Print Page | Close Window

Forum DISCUSSION of MR. POPPER'S PENGUINS

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: INFO on POSSIBLE 2011 RAZZIE® CONTENDERS
Forum Name: DISCUSSION & ADD'L INFO on MR. POPPER's PENGUINS
Forum Discription: Yo, Hollywood: Please Leave Our Favorite Things from Childhood ALONE!!!!
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5122
Printed Date: October 24 2014 at 8:49am


Topic: Forum DISCUSSION of MR. POPPER'S PENGUINS
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Forum DISCUSSION of MR. POPPER'S PENGUINS
Date Posted: June 09 2011 at 10:03am
GO AHEAD, ATTACK IT LIKE a FLOCK of REALLY PISSED-OFF PENGUINS!  

AND, IN CASE YOU MISSED IT, HERE's the http://www.razzies.com/forum/official-razzie-take-on-mr-poppers-penguins_topic5123.html - to SEE the OFFICIAL RAZZIE® TAKE on http://www.razzies.com/forum/discussion-addl-info-on-mr-poppers-penguins_forum530.html - ...  




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



Replies:
Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: June 09 2011 at 10:14am
I can see this being at least as bad as The Number 23 (2007) and worse than Yes Man (2008). If this gets negative reviews (it likely will), I will say to the cast and crew, "Eat penguin sh(beep), you a(beep) spelunkers!"

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


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: June 09 2011 at 12:46pm

Why do they always have to re-use the worthless father angle in these kind of movies?



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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: June 09 2011 at 3:37pm
The trailer was awful! Not because it wasn't funny (though it wasn't), but because for the first time in my life a trailer gave me no reason at all to see the movie. OK, so a bunch of penguins invade Jim Carrey's apartment. That's it?? 

I know that anything can be a premise for a movie, but that doesn't mean it should!  


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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: June 09 2011 at 7:35pm
This movie is SO going to be overshadowed by the other penguin movie of the year, "Happy Feet 2". Although, with "Happy Feet", I think everything that needed to be said was already said in the first movie.

-------------
"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: Grounder the Critic
Date Posted: June 10 2011 at 5:45am
I have mixed feelings on this movie, judging by the trailer. I'll just wait till the film comes out, but if it sucks, give me the book any day.

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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: June 10 2011 at 9:19am
Why?!Was the COUNT in the movie that different from the books?Well,his GRINCH was too,but that didn't mean he gave a bad performance.  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Sounds like you have not read the LEMONY SNICKET novels. I read all 13 of them aloud to my son when he was younger, and loved their smart alecky tone, the respect they showed for their readers' intelligence by using large words and then defining them humorously, and the goose-bumpy-fun sense of menace that loomed over everything. 

Carrey and his cohorts took this brilliant material and turned it into CRAP -- Excuses for mugging, lame physical humor and dipsh*t jokes. They mooshed three of the series' novels into a single film, and then had the nerve to lop the wedding that ended the initial book and shoved it all the way to the point in the overall plot where the third novel ended. 

The near total lack of respect for the source material was, I think, an enormous factor in the first LEMONY film being the only one. By heaping such scorn on the books young movie-goers knew and loved, the film's makers blew their chance at having a HARRY POTTER-like franchise...


Originally posted by HeadRAZZBerry

WE WERE SURPRISED WHEN CARREY's HIDEOUS MOVIE of  http://2threads.com/wp-content/uploads/img/blog/story.jpg -  DIDN'T "WIN" EITHER of the RAZZIES® for WHICH IT WAS NOMINATED. WE WERE DISAPPOINTED WHEN CARREY FAILED to GET a WORST ACTOR NOD for HIS INDEFENSIBLE BIG SCREEN RAPING of  http://c0181321.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/PHga5jhpNRuJjm_2_m.jpg -


Posted By: Film Reel Redemption
Date Posted: June 11 2011 at 12:15am

All I've got to say to Carrey's career, if 'MR. POPPER's PENGUINS' bombs:  

"Good Morning. And in case we don't see you again, good afternoon, good evening...and goodnight!".


-------------
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: Vits
Date Posted: June 11 2011 at 1:43pm
Hang on.You said you wanted Carrey to be nominated as Worst Actor. He gave a good performance in both movies, even if the characters were wrongly written...    

Originally posted by HeadRAZZBerry

The near total lack of respect for the source material was, I think, an enormous factor in the first LEMONY film being the only one.

SNICKET had good reviews. I liked it(7/10), but when I found out it was made from 3 books, I wasn't surprised, based on the movie's confusing narrative. Some well-reviewed movies have been nominated, but you could've nominated SNICKET for Worst Screenplay or Worst Remake,but not Worst Picture.  

I heard there wasn't a sequel because it stayed in development hell for too long (buying the rights, deciding if the script would be written from one or more books, and which ones, worrying about dissatisfied fans like you, etc.). Now Liam Aiken and Emily Browning are too old to reprise their roles. 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: My objection to Carrey in both GRINCH and SNICKET is that he took two characters every literate child is familiar with, and turned them into versions of himself -- how you can call these "good performances" when the actor should have known better than to accept either part is beyond me. An integral part of any actor's job is knowing which roles to accept and which to reject -- which he is capable of enacting, and which he is blatantly unsuited for. 

While many found Carrey's Grinch amusing, I found him grating about 20 minutes in, and the film was nearly 2 hours long. As for Count Olaf, in the novels he was an elderly man whose evil seemed obvious only to the 3 children who were the novels' main characters. As played by Carrey, he was about as subtle in his "evilness" as Cruella deVille in the animated 101 DALMATIANS. Besides being about 30 years to young for the part (and the make-up did not solve this problem) Carrey apparently was unwilling to play the role as being purely, hate-ably, despicably malicious. Like too many a comic actor, Carrey wanted to be "liked," even when playing an irredeemable villain -- and Olaf was supposed to be the embodiment of UN-likeable.  

So, NO, I disagree with you on the "merit" of either of these Carrey performances... 





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


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: June 13 2011 at 12:53pm
I agree (yes this is my first time posting, but I've been looking at these forums for years I just decided to finally create a account) I don't understand Headrazzberry's hatred of Jim Carrey (A series of unforunate events is a poor example because it actually had good reviews). Sure this movies looks pretty bad, but he tried to target his last two movies and that went nowhere (Horton and Christmas). Also Jim Carrey getting a nomination for A series of Unforunate Events wouldn't have been pleasing for me (Maybe the reason they didn't make a sequel was because of Jim Carrey's anti-sequel routine, and simply couldn't recast in time).


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: June 13 2011 at 1:17pm
Carrey has been in a lot of adaptations.It's true that he applies his trademarks,but I'm pretty sure it's the writers fault if the characters don't resemble the books.

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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: June 13 2011 at 2:47pm
The problem with Jim Carrey is that he will forever be remembered for his roles of being the human cartoon character, be it making funny faces, making odd noises, or just making his body into a pretzel. Yes, it was all funny back in 1994, but it has gotten stale since then. And like Adam Sandler's manchild rountine, Carrey is trapped in that sterotype of the silly man, and audiences won't pay to see him do drama or play any other kind of role. When comedians go to the well too many times, they become one-trick ponies, and that could be the ruin of their careers.

-------------
"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: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: June 13 2011 at 2:58pm
Carrey is an incredible actor and a brilliant comedian. I don't care what anybody on this forum says.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: June 14 2011 at 10:10am
 I get the weird feeling that this is nothing more than the backstory for some future installment of Batman.

-------------
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: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: June 14 2011 at 10:16am
....on the other hand, when Mrs. Penguin's Poppers hits the theaters, I'm there.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: Grounder the Critic
Date Posted: June 15 2011 at 6:04pm
Currently, Popper's got a 71% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, so this may be good despite it's toilet jokes. I'm sure it will.

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


Posted By: Sman
Date Posted: June 15 2011 at 10:18pm
I don't know as more reviews come in I think it'll end around a 45% on R.T. Really thought Green Lantern would be WMOTW.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: June 16 2011 at 8:37am
As of this morning, Mr Popper had fallen to 47% with 19 reviews counted. That is still a small sample, but I doubt that it is going to climb from there.

-------------
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: June 16 2011 at 4:36pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

As of this morning, Mr Popper had fallen to 47% with 19 reviews counted. That is still a small sample, but I doubt that it is going to climb from there.
I never thought I would see the day when a Jim Carrey movie co-starring penguins would be higher rated on RT than the "Green Lantern" movie! How do you mess that 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: Vits
Date Posted: June 16 2011 at 4:47pm
R.T. has a concensus:"Blandly inoffensive and thoroughly predictable,it could've been worse...but it should have been better".

Roger Ebert(*,5/****):"A stupefying dumb family movie proving that penguins have limited charisma as pets".


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


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: June 17 2011 at 8:37am
I thought from the trailers it looked okay.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: June 17 2011 at 5:58pm
Richard Roeper gave it a C-:

http://www.richardroeper.com/reviews/mrpopperspenguins.aspx


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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: June 19 2011 at 8:56pm
Originally posted by whatsthepoint

Carrey is an incredible actor and a brilliant comedian. I don't care what anybody on this forum says.
I'm responding to this tonight only because I am bored. The word "incredible" is an extremely strong adjective. Perhaps you could give me one example of Carrey turning in one performance that qualifies as worthy of that word, let alone a string of them? And no, I am not going to accept Man on the Moon inspite of Carrey's Oscar nomination, which was a very misguided gesture on the part of AMPAS. I had the pleasure of meeting Andy Kaufman, and Jim Carrey is no Andy Kaufman. Brillant comedian? Evidently all that is required to achieve that status is the ability to make faces and pass off body function jokes. I don't think I have ever seen anything in a Carrey movie that made me laugh. A truly brilliant comic has wide appeal. I can provide a lengthy list of men and women who have achieved that status. Carrey would not be on it. I have made this point before: Personal taste does not convey universal appeal. I like the movie UHF. Frankly, it was a piece of crap comedy that made me laugh. The fact that I liked it doesn't make it a masterpiece in the genre. Nor does your enjoyment of Carrey's work make him either an incredible actor or brilliant comedian.

-------------
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: Michaels
Date Posted: June 20 2011 at 5:34am
The only other serious role of Jim Carrey's was "The Truman Show". Although tha movie doesn't put him in the category of brilliant comedian either.

-------------
"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: June 20 2011 at 9:27am
It will remain at 45% in R.T..Contender?
Originally posted by Michaels

The only other serious role of Jim Carrey's was "The Truman Show".
What about SIMON BIRCH,THE MAJESTIC,ETERNAL SUNSHINE, http://www.razzies.com/forum/the-number-23_forum179.html - and I LOVE YOU,PHILLIP MORRIS?


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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: June 20 2011 at 10:48am
True, those movies do prove that he CAN act. However, they don't prove that he's an "incredible" actor, just a better-than-average one.  

Originally posted by Vits

What about SIMON BIRCH,THE MAJESTIC,ETERNAL SUNSHINE, http://www.razzies.com/forum/the-number-23_forum179.html - - THE NUMBER 23  and I LOVE YOU,PHILLIP MORRIS?


-------------
"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: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: June 20 2011 at 5:18pm
True comedic genius remains laugh out loud funny throughout the ages and with each viewing of a movie. Carrey's stuff might make you laugh out loud the first time you see it, but years later, you're lucky if you can work up a chuckle upon seeing that movie again.

-------------
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: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: June 23 2011 at 8:33am
Carrey also won a Golden Globe for Truman Show and Man in the Moon. Wink  


Originally posted by Michaels

The only other serious role of Jim Carrey's was "The Truman Show". Although tha movie doesn't put him in the category of brilliant comedian either.



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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: June 23 2011 at 9:38am
Sorry, WTP, but here at the Razzies (and throughout most of the entertainment industry), The Golden Globes get no respect. Mostly, it's because their voters are in the 90 member range, if that! By comparison, the Razzie voting member numbers are closer to 700! And Carrey could have won those awards by getting less than 30% of those 90 votes!  



-------------
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: Gregory
Date Posted: June 24 2011 at 4:06pm
Carrey did win a Golden Globe for Man on the Moon but, fortunately, he did not get an Oscar nomination for it.  

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

And no, I am not going to accept Man on the Moon inspite of Carrey's Oscar nomination, which was a very misguided gesture on the part of AMPAS.
 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: For the curious, here is an http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000120/awards - to their page listing all award nominations for Jim Carrey. He has never been an Academy Award® nominee, but if you scroll way down the page, you'll see that he has been a RAZZIE® contender...TWICE!  






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


Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: July 05 2011 at 8:29am
This one really hurts, as Richard and Florence Atwater's book was one of my favorites as a child.  While I was hoping it would reach the big screen some day, I'd always imagined it as more a period piece, to be set around the time the book was in fact written; even reading it in the early 90s, that seemed right for the story they were telling; certainly, in today's financial world, showing the Poppers' overt financial travails, balanced PROPERLY with the difficulties of raising an increasingly large number of penguins would have hit a chord with people still struggling to find jobs in the recovery (assuming they'd have the money to buy a movie ticket, that is).  And the humor there was perfect, with everything naturally coming from the penguins' natural instincts.  Some time down the road, if someone actually wants to try it this way, then maybe they'd have a worthwhile picture, but this, no, not in the least.  Now if someone even so much as touches The Cricket in Times Square (Chuck Jones's adaptation in the 70s, though somewhat compressed, works well enough as it is, as did its 2 holiday followups), somebody just might get thrown off the studio roof...


Posted By: jesse685
Date Posted: July 05 2011 at 5:36pm

OMG, I knew right when I saw something for this, I knew it would be w***e-s**t.



-------------
"If you can't make it good, make it 3D!" Peter Travers, Rolling Stone
F**k Yeah/WTF Were They Thinking Awards Results Live-Tweet @jesse685


Posted By: jesse685
Date Posted: July 20 2011 at 10:27pm
Just watched it, have to say, the penguins' names are f***ing horrible! e.g. Bitey, Stinky, Loudy, Lovey. Also, Clark Gregg had quite a s**t supporting role, in which later on during the film, SPOILER ALERT: His character was going to trade the penguins for animals like Bengal tigers, WHO F***ING DOES THAT!

-------------
"If you can't make it good, make it 3D!" Peter Travers, Rolling Stone
F**k Yeah/WTF Were They Thinking Awards Results Live-Tweet @jesse685


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: October 03 2011 at 8:40am
I just saw it,but won't review it.

It started off as a harmless family movie(which is quite rare),but during the last part it became too corny.Throughout,it was predictable and not really funny.

I give it 4/10.

F.Y.C.:
-Actor:Maybe.I re-read HeadRAZZ's posts about how being an actor also means to choose the right roles,and he has good points.
-Supp. Actress;Couple/Ensemble:No.The only other cast member in consideration is Carla Gugino because she was also in SUCKER PUNCH.She was decent in that one,and nothing worth mentioning here.And while at times I felt the relationship between Carrey and the penguins was forced,and in one scene rushed,overall it was OK.
-Director:No.
-Screenplay;Remake:Maybe.I've heard it's berry different from the book,but is it enough to rape child memories?
-Picture;Excuse For Family Entertainment:No.



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


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: February 14 2012 at 10:48am

I saw it with my family. They all seemed to really enjoy it. They actually laughed several times through. I didn't think it was bad either. No nominations from me, except some CGI award.



Print Page | Close Window