Print Page | Close Window

Soar Loser?!?!?

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: FORUMS on 2009 RELEASES
Forum Name: AMELIA
Forum Discription: 2009's First Official "Oscar® Baiter Gone Wrong"
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3931
Printed Date: September 20 2014 at 9:22pm


Topic: Soar Loser?!?!?
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Soar Loser?!?!?
Date Posted: October 25 2009 at 4:23pm

THEY COME ALONG OUT of the BLUE NEAR the END of EVERY YEAR: MOVIES MADE for the SOLE PURPOSE of PLEASING ACADEMY AWARD® VOTERS. AND EVERY YEAR, THERE ARE ONE or TWO THAT FAIL SPECTACULARLY.

http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=393&PN=1 - IS, in MANY WAYS, a FLAMING WRECK of a MOVIE. IT STARS 2-TIME BEST ACTRESS WINNER HILARY SWANK in a ROLE SHE SEEMED PERFECTLY SUITED FOR. BUT YOU'd HAVE to GO CLEAR BACK to HER 2007 DUAL DUDS http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=242 - and http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=191 - to FIND WORSE REVIEWS for SWANK. IT CO-STARS RICHARD GERE, WHOSE TRACK RECORD DOES INCLUDE http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089420/awards - , BUT WHOSE RECENT FILMS HAVE BEEN MORE LIKE BIG-SCREEN EQUIVALENTS of LIFETIME CABLE MOVIES THAN RAZZIE® CONTENDERS. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1129445/ -  WAS (AT LEAST UNTIL NOW) a CRITICAL DARLING. AND IT's FROM http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0060103/awards - - the OSCAR - ® WINNING CO-SCREENWRITER of RAIN MAN

SO, WHERE DID IT GO WRONG? FROM the GIT-GO, APPARENTLY -- IT SEEMS DIRECTOR NAIR HAD NO FLAIR for the SUBJECT, SWANK NEVER GOT a HANDLE on BRINGING the FAMED AVIATRIX to LIFE, and GERE SLEEP-WALKED HIS WAY thru HIS ROLE.

THE REVIEWS EVEN SUGGESTED IT MIGHT ACTUALLY BE BAD ENOUGH to BE of INTEREST to OUR VOTERS, INSTEAD of to VOTERS for THOSE OTHER AWARDS®.

FEEL FREE to LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THINK BELOW... 

FUN FOOTNOTE: APPARENTLY BELIEVING THEY CAN BUCK POOR WORD-of-MOUTH, ROTTEN REVIEWS and BAD B.O. FOX SEARCHLIGHT PICTURES PAID a PREMIUM to PURCHASE a PROMINENT FULL PAGE AD in THE L.A. TIMES the FRIDAY AFTER THIS FILM OPENED. THE AD QUOTES SUCH STALWARTS of CINEMATIC SHILL-DOM as REX REED, THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER and the KING of QUOTE-HACKS-for-HIRE, PETE HAMMOND. IF THIS DOESN'T TURN THINGS AROUND for AMELIA, NOTHING WILL. 

OH, WAIT, WHEN SOMETHING BOMBS THIS SPECTACULARLY, NOTHING WILL TURN THINGS AROUND!


SWANK: "As a two-time Oscar® winner, I have no idea, Dick -- What's it like being a RAZZIE® nominee??"

GERE: "First of all, let me congratulate you on escaping a nomination for your 2007 double-whammy of P.S. I LOVE YOU and THE REAPING, then mention that MY Worst Actor nod for KING DAVID was nearly 25 years ago..."

 



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



Replies:
Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: October 25 2009 at 4:53pm
I don't understand how they could screw this up.  Couldn't they have given this the time and effort it deserved, and get it right?  Night at the Museum II did a better job of presenting Amelia Earhart than this movie does!  

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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: October 25 2009 at 5:36pm

I knew his movie would tank at the box office, considering it's should have been released in say, December, when Oscar worthy movies usually come out and there's nothing else to see in theaters. When I watched the "making of" segment for this movie on HBO, even that bored me to tears --  not a good sign. I'm thinking they just walked through this one.

Like HeadRazz said, this one's all about being Oscar Bait, and not much else.



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: October 27 2009 at 2:36pm

Hopefully this will lead to Hollywood reexamining the assumed success of the biopic.



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


Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: October 28 2009 at 4:07am
All I got to say: "It's about time!"

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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 28 2009 at 11:13am
Well, Tuesday's grossing shows that Amelia is now in the #6 spot. That's pretty good.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: October 28 2009 at 4:06pm

Compared to....WHAT? This is a $40 million movie that has pulled in a paltry $4.7 million to date. The people who made this movie could have generated better box-office numbers stringing together 4 episodes of The Flying Nun.

Unquestionably, this is in the running for the title of "Biggest Box-Office Flop of 2009".



-------------
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: October 28 2009 at 5:00pm
Yeah, MWG, just remember that even "Bangkok Dangerous" was #1 at the Box Office once, but all it grossed that weekend was $7 million. It's not the position in the charts that matter, it's the overall gross that does.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 29 2009 at 9:59am
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Compared to....WHAT?

Compared to this weekend. Duh.

This is a $40 million movie that has pulled in a paltry $4.7 million to date.

Ok. Jeez! You don't have to get so offensive.



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: October 29 2009 at 10:22am
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Compared to this weekend. Duh.

This movie's performance was an unmitigated disaster, even by the pathetic standards of this past weekend.

Ok. Jeez! You don't have to get so offensive.

My deepest apologies if the facts offend you. If it's any consolation, I'm sure the people who invested in this train wreck are even more upset than you at this moment.



-------------
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: October 29 2009 at 4:00pm
I do so love saturnwatcher's comebacks against trolls.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: January 27 2010 at 7:34pm
Amelia. Along with What Goes Up..., New in Town, and Did You Hear About the Morgans?, has been recommended only for Worst Actress or Worst Supporting Actress and nothing more. Out of those four, I'd rather it have been Sarah Jessica Parker (DYHAtM?), but if not her, it should be Hilary Swank.
 
Alas, I'm hoping none of those four movies get nominated.


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


Posted By: ted
Date Posted: February 01 2010 at 5:47pm
I REALLY liked this film. In fact I think was the best new film I've seen in several years.

It was a good break from all the sex, violence, and toilet humor in Hollywood films these days.

Both times I saw it in the theater, I was the youngest person there. (I'm 29) Having learned about Amelia Earhart in first grade, I've always been interested in her.

I also noticed that the negative reviews written by critics were written by men and/or people under 50. Carrie Rickey (Philadelphia Inquirer)  and Roger Ebert both gave positive reviews to the film.  I would say this is Oscar worthy even though the acting wasn't too great, it is the story of a great pioneer and feminist icon. I'm not at all a feminist, but I think the negative reviews for the film may have been partly because of latent misogyny on the part of the critics, or they are too young to appreciate her achievements.

It is a shame the people don't appreciate movies like this anymore. 40 years ago, it would have been a hit!

look at the vote demographics on IMDB
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1129445/ratings

Women and people over 45 gave it the highest ratings. Also do people only know how to give it 1 or 10 stars ? Honestly, does it deserve only one when compared to Baby Geniuses 2 or 10 when compared to Citizen Kane? I'd give this film an 8 or 9.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: February 01 2010 at 7:19pm
Don't worry, ted, this movie isn't up for anything. It was up for consideration, but never made it to the finals, so if you enjoyed it, that's fine. We have much worse movies to razz.



Print Page | Close Window