Print Page | Close Window

a.k.a. THE RAZZIE® DIRTY HALF-DOZEN, PLUS...

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: 31st Annual RAZZIE® Award Nominees & "WINNERS"
Forum Name: THE EXPENDABLES
Forum Discription: Nominated for WORST DIRECTOR / Sylvester Stallone
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4364
Printed Date: December 21 2014 at 4:01pm


Topic: a.k.a. THE RAZZIE® DIRTY HALF-DOZEN, PLUS...
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: a.k.a. THE RAZZIE® DIRTY HALF-DOZEN, PLUS...
Date Posted: June 24 2010 at 10:04am

WE DON'T USUALLY POST the GRAPHIC at the TOP of OUR FORUM DISCUSSION PAGES, BUT THIS PARTICULAR IMAGE SPEAKS VOLUMES AS to WHY http://www.razzies.com/forum/the-expendables_forum444.html - ® CONTENDER COME JANUARY, 2011. 

WITH http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1320253/ - ISN'T ONE of 2010's MOST RAZZIE® NOMINATED TITLES. 

AND WHILE WE'RE on the SUBJECT, WE'D LIKE to CONGRATULATE SLY on a LIKELY COMEBACK as "THE RAZZIE® POSTER BOY." 

YO, SLY-STER -- WE ALWAZE KNEW YEW HAD IT INYA! 

SPECIAL EXPENDABLES TRIVIA QUESTION
WHAT's the TOTAL NUMBER of RAZZIE® NOMINATIONS and "WINS" THIS FILM'S MAKERS HAVE AMONG THEM??  

HERE's a http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic4368_post32185.html#32185 - to SEE the ANSWER...  



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



Replies:
Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: June 24 2010 at 1:29pm
Normally I'd be glad, since this seems like and "homage" to the '80s actions movies. But considering the guys in those movies are the same as in this one, maybe it's more of an attempt to bring back the genre?  



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


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: June 24 2010 at 2:00pm
I can't wait until winter 2011 to see how big a fight this one puts up for Worst Picture!

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


Posted By: Julianstark
Date Posted: June 24 2010 at 4:31pm
A friend and I have seen two different trailers for this movie and laughed throughout both of them. That being said, we look forward to riffing this movie as much as possible when it comes out

-------------
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: June 24 2010 at 5:01pm
Vits: It looks like Sly trying to unite the past, present, and future of action movie stars. Sadly, there's not been more than one great acting performance out of any of them.  
 
GTAHater: It's going to be a photo finish between this and "Vampire Sucks," unless "Killers" gets a surprise win.


-------------
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: Natendowii
Date Posted: July 07 2010 at 3:50pm
Ok, I'll admit it, I'm looking forward to this film. It'll be stupid, overblown, violent, and get Panned by pretty much everyone, but you know what? I'm going to see it anyway. I miss such old action films like "Commando" and "Rambo" which was all about being as badass as possible and shooting everything that moved, and that's what this film seems to be a callback to. I'm not accusing anyone of "Not Getting it", but those who love this film will love it, and those who hate it will hate it. Besides, I'd dare say that "The Last Racebender" and "Jonah Sux", along with "Killers" and Seltzerturd's next film are worse.

-------------
"In every Age,
In Every Place,
The Deeds of Man,
Remain the same."-Yoshiki Tanaka


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 07 2010 at 3:58pm
I wouldn't bet the rent on it...  

Originally posted by Natendowii

Besides, I'd dare say that "The Last Racebender" and "Jonah Sux", along with "Killers" and Seltzerturd's next film are worse.


-------------
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 6:11pm
I don't know, saturnwatcher, have you seen the trailer for "Vampires Suck" that was posted in the "The List" sub-forum? "Expendables" will have to be beyond stupid to compete with that...  

-------------
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: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 4:35pm
If you nominate this movie for even 1 Razzie... you're just pathetic... -.-


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 5:25pm
Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD

If you nominate this movie for even 1 Razzie... you're just pathetic... -.-
Well then, we must be pathetic, because chances are this movie WILL get at least one nod for something. Granted, I don't think it should win anything, because yes, giving it to Stallone would be played-out and cliched.

-------------
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: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 6:18pm
And also no respect for all the work Sly put in this movie !! Honnestly, it's already a shame that you've been Razzing him for the last 30 Nominations... Now it's time to stop guys, it's not cool anymore, it's not funny... It's stupid and cliched as you said! Sly is a great writer, actor and director and he will prove it with his upcoming movie about Allan Edgar Poe!
 
Oscars, be sure your seat belts are belted!!!
 
STALLONE, STALLONE, STALLONE!!!


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 6:29pm
Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD

And also no respect for all the work Sly put in this movie !! Honnestly, it's already a shame that you've been Razzing him for the last 30 Nominations... Now it's time to stop guys, it's not cool anymore, it's not funny... It's stupid and cliched as you said! Sly is a great writer, actor and director and he will prove it with his upcoming movie about Allan Edgar Poe!
 
Oscars, be sure your seat belts are belted!!!
 
STALLONE, STALLONE, STALLONE!!!
Yes, it is cliched to pick on the same guy for 30 years. I guess it's the Razzies' way of mocking the Oscars and their love of all things Meryl Streep. Stallone did get a "bye" a few years back for "Rambo 4", so be happy about that. But the Oscars are not strapping themseleves in for anything with this Edgar Allen Poe movie. Oh, the word is "honestly", with one "n".

-------------
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: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 6:35pm
I'm sure he will do a great movie with Poe! It's like, if The Departed won Best Picture Academy Award, I think Poe could get at least a nomination for Screenplay!


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 6:53pm
Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD

I'm sure he will do a great movie with Poe! It's like, if The Departed won Best Picture Academy Award, I think Poe could get at least a nomination for Screenplay!
Well, first people are going to have to see this movie before anyone can claim that its screenplay is Oscar material. Personally, I would love it for "Inception" to sweep the Oscars, but I know the voters don't really care for Nolan's mind-blowing plot twists and moody, unclear endings.

-------------
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: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 7:24pm
Too bad because Inception is such a great masterpiece!! :O It's for me a better version of The Matrix!


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 8:38pm
Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD

Too bad because Inception is such a great masterpiece!! :O It's for me a better version of The Matrix!
Exactly! It's what "The Matrix" could have been had it not completely RIPPED-OFF "Ghost In The Shell".

-------------
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: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 11:06pm
Ok Taron-rod, I want you to go back and read Natendowii's post about this movie cause he makes a solid argument on why this movie wont be a razzie contender, and why it probably wont be so bad, and he does it without slandering anybody, talking down to them, or just being an ass in general. Seriously go back and read it and take notes, his way "good", your way "doucheness" if you dont know what that means:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=doucheness - http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=doucheness

So remember the key is to not be a douche, and to try and not do posts like this

"
Oscars, be sure your seat belts are belted!!!
 
STALLONE, STALLONE, STALLONE!!!"




Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 11:32pm

*Here's my hunch: The RAZZIES just have to nominate Sylvester Stallone. They just can't let him go. My response: Bring out the Worst Ensemble Cast award so it won't only be SLY. Worst Actor should go to another of the Dozen.

*What is this Edgar Allen Poe adaptation anyway?
 
*And if Inception gets nominated for some Oscars, I'd be grateful, because they never nominate anything released before November!
 
UPDATE: Mayhem5185, you beat me to the punch. If The Expendables will be an old-style 198X-esque action movie... I can't be sure if today's audiences will like it like those of circa 1984, but we won't know until the middle of August.


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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 11:59pm
Not true.  Jason Statham gave two, in Guy Ritchie's excellent Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch.  Mind you, Statham has been slumming ever since, but at least he hasn't been nominated for a Razzie yet.   Now, as for Guy Ritchie, he can pick up his Razzie for Swept Away anytime he wants. . . .
 
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Vits: It looks like Sly trying to unite the past, present, and future of action movie stars. Sadly, there's not been more than one great acting performance out of any of them.  
 
GTAHater: It's going to be a photo finish between this and "Vampire Sucks," unless "Killers" gets a surprise win.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 21 2010 at 3:19pm
Hopefully, Warner Bros. will do like they did with "Dark Knight", and re-release Inception in December or January as a little reminder for the Oscar voters. 

-------------
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: July 23 2010 at 2:32pm
Back to the subject of Stallone and company, the Sly Guy blames "Batman" for why '80s action stars' careers went down the crapper.
 
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/movie-talk-sylvester-stallone-blames-batman.html - http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/movie-talk-sylvester-stallone-blames-batman.html
 
Gee, and here I thought '80s Action Stars' careers suffered because their movies were becoming too stupid and cliched, the action stars were to busy either jacking themselves up on 'roids or partying all the time, or the fact that they just didn't have the acting chops to have long-lasting career once their good looks vanished.


-------------
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: scoobs23
Date Posted: July 23 2010 at 6:36pm
He's not saying that the guys should 'roid it up, he's saying that now, directors are more concerned with the visual then actually making a concerted effort to connect with the audience. And with the exception of a few films, he's absolutely right. The Batman reference is more of an exaggeration on his part, but his point still stands.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 23 2010 at 7:26pm
When did Stallone ever make an effort to connect with anything but a very tiny audience? If he is complaining about ANYONE seriously damaging the action genre, he needs to take a good look in the mirror.

-------------
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 23 2010 at 8:27pm
No, I was saying that Stallone is pointing blame to the success of another movie, rather than point the blame to himself for his past mistakes (being a 1-D actor, possibly doing 'roids, choosing poor movies to star in, etc.). 

The only reason he should be blaming Batman is because directors were now choosing actors who could ... gasp! ... act!


-------------
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: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: July 24 2010 at 8:45am
I'm getting tired of you bashing on Stallone with no particular argument! Although, I don't really understand his blaming Batman either...Confused

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 24 2010 at 3:11pm
Our argument is that, although Stallone has been a successful actor, he has no real acting ability, has made an entire career playing the same two roles in every movie he has done, and has made many bad choices of which movies to star in. That is all we are saying. 

This blaming Batman thing is a silly way for him to point the blame at someone else for his own failings. His failings being that the 1-D, cookie-cutter action movies of the '80s were a fad that didn't last long, and he wasn't able to branch out into anything else.


-------------
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 24 2010 at 8:17pm
The VAST majority of true movie fans regard Stallone as a one trick pony. That trick was never wildly appealing, and got completely tired really fast. I realize that he has a small number of highly dedicated fans out there. If you are one of them, fine. There are movies that I enjoy which most people don't consider very good. My ego isn't swollen enough to assume that I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I simply confess that sometimes, my tastes are quirky enough to like something others consider bad.  



-------------
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: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: July 25 2010 at 6:20pm
As much as you guys want to bash this film, I must tell you that a number of Razzie supporters know about the Razzies' grudge against Sylvester Stallone and a lot of them are irritated.  If this film gets an RT percentage higher than 20% and still wins most of the Razzie awards, then the Razzies will probably lose those supporters.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 25 2010 at 6:39pm
1. If Expendables scores higher than 20%, it probably won't win many (if any) Razzies...  
 
2. Stallone has made his own bed. I can only speak for myself, but my votes are cast on the basis of what appears on the ballot and my own reaction to those films or performances. I honestly don't care what anyone thinks of the outcome. I suspect that most of the voting members have a very similar attitude. Anyone who wants to make their opinions known can express them freely on this board, and anyone who wants to participate in the process is free to pony up the membership fees.  


-------------
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 25 2010 at 7:24pm
If Stallone gets a nod for anything, he will have a 1 in 5 chance of "winning," same as everyone else. But we have 5 more months of movies to come out, you never know -- something truly unwatchable could still come out. Who knows, as bad as "The Expendables" might turn out to be, something far worse could sneak up from out of nowhere and put it to shame in terms of bad film-making!   

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

As much as you guys want to bash this film, I must tell you that a number of Razzie supporters know about the Razzies' grudge against Sylvester Stallone and a lot of them are irritated.  If this film gets an RT percentage higher than 20% and still wins most of the Razzie awards, then the Razzies will probably lose those supporters.


-------------
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: July 26 2010 at 10:29am
We've seen that happen. . . .
 
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurnWho knows, as bad as The Expendables might turn out to be, something far worse could sneak up from out of no where and put it to shame in terms of bad filmmmaking.[/QUOTE



Posted By: sharong
Date Posted: July 28 2010 at 3:02am
Too bad
Ouch



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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 2:33pm
3 of them made it into http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/2010/08/06/action-stars-who-arent-as-funny-as-mark-wahlberg/ - this list .

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 10:14pm
Well, as we all know, Jackie Chan is the funniest action movie star of all, seeing as how he injects comedy into his action movies ... and not by mistake.

-------------
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: August 11 2010 at 6:16am
Right now, the Expendables has an early score of 52% on RT (11 Fresh, 10 Rotten).  While it does have stars that have "won" numerous Razzies in the past (including Sly, of course), it seems that that is the only true thing going against the movie.  Jonah Hex looks more like the Razzie front-runner to me right now.  

Also, we are about a week away from Vampires Suck, and  we all know how Seltzerberg movies go.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 11 2010 at 8:41am
Let's not forget, with a whopping 8% approval at RT, and M. Night's history with the Razzies, "Last FartBender" is the biggest Razzie front-runner right now.  

-------------
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: August 11 2010 at 1:26pm
A concensus has been made: 

"It makes good on the old-school action it promises, but given all the talent on display, it should hit harder."  

So it's an average movie, not necessarily a bad one.  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I find it curious whenever a movie has a higher "approval number" at MetaCritic than it does at RT, since that is the inverse of what usually happens. And, as of 4pm/PST two daze before it is due to open, that is the case with EXPENDABLES -- It has a rating of 47% at RT ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_expendables/ - ) and a lower (though still not alarmingly low) 39% at Meta Critic ( http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-expendables/critic-reviews - ). Not sure if I wanna go with my gut on this one, but has anyone else noticed how promotional materials for EXPENDABLES have been all over RT for the last month or two? Could that maybe factor into their making this film one of The Berry Few that has a higher rating from them than it does from their rival (and perhaps the more reliable) site??  

Guess we'll all find out for ourselves when EXPENDABLES opens this weekend... 




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


Posted By: scoobs23
Date Posted: August 11 2010 at 8:22pm
Or it could be because Metacritic has only 6 reviews compared to the 30 plus reviews on RT.....


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 11 2010 at 9:29pm
But Last Airbender doesn't deserve to be the biggest Razzie front-runner. It's not nearly as bad as people are making it out to be. In fact, all other sites have generally decent ratings for the film. TLA ranked higher than MNS's last two films in the RT community score with an average rating of 5.7/10. Yahoo's user's rating is a C+, which is higher than The Happening's C-. Boxofficemojo's user's rating is a B-. Also, the film didn't drop off as hard as Lady in the Water and The Happening. It remained in the top 10 for 4 weeks, which is more than what many who hated the film would have expected. If it was really a horrible film, the film would not have made over $180 million as of today. Word of mouth would have killed the film. It didn't, so while you can use the 8% on RT as proof that it's a horrible film, it's not consistent with the other information that I just provided which again proves that critics are predisposed to not liking MNS's films since Lady in the Water. Here's an interesting article about TLA: http://www.heraldextra.com/lifestyles/article_2705cf4a-f939-5edc-948a-3f9e72475337.html - http://www.heraldextra.com/lifestyles/article_2705cf4a-f939-5edc-948a-3f9e72475337.html

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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 11 2010 at 9:45pm
MWG, the most meaningless numbers you possibly site are "community" or "fan" or "user" ratings, whatever the specific website chooses to call them. Reason #1: Very few people like to shell out 10 bucks + for a movie, then come home and say, "Wow, that sucked." Most people will try to justify their purchase somehow, or at least somewhat. Reason #2: Those ratings will be biased by people, such as yourself who will not, under any circumstances, admit that the movie was bad. Typically they are fans of the movie maker or specific actors in it, they have been looking forward to the release of the film, and they are not viewing it dispassionately.

-------------
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: August 11 2010 at 9:53pm
How do you know that? Word of mouth killed Bruno. When people see a bad film, they'll actually shout it out and say it's a bad film.  

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

MWG, the most meaningless numbers you possibly site are "community" or "fan" or "user" ratings, whatever the specific website chooses to call them. Reason #1: Very few people like to shell out 10 bucks + for a movie, then come home and say, "Wow, that sucked." Most people will try to justify their purchase somehow, or at least somewhat.


You can say the same about MNS haters who, such as yourself, will not, under any circumstances, admit that the movie was not as bad as people make it out to be. It goes both ways.  

Reason #2: Those ratings will be biased by people, such as yourself who will not, under any circumstances, admit that the movie was bad. Typically they are fans of the movie maker or specific actors in it, they have been looking forward to the release of the film, and they are not viewing it dispassionately.


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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 11 2010 at 10:00pm
I know it because it is a demonstrable fact. User ratings consistantly run higher than critical ratings. H.L. Menken recognized that decades ago when he quipped, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." The famous quote is sometimes erroneously attributed to P.T. Barnum who probably never said it, but got rich off the principle.  

How do you know that? Word of mouth killed Bruno. When people see a bad film, they'll actually shout it out and say it's a bad film.

Actually, there have been numerous occasions on this board where I have admitted that specific films weren't as bad as I expected them to be. If you are going to make charges of that nature, you better be prepared to substantiate them. In this case, I can destroy your claim with examples.  

You can say the same about MNS haters who, such as yourself, will not, under any circumstances, admit that the movie was not as bad as people make it out to be. It goes both ways.


-------------
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: Berrynoia
Date Posted: August 12 2010 at 5:51pm
Let's remember, the TomatoMeter doesn't predict front-runners.  

Last year, there were these three turds that did horrible with crix and viewers: Miss March, Draggin Ball Devolution, and Street Fighter: Chun Li.  Despite their failings, the only nomination among these was a Worst Supporting Actor nod for Hugh Hefner in Miss March.  And Trannies 2 had some positive reviews, more than the other three.

And even Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2 didn't "win" Razzies.  It has absolutely monstrous reviews, it constantly ranks at or near #1 on the IMDB Bottom 100, yet it was beaten by Catwoman and the "acting" politicians of Fahrenheit 9/11 (Dubya and Donald).


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 12 2010 at 8:07pm
This is true, but "FartBender" has something that those other movies didn't, a director/producer/writer with a rich history with the Razzies!  

Originally posted by Berrynoia


Let's remember, the TomatoMeter doesn't predict front-runners.

Last year, there were these three turds that did horrible with crix and viewers: Miss March, Draggin Ball Devolution, and Street Fighter: Chun Li.  Despite their failings, the only nomination among these was a Worst Supporting Actor nod for Hugh Hefner in Miss March.  And Trannies 2 had some positive reviews, more than the other three.

And even Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2 didn't "win" Razzies.  It has absolutely monstrous reviews, it constantly ranks at or near #1 on the IMDB Bottom 100, yet it was beaten by Catwoman and the "acting" politicians of Fahrenheit 9/11 (Dubya and Donald).


-------------
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: August 12 2010 at 8:59pm
Does this mean The Stale Air Bender is going to get nominated for Worst Picture?

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 12 2010 at 9:04pm
I'm saying it's a shoo-in to get a nod for Worst Picture. If it will actually win that award, I'm not too certain about... 

-------------
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: Sanndman228715
Date Posted: August 14 2010 at 11:36am
Mickey Rourke has given several really good performances, The Wrestler, Diner, Sin City, Rumble Fish, Body Heat. And Eric Roberts had Runaway Train and Star 80. 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I am unclear what the past track records of actors appearing in EXPENDABLES have to do with anything being discussed here. Every one of the actors in this film (with the possible exception of http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000185/ -


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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 14 2010 at 1:19pm
Aren't those cameos?

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 14 2010 at 1:42pm
Yeah, but mostly everything they have made outside of those movies has sucked.  

Originally posted by Sanndman228715

Mickey Rourke has given several really good performances, The Wrestler, Diner, Sin City, Rumble Fish, Body Heat. And Eric Roberts had Runaway Train and Star 80. 


-------------
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: rburton
Date Posted: August 14 2010 at 3:40pm
I am not wasting a single vote on The ExpendablesThe Last Fartbender, among a dozen others, is more "deserving."  I also have a feeling estrogen's response to The Expendables, titled Burlesque, will be a better Razzie choice anyway.

-------------
For Your Consideration

Dev Patel for WORST SUPPORTING ACTOR in The Last Fartbender


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 14 2010 at 5:36pm
Yeah, I suppose that like "Vampires Suck," "Expendables" may be just too easy to take pot shots at.

-------------
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: August 14 2010 at 5:47pm
But shooting The Expendables wouldn't be easy for me: It got around 40% positive reviews, which is "poor" on my scale. Definitely not something I want to put deeper than #20 on my Bottom 40.

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


Posted By: JoeBacon
Date Posted: August 14 2010 at 5:54pm
Head Razz, could the entire cast be nominated for Worst Actor a la the Jonas Brothers? Confused


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 14 2010 at 6:30pm
Yeah, it's because of reasons like this that I keep saying that we need a Worst Ensemble Cast category, because then so many other actors will get away scott-free. if the entire cast of this movie are listed individually for Worst Actor.

-------------
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: rburton
Date Posted: August 14 2010 at 7:50pm
I fear the Sex and the City ladies may be similarly grouped, when I think only Sarah Jessica Parker deserves the mention.  But hey, I'd take actual bad "acting" over a shoddy concert film winning any day.


-------------
For Your Consideration

Dev Patel for WORST SUPPORTING ACTOR in The Last Fartbender


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 14 2010 at 10:58pm
FYI: In Star 80, Eric Roberts plays the loser boyfriend who whacked Playboy model Dorothy Stratton before killing himself.  So, no, it wasn't a cameo. . .   
 
Originally posted by Vits

Aren't those cameos?


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


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: August 15 2010 at 10:14am
You guys are SO pathetic, you make me want to cry... -.-


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 15 2010 at 11:29am
I meant Roberts and Rourke have cameos in EXPENDABLE. Am I right?


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


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: August 15 2010 at 1:45pm
Maybe with your stupid opinion you think that this movie is a s***... but the Box-Office doesn't agree with you AT ALL! xD It's the number one movie at the box-office and I understand why... because it's full of superstars, big names... this movie is THE masterpiece of the year! Screw your stupid opinion guys, nobody agree with you but another stupid website like Rotten Tomatoes! People enjoy this movie, if you are too stupid to enjoy that doesn't mean that movie is bad!


Posted By: Julianstark
Date Posted: August 15 2010 at 2:31pm
I gave this movie a fair try, and it really is terrible. Is it the worst movie of 2010 so far? Considering the awful movies that have come out this year, I'm not sure if it can hold that title.

For what it's worth, I was expecting strong action sequences and nothing more. I didn't even get that. Roughly less than one-third of the movie is action-oriented. Stallone was absolutely wretched in it; the only performances that weren't horrid came from Statham, Rourke, and (more or less) Li, and they were just decent.

Here's what I could see it getting nominated for:
Worst Picture
Worst Director (Sylvester Stallone)
Worst Actor (Stallone)
Worst Supporting Actor (Dolph Lundgren)
Worst Supporting Actor (Arnold Schwarzenegger)
Worst Supporting Actor (Bruce Willis)
Worst Ensemble (if such a category is introduced?)
Worst Screen Couple (Stallone and anyone on screen with him?)
Worst Screenplay

-------------
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: August 15 2010 at 3:46pm
My words, someone hasn't gotten the memo that box office does not mean great movie?  http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm - Trannies II holds the record for tenth biggest gross at the U.S. box office of all time (unadjusted for inflation).  Does that mean it's a great movie?  I hope you say no.  
 
Just because a movie outsold all others at the box office doesn't mean it's a great movie.  It just means the studio marketers did their jobs.  

Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD

Maybe with your stupid opinion you think that this movie is a s***... but the Box-Office doesn't agree with you AT ALL! xD It's the number one movie at the box-office and I understand why... because it's full of superstars, big names... this movie is THE masterpiece of the year! Screw your stupid opinion guys, nobody agree with you but another stupid website like Rotten Tomatoes! People enjoy this movie, if you are too stupid to enjoy that doesn't mean that movie is bad!
 
 


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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 15 2010 at 5:05pm
What's the point of having a "Worst Ensemble/Cast" award, if a lot of times "Worst Couple" nominates the lead and anyone else in a film? There's also times when they nominate "any pair" of characters...  


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 15 2010 at 5:15pm
Taran: Wow, yeah, it made $35 million -- good for it! Chances are it's going to drop to half that by next week. Yeah, it's full of big names, but in case you haven't been noticing, that seems to be a new gimmick on Hollywood to distract from the fact the movie as a whole sucks. "Masterpiece of the year", boy, your standards must be pretty damn low to consider this a "masterpiece" of any sort. But hey, if you want to turn your brain off and just stare at the screen, worshipping your hero Stallone, your judgment clouded by your childhood memories of "Rocky," and you refuse to listen to the opinions of people who actually know what a good movie is ... well then, have at it, hoss, it's your money that you're pissing away!

-------------
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: August 15 2010 at 5:29pm
Hey, BHB, I'm feeling it will drop by more than half next weekend.  I'm feeling The Expendables' box office next weekend will be more than two thirds off its opening weekend. 


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 15 2010 at 5:39pm
If you're going to take a short cut to just declare the lead star and everyone that shares the screen with him/her at any given moment the worst couple, you might as well just come up with Worst Cast instead. And it just makes sense with the current trend of movies featuring "all-star" casts, and it would free the solo acting catagories from short cuts like listing five actors or five actresses from the same film as Worst Actor or Worst Actress.


-------------
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: August 15 2010 at 5:50pm
So true -- big box office doesn't mean good movie. As stated elsewhere on the forum, just because it's a hit, that doesn't mean it isn't s***. Not to mention "Trannies 2" won the big top awards of Worst Picture/Director/Screenplay (and Peter Travers' worst Movie/Director of the Year/Decade Awards).  
 
As for "Expendables" and its take for next week, can a movie really go from $35 million to just $5 million?! Well, if any movie could, this is the one!  


-------------
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: August 15 2010 at 5:54pm
Two thirds, BHB, two thirds.  I feel, because of bad word of mouth, it's going to rake in $12 to $13 million next week instead of $35 million like it did its opening week.


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: August 15 2010 at 5:56pm
Twilight Saga are the worst movies of all time and the third one should take ALL the Razzies!

If s***s like Twilight Saga Eclipse scores so much at the box-office, then I hope such a masterpiece should score at least some other weeks... or I lose hope for humanity! And by the way you're always movies and actors who have success just thinking about First Blood part. 2 one of the biggest box-office success of all time that won Worst Picture... It's pathetic! I personaly don't find Rambo II a good movie but it is good entertainment! 
 
And anyway I'm not even American and I'm here defending an AMERICAN icon (AMERICANS!!!! Wake the hell up!!!). Jesus, I cannot believe this...
 
Stallone ftw, best actor of all time, The Expendables, best movie of the year by far!!
 
And lol, lol, lol someone here said that Statham gave a desent performance and he is one of the worst actor of all time... and never even got a Razzie nomination (Crank... WTF???)... that makes you guys just less credible!!


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 15 2010 at 6:03pm
True, half of $35 million is $17.5 million, so $12 million would be even more insulting ... but $5 million would just be laugh out loud funny!  

Originally posted by cvcjr13

Two thirds, BHB, two thirds.  I feel, because of bad word of mouth, it's going to rake in $12 to $13 million next week instead of $35 million like it did its opening week.


-------------
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: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: August 15 2010 at 6:07pm
In all fact, I find all the actors (except of course Stallone, Willis and Rourke who all three are just great) in this movie usually just awful... I'd say that they're all at the same low level with Steven Seagal, Chuck Norris and JCVD... But well we could make an exception!


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 15 2010 at 6:10pm
Okay, TaRaN-RoD --  I have been debating with another mindlessly loyal Stallone fanboy about this, but I guess someone wasn't paying attention, so I guess I'll have to repeat myself: Just because Stallone's character, Rocky, is a pop culture icon, that doesn't mean Stallone is an artist not is everything he touches a masterpiece. If you really think Stallone is the greatest actor of all time and "Expendables" is the best movie of the year, then you need to get out more and see more movies, because those statements are just plain sad, considering there are much better movies like "Toy Story 3" and "Inception" out there.

-------------
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: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: August 15 2010 at 8:34pm
Yeah of course -- and Dave Foley is the greatest actor of all time,  is that it?  

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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 7:55am
First of all, TaRaN-RoD, while it is true that this movie led box-offices grosses over the weekend, it's take was a paltry $35 million. There have been several weeks this summer when an opening like that would have barely cracked the top 5. Second, if you really think that box-office is a measure of quality, your rant against the Twilight series falls apart pretty quickly. Every movie in that series has put up opening numbers that slaughtered The Expendables opening. In fact, the final gross for the Expendables probably won't come close to the opening weekend for any one of those movies.
 
Last, but not least, I hope you are paying attention to THIS mwg, whereever you are: Based upon overal critical reaction, The Expendables isn't very good, but it isn't one of ours. Let's move on.  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I had the bizarre experience this weekend of seeing EXPENDABLES and INCEPTION back-to-back -- And I gotta say, while INCEPTION is utterly brilliant, EXPENDABLES is the personification of how modern Hollywood seems to be working to keep The RAZZIES alive. Its pandering storyline, stick figure characters, explosions going off like clockwork, idiotic macho dialogue and heinous direction/editing (half the time you can't even see, let alone understand, who or what you're looking at) all combine for an experience only a testosterone OD'd 11 year old boy could even claim was movie-making. 

EXPENDABLES "isn't one of ours"???  I guess we'll find out when http://razzies.com/join.asp -


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 8:00am
Oh, we could still rag on it because it should have been far, far better, but you're right, Saturnwatcher.  This movie isn't bad enough for us, as surprising as it is to say that.  This opens things up for Twilight, The Wolfman, Jonah Hex, Vampire Sucks and other movies to claim the crown.  Or should I say "to get crowned"? . . .


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 10:44am
I don't know...

Could be.  

Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD

Dave Foley is the greatest actor of all time,  is that it?


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 11:33am
I'm sorry, is there supposed to be a point to the comment below, because I can't find one...  

Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD

Yeah of course -- and Dave Foley is the greatest actor of all time,  is that 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: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 11:35am
And yet, I'm sure MWG will come swooping in with his trademark "6 out of 10" any day now. Funny, saturnwatcher of all people saying a Stallone movie isn't "one of ours". What is the world coming to?!

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

 
Last, but not least, I hope you are paying attention to THIS mwg, whereever you are: Based upon overal critical reaction, The Expendables isn't very good, but it isn't one of ours. Let's move on.


-------------
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: August 16 2010 at 1:07pm
"Awl-Time Cham Peen" or not, this movie is merely average, just like Rambo IV in 2008. As usual, I'd recommend just one nomination; this time for either Worst Supporting Actor or Worst Ensemble Cast. But just one request: I implore the voters. Do not single out Sylvester Stallone. Again, I don't think he's great, even in this movie, but there are worse actors...

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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 2:23pm
Sly said he has an idea for a sequel...already?!
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

And yet, I'm sure MWG will come swooping in with his trademark "6 out of 10" any day now.
I prefer he considers most movies average that bad.It gives him less chances to giving a movie the wrong rating.
Originally posted by GTAHater767

"Awl-Time Cham Peen" or not, this movie is merely average, just like Rambo IV in 2008.
RAMBO IV had bad reviews.It's confusing since ROCKY VI's reviews were better than II.
Originally posted by GTAHater767

But just one request: I implore the voters. Do not single out Sylvester Stallone. Again, I don't think he's great, even in this movie, but there are worse actors...
That's the same reason why Adam Sandler was nominated alone for the Teen Choice Award for "Choice Summer Movie Actor":This movies may have ensemble casts but there's still a clear lead.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 3:20pm
I think GTAHater might "Rocky VI", but she got her Roman numbers wrong. Well, if anything, the Worst Ensemble Cast should be heavily considered for this movie, as well as others like "Grown-Ups", "Valentine's Day", and others.

-------------
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: August 16 2010 at 3:38pm
I might what Rocky VI?! And I was pretty sure I had the right Roman numerals for the 2008 Rambo movie. It was also known as "Rambo 4", IIRC. And what do you think of my assessment that Rambo IV was merely average?

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 4:19pm
Oh, "Rambo 4"! Yeah, people hated it here, but it was saved by competing with the likes of "Love Guru," "The Happening," Uwe Boll and Seltzer-Berg.   



-------------
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: August 16 2010 at 5:28pm
Then what's to say that Vampires Suck, The Bounty Hunter, Grown-Ups, The Stale Air Bender, and Jonah Hex won't outstink The Expendables?  

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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 7:08pm
At this point, nothing.
 
I'm actually disappointed that this movie was merely disappointing. . . .
 


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 8:24pm
When John Rambo received better critical response than expected, I made precisely the same observation. It was one of half a dozen or more cases where I have suggested that we look for better fish to fry when our initial suspicions about upcoming movies have turned out to be offbase. MWG made the claim that it has never happened, but I'm even willing to give Stallone his due when appropriate.  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

And yet, I'm sure MWG will come swooping in with his trademark "6 out of 10" any day now. Funny, saturnwatcher of all people saying a Stallone movie isn't "one of ours". What is the world coming to?!


-------------
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: DaveThePhotoGuy
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 3:02am
Seriously guys...when the time comes you can't vote this as one of The Razzies' Worst Picture  nominees for 2010. At least this movie isn't pretending to be something it's not.  
 
A few movies that have classed themselves as "comedies" and not come close:  
 
"The Bounty Hunter," "Killers," "Furry Vengance," "Vampires Suck" & "Death at a Funeral" (the remake). 
 
So please guys don't vote for it just because you should there are far more deserving movies out there. 
 
I know it isn't a comedy but you get where I am coming from here. 

This film promises to be an action movie like we remembered from the 80's, and you guys and gals
remember how much we liked those?
 
Try to remember the films that promised something and did not deliver.


-------------
I think they kinda sound like Depeche Mode


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 1:05pm
Are you saying only comedies should be nominated?

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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 11:00pm
As far as receiving a Worst Picture nomination, this film is almost certainly out of danger. I could forsee Head Razz including it in a few acting categories on the preliminary ballot, but it is probably going to be overwhelmed by the competition.


-------------
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: August 19 2010 at 9:34am
If the comedies aren't being funny, but the action movies are delivering the action, I guess the former failed in their goals, and the latter did what they set out to do. So yeah, the comedies are setting the pace for the next Razzies.  

-------------
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: August 19 2010 at 12:37pm
So far, a measly three action movies (The Stale Air Bender, Jonah HeX, and Killers) have set the standard for suckage in 2010. Bad comedies (Grown-Ups, Vampires Suck) and particularly the romantic ones (including the "anti-romantic" comedy The Bounty Hunter) will shape the 2010 RAZZIES most, from what I can tell.  

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 19 2010 at 3:05pm
Yeah, you pretty much listed what I consider the six major contenders so far.

-------------
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: Galbert
Date Posted: August 30 2010 at 4:21am
To be honest, I don't see why The Expendables should even be nominated... of course, it isn't a good movie by any means, and compared to something like Inception it definitely falls behind. But, to be honest, just because there is no plot doesn't mean it's the worst that could have happened: I prefer Steven Seagal brawling mooks for reasons of his own over Steven Seagal preaching about the environment, and although I like Bruce Willis killing terrorists because "he's in the wrong place at the wrong time", I cannot stand him digging a hole to set off a nuclear device on an asteroid.

As far as I'm concerned, there are three categories of action-movie plots:

1.) Some action movies manage to actually come up with a fairly intelligent story that does not only serve as an excuse for special effects orgies, but drives the whole film as a consistent and stringent way to connect one scene and another. The action serves the dramaturgy, not the other way around. A good recent example for this would be Inception.

2.) Some action movies don't bother with a plot. "Arnie gets angry and invades a third-world-country" or "Jackie enters a martial arts tournament" is as deep as it gets. While this kind of story is just a lousy excuse for explosions and ass-kicking, it has such a minimum of impact on the movie that at least it doesn't disturb the violence. This is the category of movies like The Expendables.

3.) Finally, there are action movies that try hard to come up with a storyline, but fail miserably. Even though there is a plot, it is so obscure that it's intellectually insulting. Although a majority of the screen-time is devoted to explaining the how, the audience never stops wondering why. This category currently is in the firm grip of Michael Bay...

In a perfect world, every action movie would fall in the first category. But since the second category movies are merely shallow, while the third type movies bear the risk of severe brain damage, how about reserving the razzies for those?


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 30 2010 at 7:54am
It seems most of the people who post on this board have moved on from The Expendables.  It looked at first like it would be a Razzie gift from heaven, but it turned out to just not be bad enough.  So, don't worry about it.  We've got other movies to fry.
 
Or is it we've got other movies that are fried?  I could never keep these things straight. . . .
 


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 30 2010 at 1:43pm
Here's Wikipedia's take on action movie sub-genres:
 
Action comedy

A sub-genre involving action and /wiki/Humor - humor . #cite_note-Sarno3-5-1 - [2] The sub-genre became a popular trend in the 1980s when actors who were known for their background in comedy such as /wiki/Eddie_Murphy - Eddie Murphy , began to take roles in action films. The action scenes within the genre are generally lighthearted and rarely involve death or serious injury. #cite_note-amgActionComedy-2 - [3] Comedy films such as /wiki/Dumb_%26_Dumber - Dumb & Dumber and /wiki/Big_Mommas_House - Big Momma's House that contain action-laden sub-plots are not considered part of the genre as the action scenes have a more integral role in action comedies. #cite_note-Sarno3-5-1 - [2] Examples of action comedies include /wiki/The_Blues_Brothers_%28film%29 - The Blues Brothers (1980), /wiki/48_Hrs. - 48 Hrs. (1982), /wiki/Midnight_Run - Midnight Run (1988), /wiki/Bad_Boys_%281995_film%29 - Bad Boys (1995), /wiki/Rush_Hour_%28film%29 - Rush Hour (1998), and /wiki/Charlies_Angels_%28film%29 - Charlie's Angels (2000). #cite_note-Sarno3-5-1 - [2] #cite_note-amgActionComedy-2 - [3]

Die Hard scenario

The story takes place in limited location - a single building, plane, or vessel - which is seized or under threat by enemy agents, but are opposed by a single hero who fights an extended battle within the location using stealth and cunning to attempt to defeat them. This sub-genre began with the film /wiki/Die_Hard - Die Hard but has become popular in Hollywood movie making both because of its crowd appeal and the relative simplicity of building sets for such a constrained piece. These films are sometimes described as "Die Hard on a...". #cite_note-3 - [4] #cite_note-4 - [5] Among the many films that have copied this formula are /wiki/Under_Siege - Under Siege #cite_note-hero-5 - [6] (terrorists take over a ship), /wiki/Speed_%281994_film%29 - Speed #cite_note-6 - [7] (Die Hard on a bus), /wiki/Under_Siege_2:_Dark_Territory - Under Siege 2: Dark Territory #cite_note-7 - [8] and /wiki/Derailed_%282002_film%29 - Derailed (hostages are trapped on a train), /wiki/Sudden_Death_%28film%29 - Sudden Death #cite_note-HardStuff-8 - [9] (terrorists take over an Ice Hockey stadium), /wiki/Passenger_57 - Passenger 57 , #cite_note-hero-5 - [6] /wiki/Executive_Decision - Executive Decision #cite_note-HardStuff-8 - [9] and /wiki/Air_Force_One_%28film%29 - Air Force One #cite_note-hero-5 - [6] (hostages are trapped on a plane), /wiki/Con_Air - Con Air (criminals take over a transport plane), and /wiki/Half_Past_Dead - Half Past Dead and /wiki/The_Rock_%28film%29 - The Rock #cite_note-HardStuff-8 - [9] (criminals or terrorists take over a prison). /wiki/Paul_Blart:_Mall_Cop - Paul Blart: Mall Cop is a recent spoof of these movies.

Girls with guns

This sub-genre of films and animation, especially /wiki/Hong_Kong_action_films - Hong Kong action films and /wiki/Anime - anime , uses a /wiki/Female - female /wiki/Protagonist - protagonist in a strong lead /wiki/Role - role , set in a /wiki/Modern_era - modern context. The genre involves /wiki/Gun_fu - gun-play , /wiki/Stunt - stunts and /wiki/Martial_arts - martial arts action. Some of the best known female fighters are /wiki/Angela_Mao - Angela Mao Ying , /wiki/Cheng_Pei-pei - Cheng Pei-pei , /wiki/Moon_Lee - Moon Lee , /wiki/Michelle_Yeoh - Michelle Yeoh , /wiki/Zhang_Ziyi - Zhang Ziyi and /wiki/Cynthia_Rothrock - Cynthia Rothrock . European and US films with female protagonists include /wiki/Nikita_%28film%29 - Nikita (1990); /wiki/Lara_Croft:_Tomb_Raider - Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001); and /wiki/Kill_Bill - Kill Bill (2003/2004).

Heroic bloodshed

This Hong Kong sub-genre revolves around dramatic themes such as brotherhood, honor, redemption and the effects of violence on the individual and society at large. It often features stylized shootouts with slow-motion scenes of barrages of gun fire with large-caliber automatic pistols.

Of course, each sub-genres has its strengths and weaknesses, and can be broken down into the three types of action movies that Galbert mentioned.


-------------
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: Sanndman228715
Date Posted: September 02 2010 at 2:23pm
Hey, HeadRazz, sorry for the late response, I was pointing out that Rourke and Roberts had given more than one good performance, because I thought I read that someone had posted that every actor in the film has "Only" given one good performance, sorry about the confusion. I still haven't seen the movie yet, as money is tight and I'm waiting for Machete.


Posted By: ziesha
Date Posted: November 08 2010 at 4:40am
You must be kidding, because i really liked this movie!

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


Posted By: Jennifar
Date Posted: January 31 2011 at 11:08am
Considering the guys in those movies are the same as in this one, maybe it's more of an attempt to bring back the genre? 


Posted By: Jennifar
Date Posted: February 25 2011 at 6:13am
Normally I'd be glad, since this seems like and "homage" to the '80s actions movies. But considering the guys in those movies are the same as in this one.


Posted By: Julio_Leon
Date Posted: May 06 2011 at 6:35am
Yeah, I guess I have to agree with you Jen.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: May 06 2011 at 11:47am
Actually,I said that(go to the previous page).

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



Print Page | Close Window