedent movie of quirky characters with great acting and great, memorable scenes, but lacks a unifying theme which it could have easily had.  What Goes Up is also an independent movie.  What Goes Up has actors acting their hearts out.  However, instead of quirky characters, What Goes Up has mentally and emotionally disturbed characters.  It desperately tries to create what should be memorable scenes, but only the ugly behavior of the characters etched into my mind, as well as the paper mache mock-up of the space shuttle crashing to bits on the stage.  But, perhaps its worst fault is the lack of a unifying theme, mostly because it thinks it has one - heroes. 

What Jonathan Glatzner did was, to borrow from something I posted earlier, to take all the spools of thread from his mother's sewing basket, dump them into a washing machine, dump a packet of silver "HEROES" in for good measure, set it for a full wash with an extra spin, and presented the tangled mess as a piece of art.  In actuality, it was an entire waste of the actors' performances and the audiences time.

What Goes Up starts off promisingly enough.  Journalist Campbell Babbitt, played by Steve (I got it right!) Coogan, does a piece on a single welfare mother who had lost her child, who while she was dealing with her grief touched and uplifted the lives of people around her.  He wrote the article despite having a relationship with this woman, which goes against journalistic ethics.  The article was published and well-received, but before he could tell her, she committed suicide.  Not able to write her obituary, he instead fabricates pieces chronicling her continuing impact on society for the good.   As he says when the movie starts off, heroes are not born, they're written.  Realizing that her columnist is a little too obsessed with his subject, his editor orders him to go to Concord, New Hampshire, to do a puff piece about the locals before the Challenger space shuttle takes off.  The month is January 1986.

Does this sound like the beginning of a great story you're about to witness?

But please read how it all goes wrong.  His red Gremlin (Chrysler stopped making Gremlins in 1978) breaks down outside of town (in reality, it would have broken down 7 years earlier than that).  He hoofs it into town, gets a room, and the next morning, calls a local, a friend he knew from college, while as he stands in the phone booth, right behind him his old college friend is jumping to his death.  See, his friend is the teacher of a class composed of all the difficult students in high school.  I have encountered each one of these characters in my life, so it was intriguing seeing them in the same classroom.  He was rumored to be having an affair with Lucy, played by Hillary Duff, but was apparently having an affair with Tess, played by Olivia Thirlby, and was reported by the choir teacher Penelope, played by Molly Shannon.  We're supposed to hate her because she reported the beloved teacher, she is sex-starved, she is a tightass and she writes a corny musical about the space shuttle.  The landlady was told to give away the things of this beloved statutory rapist, er, teacher, and so Campbell Babbitt gets the teacher's coat, with the keys to his apartment and classroom still in the pocket.  Babbitt goes to the teacher's wake, where he meets Lucy, Tess, Jim (Josh Peck), Peggy (Sarah Lind), Fenster (Max Hoffman) and many others.  Each student is difficult because they have issues.  Tess is secretly pregnant, Lucy is a flirt, Jim masturbates while watching his next door neighbor breastfeed her infant, Peggy is in a wheelchair and wants to have sex and Fenster is a chatterbox.  Babbitt wins the trust of the students by confessing he loved the woman in his first article but she committed suicide, without telling them that he continued writing about her.  Tess, who is indignant over how fake people are, finds out about the articles and confronts Babbitt, who doesn't clear up to her that what he said was true and what he wrote was false until he is nominated for a Pulitzer.  Lucy comes on to Babbitt, who at first repulses her because she is a 17-year-old jailbait, but because he finds the cross she gave the late teacher, decides to have a Romeo and Juliet moment outside her house and makes plans to go out with her after the musical, which doesn't work out because Tess asked Lucy to take her to get an abortion.  At this point, I want Mr. Glatzner to publicly state his position on statutory rape and explain why most of his movie condones it.  I say "most" because Jim the masturbator sees Babbitt and Lucy walk off hand-in-hand.  Even though Babbitt and Lucy do not commit the crime at the teacher's apartment because of continually interrupted revelations that get them both worked up, when Babbitt leaves the apartment, Jim jumps out, pushes him to the ground and makes a getaway on what I recall was a razor scooter, which, if correct, means he got one ten years before everyone else.  Jim the voyeuristic masturbator doesn't have anybody pushing him down, though, because, while he was peeping at the mother's revealed breasts outside her window, he watches as her son grabs the planet Mars, swallows it and begins to choke.  He zips up his pants (yes, he was jacking off outside), broke into the house and saved the boy, and the principal presented an award to him.  So his crime can now be forgotten.  Now Peggy wants to get laid, so she asks Fenster to do her during an unsupervised pool party at her house.  Fenster, unknown to her a virgin also, goes along with it, and so they sneak in sex wherever they can, when they are discovered by Fenster's mom coming back early enough to see Peggy's naked butt displayed on her son's bed while her son is hiding behind on the floor behind the opened bedroom door.  Babbitt, in the meantime, confesses his journalistic transgressions on network news, goes to where the students moved the teacher's casket on a frozen lake just in time to see Jim push it in, who looks up to see Babbitt left the teacher's jacket behind, and puts on the jacket as he watches Babbitt drive out of town, saying "Good!" as Babbitt leaves.

And, aside from the performances themselves, that's about the only "good" in this movie!

Have you had enough?  There are more story threads.  There really are!

Oh, and no, you do not get to see the shuttle blow up after liftoff. 

I have to wonder if Christina McAuliffe would have taught at Concord High School if it was as scandalous, hypocritical and sex crazy as Glatzner's movie depicted it. 

A special mention goes to the soundtrack music.  The movie has a lot of music playing throughout.  Now, in January 1986, the students would have been listening to Madonna, Whitney Houston, Huey Lewis and the News, Genesis, Mr. Mister, Lionel Richie, Tears For Fears, Heart, Bruce Springsteen, and Sting, but most importantly, would have been watching lots of MTV, including the classic videos for Dire Straits' "Money For Nothing" and a-ha's "Take On Me".  None of this music was in this film.  I'm not sure anything they played came from late 85/early 86.  The film closed out with the radio blaring David Bowie's "Heroes", a 1972 song that didn't chart in the United States, although it did receive airplay over the years and was a staple in his concerts.  I guess he thought that playing what would have been a fourteen year old song at the end of the movie would remind audiences of what was supposed to be the theme of the movie, or at least cover up the lack of using any music from that time. 

Razzies definitely for worst picture, for Jonathan Glatzer for worst director, and for Jonathan Glatzer and Robert Lawson for worst screenplay.  As for acting Razzies, you could dole them out for the reason that all of these actors should have seen what a mess the script was and demanded that it be completely rewritten.  I would have liked to have seen the story in the beginning 15 minutes about the journalist and his late lover properly fleshed out into one movie, and the stories of the misfit students fleshed out into another movie, with the Challenger disaster left out of both movies and statutory rape treated as a serious crime.  Since Steve Coogan, Molly Shannon, Hillary Duff and all gave good performances, they should have demanded a movie equal to their performances so the audiences could enjoy their good performances.

But since the movie is what it is, to borrow something else I wrote earlier, What Goes Up went down the drain, and the movie is now only good for mockery.

 



Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 30 2009 at 9:23pm

Usually changing the movie's title is a sign of a bad movie, and so it is in this case.  However, it's probably the only thing they did right.  Safety Glass does not describe anything in this movie that I could see.  What Goes Up references the Challenger disaster, but the Challenger disaster is merely a background to the various stories in this movie, and so I don't see that it describes anything else.  The dead teacher, named Sam Callalucci, called "Mr. C" throughout, seems to be the only unifying thing in this movie, so a better title would have been Mr. C.

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

So here's the debate for today, which title is worse? Safety Glass or What Goes Up?

 



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: May 30 2009 at 9:42pm
I would assume that "What Goes Up" would refer to half of the full phrase that ends with "Must Come Down." In other words all good things come to an end, or sometimes crashing down. This would imply to me that the movie is not supposed to have a happy ending. It sounds less than pleasant (in terms of story) throughout, so it seems an appropriate title.
Safety Glass to me brings an image of something separating someone from it as it would be dangerous or cause harm in some way, and yet, you can see through it and are aware of that problem throughout. So I dunno... That might make sense, too. But just because they make sense doesn't mean that they're GOOD titles.

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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 31 2009 at 2:44am

Yeah, "what goes up must come down" refers to someone or something not having a happy ending in the second half of the phrase, but in the first half of the phrase, it implies that the someone or something went up in the first place.  Perhaps Babbitt went up and got the Purlitzer prize only to come down and confess what really happened.  Perhaps the students went up when for the first time they had a learning environment where they could express themselves, learn and feel loved, only to have it come down when Mr. C had sex with one of the students.  After seeing it last night, it didn't seem that anything went up by the end of the movie.  Not even the Challenger had gone up by the end of the movie.  It took me until this morning to think of these things.

The main thing about http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861726809 - safety glass is that when it is impacted, it doesn't break into shards that can cut you in an instant.  It breaks into little tiny cubish pieces that barely would cut you if at all.  Many kinds of safety glass also have an additional plastic coating that keep the pieces together and prevent them from going all over the place, minimizing injury even more. 

I'll probably need a few more days to understand why Safety Glass was considered a title for this movie.  I can sort of see that when Mr. C killed himself, Babbitt's presence as the friend of Mr. C served as the protective coating to prevent the broken classmates from going all over the place, but that was not the thrust of Babbitt's storyline.

If I had to make an analogy to safety glass, it would be a good friend.  A good friend is like safety glass; he or she will keep you from going to pieces when something awful crashes into your life.  Babbitt is far from a good friend.



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 01 2009 at 11:58am
So what you're trying to tell me... Is that this is just a really, really, really bad movie. I really have to rent it when it comes out now.

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


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: June 01 2009 at 5:28pm
Bad movie Party at dEd's place!

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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: June 01 2009 at 6:00pm

A marathorn of every movie ever to win (or get a nod for) a Razzie?! Could our brains survive that powerful of an onslaught?



-------------
"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: June 01 2009 at 9:41pm
I think no human being could take that onslaught... it is like a brain pudding-a-fication. Mmm Tapioca Brain pudding... Just like Ma used to make!

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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 01 2009 at 10:26pm

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

So what you're trying to tell me... Is that this is just a really, really, really bad movie. I really have to rent it when it comes out now.

Oh, man, and because the actors are performing well, and because the cameramen are filming well enough, I kept finding myself getting lulled into a state of accepting what was up on the screen, except that the awful screenplay kept screaming through with "I don't know what the hell I'm doing but I'm doing it anyway!"

I forgot to mention the twins.  There are twins among the group of misfits.  They keep giggling and smiling.  I'm not sure why they're there.  Oh, yeah, they're there because Glatzner didn't know what the hell he was doing but he did it anyway.  I already answered my own question.  Silly me.

Oh, and there was Lute, played well by Laura Konechny.  Lute is a member of the high school band who got busted for stealing a pair of jeans because everyone else had a pair of those jeans.  The judge sentenced her to stand in front of the store with a sandwich board that says she's a shoplifter in order to keep it from getting on her record.  She tells Babbitt that she has to do this until her mother comes and picks her up.  Babbitt, the bastion of morality, declares she has been punished enough.  Later, Penelope, the tightass choir director, asks Lute where was she when she came by to pick her up.  BTW, Penelope is not Lute's mother.  When the twins scribble the accusation that Penelope pushed Mr. C off the building onto the score of Penelope's lousy musical, and Penelope comes to that page right in the middle of the musical, Penelope accuses Lute of the scribbles.  I don't know why.  Then later, Penelope steals a pair of jeans.

The only reason I could stand Penelope at all is because of Molly Shannon's acting.  Otherwise, the character is badly written and horrid.

Talking about the brain being reduced to tapioca, it seems this movie really took a toll on me.  And I watched four Uwe Boll movies within the space of a year.  Watching this movie has been like drinking something with a horrid backtaste that kicks in later.  I'm sure I won't realize just how bad this movie was until a week has gone by.  Oh, man. . . .

 



Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 01 2009 at 10:50pm

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid18011368001?bclid=1799152650&bctid=24693774001 - Ben Lyons and Ben Manciewicz have both declared "Skip It!" on their At The Movies , making the Rotten Tomatoes rating currently 20 rotten to 0 fresh.  It is still at 0%, and I don't see that changing no matter how many more critics suffer through this movie.

 



Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: June 02 2009 at 4:57am
cvcjr13, your description of the movie makes my brain hurt. Is the movie really THAT awful? Is it one of those rare bad movies that hovers just north of the "so awful it's great" line, or is it one that is just too awful for words?

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


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 02 2009 at 7:28am
It seems like another one of those things we'll just need to suffer through to know the truth. As a rental, that is.

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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 02 2009 at 2:09pm

Unless you have money to burn (in this economy, with rising gas prices?), wait for the rental, by all means.  I advise seeing it with friends who also have a taste for mocking bad movies.  If you see it alone, come here and share.  Whatever you do, don't let this one sit in your craw for too long. 

Your reactions are apparently the norm.  I described the film to two of my co-workers today.  When I went over the beginning with them, they agreed, it sounded interesting at the point up to when the editor sends the journalist to Concord, NH.  Then I describe what happens when he arrives in Concord and his college buddy jumps off the building behind him, and they immediately said that was awful.  And then I described the storyline for Hillary Duff's character Lucy, and they were completely put off at that point. 

So, CriticalFrank, yes, it's that awful, with good acting and competent cinematography to boot.  As for how awful it is, I hesitate to say it is "just too awful for words" for two reasons: one, when I think of that, I think of Strange Wilderness, and What Goes Up is nowhere as bad as Strange Wilderness.  But when I think of "so awful it's great", I think of Ed Wood, and I'm not sure it rises to that enjoyable awfulness.   It's somewhere in between.  To contrast it to Uwe Boll, it is a better mess than Postal, but not as laughably bad as In the Name of the King

I guess what lingers with me most, and perhaps what one can mock the most, is that it presents so many unresolved issues and so many contrived coincidences.  To the former, give the screen a hearty, "Okay, so now what?. . ." and to the latter, sputter "Yeah, right. . . ." 

To put it another way, I wish Richard Roeper would review this movie.  I would love to hear his reaction.

 



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 02 2009 at 2:34pm
I wanna hear a Gene Shalit review.

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


Posted By: wolfee37
Date Posted: June 03 2009 at 9:24am

I thought for sure this would be Hilary Duffs' first great movie...but apparently not (maybe Greta will be good!)

 

Mandy Moore, Amber Tamblyn, Amanda Seyfried, Kelli Garner and Amanda Peet were all originally supposed to be in this film, and all are great actors. I just find it strange that all these actors (plus Olivia Thirlby, Molly Shannon, and Steve Coogan) would sign up for such a god awful film.



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 03 2009 at 12:10pm
Wolfee... just please tell me that you're not a Brenda Song or Zack and Cody fan, at least.

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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 12:20am

I'm used to people being a little delusional about how great their art is, even myself.  Anybody wanna hear my songs?  They're great. . . .

I don't know what it is about the tendency that when we personally create something, we think it's so great that it must be great.  Our friends' eyes get big, they start nodding their heads, and then you find out how they really feel when they quickly change the subject whenever we try to show them our latest.  And who can blame them?  I mean, exposing crap for what it is (and having fun while doing it) is what the Razzies are all about, but have you ever told a friend that their latest creation stinks?  It rarely goes down well, and often, even when it seems to go down well, it doesn't really.  They are hurt.  You might as well have told them their children are ugly. 

Two good examples of this delusion are Uwe Boll and Edward D. Wood, Jr.  They both think/thought they are/were making fine cinema.  You look at their work and wonder...what would make them think that? 

So, when I came across the official movie website for What Goes Up -- after seeing the movie -- I thought I had become Al in Wonderland ( http://www.whatgoesup-themovie.com/ - LINK ).  It's unsettling, even somewhat creepy, seeing how much love and devotion the people involved in this film (and its website) have poured into this terrible, convoluted, unfocused, meandering film. 

I guess then that an additional (maybe even accidental?) purpose of the Razzies is to serve as a reality check for this delusion.  We are the ones who say, "Sorry, but your film really reeks, and you really need to understand this.  But you've given me something to have fun making fun of, and there's something to be said for that. . . ." 

Of course, our true purpose is to slam Hollywood when they crank out stinkers like this movie, regardless of how delusional they may or may not be about their films. And that, in and of itself, is enough of a benefit and purpose.

 



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


Posted By: Movie Man
Date Posted: June 08 2009 at 10:15am
Originally posted by wolfee37

I thought for sure this would be Hilary Duffs' first great movie...but apparently not (maybe Greta will be good!).



Actually, wolfee, I thought Hilary's first great movie was her supporting role in "War, Inc."


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 08 2009 at 12:26pm
Yea, cvcjr, some filmmakers really, REALLY love their movies. After watching a special on the making of the first Mortal Kombat, I was convinced that I HAD to see it, and that it wouldn't make me want to perfom an in-game fatality on myself. But lo-and-behold, a half hour in, I froze myself and had someone punch my body into dead, icy chunks. But I had another guy, so I'm back now.

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


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: June 08 2009 at 12:39pm

And come on, everyone knows that Hilary Duff's BEST moive ever is going to be Bonnie and Clyde!

dEd, is that person who froze you and punched you available to do the same to me? I think I deserve death after uttering that last statement....



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


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 08 2009 at 12:49pm
Who knows, Hillary Duff might pull it together one day and be... something. I was KINDA surprised that Mandy Moore wasn't a bad actress, but not that much, she's been more level headed than most of these chicks.
H-Duff is better than Smiley Virus any day.

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


Posted By: wolfee37
Date Posted: June 11 2009 at 6:14am

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Wolfee... just please tell me that you're not a Brenda Song or Zack and Cody fan, at least.

 

Why woudl you say that? Cause I think Hilary Duff is a talented actress? She was pretty much the first really big star for disney, and they didnt even over expose her until she got really famous. Girls charming, and yeah you could say I follow her career, but no further then checking her IMDb page now and then.

 

Oh and someone mentioned War, Inc., she was good and it was a nice change, but the film left a bad taste in my mouth...somethign was very off about it.



Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 12 2009 at 2:42pm

What Goes Up will be available for your torture, er, entertainment this Tuesday, 16 Jun 09. 

http://www.moviefone.com/movie/what-goes-up/37546/main - Sez Moviefone.com .

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0832318/dvd - Sez IMDb .

http://www.amazon.com/What-Goes-Up-Steve-Coogan/dp/B0025B206O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1244860526&sr=1-1 - Sez Amazon .

http://www.netflix.com/Movie/What_Goes_Up/70117895?lnkce=seRtLn&trkid=222336&lnkctr=srchrd-sr&strkid=769666528_0_0 - And you can already add it to your queue on Netflix .

So, by all means rent it, then come back here and blame me for how it damaged your thought processes. . . .

 



Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: June 13 2009 at 12:34am
Oh boy! It comes out on the 16th? I better reserve my copy on Amazon... Wouldn't want to miss this excellent movie. I've read nothing but GLOWING reviews...

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


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 13 2009 at 8:54am
I can't say as though I haven't been fully enticed to see this. I'm pretty stoked by now.

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


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: June 13 2009 at 10:36am

It's like after all of the wonderful things everyone has had to say about it, I can't help but think that it is imperritive that I watch it... that I own a copy, that it can sit there on my shelf next to some other bad movies...

Or maybe I should buy Gran Torino instead....



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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 13 2009 at 12:10pm

Tell me, why buy a copy of a great movie like Gran Torino when you can throw your money away on owning a true piece of crap like What Goes Up

However, I do encourage all Razzie members to rent What Goes Up.

I'd also like to encourage people to buy Gran Torino.  That was such a good movie, I'm wondering why it wasn't nominated for an Oscar.

 



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 13 2009 at 12:40pm
Gran Torino had some pretty uneven performances. I think that's what kept it away from the big accolades. Otherwise, it was very good.
I only intend to rent What Goes Up. And then maybe throw away that copy, anyway.

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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 13 2009 at 3:10pm

Ah, man, go green.  Put it through the CD/DVD slot in your paper shredder and ship the bits to Dominoes Pizza.  They'll use them. . . .

I hope I didn't just nuke the sponsorship deal for next year's Razzie Awards ceremony. . . .



Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: June 14 2009 at 12:10am

So that is what the crunchy things on Dominoes Pizza are... I had been trying to figure that one out for years... Although, now that you mention it, I do recall the last pizza I had there tasted a little like "The Happening"



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


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 14 2009 at 8:52am
I sometimes wonder if after seeing The Happening, if in fact the characters in the movie were actually being shown the finished product, and then a day or two later, THAT'S why they killed themselves, and not the airbourne plant... virus... thingy.

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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: June 14 2009 at 1:53pm
It seems this movie, along with "Land of the Lost", "Street Fighter: Chung-Li", and "Dragonball", are shoe-in for Worst Pictures thus far.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 14 2009 at 3:19pm

Please don't forget C Me Dance.

I also include Severed Ways and The Informers among my worst, but those don't have their own boards here.

However, picking on Severed Ways, an inept independent film with no name actors, may not be fair.  However, if I even watch it, I will learn every verse of Monty Python's "Lumberjack Song" so I can entertain myself as I watch the marooned Vikings endlessly chop trees. 

C Me Dance is also an inept independent film with a ridiculous script and no name actors, and that would be true whether it was religious or not.  It also appears to contain a number of unintentional laughs, definitely ensuring its Razzie-ness.

The Informers suffers from all this star talent in supporting roles getting top billing while they and the real stars are engaged in a blah-blah-blah with a ridiculous storyline that destroys an apparently well-regarded book.

But all the problems of combining inept independent filmmakers and a ridiculous script with major stars are present in What Goes Up, and what's more, it contains more stray storylines in just over 2 hours than Scheherazade did when she survived telling stories over 1001 Arabian Nights. 

And all of her storylines were far more satisfying.

 



Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: June 14 2009 at 4:27pm
I think putting this film into contention for worst picture of the year just wouldn't be right... only since there will be much worse before the year ends...

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


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 15 2009 at 7:52am
I'm counting on GI Joe to be particularly disappointing. Van Helsing was one of the biggest letdowns of the 21st century.

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


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: June 15 2009 at 8:19am
There were plenty of let downs, and you think Van Helsing was a particularly big one? Perhaps I just had lower expectations of the film...

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


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 15 2009 at 8:37am
Yea, I dunno. My girlfriend at the time and I were really stoked. And we walked out afterward wondering why we waited until afterward.

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


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: June 15 2009 at 8:41am
I've had a few movies that I wish I had walked out of... Speed Racer comes to mind. However, I think of Van Helsing, and I honestly can't remember much of the film, other then I seem to recall a hot chick in there somewhere...

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


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 15 2009 at 12:58pm
Kate was in it...
But other than that, this is one of the reasons I'm pushing for the damnation of Mummyguy over all the Bay jokes we make.

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


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: June 15 2009 at 2:19pm
Stephen "Mummyguy" Sommers isn't all bad... he gave us...um...stuff? I'll think of something eventually...

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


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 16 2009 at 8:38am
Does anyone know if Deep Rising was any good?
From what I know about the guy, he likes to go corny for the sake of being corny. I might not hate him if he worked on things like Xena and Hercules, but his movies make one roll their eyes until the brain attempts to join in the tumbling fun, thus causing the retardation.

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


Posted By: sportsartist24
Date Posted: June 16 2009 at 3:23pm

If Duff does receive another RAZZIE nod for her role in this, it will make it her 4th. She has completely poor acting, but one shot of her might be the only one that might be coming up.

What Goes Up



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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 17 2009 at 1:42am
Oh, man, that's from the swimming pool party scene, right?  (Yes, there's a swimming pool party in the movie, along with everything else).  I don't know how to bring this up on such a family forum, but isn't that a cl t down there?  Not good.


Posted By: dipitlow555
Date Posted: June 17 2009 at 3:30am

Ok so I just watched the movie and it really isn't THAT bad! I kind of enjoyed it. And just so you guys know Hilary Duff is actually really good in it. And another thing, the movie didn't get released on DVD so quickly because of it bombing. It was scheduled to be released June 16 in the first place, and it may have a second theatrical run.



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 17 2009 at 7:36am
A second theatrical run for a movie that no one's heard of and has already been released for home viewing? Yea, it MIGHT get picked up by a cheap theater or two. I still plan on seeing this, but c'mon... This looks like one of those movies that are destined to obscurity long before it had even reached the theaters at all.

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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 17 2009 at 2:44pm

Okay, I want to hear dipitlow.  What did you like about this movie?

http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3662&PN=1&TPN=1 - Wasn't everything I said was in the movie in the movie ?  I know I left a whole bunch out.

And I did say the acting was good.  But the plotline. . . . what line?  There was no line.  It was a plot fracture, into little tiny pieces, held together by a flimsy piece of celluloid.  Maybe that's why they orignally were going to call this Safety Glass?

 



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 18 2009 at 8:10am
Oh the controversy of it all. I really hope it's at the video store tomorrow (I've had a busy week, or else I'd be all up ons).

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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 19 2009 at 2:50am

Well, based on the little dipitlow has said about why he feels it isn't really all that bad, he's basing it on the acting, particularly Hillary Duff's, but he doesn't say anything about the plot or how it all hangs together.  I've said the acting in this movie is very good a number of times.

However, if you take a crappy script, and all the actors turn in excellent performances, don't you still have a crappy movie?  And doesn't the excellent performances make the movie all the more crappier?  That's my point, and that's why I'd like dipitlow to comment on what he felt about all these crazy, convoluted, contrived and often incomprehensible plotlines in this very bad movie, despite the good performances.

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Oh the controversy of it all. I really hope it's at the video store tomorrow (I've had a busy week, or else I'd be all up ons).



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 19 2009 at 7:32am
Ok, I just saw it. And yea, I have to agree to some extent, the sheer badness was a bit overhyped. It wasn't the filmmaking mess that I was expecting. But that's not to say that I don't agree about the majority of the rest. To me, it seemed like they were attempting to cram as many corny movie-style metaphors that they could. It was all fairly hack. They seemed to want to get these little tidbits of alleged "clever" out there, without making it tie into the plot.
But then again, sometimes it seems like it kinda did fit. I was expecting a 1/10, and I feel like it was a 3 or so. I wasn't really liking the whole "pedophilia is cool" theme, but they kind of got that "heroes are just normal, flawed people that become legends based on the way they're remembered" thing. Corny, maybe, but despite a LOT of deviations, they at least kept their core message in there.
One thing that really gets the movie off the hook for me though is that it at least tried. It failed, but it tried. I'm not trying to justify it, or defend it, but it wasn't the "I Know Who Killed Me" or "The Happening" that I was expecting (and secretly hoping for).

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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 19 2009 at 7:13pm

I guess that's the problem.  For me, it was a complete mess, a "what-the-hell?" from the moment the reporter comes into town.  However, as you mentioned with I Know Who Killed Me or The Happening, it lacks unintentionally funny scenes.  I don't know if there's a one in the movie.  I feel we're still looking for that kind of film among this year's releases.

The "pedophilia is cool" theme had to compete with the "peeping masturbators make good neighbors" theme, but I feel the "pedophilia is cool" theme won out, especially when Campbell puts the ladder on Lucy's balcony.  That whole Romeo and Juliet thing got really creepy.

 



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 19 2009 at 7:23pm
I actually felt the masturbator scene was appropriate. I mean, they were going for shock value, but I felt the point was he saved the kid's life doing something bad. The flawed hero theme.
The ladder stuff, yea, TOTALLY ridiculous. There was NOTHING funny about WGU, even when it wanted.
I think the issue we're arriving at right now is that you saw the movie first, and that was the reason you have nothing but bad to say about it. I think that if I had seen it first, the conversation would be the same with our roles reversed.

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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 20 2009 at 6:55am

Well, I don't know if having seen it first had anything to do with it.  For me, when I saw the first fifteen minutes with Campbell Babbitt going through his conundrum about fictionalizing the continuing life of Angela well after her death, I was thinking that this movie isn't all so bad.  And then, from the moment his red Gremlin broke down outside of Concord (what Gremlin was even working by 1986?!) on, it was a constant back and forth between being lulled by the good acting and being yanked out of it by the awful script that kept breeding way too many storylines.  By the end of the movie when the hero masturbator utters "Good!" at the sight of Babbitt and his everlasting Gremlin leaving town, I wanted to say "Good!" that the movie finally ended.

And then for the next week, the ridiculous plot twists and convoluted storytelling, not to mention the theme about illegal sex between adults and minors seeming to be okay (and what about the McMartin School fiasco which happened during this time?), not to mention an utter failure capturing the time period beyond mentioning the upcoming Challenger disaster, just kept churning inside my head.  That's a bad feeling that not even Uwe Boll left in my craw.  It was a different kind of low in bad movie watching for me, which is why I'm hard against it.

I've been wondering if it was because I saw it on the large screen, while you saw it on your home theatre?

It seems we agree the worst scene was Babbitt on the ladder outside of Lucy's window.

 



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 20 2009 at 7:41am
Did you ever force yourself to suffer through Disaster Movie? That might be part of the problem. Seeing that makes EVERYTHING EVER PRODUCED look better.

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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 20 2009 at 11:00am
No, I've only seen the song at the end of Disaster Movie, which was all the characters talked about how they f-bombed all the other characters.  I have watched Meet the Spartans and Epic Movie all the way through, though.  The song at the end of Disaster Movie was actually funnier than anything I saw in the other two movies.  None of them stuck in my craw and infected my thinking for a whole week with horrid plot entanglements and utter pointlessness in the name of making a point like What Goes Up did.   


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 20 2009 at 11:27am
The F-this/that song was another pop culture parody, in which they didn't really change much. I dunno. I just can't possibly think of a worse and lazier way to make a buck than what Seltzerberg does. I'm still glad they attempted to make a good movie with WGU, even if they failed. At least they weren't just trying to milk you for money.

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


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: June 27 2009 at 4:10am
I finally watched this after a wait on Netflix, and I have to say that it's
probably one of the blandest(I checked the dictionary, and that is a
word) movies I've seen in a while.

There really isn't a plot, just a series of meandering events. The movie
could have started or stopped anywhere before, during, or after the
events shown on film and we really wouldn't care. The script's dialogue
reads like an outline of what the characters are going to say, and even
then there isn't a single authentically interesting character. As for the
acting, it's just okay, with nothing remarkable here, this isn't the best or
worst we've seen from these actors.

Overall, I can't really see this sweeping the Razzies next year; it's too
bland for that. A month from now, I'm not going to remember an iota of
what this movie is about or who's in it.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 27 2009 at 8:22am
Sounds like we have a fairly consistent consensus.

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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 05 2009 at 2:19am

Not when we go over to the ratings thread, or when you read the eight negative reviews by top critics on Rotten Tomatoes.

It's interesting that, since being out on DVD for awhile and on sale at nearly every store I visit in my area, there are still only 24 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and it's still rated rotten at 8% positive. 

Besides, a "consensus" means everybody came to a general agreement.  I don't think you have a general agreement when one of us (me) says without equivocation that, to borrow an idea from a different thread, yes, this was torture, of an unintentional cruel variety, being dressed as if to be charming, having good performances, but actually being like a tasty cherry with a worm growing around its pit. 

My experience still is that this was one of the worst cinematic experiences I have ever had.

So much for your consensus.

 



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: August 05 2009 at 7:11am
... I posted that a long time ago, but I believe I was referring to the fact that people, in general, didn't like the movie.

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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 05 2009 at 1:14pm

I took it to mean people felt it wasn't that bad of a movie.  Sorry for misunderstanding you.

 




Print Page | Close Window