Print Page | Close Window

FAILURE indeed!

Printed From: Official RAZZIEŽ Forum
Category: FORUMS on 2006 MOVIES w/LYNX!
Forum Discription: This "Romantic Comedy" Looks Neither Romantic NOR Comical!
Printed Date: May 06 2016 at 11:59am

Topic: FAILURE indeed!
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: FAILURE indeed!
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 1:34am


He still lives at home with his folks (are you laughing yet?) and they're so desperate to get him out of their house that they hire him a girlfriend (chuckling anyone?) but  when she gets to know him, she falls in love with him (how unexpected) then the parents' plan backfires when he asks her to move in with him -- to the parents' house (at this point, not snoring might be a compliment)...



Ye Olde Head RAZZberry

Posted By: sportsartist24
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 9:21am
well, no wonder they gave the title to this FAILURE TO LAUNCH. It hasn't launched off really well, and true, it looks more like a failure.

The Mormons were'nt really popular in the beginning, they're now becoming more popular, even in Hollywood.

Posted By: Razzilla
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 2:24pm
"Let's strike a match to it and see if we can launch it from our memories altogether..."

I heard this during the birthday bash KWNR (95.5 FM) held at the Railhead inside Boulder Station... Too bad it wasn't said over the air...

Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 3:39pm
This movie should come with a Surgeon General's warning, if not air sick bags. Any film that features not one, but TWO nude scenes featuring Terry Bradshaw's ancient anatomy definitely is worthy of Razzie consideration. But it doesn't end there...after our visual senses have been raped, our hearing is assaulted by a film closing duet featuring Bradshaw and Kathy Bates! How much more can the average movie goer endure?

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: Vidiot
Date Posted: March 14 2006 at 8:26am
When a lame 1/2 hr sitcom script is greenlit into a full length feature you know you're in trouble.

Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 14 2006 at 10:40am
Even if this film doesn't end up with a Worst Picture nomination, I think there is definitely a Worst Couple possibility here. I'd like to offer an early nomination for Terry Bradshaw's uh, nether cheeks.

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: Razzilla
Date Posted: March 14 2006 at 5:33pm
Second on the posterior...

Posted By: thorshammer
Date Posted: March 20 2006 at 7:57am
It wasn't that bad.  Not good, yes, but not that bad. 

Posted By: Bookworm
Date Posted: April 02 2006 at 3:53pm
HeadRazzBerry - Thanks for the link for the trailers.  You just saved me $10.  I'll wait for it to be on cable or on rental from the library.  I love bad movies, but this one just looks stupid.  The media continually touted this as such a career 'launch' into comedy for Sarah Jessica Parker...looks like Paramount did as well with this one as NASA does with its low-bid rockets. 


Posted By: cheilea
Date Posted: November 06 2006 at 8:13pm
Actually, I love Sarah Jessica Parker - she is adorable. I thought this movie was OK.

let me tell ya bout a porcipines balls

Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: November 15 2006 at 2:46am
I'd have to agree with Ebert on this one; the whole plot is rife with uncalled for sadism that in real life just might provoke someone into doing something terrible. 

Posted By: SuperGlucose
Date Posted: March 28 2007 at 5:59pm
This movie was identical to the other movie that had (I swear) the same damn couple.  What was it called?  Oh yeah, how to lose a guy in ten days.  Granted, Jessica Parker wasn't in the previous movie, but is playing the same character in the same plot.  And Matt makes me sick again.  Ugh.

And the ending?  Both sides get all righteously pissed off at each other?  Matt's been there and done that.  I swear, this is just another release of How to lose a Guy.  If you don't believe me, watch them in succession, then three hours later, tell me which one you saw first.

Up, in the Cytoplasm, is it an amino acid? Is it a nucleotide? No, it's SUPERGLUCOSE!

Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: June 08 2010 at 3:21pm
I'm I the only one who liked this movie?

You can follow me - @Vits_Chile

Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: June 08 2010 at 5:07pm
Originally posted by Vits

I'm I the only one who liked this movie?
Once again, yes, yes you are. Chances are, if it's listed here, you (and maybe MWG) are the only ones who liked it on this forum.

The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: January 09 2011 at 11:01am
I just re-watched it and I changed my mind.The movie is definately funny,and it somehow draws you into caring for this characters and what happens to them.But it's too obsessed on the formula and it becomes more cliche as it goes along.Most important:the leads have no chemistry.

I give this 4/10.

You can follow me - @Vits_Chile

Print Page | Close Window