Print Page | Close Window

a.k.a. I Was a Teen-Aged Were-Hunk...

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: FORUMS on 30th RAZZIES Choices
Forum Name: TWILIGHT SAGA: NEW MOON
Forum Discription: Nominated for 4 RAZZIES® including WORST REMAKE/RIP-OFF/SEQUEL
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3970
Printed Date: April 23 2014 at 9:26am


Topic: a.k.a. I Was a Teen-Aged Were-Hunk...
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: a.k.a. I Was a Teen-Aged Were-Hunk...
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 4:10am

WE KNOW PERFECTLY WELL THAT  http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=398 - IS ABOUT AS IMPERVIOUS to CRITICISM AS a MOVIE CAN GET -- AFTER ALL, 11-YEAR-OLD GIRLS WHO "MOONED" OVER BEDROOM POSTERS of http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/ - and http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1210124/ - SHIRTLESS for 14 MONTHS, BREATHLESSLY AWAITING THIS VAMPIRES 'n' WEREWOLVES EQUIVALENT of a http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3175&PN=1 - , WEREN'T ABOUT to LISTEN to ANYONE WHO DOESN'T LOVE IT AS MUCH AS THEY DO...

BUT WERE WE the ONLY ONES WHO NOTICED the TRAILER, PRINT ADS and http://www.newmoonthemovie.com/%20%20 - LOOK LIKE ONE of THOSE HARLEQUIN ROMANCE NOVELS ( http://www.vegaschatter.com/files/1425/fabioharlequin.jpg - ) -- EXCEPT AIMED at HORMONE-RAVAGED PRE-PUBSCENT GIRLS??

IN OTHER WORDS, WE KINDA THOUGHT IT WAS ASKING to BE RAZZed. 

SO, WE COULDN'T RESIST GIVIN' THIS FILM's MAKERS WHAT THEY WERE BEGGING FOR!  

AND SO CAN YOU BELOW -- SINK YER TEETH IN...and ENJOY!


KRISTEN (Thinking to Herself): "Damnit! His hair extensions look better than mine..."

TAYLOR (Thinking to Himself): "Man, I am gonna get me SO much Jailbait Tail once this thing's released..."

GUY on LEFT (Thinking to Himself): "Okay, when the lights come up, maybe I can bolt for the exit before they can ask me what I rilly thought..." 



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



Replies:
Posted By: Headbanger14
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 11:13am

UGH...first vampires, now werewolves. And not just werewolves - horrble CGI werewolves! What's next? Zombies with acne? OH NOES!



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 11:47am
Going to see this probably on Saturday night. My mom is actually excited to see it along with my brother. Now, our family defies stereotypes!


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 12:54pm
... I'm not sure exactly how you defy stereotypes, but I am curious as to why Kristin Stewart is sitting next to a young Jon Stewart in that picture.

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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 6:24pm

I just want to point out that the major selling point of this movie is a teenaged boy toy running around while shirtless ... whenever he's not turning into a crappy CGI werewolf (on par with the crappy CGI stuff from "GI Joe"). Add on to that, jail bait Bella Swan having to choose between a vampire and this werewolf as her lover.  

And women of all ages eat this sh*t up with a spoon?!

W ... T ... F?!

 



-------------
"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: movieman
Date Posted: November 17 2009 at 9:57am

The reason the books (barely) worked for me was not because of the whole vampire/werewolf mythology, but because Bella's narration of the story was engaging and involving enough to keep me interested. In fact, the first few chapters of Twilight, when the story is just being set up and everything is new to Bella, are the most engaging, . Once the romance really starts to heat up, things get less interesting.

The problem with the movies is that Bella only narrates every so often, and once you actually see the book's events on screen, you feel embarrassed to admit that you were somehow engaged by a story so flaccid and banal. Take for example the scene in the trailer where Bella races to stop Edward from showing his "sparkly skin" to the public before the Volturi come after him to kill him. If you think that sounds weird from reading my version of it, just imagine how bizarre it will be to see on film. I dare you not to laugh!   

Some stories are meant to be experioenced only on paper. After seeing the first movie and the ads for its sequel, it seems to me that Twilight is definitely one of them. 



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


Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: November 17 2009 at 1:56pm
WE KNOW PERFECTLY WELL THAT  forum_topics.asp?FID=398 - NEW MOON IS ABOUT AS IMPERVIOUS to CRITICISM AS a MOVIE CAN GET

Truer words have never been spoken.

By the way, I want to bring up some interesting points: I listened to some of Kristen Stewart's interviews, and I'm still befuddled as to how someone who seems as intelligent as her would want to get involved in films of this "magnitude." But I imagine that's what everyone said about Beyonce' and Mariah Carey before they sold out to consumer America -- now all of their music reeks of boy-crazy lyrics and overproductivity. I guess Stewart's another sellout like them? 

Also, I know this girl who works at a gentlemen's club (as an exotic dancer). And, well, she likes the Twilight books herself, and brought up an interesting point: They're all about a social outcasts. But you know what, that could've made the material accessible for almost anyyone. And when you insert all that emo stuff (bad attitude towards parents, and even disregard for guys who aren't hunks) you basically have a series of stereotypical 'tween novels for spoiled brats, that somehow became popular.

Finally, there's only two reviews on NEW MOON so far, and they're both positive. But Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen had positive first reviews, then plummeted faster than Aubrey O'Day.

P.S. I don't know why I threw her in there. But there's alot of jokes made at her expense at http://www.egotastic.com/ - Egotastical  -- Good website if you want to check out uber-hot celebrities!


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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 2:01am

Yeah, you gotta love how the media likes saying "films of this MAGNITUDE" -- What magnitude? The only magnitude I see behind this movie is all the over-hyping in every form of media everywhere I turn.

Yeah, like 30 years from, this series will be on par in popularity with the likes of  "Star Wars" or "Star Trek"! It's called "flavor of the month" people!

 



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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 6:15am
Right now this is hanging around in the mid-30's at RT with over 50 reviews in, that is probably a pretty representative sample and I'm guessing it'll end up +-5 points of its current level. This is a flavor of the month fad, as Michaels noted. Those older than the target audience are never going to buy into it, the present fans will outgrow it and those younger will find something else. We don't need to Razz it...time will pas the harshest judgement and leave it forgotten.

-------------
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: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 1:09pm

I can't believe it: 28%! That makes my life a little less stressful. Someone knock some sense into Kristin Stewart, and convince her to do some indie films, rather than try to be some Miley Cyrus-like media whore who flaunts her fame. And she knows she's doing it -- don't buy the fakeness!



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


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 2:22pm

Critical opinion will undoubtedly have NO effect on this movie. All of the 30-40 something ladies I know who saw this were still thoroughly (and inexplicably) satisfied.



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


Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 2:52pm

No doubt...in fact, they say you could wipe out 98% of the teen girl population by putting the dialogue line "Breathing is Uncool" into this movie. 

I wonder if Seltzer-Berg have already decided to do a Twilight spoof...??



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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 12:35pm
BREAKING NEWS!

New Moon broke midnight records!


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 3:00pm

That's really not shocking news. Come on, you'd have to be living under a rock for the past year not to think this movie wasn't going to be an overnight success.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 3:19pm
This is shocking news -- I wouldn't ever have thought this could beat The Dark Knight, nor the midnight record-holder, HP6.


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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 4:15pm

Evidently it is going to have some legs. We went to the movies tonight and the lines for New Moon were huge. I haven't seen lines like that since the first Harry Potter movie, and it wasn't exclusively 11 year-old girls. Critical response hasn't been overwhelming but it's a bit higher than we'd normally consider and there definitely is an audience...a BIG audience and this is going to pull impressive numbers.  As I've been noting all along, this one probably just isn't one of ours, and the best thing we can do is ignore it and let it die a lonely death when it's audience finds something else to become enamored with...the guess here is that will happen around the time the third installment is released.



-------------
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: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 21 2009 at 2:33am
In other (less big) breaking news: A.O. Scott and Michael Philips both just gave NEW MOON two "See Its" on At the Movies

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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 21 2009 at 3:19am

BIGGER BREAKING NEWS!

New Moon breaks The Dark Knight's opening day record held at $67.1 million! It opened with $71 million!

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=61085" target=_blank _blank=" - http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=61085  


 



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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 21 2009 at 4:03am
That's not breaking news, that's just depressing news.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 21 2009 at 3:37pm
It is beginning to occur to me that I am working WAY too hard for my money when people will evidently hand it over to you for nothing more in return than the privilege of having their intelligence brutally insulted.

-------------
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: November 22 2009 at 2:33am

Yes, I do love all these reports about how people can't get jobs and are losing their homes, so what do the people do ... pay money to see a teenage girl choose between a vampire or a werewolf as her boyfriend!?!? 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: While unemployment in the U.S. right now is as high as it's been at any time in the last quarter century, I somehow doubt it's the unemployed (or those facing foreclosure of their homes) who are flocking to see "hit" movies like 2012 or NEW MOON. At least, I hope it's not! Faced with a choice between feeding one's family or treating them to either of these movies, I choose to believe the 10+ percent of our populace who are in dire straits would opt for necessities rather than distractions...



-------------
"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: movieman
Date Posted: November 22 2009 at 4:22am

Here's a less depressing perspective: Most of the first weekend total for New Moon was from its opening day ($72 million of the $140m, to be exact).

Hopefully New Moon will meet the same fate as Watchmen, where the die-hard fans of the book saw it opening weekend, and the
uninitiated just shrugged it off. 

 



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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 22 2009 at 11:47am
I have to agree with Head Razz's assessment above about the affluence of those who are going to movies these days. In the massive lines I saw for this movie Friday night, there was not one person holding a sign saying "I will sit through this crappy movie for food."

-------------
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: November 23 2009 at 2:42am
Originally posted by movieman

Hopefully New Moon will meet the same fate as Watchmen, where the die-hard fans of the book saw it opening weekend, and the uninitiated just shrugged it off. 

Or worse, it could pull a "Transformers 2" and make $400 in just two months. I don't see any movie being able to stop it, at least until "Avatar" comes out...

 



-------------
"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: Michaels
Date Posted: November 23 2009 at 2:49am

Not to worry, HeadRazz, my joke was just piggyback-riding on saturnwatcher's comment about people wasting their hard-earned money on crap like this. I highly doubt unemployed people are spending their last few dollars to see this movie. However, as saturnwatcher joked, these people could also be the same ones who voted for George W. Bush ... twice. 

Originally posted by Michaels

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: While unemployment in the U.S. right now is as high as it's been at any time in the last quarter century, I somehow doubt it's the unemployed (or those facing foreclosure of their homes) who are flocking to see "hit" movies like 2012 or NEW MOON. At least, I hope it's not! Faced with a choice between feeding one's family or treating them to either of these movies, I choose to believe the 10+ percent of our populace who are in dire straits would opt for necessities rather than distractions...

 



-------------
"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: November 23 2009 at 10:12am
After Bella recovers from the vampire attack that almost claimed her life, she looks to celebrate her birthday with Edward and his family. However, a minor accident during the festivities results in Bella's blood being shed, a sight that proves too intense for the Cullens, who decide to leave the town of Forks, Washington for Bella and Edward's sake. Initially heartbroken, Bella finds a form of comfort in reckless living, as well as an even-closer friendship with Jacob Black. Danger in different forms awaits.

I have to admit it. I enjoyed the first film, TWILIGHT, very much so. I'm a sentimental guy so I was swept away easily by the romance between Edward and Bella. To make it clear for anyone of you out there, the TWILIGHT series are not vampire movies. Instead, think of them as a ROMEO AND JULIET story WITH vampires. Some people like these kinds of things. Others don't. I'll try to refrain from saying only teenage girls would love this movie because when I went to see this movie, there were people between the ages of 2 months and 65 years old, half split with males and females. I guess the stereotype wasn't true after all.

You can automatically feel a huge difference between this and the first film. This film is definitely much more slower paced. While never boring, it's quite a drag since it's over two hours long. Although it starts off slow, the ball does get rolling after Edward leaves Bella by herself. Unfortunately, it's also much more moodier, but I guess teen relationships are like that, aren't they? On top of that, the story isn't really all that interesting. After all, it's mostly about Bella being depressed when Edward leaves her. The finale seemed a bit rushed too with little payoff.

However, all is not bad. Director Chris Weitz does a much better job in here than Catherine Hardwicke, giving the film a distinctive look in the title sequence alone. If you may remember, I complained that the first film had too low of a budget to make it look like a blockbuster like it is. However, the problem is quickly fixed since the budget is twice as large as the first, which helped make the film look less like a CW TV show than before. The special effects are put to good use here, especially for the werewolves, an addition that makes the story much more interesting. The score by Alexandre Desplat is really fantastic. See how much a bigger budget can help a movie?

Kristen Stewart does a great job in here as always. I think she grounds the movie to reality. Although Robert Pattinson is underused here, along with most of the case, he's good with the small amount of screen time he has. Taylor Lautner gets a much bigger role in here, which is fortunate not only for the Twihards out there but for everyone else too, because he makes the movie more interesting. As stated before, many of the cast members are underused. Remember Rachelle Lefevre, playing Victoria, the villain, who was part of the cliffhanger ending in the first film? Well, we see her for brief moments in here, totaling up her screen time for only seconds.

The story is much more moodier and less interesting in here, in my opinion, compared to the first. The characters are in here mostly to mope and be depressed because of a such complicated relationship. However, the technicality is much improved, from the cinematography to the score. Director Chris Weitz does his best here, along with the rest of the cast. It's a decent sequel to a good movie but it could have been much better. Maybe the screenwriter should cut out some unnecessary bits from the novels to make it more interesting. A little action wouldn't hurt, would it? Don't you just hate it when someone you love turns out to be a vampire? I think Bella needs a break. 6/10


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 23 2009 at 2:32pm
 MWG review ... no comment.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: November 24 2009 at 8:34am
I truly wonder whether MWG is CAPABLE of rating a movie less than 6. And if he tries to say he thinks that Watchmen was less than a 6 to prove a point, I'm going to shoot a Hadoken across the country and pop him one in the chest.

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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 24 2009 at 10:01am

I am "CAPABLE of rating a movie less than 6." I just don't post them here, since I'm limited to movies listed on this site. 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Actually, moviewizguy, you are not limited to discussing (or bringing up for discussion) only movies already listed as Forum subjects. Here's a http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=2 - LINK to the appropriate place on our Forum to post your thoughts on movies other than those already listed.

Given your track record of defending the most heinous drek week-after-week, I must say: I look forward to seeing exactly WHAT you post...


 



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


Posted By: moat
Date Posted: November 24 2009 at 10:23am

Here's a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLvNGZjMt8I&feature=fvw - You Tube LINK to watch video of a "Twi-Hard" reacting to the trailer for NEW MOON. The counter sez it's been viewed over 450,000 times...

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Just to clarify -- While the person in the video does over-react (sometimes quite amusingly) the official RAZZIE position regarding the insulting responses posted below the video on You Tube is that we exist to make fun of bad movies...not to make fun of fans of bad movies. The "die fat cow/bitch" comments are over the top and un-necessarily vicious...

 



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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 24 2009 at 1:47pm
I'm pretty sure MWG's rating system is not of 1 to 10, but a 6 to 10 rating. That would explain A LOT.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 24 2009 at 3:05pm

Wow. That really would.  

Originally posted by Michaels

I'm pretty sure MWG's rating system is not of 1 to 10, but a 6 to 10 rating. That would explain A LOT.



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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 24 2009 at 4:49pm

Evidently there are a dozen or so people, with a dreadfully immature sense of humor, who REALLY like this video.  

Originally posted by moat

Here's a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLvNGZjMt8I&feature=fvw - You Tube LINK to watch video of a "Twi-Hard" reacting to the trailer for NEW MOON. The counter sez it's been viewed over 450,000 times...

 



-------------
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: November 25 2009 at 3:34am

Ah, see, he finally admits it!   

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by Michaels

I'm pretty sure MWG's rating system is not of 1 to 10, but a 6 to 10 rating. That would explain A LOT.

Wow. That really would.

 



-------------
"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: deadguy76
Date Posted: November 25 2009 at 9:38am
I know I'm the only one who defends video games. I haven't seen the movie but I have seen the horrible CGI of Jacob turning into a giant wolf. UGHH!!! I've seen better graphics on Playstation 3 games!

-------------
"Woody Allen, whatever his failings, does not make movies for morons. Most directors do. Of course, most directors are morons."

- Joe Queenan

http://www.myspace.com/deadguy76


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 25 2009 at 11:00am

I thought they did a great job with the CGI. The bigger budget certainly helped this picture a lot.


Originally posted by deadguy76

I know I'm the only one who defends video games. I haven't seen the movie but I have seen the horrible CGI of Jacob turning into a giant wolf. UGHH!!! I've seen better graphics on Playstation 3 games!



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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 25 2009 at 2:41pm

Would you say the CGI in this was worse than the crap that "GI Joe" was trying to pass as quality CGI? Because GI Joe's CGI was on par with Gamecube graphics!

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Sadly, crappy though it was, the CGI wasn't the worst element of http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=375 - G.I. JOE , a movie which will definitely be listed all over our Nominating Ballot this year.

I have this theory that the script for JOE was concocted by strapping a dozen monkeys into screening room chairs, forcing them to watch every cliche'd action movie of the last 20 years, and then turning those same twelve monkeys loose in a room full typewriters...although blaming them for that script may cast unfair aspersions on monekys' creative abilities!

 



-------------
"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: Julianstark
Date Posted: November 25 2009 at 6:59pm

The CGI in both G.I. Joe and New Moon was horrible.

In the Joe, it looked like something from a PC game of the late 1980s/early 1990s. In the Moon, the CGI looked like a cut-and-paste job from a desktop computer-animated film!

 



-------------
For Your 2010 Razzie Consideration: The Bounty Hunter and Leap Year --
Check out my blog! http://julianstark-moviesandotherthings.blogspot.com - Movies and Other Things


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 26 2009 at 3:14am

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I have this theory that the script for JOE was concocted by strapping a dozen monkeys into screening room chairs, forcing them to watch every cliche'd action movie of the last 20 years, and then turning those same twelve monkeys loose in a room full typewriters...although blaming them for that script may cast unfair aspersions on monekys' creative abilities!

 

It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man.--H.L Menken



-------------
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: November 26 2009 at 11:44am

I also have a theory -- that "GI Joe" was like a puzzle that put together with pieces from several different puzzles. There were bits from a serious back-story, and characters, and bits from an action movie, and campy bits that were winks and nods to all the old slogans like "knowing is half the battle," "a real american hero," and "life-like hair and kung-fu grip." The filmmakers get an "A" for effort, for trying to make their film "somewhat" better than "Trannies 2" (at least there's no giant robot with testicles in "Joe") but the mixing and matching of all those pieces from different puzzles didn't make for a good final product...



-------------
"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: movieman
Date Posted: November 27 2009 at 10:32am
I just didn't get G.I. Joe. I didn't get its sense of humor, the story line,
none of it. I've heard from reviews that it helps to be familiar with the
whole world of G.I. Joe. Fine, I can accept that as an excuse. That still
doesn't justify the lame dialogue, flaccid acting, lame visual effects, and
cheap art direction.

So did I need to see it before viewing Watchmen and not after to
have a better mindset? I mean G.I. Joe doesn't even come close to
Watchmen, or even Trannies Too, because as much as I put down
Transformers, it at least wasn't boring. G.I. Joe is boring. In fact, if it
weren't for the fact that I saw G.I. Joe in theaters with the loud speakers
and stuff, I probably would have fallen asleep. At least that would have
have been more productive.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 29 2009 at 4:30pm
I think like reading the comic "Watchmen" before seeing the movie (in which not doing so resulted in some people giving it bad reviews for not understanding what it was they watched), you needed to know about the old 80s TV series or the current comic book series to understand "GI Joe", otherwise you wouldn't get any of the little in jokes they made or who anyone was. The difference being while "Watchmen" was good for what it was (it would have worked a lot better as a TV mini-series on HBO), "GI Joe" missed its mark and was just a live action cartoon gone wrong.


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: December 08 2009 at 7:39am
Just as I predicted, this movie suffered the same fate as Watchmen
with its significant drop after its opening weekend. So far it has grossed
$255 million, which means its opening of $140 million still accounts for
56% of its total gross. By the end of its run, it'll be lucky if it makes $300
million.

Then again, even if it stops making money right now, it will still be
considered a success seeing how it only cost $50 million to make. By
Hollywood's perspective, that makes it a $205 million surplus, unlike
Watchmen, which cost $130 million and only grossed $107.

And I agree with Michaels about why the uninitiated were disappointed
with Watchmen. A lot of the backstory and character development is
given in between chapters through the Under the Hood excerpts,
letters between characters, newspaper reports, etc. I have to say that if I
hadn't read the novel before watching the movie, I probably would have
been baffled by a lot of it which raises a good question as to how well
Watchmen stands on its own. While I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, I
do think that its biggest strength and biggest weakness is that it feels
more like a conversion of the book, rather than an interpretation.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: December 08 2009 at 3:42pm
Originally posted by movieman

Just as I predicted, this movie suffered the same fate as Watchmen
with its significant drop after its opening weekend. So far it has grossed
$255 million, which means its opening of $140 million still accounts for
56% of its total gross. By the end of its run, it'll be lucky if it makes $300
million.

Then again, even if it stops making money right now, it will still be
considered a success seeing how it only cost $50 million to make. By
Hollywood's perspective, that makes it a $205 million surplus, unlike
Watchmen, which cost $130 million and only grossed $107.

And I agree with Michaels about why the uninitiated were disappointed
with Watchmen. A lot of the backstory and character development is
given in between chapters through the Under the Hood excerpts,
letters between characters, newspaper reports, etc. I have to say that if I
hadn't read the novel before watching the movie, I probably would have
been baffled by a lot of it which raises a good question as to how well
Watchmen stands on its own. While I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, I
do think that its biggest strength and biggest weakness is that it feels
more like a conversion of the book, rather than an interpretation.


Well, it's good to know someone agrees with me about why "Watchmen" failed. However, in terms of "New Moon" making "ONLY" $300 million, that's not a B.O. bomb by anybody's standards. Plus, a third movie of the series is in the works, and there's talk about making two movies out of the fourth book. Hopefully by then, teenage girls will move on to something else.


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: January 16 2010 at 10:03am
By FAR, the worst movie of the year!!!!!! Really deserves and the ''Worst Picture'' Razzie Award, and the ''Worst Picture of the Decade''! Completly!!!!

Robert Pattison: ''Worst Actor''
Kristen Stewart: ''Worst Actress''
Robert Pattison and Kristen Stewart: ''Worst Screen Couple''
Taylor Lautner: ''Worst Supporting Actor''
Chris Weitz: ''Worst Director''
Melissa Rosenberg: ''Worst Screenplay''

And a special ''Worst Visual Effects'' razzie Award!!!

This is what I think of you, cast and crew of Twilight!


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: January 16 2010 at 5:18pm
Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD

By FAR, the worst movie of the year!!!!!! Really deserves and the ''Worst Picture'' Razzie Award, and the ''Worst Picture of the Decade''! Completly!!!!

Robert Pattison: ''Worst Actor''
Kristen Stewart: ''Worst Actress''
Robert Pattison and Kristen Stewart: ''Worst Screen Couple''
Taylor Lautner: ''Worst Supporting Actor''
Chris Weitz: ''Worst Director''
Melissa Rosenberg: ''Worst Screenplay''

And a special ''Worst Visual Effects'' razzie Award!!!

This is what I think of you, cast and crew of Twilight!

Wow. So much hate for a movie that does not apply to you. Let's be honest here. The direction by Mr. Weitz was arguably better than that of Hardwicke's. He gave the film a distinctive look. It was beautiful. The Visual Effects were great too, considering the low budget compared to movies with $150 million. And the actors were good too but that's just me. You guys can argue against that.


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: January 16 2010 at 8:36pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy


Wow. So much hate for a movie that does not apply to you. Let's be honest here. The direction by Mr. Weitz was arguably better than that of Hardwicke's. He gave the film a distinctive look. It was beautiful. The Visual Effects were great too, considering the low budget compared to movies with $150 million. And the actors were good too but that's just me. You guys can argue against that.


Don't even want to argue against the stupid thing you just said! But at least, I'll put my little word: Sleepy


Posted By: hard hearted hannah
Date Posted: January 18 2010 at 10:40pm

please people, don't lose objectivity


Kristen Stewart: ''Worst Actress''.... maybe
Taylor Lautner: ''Worst Supporting Actor''  right
Chris Weitz: ''Worst Director'' .... maybe too
Melissa Rosenberg: ''Worst Screenplay'' definitivamente

 
more... is let driven for the hate


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: January 19 2010 at 6:57pm
But ''Worst Picture'' ..... SURE!

Or... I'll lose respect for the human race!


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 20 2010 at 5:08am
Well, get ready to lose respect for the human race, because whether we razz it or not, it will sweep the MTV Movie, Teen's Choice, Kid's Choice, and People's Choice awards, just like the first one did. That, or maybe "Avatar" will swing in to save the day instead -- fingers crossed it does.

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


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: January 20 2010 at 6:20pm
I know for the MTV but I never thought MTW Awards have no credibility.... those are stupid awards for teenagers, they are stupid! So no I won't lose respect for the human race because of MTV Stupid Awards!


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 21 2010 at 8:24am
No one here is going to disagree with you about that.

Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD

I know for the MTV but I never thought MTW Awards have no credibility.... those are stupid awards for teenagers, they are stupid! So no I won't lose respect for the human race because of MTV Stupid Awards!
 


-------------
"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: GTAHater767
Date Posted: January 27 2010 at 8:05pm
There's a huge mound of things I could say about this movie.
 
First, when I pondered how bad the 4 or 5 main stars were, I started to realize that either Worst Cast or Worst Ensemble Cast would be a good idea.
 
Second, around where I live, only half of the females I asked said they liked this movie. Anyone, male or female, whom Pattinson, Stewart, and Lautner's appearance actually enamors THAT heavily...we need to approach them with caution.
 
Third, if there were a category for Worst Movie Everyone Saw (I hope you know the requirements there), this, along with Terminator Salvation, 2012, and Angels & Demons would be runners up, and Revenge of the Fallen would take it home.


-------------
My deadlines for Member-Started Forums, given 35% approval rating or less: Apl. 29; The Other Woman. May 6; Walk of Shame. May 20; Godzilla '014. May 27; Blended. Jne. 3; A Million Ways...


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: January 30 2010 at 8:38pm
I just saw this for $4.25 at the discount theater, and have to say that after hearing the polarized reaction from people and seeing it for myself, that I was pleasantly surprised. But I digress by agreeing with the critical consensus on RT: " Outsiders are likely to be turned off by its slow pace, relentlessly downcast tone, and excessive length."

Believe me, if you haven't read the books(from reading this forum, I doubt anyone here has), then read no further and just skip the movie. Just like with Watchmen, it will seem long and moody, and many of the conversations will make little sense or seem to have any meaning.

Those who remember how I was rather disappointed the first movie because it failed to adequately capture the feel and tone of the movie without seeming banal or awkward. Fortunately the sequel has been able to take the novel and turn it into a enjoyable movie(for the initiated anyway) thanks to better production values, a bigger budget, and a new director to guide it in the right direction. Director Chris Weitz seems to have a keen awareness of what he's doing, and he realizes that the excessively proper dialogue shared between characters is best when read on paper, and not when said by real human actors. The special effects have greatly improved also, especially in the fight scenes, which have a lot more detail and motion to them that the first one clunked on. Taylor Lautner and Kristin Stewart both give serviceable performances that make us believe their gradual romance.

One of the problems in the movie I had however, was Robert Pattinson. I remember Edward is supposed to be this tortured being who's insecure with himself, but man, I don't remember Pattinson delivering every line as if he were constipated in the first one the way he does here. Fortunately, he's gone for two-thirds of the movie, so it's only as a minor flaw. And clocking in at over 2 hours, the movie feels like it could have been trimmed down at least 10-15 minutes. 

As I said, I enjoyed this film for it was quite better than I was anticipating it to be, and while the Twilight series will never be the new Harry Potter, it will still deliver for everyone who has read the book what they were expecting.


Posted By: kennyshafard
Date Posted: February 24 2010 at 9:51pm
Well movies like these are usually girl's-favorites. Who in return take their bfs to the cinemas as well, which in return increases the ticket sales. So basically all those girls who actually fall for this PERFECT-LOVER crap need to get a hold of them selves ...


Posted By: checkitjess
Date Posted: March 05 2010 at 5:37pm
i enjoyed watching this movie together with my friends who are there to tease and somehow amaze on the special effects...Embarrassed


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 05 2010 at 9:19pm
Originally posted by checkitjess

i enjoyed watching this movie together with my friends who are there to tease and somehow amaze on the special effects...Embarrassed
That's all this movie is good for. This movie, and ""GI Blow". And by "amaze", I mean amazed how they thought those were going to pass as convincing visuals!

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


Posted By: 1308dd
Date Posted: March 08 2010 at 3:16pm
COME ON!!
evryone knows that the twilight series r the best out there!!!
f*ckin assholess!  
 
Angry


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 08 2010 at 3:22pm
Ok...I was wrong...that was a bit stonger than "agry little girls."

-------------
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: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 08 2010 at 6:38pm
Oh no, the whiney little 14 year old girls are out in full force, bitching and moaning about us insulting their little semi-vampire soap opera on their cell phones. Whatever shall we do?

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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 15 2010 at 3:47pm
When I saw http://www.razzies.com/forum/twilight_forum320.html - TWILIGHT ,after I left the theater,I just wanted to talk to a lot of people'bout it,'cuz I thought it was good,but no so much.Unfortunately,it became a teen sensation,and we all know how they're treated.

I'm not very excited on seein'this one,'cuz it looks depressin'.

I just saw a trailer for ECLIPSE,which sucks,'cuz we don't learn the plot of the movie,we just see BELLA tryin'to choose between EDWARD and JACOB.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 15 2010 at 6:19pm
It's "Twilight", the only reason why it exists if for teenage girls to p*** their parents' money away to stare at Robert Patterson's bed head. As for choosing between Edward and Jacob, again, teenage girls' dreams come true ... two hot guys fighting over her. I don't understand why any one over the age of 16 goes to see these movies.

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


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: March 15 2010 at 10:11pm
2011 will be a mixed blessing for books based on fantasy series. The Deathly Hallows Part II is scheduled for that year, albeit not before May 1. If Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn gets released then, I'll only have to wait a half year and it'll all be over. Unfortunately, Harry Potter doesn't have a good successor.

-------------
My deadlines for Member-Started Forums, given 35% approval rating or less: Apl. 29; The Other Woman. May 6; Walk of Shame. May 20; Godzilla '014. May 27; Blended. Jne. 3; A Million Ways...


Posted By: funtango
Date Posted: July 06 2010 at 11:30pm
i liked the movie s-o-o-o-o much...it was amazing!  



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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 07 2010 at 11:18am
Originally posted by GTAHater767

2011 will be a mixed blessing for books based on fantasy series. The Deathly Hallows Part II is scheduled for that year, albeit not before May 1. If Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn gets released then, I'll only have to wait a half year and it'll all be over. Unfortunately, Harry Potter doesn't have a good successor.
Not to mention we'll be getting "Thor", "Captain America", and "Green Lantern". This year was the year of remakes/reboots, next year is the year of movies based on books. Gee, now Hollywood's doing themes for each year.

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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 07 2010 at 3:18pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Not to mention we'll be getting "Thor", "Captain America", and "Green Lantern". This year was the year of remakes/reboots, next year is the year of movies based on books. Gee, now Hollywood's doing themes for each year.
More specifically, comic books. The dumbing down of America marches on.

-------------
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: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 07 2010 at 6:06pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

More specifically, comic books. The dumbing down of America marches on.
Hey, it could be worse ... it could be Stallone playing Captain America! Steve Rogers is turned from a 90 lb. weakling into the perfect super soldier ... only problem is he still can't talk straight.

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


Posted By: ziesha
Date Posted: November 11 2010 at 4:58am
hey its a good part of the twilight series ! 


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: November 11 2010 at 6:39am
Originally posted by ziesha

hey its a good part of the twilight series !
Only because it poked fun at itself.

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


Posted By: TheMovieCritic
Date Posted: December 08 2010 at 12:47pm
The only scene that stands out to me was Bella swimming underwater. Other than that, I didn't care for it.

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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 09 2010 at 1:02pm
Because she was wet? Gigity!

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


Posted By: TheMovieCritic
Date Posted: December 09 2010 at 6:45pm
She did look good underwater...  


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 02 2011 at 8:56am
This was included here: 

[TUBE]eHsmju8qkv0[/TUBE] 

Any thoughts?  




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



Print Page | Close Window