Print Page | Close Window

Member Discussion of TWILIGHT: S.B.D. #1

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: INFO on POSSIBLE 2011 RAZZIE® CONTENDERS
Forum Name: DISCUSSION & Add'l INFO on TWILIGHT SBD PART 1
Forum Discription: Here's Where 2 Find Forum Members' Feedback PLUS Reviews, Promos, Grosses and Credits on This Film
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5545
Printed Date: July 31 2014 at 9:12pm


Topic: Member Discussion of TWILIGHT: S.B.D. #1
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Member Discussion of TWILIGHT: S.B.D. #1
Date Posted: November 14 2011 at 8:28am
THE LONG WAIT IS FINALLY OVER! 

HERE's YER CHANCE to SINK YER TEETH* into ONE of 2011's LIKELIEST WORST PICTURE CONTENDERS, http://www.razzies.com/forum/discussion-addl-info-on-twilight-sbd-part-1_forum581.html - (a.k.a. AND BABY MAKES TWEE). 

AND HERE's the LINK to READ HOW BADLY YE OLDE HEAD RAZZberry EXPECTS THIS ONE to SUCK...  

* Sorry, we couldn't resist... 




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



Replies:
Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: November 14 2011 at 9:10am

Now that this film has its proper forum, here's my outlook:

We all know how senseless a feisty sex scene between a vampire and Swan is, but to understand how I knew this would get negative reviews, you need look no further than the surface. Most Twi-hards who (for whatever reason) enjoyed the other three Twilight books couldn't stand Breaking Dawn. A common allegation is that Stephanie Meyer wrote it to scorn her fanbase. (Classy way to thank your readers! </sarcasm>).
 
I rest my case.
 
...however, the worst is yet to come. I don't think I have to remind anyone that in Breaking Dawn Part II (coming in the autumn of 2012), Edward Cullen has to eat his way through Bella Swan's reproductive system!


-------------
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: Vits
Date Posted: November 14 2011 at 11:15am
This of course reminds people of HARRY POTTER & THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 1 (6/10). That one felt too much like a prelude. There were scenes that I enjoyed but still felt like they could've been cut, to the point where I realized it would've been better as one movie. The difference with that saga and this one is that, despite what I've felt of each movie, overall it doesn't have an interesting story or characters nor particularly good performances for me to stand a boring and episodic filler. I predict this will play out like NEW MOON... and probably be as bad as that one. As for PART 2... that one could be the best of the saga... which would mean 55% on R.T. LOL.

Yesterday, buying the tickets to see CONTAGION, there was a real invitation for the wedding. WTF?!



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


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: November 14 2011 at 11:37am
I can't believe that Bill Condon agreed to direct this -- What a sellout!  

First David Slade, now Bill Condon. How the hell does this franchise keep getting good directors??  


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


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: November 14 2011 at 12:23pm
GTAHater767: I don't think that Meyer wrote this to scorn the fanbase. Turning Jacob into a jackass in Eclipse, on the other hand, was written to scorn people who wanted Bella to end up with him. Because, God forbid, they wanted Bella to end up with someone who isn't older than her grandpa! 
 
Also, GTAHater's not joking about Edward eating his way through Bella's reproductive system!  

Originally posted by GTAHater767

Now that this film has its proper forum, here's my outlook:

We all know how senseless a feisty sex scene between a vampire and Swan is, but to understand how I knew this would get negative reviews, you need look no further than the surface. Most Twi-hards who (for whatever reason) enjoyed the other three Twilight books couldn't stand Breaking Dawn. A common allegation is that Stephanie Meyer wrote it to scorn her fanbase. (Classy way to thank your readers! </sarcasm>).
 
I rest my case.
 
...however, the worst is yet to come. I don't think I have to remind anyone that in Breaking Dawn Part II (coming in the autumn of 2012), Edward Cullen has to eat his way through Bella Swan's reproductive system!


-------------
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
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: oiram
Date Posted: November 14 2011 at 3:08pm
If Pattinson were to be on the Nominating Ballot, would it be for JUST THIS? Or would he also be up for Water for Elephants?  


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Both Pattinson with WATER FOR ELEPHANTS and Lautner with ADBDUCTION have second titles other than TWILIGHT for which they could be listed for Worst Actor on this year's RAZZIE® Nominating Ballot (while Adam Sandler has both JACK & JILL and JUST GO WITH IT...and Nicolas Cage has THREE titles -- DRIVE ANGRY, SEASON OF THE WITCH and TRESPASS!). 

It's certainly been a banner year for actors appearing in more than one sucky movie!   




-------------
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: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: November 14 2011 at 4:10pm
Um I don't really think Water for Elephants was a sucky movie.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 14 2011 at 4:15pm
While WATER FOR ELEPHANTS had some decent reviews, Pattinson's performance didn't. THE ROTTEN TOMATOES SHOW explained it best: "He's like a robot with 4 buttons, one for each one of his faces, which he does over and over".

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


Posted By: MR
Date Posted: November 14 2011 at 8:09pm
Actually, Pattinson's performance in Water for Elephants had mostly positive reviews especially from top critics. He had positive reviews from Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Rolling Stone, etc. and Roger Ebert even tweeted to say good things about him. He had way more positive reviews for his acting than negative ones.

Furthermore, the movie was fresh on Rotten Tomatoes and Pattinson was in the movie more than any other actor, so if he was bad, the movie would not have been fresh because he was in nearly every scene. Most critics said he acquitted himself well.



Posted By: Film Reel Redemption
Date Posted: November 14 2011 at 10:42pm
Originally posted by GTAHater767

I don't think I have to remind anyone that in Breaking Dawn Part II (coming in the autumn of 2012), Edward Cullen has to eat his way through Bella Swan's reproductive system!

Good luck with the PG-13/12A certificate for that one then...
 
 


-------------
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: krisstewart
Date Posted: November 15 2011 at 1:41am
Thanks for all the attention!  :)

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


Posted By: oiram
Date Posted: November 15 2011 at 2:51am
Wait a sec, Couldn't Sandler also be up for Worst Actor for Zookeeper? I know he really isn't the main actor in that, but that has happened before. Oh, and doesn't Nicolas Cage have some other movie called Seeking Justice that's supposed to come out this year?  


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry:
If Adam Sandler were to be listed for ZOOKEEPER (which is yet to be determined) he would be listed as a SUPPORTING Actor, not leading. As for Nicolas Cage possibly having a 4th title due for 2011 release, the current list of up-coming films on B.O. MoJo ( http://www.boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=&release=&date=2011-11-04&showweeks=4&p=.htm - ® consideration. At this point, it seems likely JUSTICE will be released "Direct-to-DVD" here in the U.S. making it dis-qualified for RAZZIE® consideration.   




-------------
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: November 15 2011 at 5:37am
Well, there have been times where actors have received positive reviews and still had gotten nominated for being in a bad movie. There are also cases where actors give Razzie worthy performances and not-so-bad performances in good movies but the voters still nominate for both. R-Patz can fall in either of them, specially since he's a repeat offender.

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


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: November 15 2011 at 1:12pm
Most of you probably know that I have had this film on my Virtual Razzie list since the beginning of the year.  Many of you said that this was harmless compared to some other bad movies being released this year.  This film's three predecessors and their fans committed capital crimes against pop culture by winning awards over far superior movies like "Avatar", "The Dark Knight", and "Inception".  In my opinion, the Razzie Awards should be the 'coming around' to that 'going around'.  However, giving the franchise its just desserts won't be easy.  Here are some reasons why:  

1. Four Happy Madison products bar the way to Worst Picture.  
2. Pattinson and Lautner have to compete against Adam Sandler, Nick Swardson, and Nicolas Cage.
3. Kristen Stewart has to compete against Adam Sandler, Minka Kelly, Martin Lawrence, and Sarah Palin.
4. Screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg has to deal with Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Nick Swardson, Jay Scherick and David Ronn.
5. Director Bill Condon is up against Dennis Dugan, Catherine Hardwicke, Joel Schumacher, and (one that will make us look predictable) Michael Bay.
6. Kellan Lutz is facing off against Hank Azaria, Peter Dante, Cam Gigandet, Ken Jeong, Ron Perlman, and (one that will make us look predictable) Sylvester Stallone.
7. Ashley Greene has to compete with Brooklyn Decker, Amber Heard, Brandon T. Jackson, Leighton Meester, Helen Mirren, and Natalie Portman.
8. The cast of this movie has to compete against the cast of "New Year's Eve" among other films.
9. In Worst Prequel or Sequel, it has to go up against "Big Mommas: Like Father, Like Son", "Cars 2", "The Hangover Part II", "Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil", "Spy Kids: All the Time in the World", and (one that will make us look predictable) "Transformers: Dark of the Moon".

That's a lot of obstacles.  Depending on its Tomatometer Rating and Metascore, this film could either win big or lose big.  I am uncertain how this will turn out.  Once the bulk of critical scores come in, I might have some idea, but I won't totally be sure until the critics release their 'Worst of 2011' lists.


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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 15 2011 at 1:28pm
What makes you think that, out of the entire supp. cast, Lutz and Greene will be in consideration? Remember that Billy Burke had 2 other bad movies this year.

According to what I've read here, Natalie Portman, Amber Heard and Helen Mirren aren't really in consideration.

By the way, how come your frontrunner is BUCKY LARSON and not this?


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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 15 2011 at 5:58pm
Originally posted by krisstewart

Thanks for all the attention!  :)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That's funny.


Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: November 15 2011 at 7:55pm
I see this (Twilight) movie as Razz-able like the others, but I wouldn't go as far to make it a major candidate. The previous movie hogged up the nominations but thankfully didn't win too many.

I think the big name to Razz this year is Adam Sandler.  Supporting in Zookeeper, Actor and Actress in Jack and Jill, and...um...what should he be nominated for regarding Bucky Larson?

And Breaking Dawn Part 2 shouldn't be front runner in 2012, either...not when Aaron Seltzer and Jason Friedberg bring The Biggest Movie of All Time 3D (an Avatar "spoof") to the big screen.   


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Sandler is one of the screenwriters (as well as a producer) of BUCKY LARSON, so he's "qualified" at least twice for that film...  




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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 16 2011 at 7:57am
LOL!



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


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: November 16 2011 at 8:06am
I showed the Muppet posters to my Media Writing class and they thought it was funny. Also, this now has an RT rating of 11%! Could this be worse than New Moon?

-------------
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
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 16 2011 at 8:37am
NEW MOON was a slow book on it's own. The slow pacing in the movie didn't work because it didn't translate well from the book. 

Here, we have only half of a book, so the slow pacing might be more-so... Dead




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


Posted By: mbh
Date Posted: November 16 2011 at 9:38am
I think this newest installment is a slap to everybody's face who thought an Oscar-winning director could save this franchise. I admit, I didn't rule out that possibility. 

Turns out we should have known better. What a mess! With that kind of source material, nobody would have been able to make a decent movie. Well, maybe Cronenberg could have.
I'm glad the franchise hasn't gotten any Razzies so far, because if they will, this is their year.


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


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: November 16 2011 at 11:11am
I predict that Breaking Dawn 2 will be on IMDB bottom 250.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 16 2011 at 11:14am
No way, man. There are way too many twi-hard users.

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


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: November 16 2011 at 12:14pm
If Cronenberg directed this, Nosferatu would pop out of Bella's womb like in The Fly! 

-------------
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
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: mbh
Date Posted: November 16 2011 at 12:37pm
If this movie stayed true to the book, Meyers has one twisted mind ==  and not in a good way.

Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

Originally posted by mbh

Well, maybe Cronenberg could have.
 
If Cronenberg directed this, Nosferatu would pop out of Bella's womb like in The Fly.


That would have made the movie more watchable. I would be all in for that!




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


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: November 16 2011 at 12:48pm
But there are more haters.  

Originally posted by Vits

No way, man. There are way too many twi-hard users.


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


Posted By: mbh
Date Posted: November 16 2011 at 1:01pm
There are more haters, and if the CGI wolves and  the handling of certain action scenes in this movie are any indication of how the next movie will turn out, even more people will dislike it. Bill Condon has no clue how to do these scenes. 

Which shows again that winning an Oscar for one thing doesn't mean you're automatically good at another.


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


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: November 16 2011 at 5:02pm
Meyer definitely has problems. But she doesn't seem to have a problem with Jacob "imprinting" on Renesmee -- and the fact that I know what that means shames me immensely!  

Originally posted by mbh

If this movie stayed true to the book, Meyers has one twisted mind ==  and not in a good way.


-------------
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
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: mbh
Date Posted: November 17 2011 at 1:16am
That "imprinting" idea is out of this world, really. Why didn't Meyer just explain it as "soulmates"?   

However, in that case I have to give credit to Condon for making it not look as creepy onscreen as it sounds in print. He managed to downplay a few questionable subjects, like when that weird name was given to the baby. I don't want to give more spoilers away, but you can litterally tell when he tried to cater to his female audience, which was entertaining but too often over the top, or to cover up Meyer's unexplained storytelling, like how could the vampire get the girl pregnant in the first place, or how Bella wants the werewolf still hanging around even after she got married. She should have dumped the vampire and married the werewolf then -- would have saved a lot of problems!  

Some of those wolf themes had potential though, and there Condon failed on all levels.
But the problem with this franchise is (and always was) the weak source material. Additionally some of the dialogue in the movie is laughable, and some scenes were hard to follow if you haven't read the book. That's the screenwriter's fault though, and I won't focus my anger on the actors. 

I will take Kristen Stewart, who tries hard to cheese into the camera at every chance she gets and appear happy, off my Worst Actress list now. The acting has gotten better...


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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 17 2011 at 7:00am
The concensus here in Chile seems to be average to bad.

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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 17 2011 at 7:30am
As bad as the movie looks, I'm surprised Roger Ebert gave it a 2.5/4: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111116/REVIEWS/111119983 - http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111116/REVIEWS/111119983


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: November 17 2011 at 7:40am
Ebert's review of New Moon is one of his best.

-------------
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
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: November 17 2011 at 3:54pm
Rotten Tomatoes Consensus = Slow, joyless, and loaded with unintentionally humorous moments, Breaking Dawn Part 1 may satisfy the Twilight faithful, but it's strictly for fans of the franchise.


Posted By: travis112096
Date Posted: November 17 2011 at 5:14pm
this movie should have been called breaking wind part 1 instead of breaking dawn part 1 [LOL]


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 17 2011 at 6:48pm
In point of fact, Miguel, we ALL know thatSleepy

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

Most of you probably know that I have had this film on my Virtual Razzie list since the beginning of the year.

Many of you said that this was harmless compared to some other bad movies being released this year.  This film's three predecessors and their fans committed capital crimes against pop culture by winning awards over far superior movies like "Avatar", "The Dark Knight", and "Inception".
 
Miquel, Miguel, Miguel....(wow, it has been awhile since I got to type that!) The awards this movie managed to "win" were coveted trophies like the MTV Teen Choice Awards. That was probably the most prestigious of a dreary group. This movie hasn't commited any "capital crimes" against pop culture or anything else. It is a harmless series of films...it appeals to a very specific audience and compared to some of the outrageous crap that has been released this year, it is a wild waste of our time to even be paying attention to it. In fact, if you really wanted to do serious harm to the franchise, you would never mention it here again.
 
 
  Depending on its Tomatometer Rating and Metascore, this film could either win big or lose big.  I am uncertain how this will turn out.  Once the bulk of critical scores come in, I might have some idea, but I won't totally be sure until the critics release their 'Worst of 2011' lists.
 

My guess is that it will be reasonably successful at the box-office and get a lukewarm reception from critics. I doubt that it will make anyone's Worst of 2011 list, given the overwhelming competition this year.  




-------------
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: November 17 2011 at 7:11pm
The key to this whole discussion is really the phrase after the last comma: "...but it's strictly for fans of the francise." Precisely. 

If the people who made this movie were trying to sneak algebra lessons into the proceedings, they'd be screwing the pooch painfully. If they were trying to get me to see it (in the absense of being force fed it pending upcoming Razzie nominations) it would be  a huge mistake. But, they know their audience, and they are evidently giving them what they want. 

Compared to crap like Jack and Jill or the Smurfs Dead this just isn't in the same league!  



-------------
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: mbh
Date Posted: November 17 2011 at 10:09pm
This is exactly my problem with the movie: It has written "for the fans" all over it. The extra long kissing scenes don't leave a doubt about that. They are not even trying to do it right, they are trying to make their fans happy and seem to succeed with it.

With "Eclipse", they tried to reach a male audience, in which they didn't really succeed apart from better reviews. The source material is for women, period. And the money they will make mainly comes from fans, so why would they make big changes only to get universal credit, which they knew wasn't going to happen anyways, and upset those fans?

The sloppy dialogue and the jumping from one scene to another leaves too many questions unexplained though. Terrible writing.
The other thing that really stands out as a failure are those CGI wolves. They strangely look out of place, worse than the ones in the previous movie. And here I believe David Slade had an idea of how to do that, while Condon knows his romantic ways but has no clue about CGI if he thought that looked good.

Speaking of "The Smurfs": With this movie I feel the source material has been violated.
With Breaking Dawn, I wonder what could have been done better, since there wasn't much of a chance to improve that creepy story or the shallow characters that Meyer wrote about, and that is the core problem. As somebody pointed out, that last book is even disliked by fans. I wonder if Meyer is aware of how her series has become a laughing stock. At least she gets called out by renowned authors frequently.

But again, how to judge a movie when the film makers were exclusivly planning on giving the fans what they wanted and didn't even try to make an universally liked movie, because they knew it wasn't going to be liked no matter what??? Weird situation. Opinions please...


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


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: November 17 2011 at 10:27pm
At the risk of sounding like a Migeul supporter I'm going to disagree slightly with the above statement, had this movie been getting the same reviews as "Eclipse" then i would say that the phrase strictly for the fans would be appropriate, but as it stands it's getting hammered badly, lukewarm would've been "Eclipse". Add on to the fact that the acting has been extremely poor throughout the series and that it's doing a very poor cash grab similar to what Harry Potter did (except they did it right) by dividing the finale into 2 parts, and I think you have a very worthy top tier Razzie candidate.

Now normally i would be against razzing this series cause for the most part it isn't as bad as the rep it gets -- it's not good by any means, and is definitely over-hyped, but it's not Razzie worthy
(save for New Moon's "acting"). But with the overwhelmingly negative opinion on this movie and the hype surrounding it, it would actually be a disservice for the Razzies not to at least consider it.


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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 17 2011 at 10:30pm
My point is that they know their audience and they are making a movie that appeals to them. I may not like it, you may not like it, but there is a reasonably large fan base out there that does. I think that puts it in different realm than a movie like Jack and Jill that is actually trying to have a broad appeal, but just sucks. The people that made this movie don't give a hoot whether or not I ever go see it. A movie that should really be in the Razzie contention is one that the producers want me to see, but misfires.
 
Now,  someone might point to Atlas Shrugged and offer that the people who made that movie didn't care whether or not I went to see it either. I am decidedly not in the audience to which they were attempting to appeal. But the difference is, AS even failed with its target audience. If scores of teenage girls walk out of Breaking Wind Part 1 offering the opinion that it really blows, then we probably need to take a closer look. But the guess here is that they will go see it and like it enough to go see Part 2 as well.


-------------
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: mbh
Date Posted: November 17 2011 at 11:53pm
For sure a lot of people are hoping Breaking Wind Fart 1 will sweep the Razzies. I didn't like the movie, but think it needs to be debated how much sense it makes to compare it to movies like "Abduction", "Red Riding Hood" or "I Am Number 4", which were sold as blockbusters but were extremely bad and barely made their budget and P&A costs back.

One could argue that "I Am Number 4" was targeted to a specific audience as well, but looking into it, it seems the book fans weren't happy, while the Twilight book fans appear to be happy with Breaking Wind. 

The cash grab story is difficult as well. Unless somebody has read the book and tells me otherwise, it seems the majority of the fans thinks it was neccessary to split it to satisfy their demands. Though I don't know how neccessary it was for the respective fans to see "SCRE4M", "Trannies 3" and "POTC 4", for example.


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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 18 2011 at 3:48am
The whole "cash grab" angle is one we probably come down on too hard here. The last guy in Hollywood that set out specifically to make movies for the sake of creating great art was probably Ed Wood Jr. and we all know how that worked out. That isn't to say that there aren't directors who still occasionally try to do sublime work.  I'm guessing that when Spielberg made Shindler's List, it was more about getting the story told from his perspective than making a lot of money. But if some young, relatively unknown director walked into a major studio production office with the same script tomorrow, he'd get his hind end tossed out onto the street. Spielberg was at a point in his career where simply having his name attached to that movie guaranteed that it would be a cash cow. So, lest we forget, this IS still America and most films are created to make money, not necessarily to raise consciousness about the horrifying religious wars going on between Muslims and Christians in Nigeria. Those stories are left to be told by documentary film makers who are typically lucky if 500 people ever see their films.

-------------
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: Vits
Date Posted: November 18 2011 at 7:34am
WHAT THE FLICK? gave this an average of 2.8:  

[TUBE]CbwL7VNV2lo[/TUBE]




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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 18 2011 at 7:42am
Miguel, let's assume for a second that you're right, that winning public voting awards is as important as you think. Well, then...so what? You can't change the past, and in this case, you can't change the future.  

I've analyzing the "relationship" between audiences and critics. When someone loves a movie and I'm about to give my opinion and that person feels I'm about to analyze it, that person gets defensive. Here, we only have 1 critic (our answer to Roger Ebert) that appears on TV, and it's just the news segment. And I tend to wonder why doesn't he insert some humour to his extensive analysis, if Peter Travers and Richard Roeper do it? It won't effect the seriousness of the review, and it would make easier for people to actually listen to what he's saying. Critics don't automatically love artsy movies and hate action flicks. 

Anyway, my point is that even if every installment of TWILIGHT had won Worst Picture, the target audiences wouldn't have cared. If anything, it would've made them wanna watch the next movie even more. I'm not saying they shouldn't be razzed, but it has to be for the right reasons: the movie has to represent poor film quality. If this movie gets razzed because the voters hate its success, then they wouldn't be different from the voters of the People's, Teen's and Kids' Choice, MTV Movie Awards, etc., who also vote for the best movie for the wrong reasons.

By the way, we shouldn't underestimate the young people: 

[TUBE]TZ-qPPLKRzk[/TUBE]  




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


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: November 18 2011 at 12:08pm
I was making a joke, they should retitled this film Breaking Bad (yeah I know it's the same title for a great show). But it makes so much sense.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: November 18 2011 at 12:21pm
Just when I thought I couldn't possibly come up with something more offensive than you've ever heard, my assessment of the Twilight saga's influence on popular culture rose upon me:
 
The Religious Right (or rather Religious Reich) is known for their fear of men being recruited into LGBT-hood. The #1 most common reason a male would see any Twilight movies is to please a significant other who fell for the books. For men who have ANY potential to fall in love with another man, the Twilight Saga is their Pandora's Box... or rather could've been. It won't work with invariably heterosexual men, nor those who eventually happen to NOT find the Twilight movies unwatchable. And come the 2013-014 school year, the Twilight saga will hopefully be all but forgotten.


-------------
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: Vits
Date Posted: November 18 2011 at 1:28pm
Peter Travers gave this 1/4: 

[TUBE]nqVW53bIl2Q[/TUBE] 

And Richard Roeper gave it a C: 

[TUBE]uIPNZlEDvp4[/TUBE]


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


Posted By: Dun-Ida
Date Posted: November 18 2011 at 3:20pm
Hello Smile. I'm a new Razzie voting member. I watched the pile of crap "Twilight: Breaking Dawn" after deciding I wanted to vote for next year's Razzies. 

The acting is boring and that is putting it nicely. So the cast are on top of my list for acting nominations. 

The writing is terrible. A twelve-year-old could come up with a better script. Like the cast, the screen-writer is also on top of my list for nominations. 

The same goes for the director. 

There are many strong contenders for nominations and 'Twilight: Breaking Dawn- Part I' is definitely one of the strongest.  


-------------
Directed by Michael Bay and M. Night Shyamalan comes...a movie guaranteed to win Razzies!


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 18 2011 at 3:53pm
Welcome, Dun-Ida. While I hate half of your signature for having my fav. director, I don't hate you.LOL

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


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: November 18 2011 at 5:27pm
While it wasn't as terrible as New Moon, this was still borderline unwatchable. I'll review it sometime this weekend, after I finally review P2. Also, for anyone else feeling masochistic, there's an end-credit scene.

-------------
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
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 18 2011 at 6:26pm
The sad thing here is that any hour now, the apologists for this series will begin showing up and start giving us some very concise summarizations of our ancestory just because we have the gaul to discuss it. Meanwhile, folks like Miguel are stocking their safe rooms in the certainty that the very existance of this franchise will unleash something akin to the 10 Biblical plagues on Egypt...with a zombie apocalypse tossed in for good measure....actually, that might be kind of cool. Wink
 
I mentioned it in another thread very recently, but this film seems to unleash exactly the same kind of polarizing emotions and debates that Tim Tebow has unleashed upon Denver. I'm pretty tired of the whole thing and I for one sincerly hope that we give it precisely the selective inattention it really deserves.


-------------
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: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: November 19 2011 at 5:25am
Sorry SaturnWatcher, but that's probably not going to happen anytime soon, and this time I think there's legitimate reasons not to. The Razzies target bad movies, and this one has all the perfect ingredients: We have a critically panned movie with a lot of hype, directed by a former Oscar winner, not to mention a crappy storyline filled with bad dialogue, and some of the worst/wooden acting in a major motion picture since Hayden Christiansen (The so called acting mainly consists of the people staring at each other like fat guys stare at tacos). The attention is warranted, and at least alot of nominations. However, I will agree with you that in terms of "wins." I can't see this beating the likes of Jack and Jill, Bucky Larson, etc.

On a side note: If there was any more reason for me to dislike Miguel, it's because, thanks to him, anybody who dislikes this series will be somewhat stigmatized thanks to his many (many many many many many many many many) insane ramblings. I feel this is a bit unfair, 'cause there are very legit reason for this series to be razzed, as rationally posted by alot of members not named Miguel. But because of that man's very existence on our Forum, they often get overlooked.

And as for the fevered fan base that defends these movies 'till death no matter how bad they get....... f**k em Big smile. Okay that was harsh but in all seriousness, the fact that a bunch of teenage goth/emo girls have multiple orgasms to shirtless guys who have the emotional range of Neanderthals or are pale sparkly dudes, in my opinion, means nothing. In fact I'd argue that that should be even more reason to hammer this series, if nothing else just to spark their ire -- Because I think it would be hilarious!  LOL  

Last year i would've made a argument against razzing twilight because it was mediocre but this time they made a atrociously bad movie, so I say let's whoop its ass Smile ...except for Miguel, he can go home.  

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

 I mentioned it in another thread very recently, but this film seems to unleash exactly the same kind of polarizing emotions and debates that Tim Tebow has unleashed upon Denver. I'm pretty tired of the whole thing and I for one sincerely hope that we give it precisely the selective inattention it really deserves.




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


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: November 19 2011 at 7:49am
Your discription of the acting in this is exactly aplicable to Taylor Lautner! There's a scene where Edward's "parents" talk to him and I couldn't tell if he was being sarcastic or serious he's so stiff! I'd like this to get many nods, but the only two nods that I seriously want are Worst Actor for Lautner and Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off, or Sequel.

-------------
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
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 19 2011 at 8:41am
[TUBE]vnwa2MgopRw[/TUBE]

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


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: November 19 2011 at 9:55am
Vits, I'm too afraid to look at that video, but is it by a girl named Nutty Madam? She's a deranged Twilight fan, who's a YouTube partner. As you can tell, YouTube has low standards for partners.

-------------
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
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: mbh
Date Posted: November 19 2011 at 10:11am
I definitely think a nomination for "Worst Screenplay" is neccessary.

And I don't know if the special category Worst Eye-Gouging Mis-Use of 3-D was a one time thing? "Season of the Witch", "I am Number Four" and those wolves in both "Breaking Wind" and "Red Riding Hood" would deserve a nod if  there were a "Worst CGI" award.


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


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: November 19 2011 at 11:17am

The wolf scenes in Breaking Wind were hilarious!

As for other bad CGI this year, Priest had some pretty crappy CGI and some scenes in Green Lantern were poorly done. I haven't seen The Smurfs, but the CGI in that looked bad and Alvin And The Chipmunks 3 looks to have the same bad-looking CGI that the last two had. That means that there's eight candidates, at the least. One thing that I'd like to establish about this category is that it's for bad CGI, not bad movies that feature CGI. Suckey Punch and Trannies 3 had good CGI.


-------------
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
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 19 2011 at 1:53pm
Did you think that because it says that this deserves an Oscar? No, the title is a parody. Actually, a while ago the user compared it to HARRY POTTER, and showed why the latter is better. 

Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

Vits, I'm too afraid to look at that video, but is it by a girl named Nutty Madam? She's a deranged Twilight fan, who's a YouTube partner. As you can tell, YouTube has low standards for partners.


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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 19 2011 at 2:56pm
[TUBE]UqKcYasZOog[/TUBE]

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


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: November 19 2011 at 3:04pm
I assumed that because A.) There probably are people who think that it deserves an Oscar and B.) YouTube is a breeding ground for those type of idiots.

-------------
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
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: November 19 2011 at 3:28pm
Bill Condon deserves worst director. Going from making critical aclaimed pictures to doing Twilight. Has he no dignity. 


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 19 2011 at 4:41pm
Originally posted by whatsthepoint

Bill Condon deserves worst director. Going from making critical aclaimed pictures to doing Twilight. Has he no dignity. 

You can't judge people's actions without knowing any details about what went on.


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: November 19 2011 at 5:06pm
Condon's direction was pretty bad. While I wouldn't put him ahead of Schumacher, Dugan, or Snyder in the Worst Director race, he should still be on the nominating ballot.

-------------
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
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 19 2011 at 5:07pm
I don't think it matters if he sold out for money or took the job because he thought this would be a good movie. If the directing in the movie is bad, he deserves the award.

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


Posted By: mbh
Date Posted: November 19 2011 at 10:11pm
Check this out: "Breaking Wind" is amongst other record holders: biggest difference in percentage of critical reviews (26%) compared to audience reviews (92%) on RT.

Did Condon direct it simply wrong, and NOBODY, not only the fans, cares any more about a good movie, or does he deliver solely to his target audience? Every moviemaker dreams of reaching that number of approval since good word of mouth usually translates into a few extra bucks, ideally in addition to good critical reviews, of course.  I'm really curious now which other movies are panned by critics, but get that much approval from their target audiences.

ETA: Funny enough, I checked the other way around, which highly critical acclaimed movie was just liked ok by its' audience, and among others, up came Kristen Stewart's "Adventureland". That girl is in for quite the ride.




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


Posted By: mbh
Date Posted: November 19 2011 at 10:48pm
I didn't like Trannies 3 at all apart from sweet Rosie's body, but yeah, the CGI was good.
I know that the wolves from "Eclipse" were some kind of innovation, I read an article about it and can't recall exactly what it said but the amount of single hairs in the fur was higher than ever before, previously the fur of Peter Jackson's "King Kong" had the most digital hairs. Interesting fact. Too bad the wolves from "Breaking Dawn" look so cartoonish and out of place. "Gmork", the wolf from "Neverending Story" in '84 looked more realistic than them.


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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 20 2011 at 10:27am
It'll stay between 25-30% at R.T.. So it's on the same level as NEW MOON.

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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 20 2011 at 4:46pm
I'll offer here that based upon the critical reaction, this is probably by far the worst of this license. It might even legitimately be worthy of several nominations which last year's offering probably wasn't. However, based upon the overwhelming competition this year, I don't see it actually winning anything. I am, however, surprised that we haven't seen the legion of apologists show up so far. It kind of disappoints me. I was locked and loaded 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: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: November 21 2011 at 10:30am
I just saw the weekend box office numbers for this movie and I am appalled. These gullible moviegoers decided to waste perfectly good money on crap when they could've spent it on something that's actually worth their time. It pains me to $139M spent on a movie that makes 'The Love Guru' look like 'Wayne's World', 'Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen' look like 'The Empire Strikes Back', and 'The Last Airbender' look like 'The Sixth Sense'. The public wants us to shut the fans up and let them know this series's place in cinema (at or near the bottom). Let's do them a favor and give this farce its just desserts.

Of course, we may end up giving Happy Madison Productions its just desserts instead.

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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 21 2011 at 11:47am
I'm confused, Miguel. Did you expect this not to be a box office hit?

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


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: November 21 2011 at 12:11pm
Miguel, all three of those movies you mentioned were worse than this. I gave all three of them F's.

-------------
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
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: November 21 2011 at 2:17pm
Oh, dont worry! Come nomination time, you'll get your chance -- in fact, I have a feeling most of the people on this Forum are eagerly waiting for for them to show up:

Bring it, Twi-Hards!!  Wink   

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

I am, however, surprised that we haven't seen the legion of apologists show up so far. It kind of disappoints me. I was locked and loaded LOL


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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 21 2011 at 6:56pm
Miguel, Miguel, Miguel....I hate to say I told you so...but no matter what you may think of these movies, no matter what I may think of these movies and no matter what the critics may think of these movies, they have a loyal audience. Further, we could give these movies every Razzie on the board this year and Breaking Wind 2 will do just as well at the box-office. This is yet another reason why our giving any attention to these movies whatsoever is as productive as pissing up a rope. The audience this license has established is going to go see them. Period. The people that don't care won't be particularly interested that we Razzed them. They will continue to take the appropriate course of action and ignore them, while probably scorning us a bit for not picking on something more deserving.  

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

I just saw the weekend box office numbers for this movie and I am appalled. These gullible moviegoers decided to waste perfectly good money on crap when they could've spent it on something that's actually worth their time.


-------------
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: tomdale23
Date Posted: November 26 2011 at 12:07am
My sister look forward watching this movie. But I gotta tell her about the gruesome scene on Breaking Dawn II. I don't think she'll still be a fanatic.


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: November 27 2011 at 3:25pm
This series has already done enough damage to earn a number of Razzie Awards, but the package still needs to be delivered.  And with Happy Madison barring the way, it won't be easy.

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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 28 2011 at 5:12am
Wow, Miguel! I thought that when you came back, you'd post several things, instead of just repeating the exact same thing. 

So now Twilight #4 is your choice only for Worst Screenplay? I am confused again.  


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


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: November 28 2011 at 7:58am
Let me spell it out for you, Vits:  My heart wants "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1" to win big at the Razzie Awards, but my brain doesn't think it will.  That's why my list of predictions for front-runners is different from the results I would rather see.   




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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 28 2011 at 8:21am
1) Actually, it does have a lot of chances to win. Each installment gets more nominations, and since this is the worst reviewed... Also, because it was released berry recently, it's fresh on the voters' memory.
2) Writing frontrunners here is based on what we want, not what will win.



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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 28 2011 at 11:49am
I just saw it.

F.Y.C.:
-Actor for Pattinson (also for WATER FOR ELEPHANTS) and Lautner (also for ABDUCTION); Supp. Actor for Billy Burke (also for DRIVE ANGRY and RED RIDING HOOD): Yes.
-Screenplay; Worst Excuse For A Horror Movie*: Maybe.
-Actress for Stewart; Supp. Actress; Director; Couple/Ensemble; Picture: No.

*If you've seen it, you'll understand why I listed it there.

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

I'm guessing that when Spielberg made Shindler's List, it was more about getting the story told from his perspective than making a lot of money. But if some young, relatively unknown director walked into a major studio production office with the same script tomorrow, he'd get his hind end tossed out onto the street. Spielberg was at a point in his career where simply having his name attached to that movie guaranteed that it would be a cash cow. So, lest we forget, this IS still America and most films are created to make money, not necessarily to raise consciousness about the horrifying religious wars going on between Muslims and Christians in Nigeria. Those stories are left to be told by documentary film makers who are typically lucky if 500 people ever see their films.

What people forget is that film is art and entertainment, but it's also a job. And one works to earn money.
Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

Also, for anyone else feeling masochistic, there's an end-credit scene.

Based on how the movie ends, that scene has the only reason to watch PART 2.
Originally posted by mbh

"Breaking Wind" is amongst other record holders: biggest difference in percentage of critical reviews (26%) compared to audience reviews (92%) on RT.

Right now is at 27 and 72. Coincidence?


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


Posted By: mbh
Date Posted: November 28 2011 at 4:50pm
Right now is at 27 and 72. Coincidence?

Normal. All the fans flock in and got what they wanted, rating it high. So the general public gets curious, takes a chance and gets a reality check. Rating sinks way down. It's still not as low as I thought it would go.

Vits, "Water for elephants" is not Razzie material. Seeing that movie (including Patt's performance) on any kind of list here would shake my faith in the Razzies representing the worst.

I stand by my saying that this year could be Twilight's year for a Razzie, and for me it would be very satisfying. But I beg to differ. I was pleading for a Razzie for Stewart for over a year, but she has gotten better. And I just don't see a point in giving a Razzie to an obnoxious character. Same goes for the stiff, brooding Cullen character. It's like giving a Razzie to a book character, or to Meyers. I don't know how much sense that makes or what consequence should come out of it, though. It would also not hold back the masses of teenage girls.
Saying that, I do feel the need to punish whoever was writing the dialogue:
"Hi." "Thank you." "They made it?" "Yes." "Good."
Even if this was taken out of the book, why did they not fix it? Same goes for that ridiculous line saying "You did this!" to the husband when he sees the pregnant girl.

Miguel, I didn't dislike "Breaking Dawn" overall as much as "J&J" or "The Smurfs", "Red Riding Hood", "Season of the witch" or "Abduction", but I think it has a serious shot at "worst screenplay". I will watch all the nominees again back to back when the list comes out, so I can compare them directly.  


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: At this point, it looks likely that Pattinson will be listed on our Nominating Ballot only for BREAKING DAWN #1 (since ELEPHANTS was never even discussed on our Forum, and is currently rated "Fresh" w/a 61% Positive rating:  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/water_for_elephants/ -



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


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: November 28 2011 at 7:58pm
Time to bite the bullet and review this. 
 
The good: 
 
Billy Burke: Burke is one of the few people here who escapes with his dignity. He plays Bella's dad, Officer Pornstache. Bella treats him like crap because he's concerned about her immense stupidity. 
 
Gil Birmingham: Birmingham plays Jacob's dad, Chief Spining Wheels. His acting isn't too bad and with the crap acting on display, that counts for something here. Same goes for Peter Facinelli who's "OK" as Dr. Bloodbath. 
 
The Brazilian locales: The shots of Brazil are beautiful. No word if it's on the West Coast or not. The whole movie should have been Officer Pornstache, Chief Spining Wheels, and Dr. Bloodbath getting drunk in Brazil and solving crimes. 
 
The bad: 
 
Robert Pattinson: Pattinson's stiff here. He's not as bad as he was in the first three, but that's not saying much. 
 
Kristen Stewart: Much like Pattinson, she not as bad as she was in the first three. And, again, that's not saying much. 
 
Bill Condon: Condon, you have an Oscar! What the f*ck are you doing here?!?!? 
 
The ugly: 
 
Taylor Lautner: The movie doesn't take it's time to get him shirtless. Unlike Stewart and Pattinson, his acting has regressed! This amuses me because his performances in the first two trumped the two love-bats' performances. 
 
The screenplay: The writing has always been the downfall of the Twatlight films. But this isn't a problem of Melissa Rosenberg, who's worked on Dexter. No, the problem goes back to the source, Stephenie Meyer! She can't write to save her life, she doesn't do any research*, has a massive ego**, and is an overall dumbass. In fact, I believe that the Twilight films could be quality movies if they weren't based on the writings of a deranged Mormon! 
 
Renesmee: Renesmee is Edward and Bella's Satanic spawn of a baby. She slowly drains Bella of her blood. And, worst of all, Jacob imprints on her. That means that they're destined to be in love forever because Stephenie Meyer has f*cked-up ideas about romance. Seriously, she thinks that Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights is the ideal romantic hero!
 
I was able to go thoughout the whole review with mentioning the issue of "sparkling." Grade: D
 
Next-up: Human Centipede II!
 
*That comment about the West Coast of Brazil wasn't a pointless joke; she actually wrote that! She, also, thinks that bankers had an awesome time during the Great Depression, 17th century London had sewers, etc.
**She actually said she thinks she's a better writer than Shakespeare!


-------------
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
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: mbh
Date Posted: November 28 2011 at 9:34pm
Thanks for reconfirming, HeadRazz! Sounds good.

SchumacherH8er, Condon won an Oscar for "Best Screenplay". I agree, it's mostly Meyer's fault, her crappy story drags everybody down.  But the more I think about it, the more I believe that the people, who had a chance to change it for the better, didn't, and that makes them very deserving of a Razzie. Imagine, they even thought their work was good! If somebody had told me "You did this!" when my wife was pregnant, I would have punched him. Who on earth came up with that crap, and more importantly, why did nobody realize how absolutely brainless that sounds? Two renowned writers, and out comes crap x 10000000. Unbelievable.


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


Posted By: Film Reel Redemption
Date Posted: November 28 2011 at 11:14pm
Wow and I thought Warren Beatty's ego was massive...  

Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

**She actually said she thinks she's a better writer than Shakespeare!


-------------
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: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: November 29 2011 at 4:24am
I think that they tried real hard to make a good movie with the first one. After it was a big success, they fired Hardwicke and hired one of the directors of American Pie, who crapped out a bad movie, but the fans ate it up. They realized that they didn't need to make goods movie to make money, and that's where we are now. Interestingly, the first one didn't get any Razzie nods, while New Moon had four nods and Eclipse had 9.  

Originally posted by mbh

I agree, it's mostly Meyer's fault, her crappy story drags everybody down.  But the more I think about it, the more I believe that the people, who had a chance to change it for the better, didn't, and that makes them very deserving of a Razzie. Imagine, they even thought their work was good!


-------------
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
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 29 2011 at 5:42am
I know WATER FOR ELEPHANTS isn't really Razzie material, but I didn't like it, so that's why I listed it so many times. Also, I was using the Razzie rules that an actor can be nominated for more than one movie if they gave a bad performance and/or was in a bad movie. However, in ELEPHANTS, Pattinson was in the same level as Reese Witherspoon and Christoph Waltz (I blame the material.  

Actually, if you choose not to list ELEPHANTS, it'll be easier for me. You see, I thought that Pattinson was better than Lautner in this movie, while Lautner in ABDUCTION was much worse than Pattinson in ELEPHANTS.
 

Originally posted by Head RAZZberry

At this point, it looks likely that Pattinson will be listed on our Nominating Ballot only for BREAKING DAWN #1 (since ELEPHANTS was never even discussed on our Forum, and is currently rated "Fresh" w/a 61% Positive rating:  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/water_for_elephants/ -


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: November 29 2011 at 2:14pm
I'm watching Water For Elephants right now and so far it's... "OK." Pattinson isn't too bad, but I'm not done with it yet and that may change.

-------------
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
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: November 29 2011 at 3:45pm
Done watching it and my verdict... is the same. It's a decent movie, not especially good, but not bad. Same goes for Pattinson. Grade: B-.

-------------
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
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 29 2011 at 6:58pm
Actually, if memory serves correctly there was some discussion of Water for Elephants prior to its release, although it never had its own forum. There were a few here that seemed to think that Pattinson's appearance alone was enough to sink the movie. A few of us who actually saw it ultimately chimed in and credited his performance. He wasn't exceptional by any means, but at least he was adequate in the role. So I think there would be no reason whatsoever to tie together his performance in Breaking Wind with WFE.  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: At this point, it looks likely that Pattinsonwill be listed on our Nominating Ballot only for BREAKING DAWN #1 (since ELEPHANTS was never even discussed on our Forum, and is currently rated "Fresh" w/a 61% Positive rating:  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/water_for_elephants/ -


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 29 2011 at 7:02pm
My reaction to WFE was similar. I actually enjoyed the book, although it isn't usually the type of thing I read. As is usually the case, the movie wasn't as good as the novel, but it was a decent adaptation.  

Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

Done watching it and my verdict... is the same. It's a decent movie, not especially good, but not bad. Same goes for Pattinson. Grade: B-.


-------------
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: Vits
Date Posted: December 02 2011 at 8:53am
This was included here:
[TUBE]eHsmju8qkv0[/TUBE]
Any thoughts?


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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: December 03 2011 at 2:35pm
I thought this film wasn't that bad. The last 20 minutes, in particular, is very shocking and disturbing, even for a non-Twilight film. Apart from those amazing final minutes, the film has its shares of good and bad scenes. While watching the film, I wondered why the filmmakers thought it was a good idea to leave some obviously (unintentionally) funny scenes in the film, like the one with the wolves talking through telepathy. WHO THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA? Seriously, it boggles my mind. I feel like if these films were in the hands of a more competent director, like David Cronenberg, the films would be a lot better and more twisted, because some of the subject material presented in the series is fairly dark. It's just that the execution is sometimes so damn cheesy. But I digress. Maybe what I find to be cheesy and melodramatic could be better appreciated by the fangirls. Still, as stated earlier, it's not bad at all. I was left hooked with the cliffhanger ending and am interested to see how it all ends. I also liked the family dynamics that was brought in here due to the wedding and Bella getting pregnant. The performances by the cast are fairly good too, imo.

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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 03 2011 at 2:49pm
What's your rating?
Originally posted by moviewizguy

While watch the film, I wonder why the filmmakers thought it was a good idea to leave some obvious unintentionally funny scenes in the film, like the scene with the wolves talking through telepathy. WHO THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA? Seriously, it boggles my mind.
When twi-hards watch scenes like that, they usually don't notice, just as they don't notice the errors. If they do, they'll pretend like they didn't notice or just won't care.

Before watching this movie, 2 friends at college who happen to be twi-hards asked me if I've seen them. I told them my ratings of 6,3 and 6 respectively, and one of them answered "I'll never speak to you again". She was joking about not speaking to me, but not about my ratings, even though I said I sort of liked 2 out of 3. But I guess that I have to love them to get their aproval.


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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: December 03 2011 at 6:35pm
6/10 or B-.
Originally posted by Vits

What's your rating?


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: December 04 2011 at 8:18pm
For the third week in a row, this untalented farce reigns at the box office.  Give them the Razzie now!

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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: December 07 2011 at 12:17pm
Miguel...Disapprove We could give this movie a truckload of Razzies, and it's still going to be a box-office success, and will then make another kajillion in video rentals. And the next installment will still get made. You are tilting at windmills, Senor Quixote!  

-------------
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: mbh
Date Posted: December 22 2011 at 11:11pm
I just now saw the below. That is incorrect. Basically everybody of the tribe in Twilight is Native American or at least to a certain percentage. In 2003 the mini series "Dreamkeeper" aired on TV and had Chaske Spencer and Gil Birmingham in lead- and supporting roles. The movie received several nominations and won the American Indian Film Award. It is a very cool movie which gives you a lot of insight into the culture. I enjoyed it very much.
Graham Greene is probably best known for "Die Hard" and "Dances with Wolves".
The Native Indian nation welcomed the possibility for their young actors to be exposed in Twilight.  

Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

I know Julia Jones, who stars as the lone female werewolf in "Twilight" is actually Native American. I think everyone else in the "werewolf tribe" is actually Hispanic in real life (which, of course, is pissing off people of actual Native American descent!).


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


Posted By: rwdsvb
Date Posted: January 03 2012 at 1:37pm
WTH ? Twilight Breaking Dawn ? this razzies awards became a joke since 2010 ! 
first off i'm not a huge twilight fan or something but i still think that Breaking Dawn was a very good movie , i believe that New Moon and eclipse sucked so bad .
1- Kristen Stewart was so good in Breaking Dawn
2- Pattinson and lautner were OK 
3- the razzies awards are based on the opinions of the potterheads , so this is really stupid
4- director bill condon and catherine hardwicke were the best directors for the twilight series 
5- also i know that you hate twilight but you should be fair with the actors and the directors , you hate anything related to twilight and you love Harry potter , this is really not fair at all , the twilight actors are not bad but not great , the razzies are for the actors that can't for sh*t , kristen was in 20 movies before twilight , she've never won any razzie and so the others , so i don't think they all sucked at the same time . 
bill condon is an oscar winnner , stop making fun of twilight and the directors just because you hate the series 
i also agree that jack and jill was the worst movie of the year but Breaking Dawn ? Hell no ... 
check out peuple's opinions  http://oscar.go.com/ - http://oscar.go.com/  


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: January 03 2012 at 2:08pm
Would  you mind listing some of the reasons why you think this one is better?

Originally posted by rwdsvb

first off i'm not a huge twilight fan or something but i still think that Breaking Dawn was a very good movie , i believe that New Moon and Eclipse sucked so bad .

Originally posted by rwdsvb

the razzies awards are based on the opinions of the potterheads , so this is really stupid

What makes you think that? "If someone hates TWILIGHT they automatically love HARRY POTTER and viceversa"?
Originally posted by rwdsvb

director bill condon and catherine hardwicke were the best directors for the twilight series

That may be true, but that's not saying much.
Originally posted by rwdsvb

the razzies are for the actors that can't for sh*t

The main contender is Taylor Lautner because he was in a movie outside the saga and he was still bad.

Originally posted by rwdsvb

kristen was in 20 movies before twilight , she've never won any razzie and so the others , so i don't think they all sucked at the same time .

What do her other movies have to do with this discussion? Also, have you heard of the Worst Ensemble category? 

Originally posted by rwdsvb

bill condon is an oscar winnner

Making it all the more dissapointing.
Originally posted by rwdsvb

check out peuple's opinions  http://oscar.go.com/ - http://oscar.go.com/

Not that I have a problem with Twitter, but when it comes to discussing a movie, I prefer reading reviews. And I don't think I'm the only one.


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


Posted By: Dun-Ida
Date Posted: February 11 2012 at 5:06am
It's been a while since I've seen this movie (since it's really bad you can't blame me for avoiding it). However I still remember I terrible it is. This crapola is still on my short-list on who I'll vote for in all categories. So unless my top two (or three) preferred candidates in each category fail to get nominated I'll be voting for the candidates of this sh!tfest. 

-------------
Directed by Michael Bay and M. Night Shyamalan comes...a movie guaranteed to win Razzies!


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 11 2012 at 10:10am
[TUBE]YYIV7Kdq3Tw[/TUBE]

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



Print Page | Close Window