Print Page | Close Window

Just How FOCKing Awful IZ It?!?!?

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: 31st Annual RAZZIE® Award Nominees & "WINNERS"
Forum Name: LITTLE FOCKERS
Forum Discription: CO-"WINNER" for WORST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: JESSICA ASLBA (Nominated for 3 RAZZIES®)
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4721
Printed Date: October 24 2014 at 2:00am


Topic: Just How FOCKing Awful IZ It?!?!?
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Just How FOCKing Awful IZ It?!?!?
Date Posted: December 21 2010 at 10:41am
2010 WAS a YEAR CHOCK-FULL-o-SCHLOCKY REMAKES, RIP-OFFS and SEQUELS. YET IT SOMEHOW SEEMS APPROPRIATE THAT TINSEL TOWN SAVED ONE of the BERRY WORST EXAMPLES of ITS CREATIVE BAKRUPTCY for YEAR's END: http://www.razzies.com/forum/little-fockers_forum474.html -  IS AMONG the MOST BLATANT BUX-GRUBBING/BONE-HEADED "COMEDIES" of LAST YEAR.  AND in a YEAR THAT INCLUDED  http://www.razzies.com/forum/the-bounty-hunter_forum420.html - ,  http://www.razzies.com/forum/furry-vengeance_forum430.html - , http://www.razzies.com/forum/grown-ups_forum443.html - , http://www.razzies.com/forum/killers_forum438.html - , http://www.razzies.com/forum/life-as-we-know-it_forum461.html - , http://www.razzies.com/forum/marmaduke_forum439.html - , http://www.razzies.com/forum/sex-the-city-too_forum437.html - , http://www.razzies.com/forum/the-tooth-fairy_forum409.html - , http://www.razzies.com/forum/vampires-suck_forum454.html - , http://www.razzies.com/forum/when-in-rome_forum411&SID=bff67aez9d1678zfcfadf85a8b129ea1.html - , http://www.razzies.com/forum/yogi-bear-in-3d_forum472.html - and http://www.razzies.com/forum/the-list-jan-1-april-16_topic4037.html - , THAT'S SAYING a LOT

WITH a CAST of BIG NAMES ACCUSTOMED to BEING OSCAR® BAIT RATHER THAN RAZZIE® TARGETS, FOCKERS #3 IS SO BAD THAT the FIRST TV ADz for IT WERE 90% CLIPS from the PREVIOUS TWO FILMS -- NEVER a GOOD SIGN. 

SPEAKING of 90%, THAT's ALSO THIS FILM's APPROXIMATE http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/little_fockers/ -
EVERYTHING POINTED to THIS MAYBE BEING the LAST REAL RAZZIE® WORTHY MOVIE of 2010 -- BUT THEN, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1320261/ - OPENED on CHRISTMAS DAY...and IT WASN'T PRE-SCREENED for CRITICS at ALL! 

OUR FORUM MEMBERS TOOK a BREAK from BASTING THEIR HOLIDAY HAMS to LAMBASTE the CAST FULL of HAMS SHOWCASED HERE. 

YULE ENJOY YER HOLIDAZE BERRY MUCH MORE IF YOU DO, TOO! 



HOFFMAN: "So, Babs, this should've gotten me  my 
Berry First RAZZIE® Nomination..."

BABS: "It got me my third!  Thank God they don't have 
a category for Worst Frazzle-Haired Fright Wig..."  




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



Replies:
Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: December 21 2010 at 10:53am
If I wern't a voter, this would be the kind of film that I would try to avoid.

Am I the only person who never really liked the first film in the trilogy?


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: December 21 2010 at 11:33am
Anyone who got tickets to this movie in their stocking probably ended up on Santa's Naughty List.  This film looks like a complete waste of talent.  There are a lot of big names in this picture: Ben Stiller, Robert De Niro, Owen Wilson (who's already in trouble for 'Marmaduke'), Jessica Alba (who's already in trouble for 'Valentine's Day'), Dustin Hoffman, Barbara Streisand, and Colin Baiocchi and Daisy Tahan (as the title characters).  These guys deserve better.
 
If that's not bad enough, the prognosticators on Box Office Mojo say that this will make $37.6M in its opening weekend.  Hopefully, that won't happen.  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I would expect, given the popularity of the previous two FOCKER movies, that this will probably open big, then plummet after the holiday weekend. But as someone who has railed against the public and its embrace of the TWILGHT phenomenon, I am surprised that you, of all people Miguel, think there's any chance this won't do at least brisk business for its first few daze.  Among those already rating it over at B.O. MoJo as of 3pm/PST the day before its official opening ( http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=meetthefockerssequel.htm -
 




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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 21 2010 at 11:51am
I found the first movie funny for what it was, but the concept didn't have the legs to last another two movies -- and this is the proof. Like I said before, here's yet another chance for Jessica Alba to get the long-awaited Razzing that she has been ducking for so many years.

-------------
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: December 21 2010 at 2:04pm

Variety said that the franchise overstayed its welcome, and considering the significant drop in humor, it has.  I hear that this movie is also responsible for coining the term 'Godfocker', which is a reference to another one of De Niro's movies.  This movie will heighten the demand for a Worst Ensemble category.



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


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: December 21 2010 at 2:17pm
I've never heard the term "Godfocker" before. Is that when someone in an all-time classic role signs up for one that could break his career?

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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: December 21 2010 at 2:39pm
I actually thought the first of these movies was a train wreck. I just wish I could say that I am even a little surprised that it spawned two sequels. If there were ever an example of how low things have sunk in Hollywood, this is it.

-------------
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: December 21 2010 at 7:37pm
It's been a while since we assessed our Usual Razzie Worst Actress Suspects' talents.  By that I mean, actresses whose names are most likely to attract the attention of Razzie voters.  
 
Let's see, starting with an actress with no talent at all, and working toward an actress who may be talented, but picks bad films:  
Paris Hilton  
Carmen Elektra  
Megan Fox  
Jessica Alba  
Madonna  
Lindsay Lohan  
Hillary Duff  
 
It was difficult to place Madonna on this list.  I couldn't decide if she was more or less talented than Jessica Alba.  And yes, Alba should feel insulted by the waivering, let alone my final decision. . . .
 
Now I need to figure out where Miley Cyrus figures into this list.  The best I could figure is that she's more talented than Megan Fox.  Help! . . .
 
Any other opinions?  

 


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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 21 2010 at 8:01pm
Why does this have a forum?! ...That's a rhetorical question.
I gave the first two 9/10, but I can see why people didn't like the 2nd one.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 21 2010 at 8:50pm
The second movie was just rehashing jokes from the first, which further proves this movie's concept didn't have the legs for any sequels. 

As much as Hollywood loves to milk a cash cow, there are just some stories that are only worth telling ONCE. 


-------------
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: December 21 2010 at 11:35pm

Lucky thing De Niro and Harvey Keitel* (he's in this movie too, just goes to show how you can go from 'Mean Streets' and 'Reservoir Dogs' to an all time low and a time even lower) are gonna make up for this by reteaming with Martin Scorsese for the film 'The Irishman'.

*He's tipped for a role


-------------
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: Vheid
Date Posted: December 22 2010 at 3:24am
If I had children, I would definitely not take them to see this movie. I mean, in the trailer Ben Stiller injects a needle into De Niro's erect you-know-what -- that clearly isn't some "nice family fun."   

I am really glad that I grew up in a time and culture where not all children's shows were filled with sex and fart jokes!  

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Plus, there really isn't a whole lot else newly in release for entire families to go see over Xmas weekend...


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


Posted By: oiram
Date Posted: December 22 2010 at 3:59am
I am not surprised that this ended up being so bad.
 
Don't know how it could fit on the list, though, besides Jessica Alba.


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




Posted By: Gregory
Date Posted: December 22 2010 at 9:15am
7% at RT!! This is a MAJOR Razzie contender! Could have nominees in every acting category:
 
Worst Actor: Ben Stiller, Robert DeNiro
Worst Actress: Teri Polo, Jessica Alba (depending on screen time)
Worst Supporting Actor: Owen Wilson, Dustin Hoffman, Harvey Keitel
Worst Supporting Actress: Blythe Danner, Barbra Streisand


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 22 2010 at 11:42am
I'm pretty sure Polo and Alba are supporting.

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


Posted By: oiram
Date Posted: December 22 2010 at 4:59pm
Wow! Gotta make sure this is on the list!

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




Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: December 22 2010 at 5:49pm
Now I need just 1 more Worst Supporting Actress suggestion, but it probably won't come with Gulliver's Travels. I remember Meet the Parents was on my Best Films of 2000, and I ignored Meet the Fockers (I make the "ck" heavier and pronounce it "Foggers") in 2004. Now this will be on my Worst of 2010. Thankfully, it's the end of a trilogy!

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


Posted By: moorlock2003
Date Posted: December 22 2010 at 6:52pm
This movie NEEDS to get numerous nominations. As it is just coming out, it will be fresh in people's minds in time for the Razzies, a good thing for really giving it the shellacking it deserves.

-------------
Fred Cooper


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: December 22 2010 at 7:30pm
I wouldn't bet on it if this one makes any money... Teen Fockers, Wedding Day Fockers, Grandparent Fockers, Funeral Fockers....it could go on and on and on and on...  

Originally posted by GTAHater767

Thankfully, it's the end of a trilogy!


-------------
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: December 22 2010 at 7:57pm
My guess, the next movie will be entitled "Go Fock Yourself," in which there will be no plot whatsoever, and every other spoken word is "focker" -- Kinda like "My Dinner With Andre,", but not at all insightful...  



-------------
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: December 23 2010 at 3:51am
"My Dinner with Focker"? Or maybe marry two franchises with "National Lampoon's Focker Family Vacation."  

-------------
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: oiram
Date Posted: December 23 2010 at 4:41am
This definitely must get nominations for worst remake/sequel and worst screen ensemble.

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




Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 23 2010 at 11:10am
I know you're just joking, but those titles wouldn't work. 
 
MEET THE PARENTS 
|
|
MEET THE 
|
|
V
MEET "THE FOCKERS" 
|
|
FOCKERS 
|
|
V
LITTLE FOCKERS. 
 
So the next movie has to have LITTLE on the title. Based on that, and that without FOCKERS in it, the title won't be funny, I doubt they'll make a #4. 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: LITTLE FOCKERS, a shameless cashing-in on the previous two films' success, actually ends with a blatant set-up for a 4th FOCKERS film. Don't wanna "spoil" it for anyone, but they clearly expect to keep the franchise going -- Unless this one bombs (we hope, we hope!)... 



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


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: December 23 2010 at 12:02pm
If there will be a fourth installment. I can asure you that it is going to have the name "Fockers" in it.

So let's all hope that this movie will lose money.

Originally posted by Vits

I know you're just joking,but those titles wouldn't work.
So the next movie has to have LITTLE on the title.Based on that,and that without FOCKERS the title won't be funny,I doubt they make a #4.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 23 2010 at 4:44pm
Or, how about "I Know Who Focked Me"? Or "I Know Who You Focked Last Summer"?

-------------
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: moorlock2003
Date Posted: December 23 2010 at 7:49pm
No, the next one will be called "Mother Focker!"

-------------
Fred Cooper


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: December 23 2010 at 8:33pm

Perhaps it will end up being Razzed Focker.



-------------
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: December 24 2010 at 3:07am
I'll be keeping an eye on Country Strong this Christmas weekend.  It seems the critics are going to have a food fight over this movie.  Whatever one critic says is wrong with the movie (say, the characters are not believable or relatable), another critic says is the best thing about the movie (say, the characters are indeed believable or relatable).  The only thing they agree about is the music - at worst, some critics say it's okay, and many say the music is good.  If bad reviews continue to pour in and the Metacritic score is below 30, I may just have some fun and put together a forum.
 
As for whether Little Fockers is a box office hit or bomb, I'm afraid with over $7 million coming in on a Wednesday night opening, we have a bad movie that's a hit.  That shouldn't keep anybody from nominating it, though (Trannies 2, anybody?).
 


Posted By: Grounder the Critic
Date Posted: December 24 2010 at 5:25am
Or the next movie in the series is gonna be, "Fock These Films!"


-------------
Pictures move, do they?


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 24 2010 at 10:19pm
I think either CNN or USA Today had the best headline for this movie: "Little Fockers" Is All Focked 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: oiram
Date Posted: December 25 2010 at 4:20am
Oh, it probably will flop. This is the highest-costing one of the series yet (105-120 million #cite_note-0 - ), so I doubt that they'll make their budget back on the first week. 
 
As a little side note, I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet_the_Parents_%281992_film - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet_the_Parents_(1992_film )
 
So, it turns out that Meet the Parents has been a remake all this time. I wonder if anyone else knew this?




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




Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 25 2010 at 10:37am
Yeah, I saw that when I looked into the movie's info. That's yet another rare good remake.

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 25 2010 at 11:08pm
Although, saturwatcher and I might highly question just how "good" Meet the Parents really was. 




-------------
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: December 26 2010 at 7:48am
The 1992 or 2000 version?

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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: December 26 2010 at 7:56am
I take it you mean as a  "remake"??  
 
I haven't seen the original, but reading up on its plot, it's story isn't that well laid out.  
 
SPOILER
 
In the original 1992 movie, you have Greg, who talks to a gas station attendant filling the role of the prophet.  The attendant tells Greg about what happened to the previous boyfriend and recommends Greg stay away.  Well, that sets it up for Pam's parents to make life miserable for Greg without cause, right?  Well, like in the remake, Greg goes all "Dick Van Dyke possessed by Jerry Lewis on steroids," with one over-the-top clumsy accident after another.  Forget that Pam's father doesn't like him.  He's a klutz to the nth degree, and Greg winds up being chased away by the father before Greg does something that ends civilization as we know it. 
 
Now, go back and think about what the gas station attendant said.  Why have that piece making the parents impossible to please when it turns out to be Greg that's the problem?
 
END SPOILER
 
Now, what kind of plot is that?  In light of that confused storyline, the remake would appear to be an improvement over the original movie.
 


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 26 2010 at 9:30am
Yes, I was talking about the 2000 remake with Stiller and De Niro, which was funny at times, but not funny enough -- nor did it have a story that should have gone on to be the trilogy it has become.

-------------
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: Vheid
Date Posted: December 26 2010 at 9:38am
So could someone tell me what the charm of that first film was, because I could never understand why so many people liked it??  




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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 26 2010 at 10:55am
Originally posted by Vheid


So could you tell me what the charm of this first film was, because I could never understand why so many people like it.
Well, it's all about timing. Around 1998/1999, Ben Stiller became a star with "Something About Mary" and Robert De Niro was just starting to dip his toes in (successful) comedy with "Analyze This". So for 2000, we had the then-new and popular comedy act of Stiller, joined with the usually serious, now doing light comedy De Niro. Basically, the entire movie is, as I have pointed out before, Stiller doing something awkward that De Niro doesn't aprove of, which results in Stiller being all embrassed and having to explain himself. Also added onto this was the ever relatable "meeting my future parent-inlaws and extended family routine" that every future husband or wife has to go through, in this case, resulting in a comedy of errors. So the succes of the first movie was all in the timing. However, Stiller and De Niro being all awkward around each other has lost it's appeal, now 10 years later, in which no one considers Stiller to be funny any more, and De Niro just seems to be going from paycheck to paycheck these days.

-------------
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: December 26 2010 at 1:49pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Yes, I was talking about the 2000 remake with Stiller and De Niro, which was funny at times, but not funny enough -- nor did it have a story that should have gone on to be the trilogy it has become.
I'm sorry if you didn't liked it,but the box office results and reviews it got are enough to call it a good remake.
Originally posted by Vheid

So could someone tell me what the charm of that first film was, because I could never understand why so many people liked it??
Aside from what Burn said,it's the fact that the movie is filled with those funny situations that at first sight seem like you only find them in movies,yet,if you think about it you can relate to most of the movie.
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

However, Stiller and De Niro being all awkward around each other has lost it's appeal, now 10 years later, in which no one considers Stiller to be funny any more, and De Niro just seems to be going from paycheck to paycheck these days.
Not that I have a problem with you stating facts like you're automatically right,but...well,yeah.

The act only got tired because the sequels weren't funny enough.But I can assure you if you see that in other movies or shows it can still work.For example MODERN FAMILY(JAY & PHIL).

It's true that DeNiro's latest movies seem like he just does it for the money.At list Harrison Ford admits it.But what makes you say nobody thinks Stiller is funny anymore?


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 26 2010 at 5:01pm
Responding to Vits (see below): 

1. But of course, because as we have been saying all this year, Hollywood must milk a cash cow for all it's worth. Frankly, we really didn't need a "Meet The Fockers". It was pretty much the same movie all over again, except now we're being introduced to Stiller's Type B parents instead of his wife's Type A parents. Oh, and a baby instead of a cat. 
 
2. That's what I meant by a "comedy of errors". I mean only in the movies would a man set a house or lawn on fire from smoking on the roof of the house. Although, you never know these days with the kind of stupid people in the world. Then there's the outragous things like a potty trained cat peeing on grandma's ashes or losing the cat and painting a stray cat's tail to replace him with.
 
3. Well, "Modern Family" is a series that is designed to last for 24 episodes a year with a wide range of events for them to be put through, and it has a large writing cast. Not to mention there's not one but THREE families to work with. As for Stiller not being funny, he's been doing the same routine for the past 10 years at every award show, be it the MTV Movies or the Oscar. "Oh look at me, I'm dressed in an weird costume, isn't that funny!". It's gotten old.

Originally posted by Vits

 
1. I'm sorry if you didn't liked it,but the box office results and reviews it got are enough to call it a good remake.
 
2. Aside from what Burn said,it's the fact that the movie is filled with those funny situations that at first sight seem like you only find them in movies,yet,if you think about it you can relate to most of the movie.
 
3. Not that I have a problem with you stating facts like you're automatically right,but...well,yeah.

The act only got tired because the sequels weren't funny enough.But I can assure you if you see that in other movies or shows it can still work.For example MODERN FAMILY(JAY & PHIL).

It's true that DeNiro's latest movies seem like he just does it for the money.At list Harrison Ford admits it.But what makes you say nobody thinks Stiller is funny anymore?
 


-------------
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: December 27 2010 at 10:23am
1) I thought we were talking about why the first one was good. 

2)Comedy really is subjective. Some people enjoy a certain type of jokes, and some not. Because of the success of the first one, I think it's fair to say people really like comedies of errors. 

3)Regardless of what I wrote, what I really asked was "Why do you say he's not funny anymore?" Your answer only tells me that only you don't find him funny anymore. 



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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 27 2010 at 1:43pm
1. Well, we're explaining why the first movie was popular at that time, but I wouldn't say it was worthy of a sequel based on the lack of anyway for the story to continue besides just doing it all over again while using Stiller's character's parents.  

2. Yes, but then there's just recycling jokes from the first two movies all over again.  

3. Then ask saturnwatcher or anyone else here what they think of Ben Stiller's tiresome, decade-old "I'm funny because I wear funny costumes" routine. If no one agress that it's gotten old, then I guess it's just me.  

Originally posted by Vits

 1)I thought we were talking about why the first one was good.
2)Comedy really is subjective.Some people enjoy a certain type of jokes,and some not.Because of the success of the first one,I think it's fair to say people really like comedies of errors.
3)Regardless of what I wrote,what I really asked was "Why doyou say he's not funny anymore?".Your answer only tells me that only you don't find him funny anymore.



-------------
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: December 27 2010 at 2:00pm
How can I ask them if you keep talking for them?

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 27 2010 at 2:29pm
Based on past posts made by members here, that's how I know. Like a picture of Stiller dressed as "Navi" from the last Oscars with the caption "Not funny on any planet", or the fact saturnwatcher doesn't take to low-brow humor. Members give hints to their personal tastes and personalities within their posts.

-------------
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: December 27 2010 at 3:04pm
Definitons can get a bit tricky. I loved Weird Al Yankovich's UHF, which a lot of people might consider low brow. But compared to most of what one would see in the average Adam Sandler film, it probably fails to meet the definition.

-------------
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: December 27 2010 at 8:59pm
Well, you can't get any more low-brow than jokes about bodily fuctions and body fluids, or private parts and sexual fetishes ... stuff that is common place in Sandler movies. That's the kind of low-brow humor I'm taking about, or "bathroom/locker room" humor, if that is a better definition for it.  

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Definitons can get a bit tricky. I loved Weird Al Yankovich's UHF, which a lot of people might consider low brow. But compared to most of what one would see in the average Adam Sandler film, it probably fails to meet the definition.


-------------
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: December 28 2010 at 12:52pm

Body functions and fluids? Do the words "8.6 Courics" mean anything to you?

And private parts and sexual fetishes? Since I was young, I've known about one of them. It was for something absorbent worn on the genitalia.



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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 28 2010 at 6:24pm
I'm guessing you're just joking here, since I figured you had such a strong stance about sex, you would be one of the people who would be offended by jokes and humor that's all about sex.  

Originally posted by GTAHater767

Body functions and fluids? Do the words "8.6 Courics" mean anything to you?

And private parts and sexual fetishes? Since I was young, I've known about one of them. It was for something absorbent worn on the genitalia.



-------------
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: December 28 2010 at 8:38pm

If you're talking personal opinions on sex, one of my college underclassmen agrees that wearing the absorbent article in question feels better than sex. Bluntly put, it renders sex redundant.



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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 29 2010 at 9:49am
I think we have a "lost in translation" thing going on. Are you talking about condoms? I was talking about people being offended by jokes about sex (example: "Funny People" and Adam Sandler's strange obsession with a certain male organ in that movie).  

Originally posted by GTAHater767

If you're talking personal opinions on sex, one of my college underclassmen agrees that wearing the absorbent article in question feels better than sex. Bluntly put, it renders sex redundant.


-------------
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: December 29 2010 at 10:28am
I know we are lost in translation. As for people being offended by jokes about sex... I would agree that Sandler is too fascinated with the male genitalia for his own good. I'm (beep)ed off because despite the appalling reviews on Grown-Ups, many people my age STILL eat his movies up! At least Will Ferrell succeeded with Stranger Than Fiction, but we don't know what Adam Sandler would be good in if not comedy or toilet humor.
 
And I was talking about http://cgi.ebay.com/TENA-Disposable-Adult-Underwear-Diapers-Brief-Medium-12-/320625957370?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4aa6cbd9fa - these , not condoms.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 29 2010 at 11:19am
Ah, yeah -- adult diaper humor is equally distasteful...not to mention disrespectful to those who "depend" on 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: Vits
Date Posted: December 29 2010 at 2:51pm
Speaking of Sandler, what about PUNCH DRUNK LOVE and/or REIGN OVER ME?  

Originally posted by GTAHater767

At least Will Ferrell succeeded with Stranger Than Fiction, but we don't know what Adam Sandler would be good in if not comedy or toilet humor.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 29 2010 at 3:47pm
PUNCH DRUNK LOVE and REIGN OVER ME are nice efforts on Sandler's part, but in the end, they prove that acting like an idiot is all he is really good at. Even in those movie, you can see his "inner moron" desperatly wants to come out and wreak havoc.


-------------
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: December 29 2010 at 8:04pm
You don't see that in Spanglish, but then again, that movie dragged in parts.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 29 2010 at 9:07pm
No, there were one or two quick moments in Spanglish when his moronic side was getting ready to pounce, but didn't fully emerge.  

 


-------------
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: December 30 2010 at 6:44am
SPANGLISH, which I gave 2/10, doesn't count. It's a more serious role, and during the dramatic scenes he gets his act together. But most of the movie is a comedy, and he acts the same way as always.  



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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 30 2010 at 2:56pm
Sandler is pretty much one-note. As we mentioned with all the movies above, he can try to be serious, but acting like a moron is just too natural for him -- his "inner moron" is always lurking just below the surface, ready to jump out. You can almost hear his thoughts, as if he is thinking: "This isn't fun, I wanna come out and play!"  



-------------
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: moorlock2003
Date Posted: January 02 2011 at 11:55am
Originally posted by HeadRAZZBerry


HOFFMAN: "So, Babs, this could get me  my berry 
first RAZZIE® Nomination..."

BABS: "And me my third!  Thank God they don't have 
a category for Worst Frazzle-Haired Fright Wig..."  


I'd like to see both of these "fockers" with Razzie nominations in the supporting categories.

-------------
Fred Cooper


Posted By: Natendowii
Date Posted: January 17 2011 at 8:57am
I Went to see this in the theater with my Parents. Dear Lord I just wanted to walk out, but I couldn't because I was with my Family. It was Boring, predictable, and was so painful I wanted to take out a 9mm to put myself out my misery. the jokes were stupid and predictable, the writing was awful, and I Haven't seen Robert DeNiro slog through Material this bad since Rocky and Bullwinkle! I Nominate this for worst Sequel.

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


Posted By: sizzel
Date Posted: May 02 2011 at 6:14pm
Nowhere as good as the first, very disappointing. The first was awesome and I continue to watch it over and over.

Thanks,
Mark


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: July 03 2011 at 2:27pm
I just saw it,and I gave it 3/10(I gave the other two 9 and 8).Review coming soon.

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


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: July 03 2011 at 4:47pm
They showed this at Le Moyne on March 25th. I know this because I saw Suckey Punch earlier in the day and that was better. Alba wasn't very good, but not as bad as, say Nicola Peltz or Bryce Dallas Howard.

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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 03 2011 at 7:07pm
Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

They showed this at Le Moyne on March 25th. I know this because I saw Suckey Punch earlier in the day and that was better. Alba wasn't very good, but not as bad as, say Nicola Peltz or Bryce Dallas Howard.
Yeah, but Alba was LONG overdue for a razzing.

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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: July 04 2011 at 10:57am
THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE FOR THINKING IT'S SPELLED WITH AN "O" INSTEAD OF A "U"(**/*****).


Starring:Ben Stiller as the father of the LITTLE FOCKERS,and Robert DeNiro as the grandfather of the LITTLE FOCKERS.


The 1st one was the perfect example on how to make a comedy.The 2nd one did repeat a lot of the jokes,but it was still funny,and it opened the door to having fans.But even the fans won't like this one.

So what is the problem with this movie?Simple:after knowing each other for so many years,JACK still doesn't trust GREG?!And how many more times will they make up,only to start all over again?!I'm not an expert in family relationships,but when two in-laws meet and don't like each other,and years later they have an actual fight...well,after that either they like each other or not,but there's no way they can go back to just putting up with the other's presence,which will be the case if they make a 4th movie.

Since they couldn't go any further with the "His name is FOCKER" joke,this time they use "The God-FOCKER".It's barely funny the first time,and they repeat that word 5 times in 30 seconds.And when your "Presentation card" joke fails,the rest of the jokes are destined to fail.It feels as if they just wrote a bunch of gags and pasted them together trying to create the plot,which is twice as predictable as before,and this time you can't overlook that.

There are many types of comedy,and this movie fails mainly because the comedy is different from the other 2 movies.I know that someone backing up a truck and getting people covered in poop seems the same as throwing up on someone,and that a dog humping a cat seems the same as injecting a needle on someone else's penis.Well,it's not.

Like in a lot of modern comedies,there are plot holes through out the movie you only spot if you're trying to look for them(like how bad was JACK at following GREG despite being a former CIA agent),and then when it's about to finish they increase(like the fact that no one seems to care that GREG and JACK are fighting)to the point that even the character's reactions make no sense whatsoever(like ROZ smiling when BERNIE caught her with KEVIN),and it's just painful to watch.

Among the easiest things to write in a comedy is having children acting like adults and/or cursing.We have both of those in this movie,and even they are only mildly amusing in a movie that generates mostly forced laughs.

Stiller sleepwalks through this movie.The only time he changes his face expression and actually tries it's when he pretends to be a hamster,which obviously isn't funny.I know stars prefer to do that to grab a quick buck,specially in sequels,but I didn't expect it from him.He didn't change his face in NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM 2,but he was doing deadpan comedy(there's a difference),and he was funny in that one.Aside from him,there aren't bad performances.It's just that the characters have become such cartoons(specially JACK and ROZ FOCKER)that there's no way to play them without being over-the-top.


Grades: D- in the U.S. and 3,0 in Chile.


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



Print Page | Close Window