Official RAZZIE® Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > FORUMS on 2009 RELEASES > WHAT GOES UP
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: ...Sure to Come Plummetting Down!
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

...Sure to Come Plummetting Down!

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
Author
Message
HeadRAZZBerry View Drop Down
Berry Important MODERATOR
Berry Important MODERATOR


Joined: April 23 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5105
Post Options Post Options   Quote HeadRAZZBerry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: ...Sure to Come Plummetting Down!
    Posted: May 28 2009 at 3:14am

UP-DATE: THIS MOVIE HAS SET a NEW RECORD for FASTEST-to GO-from-THEATRES-to-DVD...a MERE 18 DAZE (WOW!) 

WHEN CRITICS HAIL SOMETHING as "UNRELEASABLE 1"  "A MESS 2" and "THE CHEAPEST KIND of AMATUERISHNESS THAT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS SHOT on a CELL PHONE 3" THAT'S SURE to DRAW OUR ATTENTION.

WHEN a FILM's CAST INCLUDES a SEVERAL-TIME PAST RAZZIE® NOMINEE LIKE HILARY DUFF and a FELLOW TEEN IDOL LIKE JOSH PECK, THAT ALSO REGISTERS on OUR RADAR...

AND WHEN a FILM's ONLY HOPE of DOING BUSINESS IS THAT IT's OPENING AGAINST a FAR SUPERIOR FILM WITH a SIMILAR TITLE (and APPARENTLY HOPING AUDIENCES ARE DUMB ENOUGH to WANDER INTO THEIR FILM by MISTAKE) the RAZZIE® PEDIGREE IS COMPLETE... 

LADIES and GENTLEMEN, MEET the FIRST FILM to TRY and MINE LAUGHTER from the 1986 SPACE SHUTTLE DISASTER, WHAT GOES UP. WE PREDICT IT'LL GO DOWN as ONE of 2009's MOST EGREGIOUS FILM FAILURES...

VILLAGE VOICE

2  HOLLYWOOD REPORTER

3 REX REED / NEW YORK OBSERVER

COOGAN: "Hail, Mary, full of grace...Save us from the RAZZIE® race!"

P.S. Berry Special Thanks to Forum Regular (and Voting Member) CVCJR13 for Bringing This One to Our Attention...

Ye Olde Head RAZZberry
Back to Top
tomsmo35 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: September 09 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 125
Post Options Post Options   Quote tomsmo35 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2009 at 10:32am
The way The Trailer was setup it looked like it should have gone Direct to Video.
Back to Top
RoadDogXVIII View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: May 14 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 332
Post Options Post Options   Quote RoadDogXVIII Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2009 at 1:25pm
The trailer doesn't look THAT bad, does it? Well, there's that nasty Juno-centric humor that makes me cringe. Why it goes over MY head, I'll never know, but characters who keep making quirky quips for 90 minutes isn't really entertainment, it's a lack of good screenwriters.
You think you know, but you have no idea.
Back to Top
cvcjr13 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: September 01 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1190
Post Options Post Options   Quote cvcjr13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2009 at 4:54pm

Well, RoadDog, the problem seems to be not the quips, but the fact that you have all these stories going on, and none of it comes together.  And every character has a screwy story.  I mean, after you watched the clip, did you come away with any idea what the movie reallly was about?  I just saw a lot of cute kid moments and Jackie Coogan, and then they trotted out the stars, and that was about it.  It left me wondering, "What the hell?"  And then, when I read some of the reviews and realize those cute kid moments really weren't all that cute, that "what the hell?" becomes pretty loud.

I read one review by Nick Schager of Slant that talks about how the theme is supposed to be how Americans invent icons to meet their own needs, but even that reviewer said the movie made its point with contrivance and nonsense.  It would have been nice if it was a series of set pieces loosely strung together.  It would have been great if these stories revolved around how each character changed in light of the shuttle tragedy.  Instead, you've got a mess, and Hillary Duff is once again getting credit for being a good actress in a mess of a movie.  Like her one-time competitor, Lindsay Lohan, Hillary Duff can act, but doesn't seem to be able to pick any movie worth acting in. 

I have a feeling if you or any of us see this movie, we'll wonder how it took all of these ideas and incredibly went nowhere with it.

Scary thought: Lindsay Lohan and Hillary Duff in a movie together.  Forget that they're supposedly rivals.  Forget that they appear to be completely different people.  Think about the last several films each of them chose to star in, and then think about what kind of movie they would choose to make together.  Ugh.

 

 

Back to Top
CriticalFrank View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 24 2009
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
Post Options Post Options   Quote CriticalFrank Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 29 2009 at 12:05am

You say "Jackie Coogan" CVCJR, but, do you perhaps mean "Steve Coogan" because he sure looks like the guy from Hamlet 2... Also, I think Jackie Coogan is long dead....

If Jackie Coogan shows up in the movie, It might just be worth watching! Zombies make everything better!

Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang
Back to Top
cvcjr13 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: September 01 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1190
Post Options Post Options   Quote cvcjr13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 29 2009 at 2:26am

  You're right.  My mistake.  I guess when I see the last name "Coogan", I will always think of The Kid

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Or better yet, my generation thinks of Coogan as "Uncle Fester" in the 60s sit-com version of The Addams Family...

 

Back to Top
CriticalFrank View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 24 2009
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
Post Options Post Options   Quote CriticalFrank Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 29 2009 at 12:43pm
The thought of it having Zombie Uncle Fester was really going to be a huge selling point... But now that it just has the guy from Hamlet 2, Not quite as interesting... Perhaps I could pretend he was a zombie Uncle Fester....
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang
Back to Top
cvcjr13 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: September 01 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1190
Post Options Post Options   Quote cvcjr13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 29 2009 at 1:39pm

I bet at this point Steve Coogan wishes he was zombie Uncle Fester.  There have been 17 reviews so far at Rotten Tomatoes, AND NOT A SINGLE CRITIC HAS SAID YET TO SAY THIS MOVIE WAS GOOD!  0% after 17 reviews!

Zombie Uncle Fester. . . . isn't that redundant? . . .

 

Back to Top
dEd Grimley View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: July 31 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2024
Post Options Post Options   Quote dEd Grimley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 29 2009 at 7:23pm
This film intrigues me. I haven't seen it listed as being in any of the theaters around me, but I may need to keep my eye out. I've really been on a bad movie kick lately. My quest to re-see Battlefield Earth ended in failure, as the video store I went to didn't have it. I DID manage to check out Razzie Nominee "Xanadu," which was amazingly bad enough as it is, but as a fan of the movie "The Warriors," the casting decision made it doubly funny to me. Also, I watched "Ecks vs Sever." I'll comment further on that when I feel the need.

Anyway, What Goes Up sounds interesting enough to me.
-Iron helps us play-
Back to Top
CriticalFrank View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 24 2009
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
Post Options Post Options   Quote CriticalFrank Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 30 2009 at 12:18am
Zombie Uncle Fester... I don't think there is a redundancy there... But then again, I was never fully clear what was up with that entire family... I think they might have had some kind of hereditary glandular disorder...
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang
Back to Top
cvcjr13 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: September 01 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1190
Post Options Post Options   Quote cvcjr13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 30 2009 at 4:37am

"Hereditary glandular disorder..."   

Oddly, What Goes Up is showing nearby, so I don't have to go all the way down to Los Angeles to experience the misery of a bad independent film. . . .

 

Back to Top
dEd Grimley View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: July 31 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2024
Post Options Post Options   Quote dEd Grimley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 30 2009 at 7:07pm
So here's the debate for today, which title is worse? Safety Glass or What Goes Up?
-Iron helps us play-
Back to Top
cvcjr13 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: September 01 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1190
Post Options Post Options   Quote cvcjr13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 30 2009 at 9:15pm

MAJOR SPOILERS!

First, a word about the Maverick 3 Theatre in Moorpark, CA.  The theatre I sat in appeared to look and smell new, with reclining seats, fold back arms and tiered seating in the back section.  The most interesting thing was not that it was new, nor that the theatre was empty except for one group of teenagers who ran away when they saw me in there (am I that scary?) or another threesome who came in and sat in the back row.  The most interesting thing is that the Maverick 3 is a combination theatre and sports club.  Yes, you get a membership with the sports club, and you can exercise a half hour or so and then go watch a movie for matinee pricing.  And I know this because the sports club is right there after you enter the theatre and walk past the concession stand.  But if you miss that, there are advertisements tell you registration is free for a limited time, that the sports club is in the same building, and of the price break on the tickets.  Considering my substantial girth and penchant for watching movies in theatres, this should be an offer worth considering. . . .

Now, What Goes Up would be the first bad movie I've watched in a theatre this year.  Some people would disagree upon seeing the list of movies I watched this year and would insist that Gigantic was the first bad movie.  However, my opinion of Gigantic roughly matches Roger Ebert's opinion, that there was much good acting, very intriguing characters and scenes, and was one rewrite short of being a solid good movie. Ebert rated Gigantic with 2-1/2 stars, while I gave it a 6 out of 10.  None of the critics seem to really pick up on the purpose of the character they call the homeless guy, who actually made three different appearances, one as a homeless guy with a metal bar, one as a huntsman with a rifle and another as a telephone repairman with I recall a crowbar, and I felt was a hallucination representing the "stuckness" of Paul Dano's character Brian, especially since after Brian knifes this guy, the body disappears immediately afterwards, but I digress. . . .

But it's appropriate I bring up Gigantic, an indepedent movie of quirky characters with great acting and great, memorable scenes, but lacks a unifying theme which it could have easily had.  What Goes Up is also an independent movie.  What Goes Up has actors acting their hearts out.  However, instead of quirky characters, What Goes Up has mentally and emotionally disturbed characters.  It desperately tries to create what should be memorable scenes, but only the ugly behavior of the characters etched into my mind, as well as the paper mache mock-up of the space shuttle crashing to bits on the stage.  But, perhaps its worst fault is the lack of a unifying theme, mostly because it thinks it has one - heroes. 

What Jonathan Glatzner did was, to borrow from something I posted earlier, to take all the spools of thread from his mother's sewing basket, dump them into a washing machine, dump a packet of silver "HEROES" in for good measure, set it for a full wash with an extra spin, and presented the tangled mess as a piece of art.  In actuality, it was an entire waste of the actors' performances and the audiences time.

What Goes Up starts off promisingly enough.  Journalist Campbell Babbitt, played by Steve (I got it right!) Coogan, does a piece on a single welfare mother who had lost her child, who while she was dealing with her grief touched and uplifted the lives of people around her.  He wrote the article despite having a relationship with this woman, which goes against journalistic ethics.  The article was published and well-received, but before he could tell her, she committed suicide.  Not able to write her obituary, he instead fabricates pieces chronicling her continuing impact on society for the good.   As he says when the movie starts off, heroes are not born, they're written.  Realizing that her columnist is a little too obsessed with his subject, his editor orders him to go to Concord, New Hampshire, to do a puff piece about the locals before the Challenger space shuttle takes off.  The month is January 1986.

Does this sound like the beginning of a great story you're about to witness?

But please read how it all goes wrong.  His red Gremlin (Chrysler stopped making Gremlins in 1978) breaks down outside of town (in reality, it would have broken down 7 years earlier than that).  He hoofs it into town, gets a room, and the next morning, calls a local, a friend he knew from college, while as he stands in the phone booth, right behind him his old college friend is jumping to his death.  See, his friend is the teacher of a class composed of all the difficult students in high school.  I have encountered each one of these characters in my life, so it was intriguing seeing them in the same classroom.  He was rumored to be having an affair with Lucy, played by Hillary Duff, but was apparently having an affair with Tess, played by Olivia Thirlby, and was reported by the choir teacher Penelope, played by Molly Shannon.  We're supposed to hate her because she reported the beloved teacher, she is sex-starved, she is a tightass and she writes a corny musical about the space shuttle.  The landlady was told to give away the things of this beloved statutory rapist, er, teacher, and so Campbell Babbitt gets the teacher's coat, with the keys to his apartment and classroom still in the pocket.  Babbitt goes to the teacher's wake, where he meets Lucy, Tess, Jim (Josh Peck), Peggy (Sarah Lind), Fenster (Max Hoffman) and many others.  Each student is difficult because they have issues.  Tess is secretly pregnant, Lucy is a flirt, Jim masturbates while watching his next door neighbor breastfeed her infant, Peggy is in a wheelchair and wants to have sex and Fenster is a chatterbox.  Babbitt wins the trust of the students by confessing he loved the woman in his first article but she committed suicide, without telling them that he continued writing about her.  Tess, who is indignant over how fake people are, finds out about the articles and confronts Babbitt, who doesn't clear up to her that what he said was true and what he wrote was false until he is nominated for a Pulitzer.  Lucy comes on to Babbitt, who at first repulses her because she is a 17-year-old jailbait, but because he finds the cross she gave the late teacher, decides to have a Romeo and Juliet moment outside her house and makes plans to go out with her after the musical, which doesn't work out because Tess asked Lucy to take her to get an abortion.  At this point, I want Mr. Glatzner to publicly state his position on statutory rape and explain why most of his movie condones it.  I say "most" because Jim the masturbator sees Babbitt and Lucy walk off hand-in-hand.  Even though Babbitt and Lucy do not commit the crime at the teacher's apartment because of continually interrupted revelations that get them both worked up, when Babbitt leaves the apartment, Jim jumps out, pushes him to the ground and makes a getaway on what I recall was a razor scooter, which, if correct, means he got one ten years before everyone else.  Jim the voyeuristic masturbator doesn't have anybody pushing him down, though, because, while he was peeping at the mother's revealed breasts outside her window, he watches as her son grabs the planet Mars, swallows it and begins to choke.  He zips up his pants (yes, he was jacking off outside), broke into the house and saved the boy, and the principal presented an award to him.  So his crime can now be forgotten.  Now Peggy wants to get laid, so she asks Fenster to do her during an unsupervised pool party at her house.  Fenster, unknown to her a virgin also, goes along with it, and so they sneak in sex wherever they can, when they are discovered by Fenster's mom coming back early enough to see Peggy's naked butt displayed on her son's bed while her son is hiding behind on the floor behind the opened bedroom door.  Babbitt, in the meantime, confesses his journalistic transgressions on network news, goes to where the students moved the teacher's casket on a frozen lake just in time to see Jim push it in, who looks up to see Babbitt left the teacher's jacket behind, and puts on the jacket as he watches Babbitt drive out of town, saying "Good!" as Babbitt leaves.

And, aside from the performances themselves, that's about the only "good" in this movie!

Have you had enough?  There are more story threads.  There really are!

Oh, and no, you do not get to see the shuttle blow up after liftoff. 

I have to wonder if Christina McAuliffe would have taught at Concord High School if it was as scandalous, hypocritical and sex crazy as Glatzner's movie depicted it. 

A special mention goes to the soundtrack music.  The movie has a lot of music playing throughout.  Now, in January 1986, the students would have been listening to Madonna, Whitney Houston, Huey Lewis and the News, Genesis, Mr. Mister, Lionel Richie, Tears For Fears, Heart, Bruce Springsteen, and Sting, but most importantly, would have been watching lots of MTV, including the classic videos for Dire Straits' "Money For Nothing" and a-ha's "Take On Me".  None of this music was in this film.  I'm not sure anything they played came from late 85/early 86.  The film closed out with the radio blaring David Bowie's "Heroes", a 1972 song that didn't chart in the United States, although it did receive airplay over the years and was a staple in his concerts.  I guess he thought that playing what would have been a fourteen year old song at the end of the movie would remind audiences of what was supposed to be the theme of the movie, or at least cover up the lack of using any music from that time. 

Razzies definitely for worst picture, for Jonathan Glatzer for worst director, and for Jonathan Glatzer and Robert Lawson for worst screenplay.  As for acting Razzies, you could dole them out for the reason that all of these actors should have seen what a mess the script was and demanded that it be completely rewritten.  I would have liked to have seen the story in the beginning 15 minutes about the journalist and his late lover properly fleshed out into one movie, and the stories of the misfit students fleshed out into another movie, with the Challenger disaster left out of both movies and statutory rape treated as a serious crime.  Since Steve Coogan, Molly Shannon, Hillary Duff and all gave good performances, they should have demanded a movie equal to their performances so the audiences could enjoy their good performances.

But since the movie is what it is, to borrow something else I wrote earlier, What Goes Up went down the drain, and the movie is now only good for mockery.

 

Back to Top
cvcjr13 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: September 01 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1190
Post Options Post Options   Quote cvcjr13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 30 2009 at 9:23pm

Usually changing the movie's title is a sign of a bad movie, and so it is in this case.  However, it's probably the only thing they did right.  Safety Glass does not describe anything in this movie that I could see.  What Goes Up references the Challenger disaster, but the Challenger disaster is merely a background to the various stories in this movie, and so I don't see that it describes anything else.  The dead teacher, named Sam Callalucci, called "Mr. C" throughout, seems to be the only unifying thing in this movie, so a better title would have been Mr. C.

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

So here's the debate for today, which title is worse? Safety Glass or What Goes Up?

 

Back to Top
dEd Grimley View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: July 31 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2024
Post Options Post Options   Quote dEd Grimley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 30 2009 at 9:42pm
I would assume that "What Goes Up" would refer to half of the full phrase that ends with "Must Come Down." In other words all good things come to an end, or sometimes crashing down. This would imply to me that the movie is not supposed to have a happy ending. It sounds less than pleasant (in terms of story) throughout, so it seems an appropriate title.
Safety Glass to me brings an image of something separating someone from it as it would be dangerous or cause harm in some way, and yet, you can see through it and are aware of that problem throughout. So I dunno... That might make sense, too. But just because they make sense doesn't mean that they're GOOD titles.
-Iron helps us play-
Back to Top
cvcjr13 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: September 01 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1190
Post Options Post Options   Quote cvcjr13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 31 2009 at 2:44am

Yeah, "what goes up must come down" refers to someone or something not having a happy ending in the second half of the phrase, but in the first half of the phrase, it implies that the someone or something went up in the first place.  Perhaps Babbitt went up and got the Purlitzer prize only to come down and confess what really happened.  Perhaps the students went up when for the first time they had a learning environment where they could express themselves, learn and feel loved, only to have it come down when Mr. C had sex with one of the students.  After seeing it last night, it didn't seem that anything went up by the end of the movie.  Not even the Challenger had gone up by the end of the movie.  It took me until this morning to think of these things.

The main thing about safety glass is that when it is impacted, it doesn't break into shards that can cut you in an instant.  It breaks into little tiny cubish pieces that barely would cut you if at all.  Many kinds of safety glass also have an additional plastic coating that keep the pieces together and prevent them from going all over the place, minimizing injury even more. 

I'll probably need a few more days to understand why Safety Glass was considered a title for this movie.  I can sort of see that when Mr. C killed himself, Babbitt's presence as the friend of Mr. C served as the protective coating to prevent the broken classmates from going all over the place, but that was not the thrust of Babbitt's storyline.

If I had to make an analogy to safety glass, it would be a good friend.  A good friend is like safety glass; he or she will keep you from going to pieces when something awful crashes into your life.  Babbitt is far from a good friend.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down