Print Page | Close Window

Dying a Mysterious Death @ the BO??

Printed From: Official RAZZIEŽ Forum
Category: DISCUSSIONS & POLLS on 2010 RELEASES
Forum Name: CASE 39
Forum Discription: Think of It as ORPHAN with One OscarŽ Winner...and One RAZZIEŽ
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4582
Printed Date: April 24 2014 at 1:34pm


Topic: Dying a Mysterious Death @ the BO??
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Dying a Mysterious Death @ the BO??
Date Posted: September 24 2010 at 1:55pm
ANOTHER CASE of "a MOVIE SO GOOD THEY RE-SCHEDULED ITs RELEASE MULTIPLE TIMES," http://www.razzies.com/forum/case-39_forum460.html - http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=case39.htm -
STARRING OSCAR WINNER-for-a-MOVIE-NOBODY-SAW http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000250/awards - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0881891/awards - FOCUSES on a SOCIAL WORKER WHOSE YOUNG CHARGE SEEMS to BE the CAUSE of MULTIPLE ACCIDENTS, MURDERS and "UNEXPLAINED DEATHS." AS the PLOT SICKENS, RENEE and BRADLEY OH-SO-SLOWLY BEGIN to REALIZE the CHILD IS SOMEHOW CURSED...

SPEAKING of CURSED, CASE 39 FOLLOWED in the FOOTSTEPS of MOST EVERY OTHER LONG-DELAYED MOVIE RELEASE, FINDING FAVOR with NEITHER MOVIE CRITICS NOR MOVIE-GOERS. AND THAT MAY BE the SCARIEST THING ABOUT the WHOLE PROJECT...




RENEE: "Talk about blatant product placement... 
do you suppose Paramount was paid to have me 
demonstrate what a great hand-drier a Volvo 
tailpipe makes??"  




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



Replies:
Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 24 2010 at 3:17pm
When the trailer for this showed before Devil, I heard someone say, "This (referring to Case 39) will probably be better than Devil." I was rolling my eyes, but I could see why. The trailer actually makes the movie look good, but that just shows people can make a bad movie look good through slick editing.

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


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: September 24 2010 at 3:33pm
One of the attempts to kill the cursed girl involves trying to bake her in an oven! Alas, I imagine Let Me In will also get a forum here.


Posted By: Movie Man
Date Posted: September 24 2010 at 5:41pm
STARRING....2009 WORST SCREEN COUPLE "CO-WINNER" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0881891/awards - - BRADLEY COOPER , THIS LITTLE GEM of a HORROR MOVIE (OR IS THAT "GERM of a HORRIBLE MOVIE"??)

I'm glad you guys finally fessed up and recognized "The Hangover".


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: September 24 2010 at 7:30pm
I must be Nobody.  I saw Cold Mountain at least 6 times.  I loved the part where Zellweger tears the head off that damn rooster. . . .


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 24 2010 at 8:16pm

Note to Renee Zellweger: Did you learn nothing from your earlier movie "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (#4, I believe)?  

Stay away from rom/coms, horror, and other genres. Stick with the period pieces and dramas!



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


Posted By: Film Reel Redemption
Date Posted: September 24 2010 at 11:31pm

One word to describe this 'Case' no. 39:

Tragic... no wait DISASTROUS... NO WAIT - CINEMATIC ARMAGEDDON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *nuclear explosion in the background*


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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 25 2010 at 8:36am
Let Me In won't also get a forum here. It currently has a 100% on RT and is second to The Social Network as being the best-reviewed film of the year. Don't underestimate Matt Reeves and his greatness nor Chloe Moretz. Many critics have said it was even better than the original film!  


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 25 2010 at 9:05am
Yes, 100% ... based on all of 12 to 15 reviews for each of them!

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


Posted By: thomsonmg2000
Date Posted: September 25 2010 at 9:08am
A review of this movie (spoilers, if you really care):  
 
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/phelous/27836-phelous-case-39

Doesn't look Razz-able, but still seems like a stupid movie with an overuse of jump scares and an annoying child actress...


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

OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!

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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 25 2010 at 10:29am
Yes, because having 12 to 15 straight rave reviews aren't a clear indication at all. LOL Remember, BHB, you were wrong about Easy A.  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Yes, 100% ... based on all of 12 to 15 reviews for each of them!


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


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: September 25 2010 at 1:10pm
If there's one thing to suggest the reviews will be as bad as HeadRAZZ and Mr. Burn think they'll be, it's that it was shot in 2006, but got delayed a release in America for 4 years.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 25 2010 at 2:16pm
Oh right, like the two dozen times you've declared movies as "not that bad" when they get 3 to 10 good reviews on a Monday ... only to see them to get 100 bad reviews by Saturday. Wink

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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 25 2010 at 3:12pm
When did that ever happen?  




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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 25 2010 at 5:18pm
Okay, MWG, do yourself a favor: Go back and check all your past posts in which you jumped in claiming "oh no, according to RT, it's at 100% (based on 3 to 10 reviews)", then actually check those movies in question to see what rating they have now. Then get back to us about how declaring a movie is good based on 3 to 12 reviews is a good idea, anywhere but in the alternate reality you seem to live in... 



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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 25 2010 at 5:46pm
Give me specifics, BHB. You know I can't work with "go look back at..." 

Here's how my logic works: If there are 10 critics giving a "perfect" score to a certain movie, you can see a pattern going on. Thus, basing on consistency, you can make an educated guess that most critics will like the movie...  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Sorry, MWG, I've gotta side with BHB on this one -- It is actually quite common for favorable early reviews on a movie at RT to be misleading as to the film's final score. I suspect this is because early reviews at RT tend to come from "Internet Critics" who have less stringent standards of criticism than "mainstream media" reviewers. The reverse, however -- early reviews being negative and the eventual score moving upward -- is truly rare. In the end, BHB's point about waiting 'till a certain number of crix have chimed in before making a guess as to a film's quality, makes sense to me...  




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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: September 25 2010 at 8:54pm
Consider that those first ten critics to review the movie were handpicked by the studio for the sole reason that the studio could be sure to get favorable reviews from them.  In light of that consideration, you probably should not put much stock in what the first ten critics say concerning any widely released movie.  It should be positive.
 
Now, if the overall score from those first ten critics isn't positive, then the studio screwed up and we have something to keep an eye on.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 25 2010 at 8:58pm
But what if the 10 critics actually had some credibility? Variety has a huge reputation if I'm not mistaken and they said it was better than the original... 


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 25 2010 at 9:44pm
Are you seriously willing to gamble your $10+ and 90 to 120 minutes of your time on the reviews of just 3 to 10 critics, who may or may not have been hand picked by studios because they knew those critcs would be kind to the movie in question? I sure as hell wouldn't! I might have been wrong about "Easy A", but I'm not going to yell from on top of my house about said movie being good or a must see based on a handful of reviews. I need at least 50 to 100 to get a real idea if any movie is worth my time and money. 

But, as we all know, you and I have VERY different ways of judging the quality of movies. Hell, you and the other 99% of this Forum's members judge movie quality VERY differently.


-------------
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: September 25 2010 at 9:51pm
What your suggesting is not logic, nor an educated guess, it's just wishful thinking, hoping the movie will be good because you want it to be. The first 10 reviews mean NOTHING, because like cvcjr and I said, the studio might have handed picked those critics because they knew those 10 critics would be soft on the movie. And then another 100 movie critics come in, and they rip the movie to shreds -- which has happened a number of times this year alone.  
 
Look at "Last Fart...er, Airbender" (currently 6%), it had 10 good reviews, and then 148 negative reviews. So, by your "logic", I should have run out and seen it based on those first 10 good reviews? Sorry, NO -- I need more than that. 10 reviews tells you jacks*** other than 10 critics liked it, a maximum of 100 reviews gives you a much better idea about the movie's quality.  
 
Sure, "The Social Network" and "Let Me In" are at 100% NOW, with only 12 or 15 reviews, but what will happen when the other 50 to 100 reviews come in? We won't know, until the day of their release dates.  


-------------
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: September 26 2010 at 12:42am
The Social Network was directed by David Fincher, who also directed three other high-reviewed films: Se7en (1995), Fight Club (1999), and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008). I wouldn't count on it being one of ours.
 
Let Me In is a remake of a foreign film. This movie will either take off running or crash down hard, because the source material is a romantic drama horror-oid.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 26 2010 at 9:15am
Are you seriously that thick minded? The Last Airbender didn't have a single positive review until after the 15 straight negative reviews came through first. My logic still stands and your explanation in trying to discredit me fails in every way. There's a difference between having 10 straight positive reviews coming out first and having 10 positive reviews sporadically popping up in between hundreds of negative reviews as if they were rare occurrences. EPIC FAIL.  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Look at "Last Fart, er, Airbender" (currently 6%), it has 10 good reviews, and then 148 negative reviews. So, by your "logic", I should have ran out and seen it based on those first 10 good reviews? Sorry, no, I need more than that. 10 reviews tells you jacks*** other than 10 critics liked it, a maximum of 100 reviews gives you a much better idea about the movie's quality.

 
You're hanging onto straws, buddy. It's clear that they will have high RT scores no matter how many reviews come in...


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 26 2010 at 10:42am
Epic fail? Not even, MWG. The logic of the Razzies buries your "logic" any day of the week and twice on Sunday. If a movie is listed in these forums, there's usually a reason for it, be it who is directing it or who is starring in it, as well as other warning signs that HeadRazz has mentioned time and time again. But then you chime in, as just be be annoying, or just to be different for the sake of being different with "oh no, it's 100% at RT", in which case we go to RT and see that 100% is due to 3 or 10 reviews. And you're like "it's a pattern ... surely it will keep going up". No, kid, it just means 10 critics liked it, it doesn't mean the other 110 critics are going to like it. Studios play tricks like that. They hand pick the 10 critics they know who, like you, lack a critical eye and thus will be soft on the movie, giving it good reviews it doesn't deserve.
 
So let's quit is with the nonsense that a movie is good based on 10 reviews, that's why I picked "Last Airbender", because it had only 10 good reviews, even if they spead out instead of being all at once. You seriously can't wait until the Friday that the said movie is being released to know for sure if the critics like it or not? That just makes you come off as being desperate for the movie to be good because you want it to be.
 
As for "Social Network" and "Let Me In", no straws being reached for there, my critical eye challenged friend. As mentioned before, yes, "Social Network" is directed by David Fincher, so the chances of it getting lower than 20% are slim to none, but there is no way it going to stay at 100%. My guess: it will drop to somewhere between 90% and 80%. As for "Let Me In", it's a horror movie remake ... we all know how good Hollywood is at those. My guess: somewhere between 80% and 70%.
 
No, MWG, as you prove time and time again, you lack any logic when it comes to judging movies. You're just easily sold to whatever ideas Hollywood comes up with, and so you cling to false hope that said movie is going to be good, even if it means using nonsense logic like "oh, but the first 10 critics liked it, it's going to be good", or "well, Ebert liked it, so that cancels out the other 109 bad reviews it got", or "here's two good reviews from two random people I found on Twitter, so it must be good". If there's ever examples of reaching for straws, those are 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: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 26 2010 at 11:22am
Maybe you're the one creating conspiracies that studios "hand pick" critics...

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Epic fail? Not even, MWG. The logic of the Razzies buries your "logic" any day of the week and twice on Sunday. If a movie is listed in these forums, there's usually a reason for it, be it who is directing it or who is starring in it, as well as other warning signs that HeadRazz has mentioned time and time again. But then you chime in, as just be be annoying, or just to be different for the sake of being different with "oh no, it's 100% at RT", in which case we go to RT and see that 100% is due to 3 or 10 reviews. And you're like "it's a pattern ... surely it will keep going up". No, kid, it just means 10 critics liked it, it doesn't mean the other 110 critics are going to like it. Studios play tricks like that. They hand pick the 10 critics they know who, like you, lack a critical eye and thus will be soft on the movie, giving it good reviews it doesn't deserve


Let's quit your act saying that 10 positive reviews scattered around hundreds of negative reviews is the same thing as saying 10 positive reviews that come in groups. And I don't need to wait. It's an educational guess and I'm obviously going to be right no matter how many reviews come in. It's the same educational guess that the spoof movies will be low on RT no matter how many reviews come in. You just know. There's no need to wait for anything.
 
So let's quit is with the nonsense that a movie is good based on 10 reviews, that's why I picked "Last Airbender", because it had only 10 good reviews, even if they spead out instead of being all at once. You seriously can't wait until the Friday that the said movie is being released to know for sure if the critics like it or not? That just makes you come off as being desperate for the movie to be good because you want it to be.


I never said they were going to stay at 100%. I said they're going to end up with high percentages on RT.

As for "Social Network" and "Let Me In", no straws being reached for there, my critical eye challenged friend. As mentioned before, yes, "Social Network" is directed by David Fincher, so the chances of it getting lower than 20% are slim to none, but there is no way it going to stay at 100%.




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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 26 2010 at 1:08pm
Oh, you mean like when you or Miguel come up with your nonsense conspiracies about how critics get together and plot how they are going to ruin the movies you like by ripping them apart with their bad reviews? Studio heads have no morals, kid, they will take whatever short cuts they can to make sure they get their money back on as many pictures that they can (adding in 3-D at the zero hour, hand picking choice critics, etc.).
 
The first ten critics and ten spread out critics IS the same thing; all it means is that ten people liked it, the order the they came in makes NO difference whatsoever. And you're NEVER right. Here's a REAL educated guess of my own: HeadRazz, who has seen many more movies than you AND actually works in the movie business is probably going to be much more able to spot a bad movie than you can, seeing as how you have proven that you don't have a quality filter. So I'm going take his word over your's every time because he knows what he's talking about. If there's a movie listed here in the forum, there's a reason for it to be here. You, on the other hand, just say it's good because you just want to have the opposite opinion.
 
I mean going on the judgements of ten people ... do you do that with other aspects of your life? If say, you were curious about getting laser eye surgery, but you weren't sure if it is safe, are going to take the testimonies of ten strangers on a TV ad, who for all you know are just paid actors OR are you going to go with the testimonies of say, four dozen people who actually had the surgery done and their eye sight is better or worse because of it? And if you do say the ten strangers ... WOW, you really are that easily sold to! Used car salesmen 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: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 26 2010 at 4:38pm
You're implying I'm basing my actions on peoples' opinions. And laser eye surgery is hardly an even analogy of watching movies. I wanted to watch the film already before those 10 people gave the film a positive review. Thus, seeing how 10 people liked the film, it just reaffirms my decision to go watch the movie.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 26 2010 at 7:13pm
You just confirmed what I been saying. You WANT to see the movie, you WANT it to be good. So when the first ten reviews are good, that's your EXCUSE to believe the movie is good, and thus run out and see it. If you were to wait for anywhere between 50 to 100 reviews, you would realize the movie might not be that good, and maybe then you would change your mind...  



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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: September 27 2010 at 8:28am

. . . and then use his time and money to instead see a movie worth watching. . . Wink



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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 27 2010 at 10:17am
SPOILERS!

This movie was already released here.My cousin saw it(online)and gave it 3/10.He told me the movie doesn't end with a cliffhanger and it's good in paper(we don't want more sequel than we already have),but it killed the tone of the movie for him.

Originally posted by Movie Man

STARRING....2009 WORST SCREEN COUPLE "CO-WINNER" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0881891/awards - - BRADLEY COOPER , THIS LITTLE GEM of a HORROR MOVIE (OR IS THAT "GERM of a HORRIBLE MOVIE"??)

I'm glad you guys finally fessed up and recognized "The Hangover".

He won for http://www.razzies.com/forum/all-about-steve_forum382.html - ALL ABOUT STEVE .


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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 27 2010 at 1:03pm
"A movie worth watching "  -- Like what?


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 27 2010 at 2:14pm
Well gee, considering how much cheaper Netflix and Red Box are, you could just rent a GOOD, old movie. And, when said bad movie does come out on DVD, just Red Box it, cause then you're only wasting $1 on that 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: cvcjr13
Date Posted: September 27 2010 at 7:53pm
I've suggested this to you before - how about Hot Fuzz?  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Or, if you're a horror/zombie movie fan, from the same film-makers as HOT FUZZ, check out the even funnier SHAUN OF THE DEAD...


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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 27 2010 at 9:08pm
If you did suggest Hot Fuzz, it must have been a really long time ago. I've seen it. I liked Shaun of the Dead better, though...  



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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 28 2010 at 3:43pm
Try watching "This Film Is Not Yet Rated". You might learn something about the movie business... 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: BHB is referring to a documentary about how the movie rating system works. It's actually quite good. Here's  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/ -  for more info on NOT YET RATED ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/this_film_is_not_yet_rated/ - )... 



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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 28 2010 at 7:17pm
I don't know what point you're trying to make, but I've already seen that like 2 years ago. My point is that every film you have mentioned, I have already seen. 



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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 28 2010 at 7:32pm
Really, every movie I listed ... all TWO of them? In the 100+ years of filmmaking, you have seen every movie ever made? Try harder. Go to Netflix, search for something you never saw or heard of and rent/watch that. Hell, watch some TCM and compare it to modern movies if you like. It's better than pissing your time and money away on anything listed on the Forums (unless you're a voting RAZZIE member).  



-------------
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: September 29 2010 at 7:45am

"Will this die a mysterious death at the BO?"  My answer is, "Yes!"  It opens competing against two movies that look much more interesting ('The Social Network' and 'Let Me In') and in the midst of all that, I predict it will be ignored...  




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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: September 29 2010 at 7:10pm
I'm thinking the answer to the question below is "No!"  I mean, there's not going to be any mystery as to why Case 39 dies at the box office, is there? . . . Wink  

Originally posted by Head RAZZberry

"Will this die a mysterious death at the BO?"  



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


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: September 29 2010 at 9:30pm
So basically you're saying "death at the Box Office"-- yes..."mystery,"-- no?  
 
I need to check the reviews again, but I doubt they've improved.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 30 2010 at 7:41am
There's no mystery about IF this movie will bomb ... just about HOW badly!

-------------
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: CobraSwamp
Date Posted: October 02 2010 at 4:42am
If I was MovieWizGuy, I'd wait for the reviews to come in before I said, "This movie is good!" "R.T says X has a/an Y approval rating." "It looks good!" Etc. Etc. 

P.S: I was dragged to Clash Of The Titans, when there were better movies to see. But my brother said it was decent! (Sorry, Off Topic, in order to prove I am not MWG material! Also sorry, I'm not a good speller!) 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Not to worry about the spelling stuff -- I regularly pop by to edit Forum posts and clean up such things. As for your brother saying the recent remake of  http://www.razzies.com/forum/clash-of-the-titans-in-fake-3d_forum425.html - http://www.razzies.com/forum/the-berry-worst-movie-of-2010-thru-aug-31_topic4537.html%20 - to our End-of-Summer Forum POLL regarding the Worst Movies Released in 2010...So Far. You'll notice that CLASH is one of the bigger vote-getting titles listed... 




-------------
YES, I'm a Cobra, and YES, I take a BITE outta movies!


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 02 2010 at 9:04am
Oh, wow. It's not a surprise Case 39 bombed this weekend but the bigger surprise is that Let Me In did too. That's really sad considering the film was fantastic. It looks like misleading marketing led to its end.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 02 2010 at 2:55pm

Yo, CobraSwamp, your suggestion (see below) would require using logic, and poor MWG doesn't believe in such things. He would rather go on blind faith and hope the movie is good just because he WANTS it will be...  

Originally posted by CobraSwamp

If was MovieWizGuy, I'd wait for the reviews to come in before I said, "This movie is good!" "R.T says X has a/an approval rating." "It looks good!" Etc. Etc.



-------------
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: October 02 2010 at 3:04pm
I'm not at all surprised Case 39 bombed this weekend, considering everyone and their brother was drooling at the mouth to see "The Social Network" of course it was going to blow everyone else away. No one is going to see horror movies until Halloween.

-------------
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: October 02 2010 at 5:52pm
BHB: Too bad Let Me In isn't a horror movie.  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

I'm not at all surprised, considering everyone and their brother was drooling at the mouth to see "The Social Network", of course it was going to blow everyone else away. No one is going to see horror movies until Halloween.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 02 2010 at 6:54pm
OK - Thriller, whatever. 

Point is, teenagers would rather pay money to see a melodramatic take on how their favorite social website was created.


-------------
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: October 02 2010 at 7:04pm
I'm surprised Social Network isn't breaking box office records, considering Facebook has like 500 billion users.  


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


Posted By: CobraSwamp
Date Posted: October 03 2010 at 2:19am
You're right, HeadRazz, Titans is a big vote-getter in the Forum Poll ( http://www.razzies.com/forum/the-berry-worst-movie-of-2010-thru-aug-31_topic4537.html - LINK )! But the movie getting the most votes is Last Airbender

In fact, I predict you are going to make a Forum for Yogi Bear, the 3-D movie Christmas movie! *CoughResidentEvil:ExtinctionGotIt'sOwnPageCough*


-------------
YES, I'm a Cobra, and YES, I take a BITE outta movies!


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 03 2010 at 10:29am
Yeah, Airbender is leading in the Forum Poll because of how M. Nut royally screwed that movie up! 



-------------
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: CobraSwamp
Date Posted: October 04 2010 at 7:18pm
WARNING: The following post is pretty long! I'm sorry if you get bored!  

In fact, when I saw the trailer for Last Airbender, I thought, "Razzie." But, I voted for the worst movie I've seen in 2010 so far...and It's Clash Of The Titans. I almost slept through that movie, and even wanted to walk out!

Alas, boy, (I have a tendecy to be casual, and call men, "Boy") I had to be polite! I was not allowed to sleep/walk out/boo at the movie.

To go even further, when I told some facts on a Dare site's story, the writer claimed I "Hated It!" Well, get this! I didn't say it was bad, I said the story was crazy! I was also reminded about the grammar errors. ("I got up, and I walked to the door," Becomes, in this example, "I got up, and I walk to the door.")

The story, if you're wondering about, is about a college boy, who becomes a "Dare Slave," (No, I don't know what it means!), and goes through these dumb tasks! Well, I'd rather read that story, than watch Titans again. But, the story's pretty vulgar!  




-------------
YES, I'm a Cobra, and YES, I take a BITE outta movies!


Posted By: Jennifar
Date Posted: November 04 2010 at 8:10am
Case 39 is very good because i like that movies which create suspense. Case 39 is one of the best that is related to that. 

But what does the title Case 39 mean?  There are many cases, but why  choose case 39? 




-------------
http://stopringinginearshelp.com - stop ringing in ears


Posted By: travis112096
Date Posted: January 04 2011 at 10:18pm
no they awarded it for all about steve not the hangover



Print Page | Close Window