Print Page | Close Window

FINGERING FREDDY for a NOT-SO-SCARY REMAKE...

Printed From: Official RAZZIEģ Forum
Category: DISCUSSIONS & POLLS on 2010 RELEASES
Forum Name: NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (2010)
Forum Discription: Will This "Re-Imagined" Freddy Get Fingered as One of the Year's WORST Horror Movies??
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4270
Printed Date: November 23 2014 at 9:12pm


Topic: FINGERING FREDDY for a NOT-SO-SCARY REMAKE...
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: FINGERING FREDDY for a NOT-SO-SCARY REMAKE...
Date Posted: April 29 2010 at 8:59am
ADS for THIS UTTERLY UN-CALLED-FOR REMAKE MADE IT LOOK LIKE MAYBE IT'D LIVE UP to ITS HYPE... 

BUT THEN http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/nightmare_on_elm_street_2010/ - the DAY BEFORE IT OPENED WAS a STRAIGHT-UP ZERO, and WE REALIZED THAT, EVEN THOUGH THIS "RE-IMAGINING" of http://www.razzies.com/forum/nightmare-on-elm-street-2010_forum432.html - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0355097/awards - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0355097/awards - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0355097/ - ģ CONTENDUH. THOSE EARLY REVIEWS SUGGEST THAT THIS LATEST RE-TREAD from TALENT-FREE PRODUCER http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&domains=razzies.com&sitesearch=razzies.com&q=Michael+Bay&btnG=Search&sitesearch=razzies.com&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq= - TRANNIES, TOO WAS COHERENT. 

OH, WELL, GUESS IT's JUST ONE MORE LAME-O HORROR REMAKE in a YEAR WHERE, 1/3 of the WAY THROUGH, WE'VE SEEN http://www.razzies.com/forum/the-list-jan-1-april-16_topic4037.html -
NOW COMES YOUR CHANCE to SHARPEN YOUR OWN "SCISSOR-FINGERS" and SET ABOUT SLICING and DICING...



GENERIC HUNK #37a: "I'll be reading for the part of 
the handsome but stupid guy who charms the ladies, 
only to end up being killed during a gratuitous sex scene..."  

LONG-HAIRED DIRECTOR: "Which one?? We have 7 
of those in this film..."   



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



Replies:
Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: April 29 2010 at 9:56am
The upside to this film: It's not directed by Michael Bay.  If it were, then horror movie fans would really have to worry.
 
The above post gives me all the more reason to watch the Kentucky Derby instead of going to the movies this weekend...  


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: April 29 2010 at 11:17am
I was wondering when this uncalled for remake was going to show up here. Yeah, it's not directed by Michael Bay, but he produced it, and producers have just as much creative input to movies as the director does. Wait, did I just have Michael Bay and the word "creative" in the same sentance? How silly of me! Bad, BHB, bad! Yeah, word of advice everyone, SAVE YOUR MONEY .... for "Ironman 2"!

-------------
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: Berrynoia
Date Posted: April 29 2010 at 12:08pm

"Welcome to Razzie time, bitch!"

I've seen all of the Freddy movies (with the exception of New Nightmare for some reason), and I liked them.  Yes, even with Freddy turning into a more comedic villain:

"This is your brain on drugs.  Any questions?" (SLAM!) "Yeah, what are you on? Looks like eggs and a frying pan to me."

Freddy          Spencer
99999            05122                  "I beat my high score."  (Freddy's Dead)
 
dink dink dink dink dink dink dink dink dink dink dink dink...."Tilt." (Freddy v. Jason).
 
Still, I liked them, basically as a fan of the Nightmare on Elm Street series.  However, I am seriously thinking about staying away from this remake.  Jason can be replaced with a different actor, but for Freddy, you can't replace Robert Englund.  Besides, I think some people are really afraid to live on an Elm Street because of those films!
 
I am going to keep greater track of this movie's response by critics and IMDB users.  This and Furry so far have goose eggs on the Tomatometer.


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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: April 29 2010 at 2:13pm

I've seen all the Nightmares as well, but you should really see New Nightmare. That's, IMO, the best one in the entire franchise. I didn't like the first one because the ending ruined the whole point of the film, but I understand the producer made Craven change the ending.

Still, I liked them, basically as a fan of the Nightmare on Elm Street series.  However, I am seriously thinking about staying away from this remake.  Jason can be replaced with a different actor, but for Freddy, you can't replace Robert Englund.  Besides, I think some people are really afraid to live on an Elm Street because of those films!

Really? I was looking forward to this film until the negative reviews came pouring in because I thought it couldn't possibly be worse than the F13 remake but somehow, I'm proven wrong. I think it's kinda ridiculous because the trailer for this film showed immensly better acting from the cast than in F13 and this film actually has a story rather than a masked man killing teens who do drugs and have sex and this remake doesn't even have nudity.  

Originally posted by Berrynoia

"Welcome to Razzie time, bitch!"

I've seen all of the Freddy movies (with the exception of New Nightmare for some reason), and I liked them.  Yes, even with Freddy turning into a more comedic villain:



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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: April 29 2010 at 2:39pm
Yeah, when the "horror" movie villain becomes a bad comedian, you know the series has jumped the shark. Plus, these movies are produced by Michael "The Hack" Bay, so you should ALWAYS keep your standards LOW for them.


-------------
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: Julianstark
Date Posted: April 29 2010 at 6:55pm
It actually wasn't half bad. It wasn't scary (minus a jump scare or two) but it's basically just a fun little "horror" movie that wasn't trying to be anything different. I won't pretend that it's great cinema, but it's certainly not "Razzie bad." I know, the majority of critics disagree with me on this -- but it's not terrible.

IMHO, we should keep our Razzie focus on such duds as The Bounty Hunter, Clash of the Titans, and (especially) Leap Year

Oh, and also watch out for Furry Vengeance. I won't bring myself to watch that "movie" (if you want to call it that), but I know it's getting tons of mentions on my Razzie ballot   

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: BTW -- http://www.razzies.com/forum/furry-vengeance_forum430.html - is our other Worst of the Weak pick. Here's a http://www.razzies.com/forum/a-tail-of-whoa-is-that-not-funny_topic4259.html - to the RAZZIEģ Forum discussion on it... 




-------------
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: cvcjr13
Date Posted: April 29 2010 at 7:10pm
Oh my words!  http://www.richardroeper.com/ - Richard Roeper gave it a good review !  Wow. . . .


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: April 29 2010 at 8:01pm
Why do I feel a "One Vs. One Hundred" joke coming on??  

Originally posted by cvcjr13

Oh my words!   http://www.richardroeper.com/ - Richard Roeper gave it a good review !  Wow. . . .


-------------
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: moviewizguy
Date Posted: April 29 2010 at 8:17pm
I really enjoyed  http://www.richardroeper.com/ -


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: April 30 2010 at 4:49am
http://www.richardroeper.com/ - Richard Roeper's "good" review 's nice and all -- but again, that's one good review versus 100 bad reviews. That's not a good track record.  


-------------
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: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: April 30 2010 at 7:12am
Here's the thing about so many horror movies these days... They don't "get" that they're not actually scary. And slashers never really were. They used to be somewhat innovative though on trying to accomplish things with a low budget; create a death that looked really fancy or whatever but without the big budget. Now, people are REALLY paying to see these things, so they give them the budget, and the producers spend that money lobotomizing the movies.
And people aren't paying to see crazy kills or whatever, even. They're paying for nostalgia, or a chance to be a part of a franchise they might've missed out on before. Or the third option, they're older teenagers who got over that sour candy phase that kids go through in their early teens and now they need something new and unbearable to sit through, so they can say to their buddies, "Wasn't that cool?" And they have to agree, and they have to sit through it, or they're not... I don't even know what word to use, but it's ostracism.
I dunno, there may have been a point to all of these crap remake/reboot/sequel horror movies at one point, but they've sure sucked the soul out of them lately.

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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: April 30 2010 at 8:04am
Obviously the best of most franchises is usually the first movie, but for me it was NEW NIGHTMARE(the 7th one).It went all ADAPTATION by having a "script-within-a-script-within-a-script...".

Not to mention that FREDDY went back to being a non-comic villian, which was what ruined the CHILD'S PLAY movies(SEED OF CHUCKY anyone?).


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: April 30 2010 at 11:17am
THANK YOU! And that is why horror movies (and in this case, remakes of horror movies) suck to high heaven!   

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Here's the thing about so many horror movies these days... They don't "get" that they're not actually scary. And slashers never really were. They used to be somewhat innovative though on trying to accomplish things with a low budget; create a death that looked really fancy or whatever but without the big budget. Now, people are REALLY paying to see these things, so they give them the budget, and the producers spend that money lobotomizing the movies. 
And people aren't paying to see crazy kills or whatever, even. They're paying for nostalgia, or a chance to be a part of a franchise they might've missed out on before. Or the third option, they're older teenagers who got over that sour candy phase that kids go through in their early teens and now they need something new and unbearable to sit through, so they can say to their buddies, "Wasn't that cool?" And they have to agree, and they have to sit through it, or they're not... I don't even know what word to use, but it's ostracism. 
I dunno, there may have been a point to all of these crap remake/reboot/sequel horror movies at one point, but they've sure sucked the soul out of them lately.


-------------
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: April 30 2010 at 3:00pm
There is really only one point to be made here, and Head Razz nailed it above. There was absolutely, positively NO REASON whatsover to remake this movie, apart from the obvious fact that there isn't a single studio, or studio head left in Hollywood with enough creativity or stones to do anything new. PERIOD.  

-------------
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: GTAHater767
Date Posted: April 30 2010 at 5:09pm
I knew from the start this would be a contender. Less than 12 hours after release, it has an abysmal score of 14% at Rotten Tomatoes. But if our '009 award nominations were any indication (15 films took all the nominations) this one probably won't get nominated. Come to think of it, this movie probably doesn't stand a chance against all those failed romances in the '010 RAZZIES.

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: April 30 2010 at 6:26pm
Movie Preview Critic nails this one right on the head -- Here's a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zXQZFBlhd0 -

-------------
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: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 02 2010 at 12:21pm
I know you guys are excited to hear my thoughts on this remake (don't deny it). Well, here's my PRE-review (which means I'll post an official one later): Will I get stoned if I say this remake is better than the original?


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: May 02 2010 at 12:50pm
Kid, knock yourself out. We all know what your movie watching habbits are. We all know you were nearly peeing your pants with excitement the second you found out this movie was being made. You don't seriously care what critics say; you were going to see it see no matter what. And you're going to give the usual 6 stars or higher rating, mostly because it had better SFX than the original movie or was more "entertaining", blah, blah, blah. So have at it hoss, just don't act all surprised when no one agrees with you and your street credit here continues to spiral downwards.

-------------
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: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 02 2010 at 12:53pm
Can I ask you something? Did you really think the original film was that good? I mean, the mediocre performances  (with an exception of Englund), the cheesy effects, and the outright terrible ending that ruined the whole point of what happened previously? I never considered the original film to be all that great because of those main flaws.  



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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 02 2010 at 1:57pm
My official review:

Nancy, Kris, Quentin, Jesse and Dean all live on Elm Street. At night, they're all having the same dream--of the same man, wearing a tattered red and green striped sweater, a beaten fedora half-concealing a disfigured face and a gardener's glove with knives for fingers. And they're all hearing the same frightening voice...one by one, he terrorizes them within the curved walls of their dreams, where the rules are his, and the only way out is to wake up.

I have never been a fan of the NOES franchise, nor have I ever considered the original film to be a classic. The film had mediocre to terrible performances, with an exception of Robert Englund, of course, cheesy special effects, and an ending so horrible it ruined the whole point of the film. When Platinum Dunes announced that they were going to remake this film, I was interested. The fact that they casted Jackie Earle Haley to play the new Freddy Krueger as well as trying to get the film back to a serious tone only peaked my excitement. After seeing this film, I'm not afraid to say that this remake, or re-imagining, is better than the original. Yes, I said the deadliest phrase in the movie world.

The performances are much more improved from the teens. Rooney Mara and Kyle Gallner are the two leads and they do a terrific job. We, the audience, feel sympathy for them, because they can really act. Jackie Earle Haley, although not better than Robert Englund, does a great job as well. What different between him and Englund is that Haley plays Krueger as a much darker and sinister villain, which I dug quite a bit. Katie Cassidy, Thomas Dekker, and Kellan Lutz are the remaining teens in this film, all pulling off convincing performances.

The seriousness of the film worked because it was pretty scary. I was clutching the arm rests when the nightmare scenes were going on and my heart was racing. The death scenes are pretty brutal as well. However, saying that, the first half of the film was pretty rushed. I donít know if this counts as a complaint but there were just too many nightmare sequences, one after another after another after another. Thankfully, the film slows down after a couple of teens get killed off in the middle mark. From there on, the film actually gets better and the third act is just refreshing and thrilling. This is pretty odd because films are usually better in the beginning and get worse in the end. Although the origin of Freddy is similar to the original, we get to see more of what happened to him in flashbacks, something I liked a lot.

The visual effects were also improved. Now, I'm usually not the person that would say better visual effects equal a good movie, but in a series like this, the surreal nightmare sequences HINGE upon having convincing effects to cross the worlds of dream and reality. Something this film explored that this series never went deeper into was the literal parallelism of dream and reality. There's a scene in this film where you can see what's happening in reality while the character is dreaming and that's something I would have liked to have seen in the previous films, but I guess the technology never caught up until now. However, saying that, there was one scene in the film where CGI was used that looked horrible where as in the original film, practical effects were used to make the scene much scarier.

The make-up effect for the new Freddy is more realistic than the original Freddy, where the new on looked like a burned victim. However, I still prefer the original look of Freddy. The soundtrack is reminiscent of the original. It still has the creepy underlying feel is always does. The cinematography and lighting is slick thanks to music video director Samuel Bayer, who knows what heís doing. There are some really great scenes here.

I would be lying if I said this remake was bad, because it isnít. Itís a well made film that actually pulls off some great scares and while the film is a bit messy at first, it gets better toward the latter half of the film. The performances and visual effects are improved in this film and while Haley may not be better than Englund, he did a great job as the new Freddy Krueger. Overall, Nightmare fans will get a kick out of this and those who are interested in this film should give it a watch. Oh, and Iíll say this again: Itís better than the original film. 7/10
file:///C:%5CUsers%5CStanley%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml -


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: May 02 2010 at 2:34pm
Actually, I never liked any of the "Nightmare" movies. Not one. The fact that the serial killer acts like a stand-up comedian doesn't help make it a "horror" movie. By then it's just self-parody. And the reason why the first was so flawed was because it was an indie movie that was made with almost no budget, same as "Halloween" and all slashers before. That's why these pieces of s*** movies are made, because they cost next to nothing and will usually get their money back.
 
PS: I find it kinda funny (or "laughable", I believe is the phrase you like to use), that you think the ending to the first movie ruined the movie as a whole. Yet, at the same time, you proclaim that the ending to "Next" was so ingenius and well-crafted, even though that ending also ruined the whole point of the movie.  

Originally posted by moviewizguy

 
Can I ask you something? Did you really think the original film was that good? I mean, the mediocre performances  (with an exception of Englund), the cheesy effects, and the outright terrible ending that ruined the whole point of what happened previously? I never considered the original film to be all that great because of those main flaws.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: May 02 2010 at 2:36pm
Called it! There are three sure things in life: death, taxes, and MWG's taste in movies!  

Originally posted by moviewizguy

 
I would be lying if I said this remake was bad, because it isnít. Itís a well made film that actually pulls off some great scares and while the film is a bit messy at first, it gets better toward the latter half of the film. The performances and visual effects are improved in this film and while Haley may not be better than Englund, he did a great job as the new Freddy Krueger. Overall, Nightmare fans will get a kick out of this and those who are interested in this film should give it a watch. Oh, and Iíll say this again: Itís better than the original film. 7/10
file:///C:%5CUsers%5CStanley%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml -


-------------
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: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 02 2010 at 5:10pm
Actually, this film costs $30 million to make.
 
I respectfully disagree.  

PS: I find it kinda funny (or "laughable", I believe is the phrase you like to use), that you think the ending to the first movie ruined the movie as a whole. Yet, at the same time, you proclaim that the ending to "Next" was so ingenius and well-crafted, even though that ending also ruined the whole point of the movie.


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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 02 2010 at 5:11pm
Do you actually read my reviews, or do you just look at the numbers in the end? Maybe I shouldn't put any numbers so you'll HAVE to read my review in order to get an imaginary number in your head.  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Called it! There are sure things in life: death, taxes, and MWG's taste in movies.


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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 02 2010 at 5:12pm
Watch this review. It's great! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Hp-_elVi9A&playnext_from=TL&videos=LFVZMZ4g4Go&feature=subu - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Hp-_elVi9A&playnext_from=TL&videos=LFVZMZ4g4Go&feature=subu


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: May 02 2010 at 5:21pm
You should know FREDDY wasn't that funny guy in the first movie...and also in NEW NIGHTMARE.   

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

The fact that the serial killer acts like a stand-up comedian doesn't help make it a "horror" movie. By then it's just self-parody.
 

Was that your review?

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Watch this review. It's great!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Hp-_elVi9A&playnext_from=TL&videos=LFVZMZ4g4Go&feature=subu - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Hp-_elVi9A&playnext_from=TL&videos=LFVZMZ4g4Go&feature=subu  
Was that you?


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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 02 2010 at 6:07pm
No, it was not my review -- It's just a guy whose opinions about movies are very, very similar to that of the Movie Preview Critic, and I posted that video because even he liked this film. I have to note that he loathed Transformers 2 and GI Joe so I wanted Burned to notice -- even people who loathe many of the movies Hollywood puts out like this movie.  


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: May 02 2010 at 6:22pm
Yeah, $30 million is the average budget of non-wannabe blockbuster Hollywood movies. Yes, it's a lot of money to us average joes, but to the studios, it's pocket change and will easily be made back. 

Originally posted by moviewizguy

 Actually, this film costs $30 million to make.
 
Okay, if you say so. I just don't see how the "Nightmare" ending ruined the whole movie, while according to the "Next" ending, 80% of the movie you watched didn't happen.

I respectfully disagree.



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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: May 02 2010 at 6:27pm
Yeah, and if you've read one review, you've read them all. "This was good, this was good, this was good," etc.  

Overall, it's not that bad a movie. High star rating."


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: May 02 2010 at 6:28pm
True, but then again, the power of sequels. They are created for the sole reason of milking the original movie for as much money as possible, so they just had to make him funny.  

Originally posted by Vits

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

The fact that the serial killer acts like a stand-up comedian doesn't help make it a "horror" movie. By then it's just self-parody.
You should know FREDDY wasn't that funny guy in the first movie...and also in NEW NIGHTMARE.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: May 02 2010 at 6:29pm
Oh, I don't doubt that there are people who liked this movie. However, just because people like something, doesn't mean it's any good.  

-------------
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: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 02 2010 at 6:50pm
Well, Wes Craven didn't like the ending himself. The producer made him change it. It ruins the point because through the original, Craven intended Nancy to grow and mature and defeat Freddy Krueger by herself. It was a metaphor for innocence overcoming evil and the fact that he does come back, leaving an opened ending just ruins the movie. 

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Okay, if you say so. I just don't see how the "Nightmare" ending ruined the whole movie, while according to the "Next" ending, 80% of the movie you watched didn't happen.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: May 02 2010 at 7:14pm
Yeah, and Nic Cage's character in "Next" can only see two minutes into the future, yet for some reason he then sees days into the future, thus breaking the movie's rule for no reason, so 80% of the movie never happened, there's no closure, and Cage's character doesn't gain anything from the experience. In other words, the movie is a complete waste of time.  

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Well, Wes Craven didn't like the ending himself. The producer made him change it. It ruins the point because through the original, Craven intended Nancy to grow and mature and defeat Freddy Krueger by herself. It was a metaphor for innocence overcoming evil and the fact that he does come back, leaving an opened ending just ruins the movie.


-------------
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: May 03 2010 at 4:27pm
Time out....Are you saying that a movie that is pretty well received in its time, is state of the art in terms of effects, but dragged down a bit by plot points and mediocre performances can lose a lot of its luster over the passage of a few decades because of those elements AND the fact that state of the art screen technologies tend to get overshadowed by improving technologies? Hmmmmm
 
(incidentally...just for the record, I'm not much of a fan of the original series either. BUT...I don't think it is necessary to remake it, just because nobody in Hollywood has a better idea.)  

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Can I ask you something? Did you really think the original film was that good? I mean, the mediocre performances  (with an exception of Englund), the cheesy effects, and the outright terrible ending that ruined the whole point of what happened previously? I never considered the original film to be all that great because of those main flaws.


-------------
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: May 03 2010 at 5:01pm
And didn't we talk about how 30 years from now, by future standards, Avatar's CGI might be considered cheesy as well and thus the movie will suffer as a whole?
 
And this is yet another thing with MWG and his love of bad movies. Every movie listed here has critics saying how they are full of plot holes and mediocre performances, yet he goes around proclaiming how good these movies are, but he bashes older movies on the same flaws -- Classic armchair critic!   
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Time out....Are you saying that a movie that is pretty well received in its time, is state of the art in terms of effects, but dragged down a bit by plot points and mediocre performances can lose a lot of its luster over the passage of a few decades because of those elements AND the fact that state of the art screen technologies tend to get overshadowed by improving technologies? Hmmmmm
 
(incidentally...just for the record, I'm not much of a fan of the original series either. BUT...I don't think it is necessary to remake it just because nobody in Hollywood has a better idea.)


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: May 04 2010 at 5:13am
MCP review!
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2AFErmJxwg - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2AFErmJxwg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mitJMbIJwTY - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mitJMbIJwTY
 
My favorite line: "Freddy is a child raper, and Michael Bay is a raper of childhood memories".


-------------
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: thomsonmg2000
Date Posted: May 04 2010 at 8:28am
Talk about unoriginality on top of unoriginality:

http://www.collider.com/2010/05/03/3d-nightmare-on-elm-street-sequel-greenlight/

Sequel of a remake (or in this case, a reboot)? Last time I checked, no one was comparing this movie to Star Trek or Batman Begins.



-------------
Seltzerberg is back?

OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!

http://www.disastermovie.org
http://www.vampiressuck.org/


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: May 04 2010 at 10:51am
Don't you mean a child murderer?  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

My favorite line: "Freddy is a child raper, and Michael Bay is a raper of childhood memories".


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: May 04 2010 at 11:08am
No, they said "raper" in the review, and the movie, he was a "rapist." Because, as MCP said, it's not enough to be a child murderer, your serial killer MUST be a pedophile, too.

-------------
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: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: May 04 2010 at 1:40pm
That stuck-up bastard has now officially gone too far.  He includes a proper name in one of his warning signs and he blames the producer, not the director or screenwriter, for this film.  His cursing and misuse of words are bad enough, but this is just stupid.  This guy should be banned from the internet because his false logic has caused him to jump the shark.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: May 04 2010 at 3:05pm
Uh...you do realize he's saying the exact same thing that 96 percent of professional critics are also saying? So why is must he be "banned from the Internet" for sharing the opinions of pro critics? Face it, man, Bay is a talentless, money-grubbing hack, and a raper of childhood memories as stated before. He's the goddamn Paris Hilton of producer/directors.


-------------
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: May 04 2010 at 3:56pm
The 3 Big Ones on any movie are the director,writer and producer. If a movie's bad, I figure you can blame them all, or just one or two.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: May 04 2010 at 5:53pm
Yes, but the producer is usually the guy who chooses the writer and director. So of course Bay chose hacks just like himself.

-------------
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: May 04 2010 at 11:29pm
It sounds like Michael Bay could win the next Worst Career Achievement Award by a landslide! 

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: May 05 2010 at 4:51am
True that. 15 years in the business and Bay has only maybe one-and-a-half "good" movies to show for it! 

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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: May 05 2010 at 10:15am
Does that award counts only the movies he directed?Because he has 2 movies that are good,4 that are bad,and 3 that are average.I don't think he qualifies for that award.

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: May 05 2010 at 11:06am
Originally posted by Vits

Does that award counts only the movies he directed?Because he has 2 movies that are good,4 that are bad,and 3 that are average.I don't think he qualifies for that award.
No, by Razzie count, it's 1 and 1/2 good, everything else he touches or breaths on, BAD.

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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: May 05 2010 at 12:24pm
If we count movies he has produced,6 are bad and 1 is average.Not to mention his score at R.T. is 7/100.I supposse he qualifies then.

However,if by "Razzie count" you mean his noms.,he doesn't.Out of the 16 movies he's made(I don't count his small gig in INDICENT PROPOSAL),only 6 has been nominated,of which 1 wasn't a nom. for him("Worst Supportin'Actor" for Jon Voight in http://www.razzies.com/forum/transformers_forum205.html - ).He has only won 2.


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


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: May 05 2010 at 2:27pm
No, I'm saying he should be banned from the internet for showing an extreme bias.
Actually, Uwe Boll is the Paris Hilton of producing/directing (or is it Seltzerberg?).
As far as I know, we're not giving out a Worst Career Achievement award this year.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: May 05 2010 at 3:58pm
"Extreme bias"!? Come on now, man. If instead of saying "Anything made by Michael Bay", he said "Anything with "Twilight Saga" in the title" as a warning sign, you would be singing his praises from on top of the highest mountain that you could climb! Stop trying to con us that we should only hate certain bad movies and not all of them. 

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

No, I'm saying he should be banned from the internet for showing an extreme bias.
Actually, Uwe Boll is the Paris Hilton of producing/directing (or is it Seltzerberg?).
As far as I know, we're not giving out a Worst Career Achievement award this 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: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: May 05 2010 at 3:59pm
Uwe Boll had serveral nods, and no "wins" yet when he was voted his Worst Career award.  


-------------
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: May 06 2010 at 3:39pm
1)He "won" Worst Director for 3 titles that same year.
2)All of his movies have an RT score between 1 and 11%. And his overall score is 0%.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: May 06 2010 at 8:32pm
Yeah -- so? In the past, not even Stallone or Madonna have won career awards, and they have won more Razzies than anyone. Razzies standards are different than most award shows; it really does come down to who the 700 voting members hate the most that 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: Vits
Date Posted: May 07 2010 at 3:33pm
Just like Uwe Boll,"Seltzer-berg" have an overall 0% score at R.T. too...


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: May 07 2010 at 5:39pm
I guess Michael Bay must be the George W. Bush of directing, if Uwe Boll is the Paris Hilton!!  

-------------
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: vrc3
Date Posted: May 31 2010 at 11:40pm
This very lame re-make was done by a director that obviously has no passion for or love of the horror genre. Wes Craven at least brought the somber mood necessary. With the scraping claws on the wall, the dripping water, the whole ominous imagery of a dream, he built REAL tension. In re-makes, they get a bunch of perfect-looking Abercrombie models to run around and get killed in their sleep. We are not vested in the characters because most people aren't surrounded by 50 people that look like GQ cover models, devoid of any acting skills or abilities. 

Hopefully if, God-forbid, they make another one, they will get a different director to direct.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 4:59am
Your review pretty much hit the nail on the head. But please do not mention possible sequels, because once you do, the studios will go ahead and do it ... with the same director from this first movie!

-------------
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: June 01 2010 at 9:25am
BurnHollywoodBurn, you're all over that Law of Unspeakability, aren't you? Anything bad that's spoken happens, and anything good that's spoken ceases to be. When did it NOT apply recently?

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 12:00pm
Originally posted by GTAHater767

BurnHollywoodBurn, you're all over that Law of Unspeakability, aren't you? Anything bad that's spoken happens, and anything good that's spoken ceases to be. When did it NOT apply recently?
Well, people keep talking about there being a "Grand Thief Auto" movie, but thankfully, that hasn't happened yet. That kinda breaks the anything bad rule. However, people keep on talking about a "Halo" movie, but that hasn't happened yet. So there's the anything good rule in effect!

-------------
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: moviewizguy
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 12:05pm
Originally posted by vrc3

This very lame re-make was done by a director that obviously has no passion for or love of the horror genre.

I disagree. There are many scenes that built up in tension and suspense.

Wes Craven at least brought the somber mood necessary.

And you didn't think these actors could have been in a Twilight movie? The entire film was taken rather seriously with serious performances by the cast all around. Nobody was in the mood of being happy and the dingy lighting in scenes and the way the film looked overall was somber.

In re-makes, they get a bunch of perfect-looking Abercrombie models to run around and get killed in their sleep.

First of all, probably only two actors in the main cast looked like models. Other than that, the rest of the cast looked like normal people. Hell, even the two protagonist looked like emo/goth people.

We are not vested in the characters because most people aren't surrounded by 50 people that look like GQ cover models, devoid of any acting skills or abilities.

You're exaggerating but you're complaining about what's seen in almost 99.9% of movies released these days. Almost every film is filled with good looking actors. Hello. Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, and Angelina Jolie? They star in movies in which we cheer for them even though they all look like models. This is a weak complaint for the film. Oh, and you can say the same for the Scream movies. Most of the cast looked like models as well.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 12:51pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

I disagree. There are many scenes that built up in tension and suspense.
Oh you mean all the quick little jumps and fake scares that could be seen from a thousand miles away?

And you didn't think these actors could have been in a Twilight movie? The entire film was taken rather seriously with serious performances by the cast all around. Nobody was in the mood of being happy and the dingy lighting in scenes and the way the film looked overall was somber.
Serious performances? More like s*** performances from people who never acted before. What did they do to cast this movie, flip through a fashion magazine and call up the models' agents?


First of all, probably only two actors in the main cast looked like models. Other than that, the rest of the cast looked like normal people. Hell, even the two protagonist looked like emo/goth people.
Um, I don't know what you're idea of what a supermodel looks like, but like all of Michael Bay's remakes, 90% of the cast looks like models. Oh, okay, TWO whole emo/goth people were the exception.

You're exaggerating but you're complaining about what's seen in almost 99.9% of movies released these days. Almost every film is filled with good looking actors. Hello. Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, and Angelina Jolie? They star in movies in which we cheer for them even though they all look like models. This is a weak complaint for the film. Oh, and you can say the same for the Scream movies. Most of the cast looked like models as well.
Take note, people like Pitt, Cruise, and Jolie took years, if not decades before they had break out roles and were taken seriously. I highly doubt any one in this movie will reach the level of fame that those people you listed did. And unlike the cast from "Scream", these models had NO talent.
 
Seriously, man, we know you have a major hard-on for horror movies, but you need to accept that NOT EVERYONE OF THEM ARE GOOD! 


-------------
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: moviewizguy
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 4:48pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Um, I don't know what you're idea of what a supermodel looks like, but like all of Michael Bay's remakes, 90% of the cast looks like models. Oh, okay, TWO whole emo/goth people were the exception.

There were 5 teens, or victims, in the entire movie the film focused on.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 6:16pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

There were 5 teens, or victims, in the entire movie the film focused on.
Big yip, so only 2 were emo/goth. If this movie was as serious as you claim it to be, they should have all been plain looking. Instead, most of them are pretty, rich kids. The movie should have been called "The CW Moves To Elms Street".


-------------
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: Film Reel Redemption
Date Posted: September 09 2010 at 5:55am
It ain't over yet, these are more horror remakes in the pipeline: 
 
Poltergeist (2013) - Even though there may be a glimmer of hope for this as Sam Raimi is a producer I wouldn't bet on it. His other producing credits include The Grudge (whose screenwriters are also on board) and Bogeyman, so don't get all excited.  
 
The Birds - Why?! Hitchcock got it right first time! There's no point! Oh right, coz this is the easy alternative to robbing a bank.  



-------------
You see in this filmmaking world there's two types of people my friend. Those with the knowledge of film and those who think they do but really don't.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 09 2010 at 11:19am
It is getting really, really, REALLY hard to be a movie lover these days when Hollywood will not stop s***ing on all the movies I love and hold dear. 

MAKE ORIGINAL MOVIES, YOU F***ING LAZY, UNCREATIVE @$$HOLES!!!   



-------------
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: September 09 2010 at 1:17pm

For Poltergiest, I guess they want to make up for the bad sequels,like http://www.razzies.com/forum/predators_forum447.html - PREDATORS did.

As for re-making The Birds, if they make the same movie with the original ending, I'll be happy.  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I am curious -- By "original ending," do you mean the ending they had to use in the theatrical version of THE BIRDS...or the ending Hitchcock originally envisioned and had to abandon, where Rod Taylor's sportscar crests the hill overlooking the Golden Gate bridge only to find it...covered with thousands of waiting birds?? 
 



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


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: September 09 2010 at 2:10pm

If those two new horror remakes do as badly as I think they will, I'll get my hands on them... and beat 'em up as hard and fast as I possibly can.



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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 09 2010 at 2:47pm
Regarding The Birds, I meant the one with the Golden Gate.It would've been a better ending...  


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 09 2010 at 8:18pm
Better idea: DO NOT make the remake at all! Hey, how about we have a little poll? How long do you think it will be before they officially annouce that there will be a remake of "Gone With The Wind"?

-------------
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: Julianstark
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 3:55am
I have a really close friend that I talk to about movies all the time, and we frequently discuss topics related to movies, such as "eye-popping 3-D," the Oscars, the decline in the quality of film, and remakes (I personally like to call it the "Remake Rampage").

In our remake discussions, we occasionally bring up Gone with the Wind, as well as Citizen Kane and (dare I say it) The Godfather.

To answer your question... probably 5-10 years. 

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Better idea: DO NOT make the remake at all! Hey, how about we have a little poll? How long do you think it will be before they officially annouce that there will be a remake of "Gone With The Wind"?
 


-------------
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: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 7:06am
5-10 years...Yeah, that sounds about right.

-------------
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: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 9:12am
I think the "Golden Gate" ending to The Birds would be depressing, actually. I liked the theatrical ending more, because it's less bleak.  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Given that the entire movie of THE BIRDS is arguably an apocalyptic vision of nature turning against man, the so-called "Golden Gate" ending would have been more in keeping with Hitchcock's original intent. MWG's argument sounds an awful lot like what Ol' Alfred must've heard from execs at Universal Studios when he first proposed this ending. But then, as I recall, MWG expended countless posts a few years ago vainly trying to argue that M. Night Shyamalan's laughably ludicrous http://www.razzies.com/forum/m-night-shyamalans-the-happening_forum284.html -


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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 11:50am
Originally posted by moviewizguy

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Given that the entire movie of THE BIRDS is arguably an apocalyptic vision of nature turning against man, the so-called "Golden Gate" ending would have been more in keeping with Hitchcock's original intent. MWG's argument sounds an awful lot like what Ol' Alfred must've heard from execs at Universal Studios when he first proposed this ending. But then, as I recall, MWG expended countless posts a few years ago vainly trying to argue that M. Night Shyamalan's laughably ludicrous http://www.razzies.com/forum/m-night-shyamalans-the-happening_forum284.html - -

You know why The Happening was a lot like The Birds? Because it was inspired by The Birds. The structure is the same: Event happens. Characters try to survive. No known explanation of the event. But then again, I don't see what that has to do with what I was saying.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 12:12pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

You know why The Happening was a lot like The Birds? Because it was inspired by The Birds. The structure is the same: Event happens. Characters try to survive. No known explanation of the event. But then again, I don't see what that has to do with what I was saying.
So what you're saying is that every single disaster movie ever made is based on "The Birds". Because in all disaster movies, something happens and then characters try to survive. Other then that ingenius plot summary of yours (gotta love how he tries to compare M. Night movies with actual good movies), "Happening" has not a damn thing in common with "The Birds".

-------------
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: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 12:29pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

So what you're saying is that every single disaster movie ever made is based on "The Birds". Because in all disaster movies, something happens and then characters try to survive. Other then that ingenius plot summary of yours (gotta love how he tries to compare M. Night movies with actual good movies), "Happening" has not a damn thing in common with "The Birds".

Yes, it does. MNS stated that was the main inspiration of the film and it's clearly there. If you think you're more correct than a director's vision of a film, then more power to you. The films end on exactly the same note as well as having a ridiculous premise around nature attacking back at humans. Both hinge on the fact that there is no explanation to the events. If you can't see that, then I'm not going to say anything. Even critics noted the similarities, along with people who have seen the film. Lastly, let's not get off topic, shall we?


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 12:42pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Yes, it does. MNS stated that was the main inspiration of the film and it's clearly there. If you think you're more correct than a director's vision of a film, then more power to you. The films end on exactly the same note as well as having a ridiculous premise around nature attacking back at humans. Both hinge on the fact that there is no explanation to the events. If you can't see that, then I'm not going to say anything. Even critics noted the similarities, along with people who have seen the film. Lastly, let's not get off topic, shall we?
Yeah, but to quote "Spiral Tap", MNS took the ridiculous and turned it up 11 ... and beyond. Okay, now stopping being off topic.


-------------
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: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 12:46pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Yeah, but to quote "Spiral Tap", MNS took the ridiculous and turned it up 11 ... and beyond. Okay, now stopping being off topic.

Fair enough. Spinal*


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 1:04pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Better idea: DO NOT make the remake at all! Hey, how about we have a little poll? How long do you think it will be before they officially annouce that there will be a remake of "Gone With The Wind"?

I wish they didn't remake classics,but if there's going to be a remake of GONE WITH THE WIND no matter what,I'd rather they blend the first 3 hours into 1 hour or less,since the 4th hour it's the good one.
Originally posted by moviewizguy

I think the "Golden Gate" ending to The Birds would be depressing, actually. I liked the theatrical ending more, because it's less bleak.  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Given that the entire movie of THE BIRDS is arguably an apocalyptic vision of nature turning against man, the so-called "Golden Gate" ending would have been more in keeping with Hitchcock's original intent. MWG's argument sounds an awful lot like what Ol' Alfred must've heard from execs at Universal Studios when he first proposed this ending.

The ending they used ruined the whole movie!
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Originally posted by moviewizguy

You know why The Happening was a lot like The Birds? Because it was inspired by The Birds. The structure is the same: Event happens. Characters try to survive. No known explanation of the event. But then again, I don't see what that has to do with what I was saying.
So what you're saying is that every single disaster movie ever made is based on "The Birds". Because in all disaster movies, something happens and then characters try to survive. Other then that ingenius plot summary of yours (gotta love how he tries to compare M. Night movies with actual good movies), "Happening" has not a damn thing in common with "The Birds".

Since Hitchcock is his favorite director,a lot of Night's movies either have a similar plot or similar elements.There's also a lot of THE BIRDS in SIGNS:No explanations;people locked in their own attic/basements...


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 5:09pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Yeah, but to quote "Spiral Tap", MNS took the ridiculous and turned it up 11 ... and beyond. Okay, now stopping being off topic.

Fair enough. Spinal*
Wow, you took that surprisingly well. It seems any time MWG remains cool, Miguel loses his, and vica-versa.

-------------
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: cvcjr13
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 9:42pm
He took it well because you accidentally typed "Spiral Tap" instead of "Spinal Tap". . . .


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 9:56pm
Originally posted by cvcjr13

He took it well because you accidentally typed "Spiral Tap" instead of "Spinal Tap". . . .
Oh yes, because being off by one letter really makes my point less effective. As long as he understands what I'm saying, who cares?

-------------
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: Raze
Date Posted: September 28 2010 at 7:55am
This is probably the worst remake ever!! Iremember seeing the original N O E S and had nightmares for a week! Even Friday the 13:th was OK, this is pure crap! Long live Robert Englund, one of the scariest guys alive!!!!


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 28 2010 at 10:27pm
"The worst remake ever"??  That is some achievement, considering the thousand-mile-long list of bad remakes that have been made since remakes first came to be!

-------------
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: November 09 2010 at 3:22pm
This has been nominated for the People's Choice Awards for "Horror Movie".Should I be surprised?


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


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: November 09 2010 at 4:24pm
Considering their tastes are the exact opposite of the public, NO!

However, I do think this should at least be nominated for Worst Prequel, Sequel, Remake, or Rip-Off.

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: November 09 2010 at 8:19pm
Originally posted by Vits

This has been nominated for the People's Choice Awards for "Horror Movie".Should I be surprised?
It has "Nightmare On Elm Street" in the title. In the eyes of horror movie lovers, the actual quality doesn't matter so long as those words are in the title.

-------------
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 06 2010 at 12:32pm

This film is a nightmare in itself. The only scene I enjoyed from this terrible horror remake is the scene where Freddy is trying to recreate Bruce Banner becoming the Incredible Hulk by ripping his shirt and screaming in slow motion... †


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 06 2010 at 8:02pm
I guess you could call that sequence "The Incredible Sulk"?!?  

Originally posted by TheMovieCritic

 
This film is a nightmare in itself. The only scene I enjoyed from this terrible horror remake is the scene where Freddy is trying to recreate Bruce Banner becoming the Incredible Hulk by ripping his shirt and screaming in slow motion...  


-------------
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: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: March 17 2012 at 6:57pm
Time to finish off Platinum Dunes week with a massively boring remake of one of the greatest horror movies ever. Even though, it's not Platinum Dunes worst, it's the most infuriating because ANOES is the best movie they've ever fumbled.
 
The good:
 
Jackie Earle Haley: Haley is great as Freddy. Too bad about the rest of the movie.
 
Rooney Mara: The future Oscar nominee is good as Nancy.
 
The bad:
 
Kyle Gallner: He's pretty bad here. The fact that he survives the movie is infuriating.
 
The make-up: While it's not as bad as the make-up in Freddy's Dead, the make-up here is dismal. Apparantly, they wanted Freddy to look like an actual burn victim, but it just looks silly. It's acceptable to break from reality sometimes.
 
The script: The writing is very sloopy and the ending doesn't make any damn sense.
 
The ugly:
 
Samuel Bayer: Fun fact: Bayer directed Nirvana's seminal Smells Like Teen Spirit video. Other fun fact: Kurt Cobain hated the original video and re-did parts of it without him. So, he never had any talent to begin with. This explains this movie's poor direction.
 
Katie Cassidy: Katie Cassidy is one of the worst actresses currently working today. One of my former classmates was a stable-girl for Katie's dad, David. I told her to tell him that she can't act! Yes really.
 
I'm finally done with Michael Bay's desecrations of horror classics! Grade: C-
 
Next-up: Alvin And The Chipmunks 3!


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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 18 2012 at 8:24am
Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

Fun fact: Bayer directed Nirvana's seminal Smells Like Teen Spirit video. Other fun fact: Kurt Cobain hated the original video and re-did parts of it without him. So, he never had any talent to begin with.
That doesn't necessarily means he has no talent. Maybe Cobain was a diva.


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


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: March 18 2012 at 9:42am
What I meant was that the video that appeared on MTV was the one that Cobain re-did. I, also, checked his videography and the only other music videos that stood out where The Smashing Pumpkins' Bullet With Butterly Wings and Blind Melon's No Rain (a.k.a. the bee girl video). Link: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1207904/otherworks - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1207904/otherworks

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



Print Page | Close Window