Print Page | Close Window

MEMBER DISCUSSION of 3 STOOGES...

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: INFO. FORUMS & POLLS on 2012 RAZZIE® Choices...
Forum Name: THE THREE STOOGES
Forum Discription: Nominated for 1 RAZZIE® Award: Worst Screen Couple (Any 2 JERSEY SHORE Cast Members)
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5832
Printed Date: October 24 2014 at 10:48pm


Topic: MEMBER DISCUSSION of 3 STOOGES...
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: MEMBER DISCUSSION of 3 STOOGES...
Date Posted: April 10 2012 at 8:42am
HERE's YER OPPORTUNITY to POKE http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum622.html - in the EYE, KICK 'EM in the GROIN, PULL OUT THEIR HAIR and...

WELL, IF YOU'RE NOT a STOOGE YERSELF, by NOW YOU GET the IDEA, DONTCHA?!?!? 

OH, and HERE's the http://www.razzies.com/forum/commentary-foto-funny_topic5831.html - to SEE/READ Ye Olde Head RAZZberry's FOTO FUNNY and OFFICIAL COMMENTARY on the FILM... 




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



Replies:
Posted By: oiram
Date Posted: April 10 2012 at 9:05am
Just out of curiosity, actor wise, who should focus more on? The people that can do better and have done better? (Jane Lynch, Larry David, ACADEMY AWARD WINNER Jennifer Hudson.) Or the people that should have never been popular to begin with? (Dick-Faced Bobble-Head Shore Cast, of course.)

Also -- and I hope my fellow Forum Members don't mind me asking this -- I was wondering if you even like the Stooges to begin with, or did you always loathe them?


-------------
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: April 10 2012 at 10:50am
1) I think we should until we've seen the movie. Most of the celebrities in this movie seem to be just cameos. Maybe the focus will be on the 3 leads... although they look like they do fairly good impressions of the original trio. 

2)I don't remember how I felt about the original Stooges when I was young. I did see A DUCKING THEY DID GO a few months ago. It was funny... but very repetitive. The way they hit each other was always the same. And from what I know, that was their "routine" in every movie. Even when I watch homages or parodies of them, they feel too long. The short I saw was only 17 minutes long...but it should've been about 5 minutes. And now we get this full lenght feature! I read that it's actually divided in two halves, with different storylines... but still!





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


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: April 10 2012 at 1:09pm
I still like Bundy, Dahmer, and Gacy, The Three Murderers, from Episode 1011, Hell on Earth 2006, better. Where they beat and stabbed each other up in their attempts to deliver a Ferrari cake to Satan. And now, 5.4 years later, we have a likely Worst Picture contender on our hands. This needs to get in the single digits at Rotten Tomatoes!
 
But this begs two questions:
*How will this do in the 2012 RAZZIES against Battles(beep), A Thousand Words, One For the Money, and That's My Boy?
*When are they going to finally release the only film that's worse than this, Walter the Farting Dog?


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


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: April 10 2012 at 2:55pm
What happens if the Three Stooges doesn't "win" Worst Picture (We have no idea)?
PS: The Farrelly Brothers' lowest rated film on Rotten Tomatoes still got 29%.

Also,   if anyone uses this film as an excuse to insult the Three Stooges, saying that the are not funny, I should point out that this film is not a representation of the original stooges  (aka some of the funniest people I have ever seen, something they share in common with Abbott and Costello, the Marx Brothers -- and just about any classic comedy team/duo/trio), it is simply Peter and Bobby Farrelly's own vision of the trio.

The only thing I don't like from the "original" Three Stooges (that I've seen) is the 1956-1959 shorts with Curly Joe.




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


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: April 10 2012 at 3:00pm
A Ducking They Did Go is hilarious. I'm sorry it was no longer than 17 minutes.  

Originally posted by Vits

I don't remember how I felt about the original Stooges when I was young. I did see A DUCKING THEY DID GO a few months ago. It was funny... but very repetitive. The way they hit each other was always the same. And from what I know, that was their "routine" in every movie. Even when I watch homages or parodies of them, they feel too long. The short I saw was only 17 minutes long...but it should've been about 5 minutes. And now we get this full lenght feature! I read that it's actually divided in two halves, with different storylines... but still!






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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: April 10 2012 at 3:53pm
The trailer does show some modern and/or R-rated jokes that I don't think were in the trio's original movies. But I feel that the majority of the "jokes" will be MOE slapping the other two, CURLY & LARRY using the peace sign to stop him from poking their eyes, etc.

Originally posted by whatsthepoint

Also if anyone uses this film as an excuse to insult the Three Stooges, saying that there not funny, I should point out that this film is will not be a representation of the original stooges  (aka some of the funniest people I have ever seen, something they share in common with Abbott and Costello, and the Marx Brothers, and just about any classic comedy team/duo/trio), it is simply Peter and Bobby Farrelly's own vision of the trio.



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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: April 10 2012 at 4:00pm
I find very odd that there really aren't comedy teams anymore. People say they're not trendy anymore. But that can't be. That's like saying being a stand-up comedian can stop being trendy. Comedy styles change, but those who perform them remain in time. The only ones that exist today are formed of movie and TV characters, parody bands and Internet stars.

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


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: April 10 2012 at 6:31pm
Yeah I miss comedy teams, but I don't think they would be as good as the old days. At least we still have some duo's.


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


Posted By: oiram
Date Posted: April 11 2012 at 3:10am
I was actually hoping HeadRazz would answer if he even liked the Stooges in the first place.   


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Yo, Oiram -- Here's the http://www.razzies.com/forum/commentary-foto-funny_topic5831.html -




-------------
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: April 11 2012 at 11:11am
Please, please, if this movie ends up being a contender, I don't want to see Chris Diamantopoulos (I had to look that up), Sean Hayes and Vits Award nominee* Will Sasso to be nominated jointly for Worst Actor. 

*Best TV Ensemble for SH*T MY DAD SAYS.


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


Posted By: oiram
Date Posted: April 11 2012 at 3:25pm
I don't see why not, Vits.

-------------
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: April 11 2012 at 4:02pm
Really? Do we have to go through it again?

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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: April 11 2012 at 6:11pm
After reading Head Razz's take on the original Stooges, my response is a heartfelt and enthusiastic Clap 
 
Sorry Whats, but the Stooges weren't funny. Their "comedy stylings" were lowbrow and insulting...appreciable only by 10 year-olds and drunken frat brothers. The word "deplorable" comes readily to mind. BTW, to answer a question posed earlier, just in case there is any lingering ambiguity...NO...I didn't care for the original Stooges. LOL And the fact that Snooki from Joisey Shore is making at least a cameo appearance in this movie cements its Razzie credentials.
 
NOTE: I have to type in Joisey because if you type in the actual word, for some reason a rather vulgar characterization appears instead...try it and see.

Originally posted by oiram

I was actually hoping HeadRazz would answer if he even liked the Stooges in the first place.   
RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Yo, Oiram -- Here's the http://www.razzies.com/forum/commentary-foto-funny_topic5831.html - to read my "Official Take" on THREE STOOGES, in which your query is answered...
 




-------------
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: JoeBacon
Date Posted: April 11 2012 at 9:26pm
The burning question I have to ask is...

WHERE'S SHEMP?





-------------
2014 Pic: LEFT BEHIND Actor: NICHOLAS CAGE Director: VIC ARMSTRONG, DAMN THIS SHOULD WIN EVERY RAZZIE!!!!!


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: April 11 2012 at 9:30pm
That question pretty much sums up Shemp's career!  Wink


-------------
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: April 11 2012 at 9:56pm
If The Three Stooges doesn't win Worst Picture, something more deserving will. And I haven't the first clue what your question is even supposed to mean...

QUOTE=whatsthepoint]
What happens if the Three Stooges doesn't win worst picture (We have no idea)? [/QUOTE] 
  



-------------
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: jesse685
Date Posted: April 12 2012 at 2:02am
I somehow knew JoeBacon was going to say 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: oiram
Date Posted: April 12 2012 at 5:46am
I think Worst Picture probably will end up being Battleship, if not 3 Stooges. I honestly don't see any other movie(s) winning... 

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

What happens if the Three Stooges doesn't win worst picture (We have no idea)?
 

 



-------------
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: April 12 2012 at 6:15am
I've always wondered what would it be like if all The (various) Stooges were together in one movie. But... they have to be three. And of course, it ought to be the original trio.

Originally posted by JoeBacon

The burning question I have to ask is...WHERE'S SHEMP?
 




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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: April 12 2012 at 7:08am
[TUBE]r0bcM7qWCQY[/TUBE]


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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: April 12 2012 at 10:40am
http://rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120411/REVIEWS/120419999 -


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: April 12 2012 at 8:57pm

Hey everyone it's at 53% based off 38 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, so much for that single digit percentage rating. Maybe it's not THAT bad. Doesn't look like it'll get any Razzie nomination. No repeat of a thousand words either.

Perhaps we should have a bonus thread for Lockout, which is getting worse reviews than the Stooges.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: April 12 2012 at 9:38pm
38 reviews is about a third or less of a typical RT sample, and the most positive reviews tend to appear early. This movie could still drop quite considerably. 




-------------
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: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: April 12 2012 at 9:43pm
Keep telling yourself that Saturn Watcher -- the rating should at least end up at 30-40%, if it doesn't end up in the 50's, and not in the "less than 10%" that everyone seemed to be predicting. Not to mention that the weekly Rotten Tomatoes consensus says it's semi funny, and some of the top critics have given it positive reviews.  

Isn't that a little shocking?

Plus the ZERO% that HeadRAZZberry seemed to be predicting/hoping for obviously didn't happen.


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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: April 13 2012 at 9:35am
[TUBE]q9sWiym1IA8[/TUBE]

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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: April 13 2012 at 9:36am
Originally posted by whatsthepoint

Keep telling yourself that Saturn Watcher, the rating should at least end at 30-40%, if it doesn't end in the 50's, and not in the less than 10% that everyone seemed to be predicting. Not to mention that the weekly Rotten Tomatoes consensus says it's semi funny, and some of the top critics have given it positive reviews.

The concensus literally says "While nowhere near as painful as it could have been, it fails to add fresh laughs to The Stooges' inestimable cinematic legacy".


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


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: April 13 2012 at 10:29am

Critics Consensus: The Three Stooges Is Sometimes Funny, Sometimes Un-Soiten


It doesn't say that it's laugh out loud funny, just that it's not terribly unfunny or a complete disaster. I don't think it will get any Razzie Nominations for worst picture.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: April 13 2012 at 10:36am
Oh. You read the concensus on the new releases' page. I read the concensus on the movie's page. But yeah, it seems it won't be nominated for Worst Picture. As for other categories...


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


Posted By: tomsmo35
Date Posted: April 13 2012 at 12:49pm
I noticed Lockout was not bonus worst of the weak it's gotten 29% on RT


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: April 13 2012 at 6:26pm
[TUBE]vGb5gAj-ANM[/TUBE][TUBE]p4uIdZLFfB4[/TUBE]

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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: April 13 2012 at 6:49pm
Yo, WTP -- You really have a talent for putting words into the mouth of others, which is growing a bit tiresome. The overall rating has dropped to 44%, but in reading through several of the reviews, I get the distinct feeling that the positive reviews are coming from critics who, for whatever reason, liked the Stooges in the first place and don't really have much of a desire to tread on their legacy. In any event, whether this movie ended up with a 1% positive rating or a 100% positive rating doesn't make a squat bit of difference in how my life proceeds from here on out. Sorry to disappoint you. However, if this movie doesn't end up getting a single nomination, permit me to assure you that no one, no one, in this organization, or perhaps on the planet, will be happier than I am going to be. It will mean that I never have to sit through so much as one second of it. Big smile

Originally posted by whatsthepoint


Keep telling yourself that Saturn Watcher, the rating should at least end at 30-40%, if it doesn't end in the 50's, and not in the less than 10% that everyone seemed to be predicting. Not to mention that the weekly Rotten Tomatoes consensus says it's semi funny, and some of the top critics have given it positive reviews.

Isn't that a little shocking?

Plus that' 0% that Headrazzberry seemed to be predicting/hoping for didn't happen.
 



-------------
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: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 8:47am
Well it's officially a hit -- it made about 18 million over the weekend, and more or less beat it's original box office predictions (as well as out-grossing Cabin in the Woods).

I won't be surprised if we get a sequel -- with Shemp!  



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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 8:30pm
Excuse me? $18 million now constitutes a hit? That is going to come as incredibly good news for Uwe Boll. 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: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: April 17 2012 at 7:37am

It had a production budget of 30 million, making 18 million more or less makes it a hit.

Plus comparing it to Uwe Boll is dumb, when his films (when they were released in theaters), would barely make 5 million on there opening weekends.



Posted By: Film Reel Redemption
Date Posted: April 17 2012 at 10:34pm
Same story with 1992's 'The Bodyguard' (big hit with a massive number of Razzie nominations)...  

Originally posted by whatsthepoint

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: You are forgetting that being "a hit" does notinoculate a movie from RAZZIE® Consideration -- Both TRANNIES #3 and TWILIGHT #4 were huge international box office hits, and both were also nominated for multiple 2011 dis-honors...
 




-------------
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: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: April 18 2012 at 8:06am
But the MetaCritic and Rotten Tomatoes scores are both higher for Three Stooges than they were for Twilight: Breaking Dawn or Dark of the Moon...  

Originally posted by whatsthepoint

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: You are forgetting that being "a hit" does notinoculate a movie from RAZZIE® Consideration -- Both TRANNIES #3 and TWILIGHT #4 were huge international box office hits, and both were also nominated for multiple 2011 dis-honors...


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


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: August 17 2012 at 8:54pm
Review time. I just finished watching this and it's not as bad as it could have been, but that doesn't make it good.
 
While the film is mostly unfunny, the scene with the Jersey Shore douches are kinda funny. Mainly because I enjoyed seeing them getting beaten. In addition, the three leads give semi-inspired performances. Sure, they annoyed me, but at least they're trying, which is more than I can say for the rest of the cast. Also, at the very end, Kate Upton wears a bikini. That may seem shallow, but you gotta appreciate the small things.
 
Most of the actors seem to only be here for a paycheck. Jane Lynch shows up for a paycheck and only a paycheck. That being said, she does the best with her work. Which is more than can be said of Larry David as Sister Mary-Mengele. That's right, like Josef Mengele. Fun fact: the original Stooges were Ashkenazi Jews. That's not only creepy joke in the movie.
 
At one point, we see a lion's nads. Yes, really. It's not as bad as the cricket rape from Mirror Mirror, but stuff like that doesn't belong in a PG-rated movie. There's one spectacularily gross scene involving babies. They use them as water guns, and I don't want to get into too many details about it. But, the worst part of the movie was Sofia Vergara. Sure, she's hot as Hell, but her performance is crappy.
 
That being said, the only Razzie nod, I can see this getting is Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-Off, or Sequel. Grade: C-
 
Next-up: Gulliver's Travels '10!


-------------
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: Vits
Date Posted: November 04 2012 at 12:23pm
I just saw it. I think it should be nominated for Worst Remake (if it counts), but nothing else. I know for a lot of people Worst Remake/Sequel and Worst Picture are the same, but I'm going with the "It's bad enough only among the remakes" card. And while some of the supporting performances are uninspired, none of them really stands out. And Worst Ensemble is out of the question because the 3 leads are good enough to save it. Chris Diamantopoulos in particular stands out.

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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: December 30 2012 at 7:21pm
Well, I wouldn't have expected this.  The final critics total for The Three Stooges on http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1205530-three_stooges/ - Rotten Tomatoes is a whopping 52% , while http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-three-stooges - the Metacritic score is 56 .  This seems rosy compared http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0383010/ - to the IMDb rating of 5.1 , considering IMDb scores not only feature theater-goers' rating, but are also pumped up by the people who worked on the movie plus whoever the studios pay to pump up scores.  But the biggest eyeopener is http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=threestooges.htm - Box Office Mojo, showing a budget of $30 million and a worldwide take of $57 million .  It's doubtful there will be a sequel, but it probably will make money. 
 
Although I like the Stooges, their form of physical comedy is only funny when the behavior is considered ridiculous - no one acts like that.  Unfortunately, although no one does Three Stooges moves on each other, people do assault and abuse each other.  So I choose to set it aside, knowing that although it is funny to me, it is NOT at all funny to people who have lived that.  Besides, it wasn't mainly the abuse I'd laugh at, but the situations they would either find themselves in or, more likely, put themselves in and all the people they would purposefully or unknowingly disrespect along the way that made it funny for me.  Fortunately, I can get all that, and at a much higher calibre too, from the Marx Brothers, without the physically violent gags. 
 
What's more, I'm concerned about whether they actually captured the real Stooges, since it's supposed to be somewhat biographical.  From the accounts I've read, they weren't all that happy.  I recall also reading how Moe Howard in his latter days cared so much about his fans that he worked to answer his fan mail every day.  With the physically violent jokes and the kind of people they actually were, there are some deep questions that could be addressed, and it doesn't seem they were really addressed at all.
 
But that's all beside the point as far as this film goes.  It apparently isn't bad enough for us.  We have other films to poke, slap around and punch. . . .
 


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: January 19 2013 at 9:52am
Do I agree with its Razzie nomination? Skip to 05:15 to find out:

[TUBE]nxQKthd3Swg[/TUBE]

Any thoughts?


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



Print Page | Close Window