Print Page | Close Window

a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!?

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: DISCUSSIONS & POLLS on 2010 RELEASES
Forum Name: PREDATORS
Forum Discription: Striking Yet Another Blow for NON-Originality in 2010 Movie Fare...
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4405
Printed Date: July 29 2014 at 3:44am


Topic: a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!?
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: a.k.a. BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE?!?
Date Posted: July 02 2010 at 12:57pm
MANY a MOVIE FRANCHISE HAS DIED of NATURAL CAUSES WHEN AUDIENCES LOST INTEREST in SEEING THEM CONTINUE -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093773/movieconnections -

IN a YEAR CHOCK FULL of UN-NECESSARY, UTTERLY UN-ORIGINAL and UN-INTERESTING PRODUCT, http://www.razzies.com/forum/predators_forum447.html -
AS for the SPECIFIC INDICATORS THAT THIS FILM IS a LIKELY RAZZIE® CONTENDER: IT TOP-LINES http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004778/awards - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004778/awards - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004778/awards - and ITS http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0370263/awards -
SO...HOW MANY MORE UN-CALLED FOR, UN-WELCOME, UN-SUCCESSFUL FOLLOW-UPS, RIP-OFFs and "HOMAGES" CAN HOLLYWOOD POSSIBLY UN-LEASH DURING the REST of 2010? THE ANSWER to THAT MAY BE the SCARIEST THING the INDUSTRY COMES UP WITH THIS YEAR...



ADRIEN BRODY: OSCAR® WINNER...UNDERWEIGHT 
WUSS...and BERRY UNLIKELY ACTION MOVIE HERO!  




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



Replies:
Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: July 02 2010 at 1:29pm
They say Adrien Brody weighs 120 lbs (I weigh 130), and is not convincing with a rifle. This film is just another prolonging of Hollywood's worst new trends...

-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags 8; TMNT '014. Ags 13; Let's Be Cops. Ags 15; The Giver, The Expendables 3. Ags 29; Jessabelle


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 02 2010 at 1:52pm
People bitched and moaned when Danny Glover starred in the second "Predator" movie. Personally, I'd rather have him in an action movie than the guy who played the village idiot in "The Village". I mean come-on, we're suppose to believe that Brody belongs with a team of cutthroats and killers, and somehow he might outlast all of them at the end of the movie? WTF?!  
 
Now, if this movie's makers had some balls, they would pit the Predators vs. the cast of the Expendables. Yes, that movie would still be s***, but at least then it would be helluva more interesting and exciting than when you have the alien hunters vs. a whose-who of non-action heroes! But no, that's not what we're getting here.  
 
Damnit, Hollywood, why must you rape the corpses of dead movies and movie series that should remain dead? What's next, a reboot of "Faster, Pussycats! Kill, Kill!" Why not, I just found out there's a remake in the works of "I Spit On Your Grave"!


-------------
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: July 02 2010 at 4:48pm
This movie looks very good. And Adrian Brody looks tough.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 02 2010 at 5:05pm
No, MWG, Brody looks like a 120 lb. man pretending to look tough. 

Man, you're too easily sold -- telemarketers must love you! 


-------------
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 02 2010 at 6:46pm
I have an idea: Suppose we pit the creatures from Predator...against the creatures from Alien...aboard the Titanic!  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I hope no executives from Fox see this post -- Since they own all three franchises you mentioned, they might actually consider making such a monstrosity!  

BTW: Not sure if its was merely an Internet rumor, but I heard recently that Fox is working on a direct-to-DVD "sequel" to TITANIC...


-------------
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 02 2010 at 7:08pm
Shhh ... if you listen carefully, you can actually hear a Hollywood studio exec planning to pitch that very idea during a "creative" meeting ....

-------------
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: July 02 2010 at 7:57pm
I actually kinda like the mechanics they're going for here --  They're making it feel like a survival test/game, and they're trying to make it interesting for the current generation.  It's not so much a sequel, but a remake of the first film.  The difference is that the characters were chosen for a survival test/game on an alien planet, and not on a military mission in South America. 
 
And Burn, would you stop talking about Hollywood's 'originality shortage'?  You've talked about it enough times for us to get your biased mindset.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 02 2010 at 8:21pm
Oh yes, my "biased mindset." 

How dare I talk about Hollywood being unoriginal in a forum that is devoted to mocking Hollywood for being unoriginal ... BECAUSE IT'S TRUE. 

Maybe I should be more productive and express my "biased mindset" against "Twilight" instead??  


-------------
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: July 02 2010 at 9:41pm

Well, what you say is not completely true. ..Hollywood does have a shortage of original ideas, but you make it sound like they're actually trying to ruin people's memories.  Well, guess what?  THEY'RE NOT, SO Censored OFF!  



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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 02 2010 at 9:49pm
wow...the heat must be making people cranky tonight LOL


-------------
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 02 2010 at 10:01pm
Of course not. It's not like Hollywood is hell bent on taking every single movie, TV series, cartoon, and toy line from 30 years ago and turning all of them into stupid, unwatchable pieces of s*** that critics and fans almost universally hate, hoping they will make a quick and easy buck for the studios. Oh, no, wait, THEY ARE!  

Is this is the part when you say how I'm "heartless" and "should have faith in Hollywood"??  

Maybe I should change my gimmick up a bit. Like instead of ranting about Hollywood being unoriginal, maybe I'll rant about...I don't know, the music business being full of talentless hacks who only sell records (or is it downloads?) because of their images? NAH!


-------------
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: Movie Man
Date Posted: July 03 2010 at 12:04pm
We'll have to wait and see the reviews on this one. From what I read and hear about this, 20th Century Fox hired Robert Rodriguez to pen a script for this in 1994. The script was well-recieved, as he harkened back to what made the first "Predator" so successful, but Fox scrapped the idea and went to release the sh*tty AVP movies instead. The movie is called "Predators" because it's like a sequel to "Alien" was called "Aliens", and iit also has a double-meaning in both species are hunting each other.

Now somebody at Fox went back into their vault and pulled this out. So who knows, judging from the trailers, this might be the resurrection this series needs. It might've been a smart decision on somebody over at Fox's part. Hey, it won't rise to the level of "Batman Begins" or "Casino Royale" in terms of series reboots, but we'll see what happens.


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: July 03 2010 at 1:53pm
I repeat: Hollywood is not trying to ruin people's memories.  If you really think that Hollywood is trying to ruin people's memories, then you are paranoid, cynical...and stupid.  

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 03 2010 at 2:16pm
 Okay, so let me get this straight. People watch a certain movie, or TV series during their childhood some 20+ years ago. They have fond memories of this movie or TV series, and enjoy watching it on DVD, or discussing the show with friends, or even passing it down to their children. It's a fixture of their lives, at one point or another.
 
Then along comes Hollywood, with its greed and lack of unoriginally. They see the movie or TV series from the past and how successful it was, they figure it still has a fan base and so they are going to do a remake to the movie, or an adaptation of the TV series. But Hollywood doesn't want it make the movie in a way that's loyal to the original. No, they feel they have to change it around to suit their liking. They have to make dumb, or campy.
 
Then the movie comes out and the people who held the old movie or TV series in their hearts go to see it. It sucks, it's NOTHING like the movie or TV series of yester-year. The fans are pissed that the studios took such huge liberties with something they once held dear. And now because of this s*** movie, the fans can no longer look at their once favorite movie or TV series ever again because in their eyes, it has been ruined forever.
 
THAT is what I'm talking about! I'm not saying studio heads are stroking their beards like evil masterminds, plotting which old movie or TV series from the 1980s to ruin next, but in that end, that's what they are doing. Maybe when they start doing remakes of stuff from the 1990s that you held dear as a child, you might understand.


-------------
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: July 03 2010 at 3:36pm
Everything you just said above is a lie.  Hollywood is not trying to ruin people's memories.  Your Rush Limbaugh mentality is preventing you from seeing that.  What's more is that you believe the lies in MPC's 'moviepocalypse' theory.  The truth is that Hollywood is making these remakes, sequels, and other revivals for a new generation so that they can enjoy it and fans of the original can welcome it.  You and MPC don't give an inch to any of these revivals and stereotype every one of them as bad.  The makers do not intend these revivals to be bad, but some of them do turn out to be bad (and the problem isn't always the movie's relationship with the original).

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 03 2010 at 4:20pm
And I'm back to being Rush Limbaugh, again. And wow, what a fantasy world Miguel lives in! Hollywood is recycling all these old movies for "the enjoyment of a new generation". HAHAHAHA! Hollywood doesn't give a flying f*** about the new generation, all they care about is making money, and doing so with as minimal effort as possible. Sure, the makers don't intend for the revivals to be bad, but 9 times out of 10, they turn out to be bad. We're right in the middle of the "moviepocalypse" as we speak -- this year is proof of it, with every movie being a remake of or sequel to something from the 80s, and almost every one of them has sucked so far. 

Miguel -- Why are you in such denial about this?


-------------
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: July 03 2010 at 5:35pm

You are the one living in the fantasy world, BHB!  You're too prejudiced to look on the bright side of these revivals.  You should be placed in an asylum for believing the lies of another bigot.  You should see these movies and form your own opinion, but you always pan the revivals even before they come out.  You have no heart, no soul, and no open mindedness.  You and MPC are the worst film critics in the world because you always shun the revivals and stereotype every one of them as bad.  


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Yo, Miguel -- Please dispense with the use of epithets like "you jerk" (which I just edited out of this post). If you cannot make your point without resorting to insults, then your point seems less valid to anyone trying to appraise it from an unbiased perspective. Again, let's all try to maintain some degree of civility in our posts here...



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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 03 2010 at 6:09pm
Hey, I'll be the first to admit that there are a few (keyword: FEW) exceptions to this reboot/remake/sequel craze that Hollywood is in right. Nolan's versions of Batman are few superior than the original four movies. The new "Karate Kid", good for what it is, but still not as good in its storytelling and character development aspects. And hell, even "Toy Story 3" is blowing everyone away. But it stops there. When you can only name one or two good examples out of hundreds of remade movies, the track record speaks for itself.
 
And frankly, you come across as a HUGE hypocrite, you do know that, right. He you are, claiming that I am the spawn of Satan for saying Hollywood remakes suck 9 times out of 10, and they are inferior to the originals, and yet you are a paying and voting memember of a forum that posts in the begining of each sub-forum about how they are devoted to bashing Hollywood remakes for being bad 9 times out of 10. So in other words, you're saying that everyone who posts here is a heartless, soulless, closed mind "bigot" ... INCLUDING yourself. Nice.
 
And let's not forget, here you are claiming I'm sterotyping these movie, yet aren't you the one who makes lists of movies in your Bottom 20 BEFORE you even better to SEE them? Not to mention how you declare anything with the name "Twilight" in the title as the worst movie coming out all year. So don't be whining and complaining about my posting habbits and opinions, considering your's are no different.


-------------
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: July 03 2010 at 10:49pm

You have a point there.  I have a strong dislike for Twilight and you have a strong dislike for remakes/reboots/revivals.  Just one slight correction here: This forum is not only dedicated to bashing Hollywood remakes for being bad most of the time, but it's dedicated to bashing almost all movies, original or not, for being bad most of the time.  I guess I'm just as stubborn as you are.  Truce?



Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 04 2010 at 10:09am
Yeah, truce...   

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: OMG, might peace have broken out in the midst of an angry war of words??  

It's not like I'm out to get you,Miguel. I just have a strong disagreement with your opinion about the current state of movies. Yes, this forum is dedicated to bashing all bad movies, original or not, but we first and foremost go after movies that we see as being uncalled remakes/sequels, which is what all these "revivals" are. You like to say studios are making these remakes for a new generation. I (and many Razzies members) see it as taking good, classic, smart movies, and dumbing it and watering it down.


-------------
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 04 2010 at 9:00pm
I hope "peace" has not "broken out" on our Forum...Hollywood's output certainly isn't entertaining me these days, so I come here for amusement! LOL 



-------------
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 05 2010 at 5:18am
You're welcome, saturnwatcher.  

And head RAZZberry, it's not so much an "angry war" as it is Miguel buzzing around like a fly in my ear, and me repeatedly just swatting him 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: Vits
Date Posted: July 06 2010 at 4:01pm
He wasn't an idiot - He was mentally challenged. A lot of retarded people commit crimes because they don't know what they're doing. Why else would he try to kill the girl he loves?
 
Also, what team?  Did you pay attention to the movie, or did you just watch it to make fun of Shyamalan?  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

People bitched and moaned when Danny Glover starred in the second "Predator" movie. Personally, I'd rather have him in an action movie than the guy who played the village idiot in "The Village". I mean come-on, we're suppose to believe that Brody belongs with a team of cutthroats and killers, and somehow he might outlast all of them at the end of the movie? WTF?!


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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 06 2010 at 7:45pm
It's currently 100% on RT. And I think Nimrod Antal is a very promising director after I saw Vacancy.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 06 2010 at 8:12pm
Wacko Geez, MWG, haven't we discussed this? There are eight...count em, 8....1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8...reviews counted for this film so far. The fact that the first 8 in are positive might well be a good sign, but it is hardly a trend. George McGovern probably got the first 8 votes in the 1972 election and Nixon ended up slaughtering him. So let's give it a rest until enough opinions are offered to make it worth actually considering, okay?

-------------
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: July 06 2010 at 8:35pm
I really didn't like the first two films, so I'm hoping this will be the first good film for the Predator franchise. And with Nimrod in the director's chair, I think the film holds a lot of promise.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 06 2010 at 8:57pm
Addressing Vits' questions several posts above: 

1. The "village idiot" is what most "Village" haters call his character. 

2. "The team", as in the team that he is a part of in the Predator movie.   

Originally posted by Vits

He wasn't an idiot - He was mentally challenged. A lot of retarded people commit crimes because they don't know what they're doing. Why else would he try to kill the girl he loves?
 
Also, what team? Did you pay attention to the movie or did you just watch it to make fun of Shyamalan?


-------------
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 06 2010 at 8:59pm
MWG - Being "promising" and actually delivering the goods are two different things. Mister M. Night was at one time considered "promising," and now look at him!  
 
PS: Although it is dated and has its fair share of campy and cheesy moments, the very first "Predator" is indeed a good, entertaining action 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: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 06 2010 at 9:01pm
Hey, congratulations again MWG ... you just jinxed the movie, like you always do whenever you say how great the first 10 reviews are ... which are then followed by 100 negative reviews! You really need to stop doing that, it really doesn't help your argument.

-------------
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: July 06 2010 at 9:08pm
I found a picture of Brody from this that shows he's plenty buff enuff for an action movie: 

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm796492544/tt1424381 - http://www.imdb.com/media/rm796492544/tt1424381   

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

No, MWG, Brody looks like a 120 lb. man pretending to look tough. 

Man, you're too easily sold -- telemarketers must love you! 

RESPONSE from head RAZZberry: MWG - How do you know Brody's pecs aren't either prosthetics or the result of CGI doctoring??  Also, is that jungle mud -- or Predator sh*t -- that Brody is covered with in the photo??


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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 06 2010 at 9:09pm
I just found out the first Predator film got a 36 on Metacritic, which is surprisingly low: 

http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/predator - http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/predator  


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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 06 2010 at 9:10pm
Yeah, I'm a jinx -- because Eclipse surely got hundreds of negative reviews, along with The Crazies and The Karate Kid. I've been accurate with my critics' predictions this year.   

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Hey, congratulations ... you just jinxed the movie, like you always do whenever you say how great the first 10 reviews are ... which are than followed by 100 negative reviews! You really need to stop doing that, it really doesn't help your arguement.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 06 2010 at 9:18pm
Oh yeah, you were right TWO times out of the, what, 2 DOZEN times you did it? Can't you wait until a Friday or Saturday to make the big annoucement about what critics think? We know the REAL reason why you do it is because you're looking for any excuse to see the movie, which you already had your mind set on doing the entire time anyway. 

-------------
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 06 2010 at 9:21pm
RE: MWG's photo link -- Oh yeah, way to copy and paste a scene right out of the original! And people here still wonder why I hate remakes and reboots ... 

PS: Ar-nold still looked more bad-ass. Brody just looks like he fell in some mud and has a desperate need to take a s***.


-------------
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 06 2010 at 9:24pm
Yeah, I said the first Predator was an entertaining action movie, not a masterpiece of film (and spoiler alert: this new movie won't be either). But if it is as bad as you claim it is ... then why is the new movie copying and pasting from it? Oh right, they are "paying homage" to it ... "homage" being a fancy French word for "rip-off!"  

-------------
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: July 06 2010 at 9:35pm
Umm...no. actually, BHB, I predicted great reviews for only Crazies, Eclipse, and Karate Kid, not "2 dozen" movies.  And no, I'm actually going to watch "Despicable Me" instead next week. Stop judging me, because it makes you look pathetic.  

You completely change the subject, and then you judge the entire film on one picture? Are you kidding me? You said Brody doesn't look tough in this film so I posted a picture in which he does, indeed, look buff. I'm wasn't saying anything about how it "rips off" from the original.  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Oh yes, way to copy and paste a scene right out of the original! And people here still wonder why I hate remakes and reboots ...
PS: Ar-nold still looked more badass. Brody just looks like he fell in some mud and is in desperate need to take a s***.
 



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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 07 2010 at 11:48am
Oh yes, I am so pathetic for asking you to please NOT jump the gun and declare the movie is great because all of EIGHT critics liked it so far, even though there's still 100+ more reviews to go before we get a better idea of how well-liked it is. 

How can you judge any movie from only 8 reviews? Granted, Brody looks pretty toned up, but let's face it, the real reason why you approve of him being in this role is because he starred in one of your hero, Mister M. Night's movies. But what I'm saying is that they are copying and pasting the scene from the original in which Arnold covers himself in mud to stay out of the Predator's heat vision. And this is what I don't like abour remakes/reboots. They can't leave well enough alone and have to just rehash from the original because they can't think of anything better.


-------------
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 08 2010 at 2:24pm
Gee-Wiz, MWG, could you please stop talking -- whether you admit it or not, you do have this mysterious ability to over-hype movies, gush over the praise of only a few critics, and then jinx them. As a huge fan of the original Predator, I actually want this to be good. So please, take  some Zanax or something and calm down.  

And BHB, I do have to respectfully disagree to some extent with the paying homage/ripping off thing. When a film pays homage it means they are giving a show of respect to the source material, and it usually amounts to maybe 5% of he actual movie, which is not the same as ripping off. Ripping off would be more like what The Island did with Parts: The Clonus Horror.


-------------
I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic f**king hatreds! George Carlin


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 08 2010 at 4:28pm
What makes you believe I am over hyping this film? I'm about as over-hyped as a person who's sleeping (that's the best I could come up with). You make me sound like a drug addict, or someone who has overdosed in sugar.


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


Posted By: thomsonmg2000
Date Posted: July 08 2010 at 9:23pm
Can't believe this film still has a fresh rating on RT, as well as a positive critic "consensus," despite the average score being below a six.

RT should really learn to wait until they have at least 100 reviews before making a consensus.

Also, I was shocked to see Adrian Brody and Laurence Fishburne in this. I thought it would be mostly consist of no-namers a la Alien vs. Predators.  I guess Robert Rodriguez still has lots of respect among big names.


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

OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 08 2010 at 9:24pm
MWG: I think you're "over-hyping" it because you always seem like you're ready to jump through your roof at the announcement of the first few reviews, and then claim that they are proof the movie will be the best ever of the summer -- if not the 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: cvcjr13
Date Posted: July 08 2010 at 10:53pm
I'm amazed by this film's reviews, too.  I would have thought sticking Adrian Brody in the umpteenth film about Predators was a perfect recipe for Razzie purée.  Currently, there's 72 reviews, 70% of them being fresh and 50% of the top critics rating it fresh.  Completely unexpected!    

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I am curious why everyone is referring to this film's RT Numbers, and not bothering to check its rating at the other review site we link to, MetaCritic -- Whose numbers I actually find more credible than those at RT. While PREDATORS is hardly in the same range at MetaCritic as, say, LAST AIRBENDER, it's current MetaCritic rating is a fair-to-middling 50% Approval ( http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/predators - ). And I notice that score does not include the negative review PREDATORS got in this morning's L.A. Times ( http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/topofthetimes/features/la-et-predators-20100709-39,0,2066040.story - ). So it may not be a contender come January, but it is still indicative of Hollywood's current malaise when it comes to doing anything truly original any more...
 
Since Predators apparently isn't bad enough, can we have a forum for last week's Love Ranch  instead ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/love_ranch/ - RT rating 14%/10% )?  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: The reviews on LOVE RANCH have been surprisingly negative, especially for something co-starring two respected Oscar® winners. But our Forum tends to focus on films audiences across the country have the opportunity to see, and LOVE RANCH, while it technically qualifies for our consideration, seems unlikely to ever play on more than maybe 3 dozen screens before it goes to DVD. If you feel strongly about it, cvcjr13, you are certainly free to start a Forum about it yourself...  



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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 09 2010 at 8:19am
I never claimed this movie to be best anything ever. Stop shoving words into my mouth, BHB.  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

MWG: I think you're "over-hyping" it because you always seem like you're ready to jump through your roof at the announcement of the first few reviews, and then claim that they are proof the movie will be the best ever of the summer -- if not the year. 


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 09 2010 at 9:03am
Okay, but you come across as making it sound like this is going to be the best movie of the summer, if not the year. Is that more to your liking?


-------------
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: July 09 2010 at 11:40am
No, that's even worse. Maybe it would be better if you just stop talking...  


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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: July 09 2010 at 1:10pm
If R.T. posts a concensus early, it's because they many critics thought the same about the movie.   

Originally posted by thomsonmg2000

Can't believe this film still has a fresh rating on RT, as well as a positive critic "consensus," despite the average score being below a six.

RT should really learn to wait until they have at least 100 reviews before making a consensus.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 09 2010 at 3:24pm
MWG - Maybe you should just stop defending bad movies. Trying to win us over and get us to agree with you is as likely as Barack Obama winning over the KKK or Neo-Nazis. Not going to happen.

-------------
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: July 09 2010 at 4:51pm
What's a good movie and what's a bad movie is subjective, so your argument makes little sense.


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


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: July 09 2010 at 5:03pm
With all the other bad movies that have come out it seems you're being awfully hard on this one. Yes its not original (Wah), but Rodriquez and Nimrod did something in Hollywood that's almost as rare: They created a sequel to one of the best cult action movies of all time, and they showed enormous respect to the source material (Take note Michael Bay). And in a time when most directors and studios give the middle finger to the fans, these guys actually make a movie that doesn't sh*t on them or "rape their childhood." That should be commended -- we should be demanding that more directors do this! Maybe that's just me though. 

It sounds like you're a little bitter about this, it's almost like you're saying "Oh my god RT isn't giving me the results i want, I'll just go over to metacritic they wont let me down."  

Now I cant speak for everyone, but here's the reason I don't use MetaCritic as a more trustful movie review site: It's the numbers. On RT, Predators is at 63 with 117 reviews, meanwhile
on MetaCritic it's at 50, but with only 28 reviews, all of which come from major publications. On a personal level, while I do read those reviews and take them into account when i see a movie, I actually prefer hearing the viewpoints of smaller publications. I'd rather have a consensus from a lot of different people from various backgrounds than a very small sample.  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I don't think I'm "bitter," as I said in my earlier response, I am curious why most of our members seem to look only at RT for critical consensus. It is also interesting that, as time has passed, the numbers at the two sites seem to be converging -- Suggesting that PREDATORS may indeed not be a RAZZIE® contender, but may also not be worth paying current movie admission prices to see -- The equivalent of the "Rent It" rating on At The Movies...



-------------
I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic f**king hatreds! George Carlin


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: July 09 2010 at 5:36pm
And on a side note this new feud between Gee-wiz and Burn is actually pretty funny, this is a whole lot better than Burn/Miguel battles. Lets keep this up, i love this stuff.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: July 09 2010 at 6:56pm
I'm not going to name Predators to my Worst of O-Ten come March, but I'm going to say it's an okay movie except for Adrien Brody's small build, unfitting for this role.

-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags 8; TMNT '014. Ags 13; Let's Be Cops. Ags 15; The Giver, The Expendables 3. Ags 29; Jessabelle


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 09 2010 at 6:58pm
Are you kidding, HeadRAZZberry? On the Eclipse board, you said to use RT instead of Metacritic, in which the film has a higher score. Now that it's opposite for this film, you're wanting to use Metacritic and not RT. Now I'm confused what site we're supposed to use??  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I am not "suggesting" either site be used exclusively. I started offering ratings from both for perusal to give some balance in determining critical consensus because I noticed about 6 months ago that RT tended, in general, to have more negative numbers than MetaCritic. While that would seem to be of interest for our purposes, I didn't think either site alone offered a clear indicator of how critics in general rated movies. It was also significant, when I researched MetaCritic before I started adding it to our Reviews Lynx, that they claimed to get their numbers from the critics themselves, rather than merely characterizing what the reviews said, as RT does. Also, as Head RAZZberry, I probably read more full reviews than just about anyone, and in doing so, I noticed that RT often ascribed a "Rotten" icon to what was actually a middling review. 

In this particular case, when I posted my response about the difference between the two sites' ratings of PREDATORS, I was merely pointing out that the dichotomy in this instance was greater than usual.

Can we all calm down now??  


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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 09 2010 at 7:01pm
Thank you, Mayhem5185. Yours is the most sensible post I've read in a loooooong time (well, since the post about illegally downloading movies).  

Originally posted by Mayhem5185

It sounds like your a little bitter about this, it's almost like your saying "Oh my god RT isn't giving me the results i want, I'll just go over to metacritic they wont let me down.

Now I cant speak for everyone but here's the reason i don't use metacritic as a more trustful movie review site, it's the numbers. On RT Predators is at 63 with 117 reviews, meanwhile 
on Metacritic it's at50 with only 28 reviews, all of which come from major publications. On a personal level, while i do read those reviews and take them into account when i see a movie, i actually prefer hearing the viewpoints from the smaller publications. I'd rather have a consensus from a lot of different people from various backgrounds then a very small amount.

With all the other bad movies that have come out it seems your being awfully hard on this one. Yes its not original (Wah), but Rodriquez and Nimrod did something in Hollywood that's almost as rare, They created a sequel to one of the best cult action movies of all time, and they showed enormous respect to the source material (Take note Michael Bay). And in a time when most directors and studios give the middle finger to the fans, these guys actually make a movie that doesn't sh*t on them or "rape their childhood", that should be commended, we should be demanding that more directors do this, that's just me though.
 


You should watch Maury.  

Originally posted by Mayhem5185

And on a side note this new feud between Gee-wiz and Burn is actually pretty funny, this is a whole lot better than Burn/Miguel battles. Lets keep this up, i love this stuff.


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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 09 2010 at 7:35pm
I'm saving my money for Rocky vs. Predator: This time, it's for the heavyweight championship of the universe!

-------------
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: cvcjr13
Date Posted: July 09 2010 at 8:36pm
I never heard of Metacritics before.  I will check it out.
 
I will attempt to piece together a Forum for "Love Ranch", partly for the reason that I do believe we should include Helen Mirren's worst picture in our calculations for this year, but mostly just to see how well I can do it. 
 
Originally posted by cvcjr13

I'm amazed by this film's reviews, too.  I would have thought sticking Adrian Brody in the umpteenth film about Predators was a perfect recipe for Razzie purée.  Currently, there's 72 reviews, 70% of them being fresh and 50% of the top critics rating it fresh.  Completely unexpected!    

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I am curious why everyone is referring to this film's RT Numbers, and not bothering to check its rating at the other review site we link to, MetaCritic -- Whose numbers I actually find more credible than those at RT. While PREDATORS is hardly in the same range at MetaCritic as, say, LAST AIRBENDER, it's current MetaCritic rating is a fair-to-middling 50% Approval ( http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/predators - - LINK ). And I notice that score does not include the negative review PREDATORS got in this morning's L.A. Times ( http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/topofthetimes/features/la-et-predators-20100709-39,0,2066040.story - - LINK ). So it may not be a contender come January, but it is still indicative of Hollywood's current malaise when it comes to doing anything truly original any more...
 
Since Predators apparently isn't bad enough, can we have a forum for last week's Love Ranch  instead ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/love_ranch/ - RT rating 14%/10% )?  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: The reviews on LOVE RANCH have been surprisingly negative, especially for something co-starring two respected Oscar® winners. But our Forum tends to focus on films audiences across the country have the opportunity to see, and LOVE RANCH, while it technically qualifies for our consideration, seems unlikely to ever play on more than maybe 3 dozen screens before it goes to DVD. If you feel strongly about it, cvcjr13, you are certainly free to start a Forum about it yourself...  



Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: July 09 2010 at 9:29pm
Do you think you could achieve a HeadRAZZBerry style front post on this Love Ranch forum?

-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags 8; TMNT '014. Ags 13; Let's Be Cops. Ags 15; The Giver, The Expendables 3. Ags 29; Jessabelle


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: July 09 2010 at 11:21pm

I gave it a try.  http://www.razzies.com/forum/love-ranch_topic4459.html - You can view it here.   I'll be tweaking it every now and then.  Sadly, it lacks that P.T. Barnum / advertising delivery gloved in gleeful satire that HeadRAZZ has perfected over the years.



Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 10 2010 at 6:47am
If they actually make Rocky vs. Predator, will the Predator go back in time and fight young Rocky from the first movie, because if he fights modern day, 60+ old Rocky, it's going to be a short fight.

-------------
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 10 2010 at 6:54am
MWG: When a large amount of critics are ripping a movie to shreds, chances are it's because the movie is bad. Granted, the critics didn't really do that with this movie, but they do with almost all other movies on this forum. You come across as someone who so desperately wants every movie to be good and be successful that you will lower your standards and say its good, just to have the opposite opinion of most critics and most of the rest of us here on this Forum.  

-------------
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 10 2010 at 6:59am
Mayhem5185: I, too, have heard good things about this movie from those who saw it. I'm not going to hold the movie in high regard compared to the first Predator movie until I see it for myself. Besides, 64% is like a "D" average. 

But your statement proves once and for all that sequels and remakes can be good IF there's a talented writer/producer/director with creative vision behind it like Rodriquez, who will do his best with the project, instead of a talentless hack like Bay, who just throws a piece of s*** together over a weekend and calls it a 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: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 17 2010 at 9:51am
Well, I had a free movie pass and I gave the movie a try. Sure enough, yet another worthless remake that adds NOTHING to the series. No, it doesn't pay "homage" to the first movie, it copies and pastes everywhere ... the being covered in mud, the lines like "What the hell are you" and "I'm right here, come kill me", etc. Not to mention the first movie had a rag-tag team of big, strong, well-armed marines that could be a match for the Predators ... here, we have a team of skinny, little twigs as opponents! I say "guilty pleasure" at best ... with way more "guilt" than pleasure to 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: GTAHater767
Date Posted: July 17 2010 at 11:24am
If it doesn't get nominated, Predators might be #40 or #39 on my Worst of '010, come to think of it.

-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags 8; TMNT '014. Ags 13; Let's Be Cops. Ags 15; The Giver, The Expendables 3. Ags 29; Jessabelle


Posted By: scoobs23
Date Posted: July 23 2010 at 6:41pm
It's fairly obvious that certain people have a clear agenda on this board. When a film like this both performs at the box office and critically, certain posters right it off as saying, "well, the film is OKAY for what it is"....A sort of backhanded compliment, if even that. It's fairly funny that aside from the blatantly obvious awful films, the resident "experts" on this board have been a bit off with their predictions.


Posted By: scoobs23
Date Posted: July 23 2010 at 6:48pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn


Well, I had a free movie pass and I gave the movie a try. Sure enough, yet another worthless remake that adds NOTHING to the series. No, it doesn't pay "homage" to the first movie, it copies and pastes everywhere ... the being covered in mud, the lines like "What the hell are you" and "I'm right here, come kill me", etc. Not to mention the first movie had a rag-tag team of big, strong, well-armed marines that could be a match for the Predators ... here, we have a team of skinny, little twigs as opponents! I say "guilty pleasure" at best ... with way more "guilt" than pleasure to it! 


Ah, in the first film, Arnold used mud in order to avoid the Predator's heat senses. Not nearly as much of a "rip-off" as it is the lead character just using something to his advantage. What you're doing here is nitpicking. You were probably waiting for one these lines to pop off so you could yell "rip-off!...". This film, while retaining some elements from the original, clearly didn't want it to follow it and wanted to offer something different, which is why the actors aren't as "big and strong", and fyi, Brody's physical appearance for this film is very similar to that of a mercenary, cut and lean, because it fits the character. Oh and you may want to work on not contradicting yourself, on hand you criticize the film for "ripping off" the original, while on the other hand you criticize it for not having similar built actors from the original.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 23 2010 at 8:25pm
Um, no, I went in with an open mind thinking they would do an original movie that just happened to be a sequel, but I was sadly mistaken. And what is wrong with thinking the actors should be more buffed up like the ones in the original movie? That would make sense since they would look like real killesr who could stand a chance with the Predators. These people look like lambs that should have been killed off within a matter fo seconds. Danny Trejo was the only one who looked like he belonged. Oh, and nitpicking is what a critic is suppose to do, not just sit there and except everything is without fails. I mean if your car's tires blow out, do you just keep driving and say to yourself "Oh, that's no big deal, the sparks are suppose to be coming out of the wheels"?  

Originally posted by scoobs23

 
Ah, in the first film, Arnold used mud in order to avoid the Predator's heat senses. Not nearly as much of a "rip-off" as it is the lead character just using something to his advantage. What you're doing here is nitpicking. You were probably waiting for one these lines to pop off so you could yell "rip-off!...". This film, while retaining some elements from the original, clearly didn't want it to follow it and wanted to offer something different, which is why the actors aren't as "big and strong", and fyi, Brody's physical appearance for this film is very similar to that of a mercenary, cut and lean, because it fits the character. Oh and you may want to work on not contradicting yourself, on hand you criticize the film for "ripping off" the original, while on the other hand you criticize it for not having similar built actors from the original.


-------------
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: razziessuckass
Date Posted: August 03 2010 at 11:21pm

Angry John Wilson should leave movies alone because im sick and tired of him and his stupid Razzie arwards! >:(  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Please define the word "arwards." I am unfamiliar with it...  





-------------
Razzies suck


Posted By: razziessuckass
Date Posted: August 03 2010 at 11:23pm
i give this movie a 100/100 beacuse i love the Predator movies!Smile


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 04 2010 at 7:59am
And I feel instead that the movie studios should stop putting out blatantly bad movies.  John Wilson provides us movie fans a much needed outlet to counter all these bad movies.
 
Originally posted by razziessuckass

Angry John Wilson should leave movies alone because im sick and tired of him and his stupid Razzie arwards! >:(



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


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: August 04 2010 at 6:06pm
Ugggh... Another attacker??

-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags 8; TMNT '014. Ags 13; Let's Be Cops. Ags 15; The Giver, The Expendables 3. Ags 29; Jessabelle


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 04 2010 at 8:57pm
I'm guessing a fanboy/hater.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 05 2010 at 11:31am
Please, in another day or two, this kid will forget this forum even exists. Mindlessly loyal fanboys have short attention spans like 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: oiram
Date Posted: December 23 2010 at 4:44am
If this gets worst anything, I'll be sad, because this isn't that bad, especially compared to the other *bleep* we had the swim through.

-------------
Elizabeth Hartman and Judith Barsi are more talented and beautiful than Scarlett Johansson and Chloe Grace Moretz. Fact.

Worst Supporting Actor: Brendan Fraser/Gimme Shelter and The Nut Job





Print Page | Close Window