Print Page | Close Window

MEMBER DISCUSSION of Madonna's W.E.

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: INFO. FORUMS & POLLS on 2012 RAZZIE® Choices...
Forum Name: Member DISCUSSION & Add'l INFO on Madonna's W.E.
Forum Discription: Though It's Technically NOT a 2012 Release, Here's Where to FInd Member Feedback, Reviews, Grosses and Cetera on This FIlm...
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5735
Printed Date: November 26 2014 at 7:03pm


Topic: MEMBER DISCUSSION of Madonna's W.E.
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: MEMBER DISCUSSION of Madonna's W.E.
Date Posted: February 01 2012 at 10:27am
HERE's WHERE to POST YER THAWTs on MADONNA's LATEST OOP-US http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum604.html - -- and THROW in YER TWO CENTS on WHETHER WE SHOULD GRANT OUR AWL-TIME FEAMLE CHAM-PEEN an EXCEPTION to OUR ELIGIBILITY RULES...OR LET HER "GET OFF on a TECHNICALITY"...

IF YOU'D LIKE to READ Ye Olde Head RAZZberry's TAKE ON IT, HERE's the http://www.razzies.com/forum/official-razzie-take-on-madonnas-we_forum603.html - to READ THAT...   




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



Replies:
Posted By: jesse685
Date Posted: February 01 2012 at 11:37am
I agree. Screw the rules and let Madonna's W.E. be a RAZZIE Contender!  


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Actually, there is a precedent -- In 1990, Bo Derek in John Derek's GHOSTS CAN'T DO IT (which went on to "win" several RAZZIES and even tied for Worst Picture - http://www.razzies.com/forum/1990-razzie-nominees-winners_topic340.html - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099656/ -



-------------
"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: oiram
Date Posted: February 01 2012 at 11:45am
Oh, so it is still eligible. Hmm, this will make choosing a whole lot tougher!   


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Want to make it clear - If we decide to allow W.E. to "be a contender," it would be as a 2012 release (and thus eligible for next year's 33rd Annual RAZZIES®) and NOT as a contender for the 2011/32nd Annual RAZZIES®...  
 
EDIT: Wait a minute. Wasn't It's Pat a 94 movie that was nominated for the 95 Razzie awards?



-------------
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: February 01 2012 at 1:01pm
It's Pat was first released in some far-off theatres in August of 1994. Not one theatre in Los Angeles or NYC played it until February of 1995. Such is how I'm convinced it happened.
 
Looking to Madonna's W./E., I'm more inclined to round up to 2012 rather than down to 2011 because it reached a theatre in NYC so close to 2012 that it's only been about 1 1/2 months when most people would assume it's already been one year just because they say it happened in 2011. Besides, if a film got a limited release followed by a wide release anywhere from one week to a few months later, I understand the wide release to always be more important than the limited.  
 
EDIT: I made a mistake here. Apparently it reached enough theatres to be considered a limited release just as of Fbr. 3.


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


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: February 01 2012 at 1:02pm

There's one scene in the trailer for this that I found absolutely terrible: The scene with the stuttering prince. When I saw that part, I knew that the only reason that this movie was made was to leech money off The King's Speech's success!  



-------------
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: oiram
Date Posted: February 01 2012 at 5:18pm
OK, so the biggest contender is Madonna, of course. I was wondering, though -- if we were to have any of the actors be nominated, who will we consider the leads? Abbie Cornish and Oscar Isaac, or Andrea Riseborough and James D'Arcy?  


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: As almost no one has seen this film (and if it were to be deemed "eligible" it would not be until next year) I think maybe we're getting more than a little ahead of ourselves. But a bottom line solution to your query would be to list this film in Worst Screen Ensemble, thus covering all the actors you're asking about...  




-------------
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: Movie Man
Date Posted: February 01 2012 at 10:02pm
Judging from the trailers, everyone agrees that it's a knock-off of THE KING'S SPEECH. I'll go a little further and say I think it's also a knock-off of ANOTHER Oscar-nominated film: JULIE & JULIA (with the "present tying in with the past" scenario).

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


Posted By: Film Reel Redemption
Date Posted: February 01 2012 at 10:51pm
I wonder if, while directing this movie, Madge thought the same thing  that she did when she "acted" in 'Shanghai Surprise'. That the first take was always perfect (thus pulling off an "Ed Wood" in the process).  




-------------
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: February 02 2012 at 12:06pm
A lot of movies get award nominations and are released later in January. So it's alright if the Razzies do the same thing.

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


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: February 04 2012 at 5:52am
I disagree with the idea of making this movie eligible for the 2012-year.... Or at least to making a discission about it at this point.  

My main problem is that it WAS on the list of 2011-releases and voters had the right to put it in the write in-slots.... Won't their votes be counted? If not, I would find that a little unfair.  

I'd say count all the write-in votes for W.E., wait untill the nominations are anounced and if it is actually nominated in any category (which I doubt will happen) THEN make the discission of calling W.E. a 2011/2012-release...  


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Since it only played 1 or 2 theatres in the U.S. last fall to qualify for consideration by other award entities, and won't be available on home video 'till later this year, a reasonable argument can be made that this was not readily available for our members to actually see and judge 'till now. As for write-in votes for it on this year's Nominating Ballots, I've already tabulated hundreds of them, and only one member has even made mention of W.E. (a write-in for Madonna as Worst Director).  




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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 09 2012 at 3:00pm
http://rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120208/REVIEWS/120209982 -


Posted By: ilovetati
Date Posted: February 25 2012 at 10:25pm
Guys, Madonna has absolutely contributed a lot of crap to the film industry, but W.E. is just not worthy of the negative reaction it has received primarily because of its director's persona. Many of my friends who are serious film bloggers, a couple actual Academy members, said the film does have flaws but it deserves more of a 3/4-3/5 level rating, rather than the abysmal ratings thus far. I think this is the sole quality project Madonna has accomplished in the film industry (I hated her performance in Evita) and I think that should be respected and the film given a fair break. As painful as it is to acknowledge someone as vile as her, it's only fair to the film and its extensive cast.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: December 30 2012 at 8:05pm
Dead link alert:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1536048/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_1 - IMDb has moved its link to W.E. to here .
 
Well, the initial ballot has already gone out, but I feel a movie like this in the situation it was released should be made available to the next year.  Otherwise, all the terrible movies in the world would smartly adopt the same release strategy to avoid Razzies.
 


Posted By: rushmore
Date Posted: August 31 2014 at 12:44am
Thank God this movie wasn't nominated, it certainly didn't deserve it ^^

It actually received decent/good reviews from IMDB, Amazon, Allmovie and Filmaffinity users



Print Page | Close Window