Official RAZZIE® Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > 2007 RAZZIE® MOVIE FORUMS w/LYNX! > COMPLETE LIST of ELIGIBLE 2007 RELEASES
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: COMPLETE LIST: Jan. 1 - Dec. 31, 2007
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

COMPLETE LIST: Jan. 1 - Dec. 31, 2007

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1112131415>
Author
Message
Mrs. Magnatech View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: December 09 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 71
Post Options Post Options   Quote Mrs. Magnatech Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: COMPLETE LIST: Jan. 1 - Dec. 31, 2007
    Posted: January 03 2008 at 3:25pm

Chuck and Larry deserved to be in the "remake or ripoff" category because it rips off Boat Trip, The Gay Deceivers, and several other movies where straight guys have to pretend to be gay (because those gays are just SO hilarious!)

I was disappointed to see that Dane Cook was not nominated. He was my write-in for Worst Supporting Actor (Mr. Brooks) and Worst Actor (Good Luck Chuck). My other write-in was Brett Ratner for worst director (he deserves it).

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


Joined: March 18 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 255
Post Options Post Options   Quote tomsmobr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 04 2008 at 2:38am

Mrs. Magnatech: Thanks for clearing it up. I have not seen the other two films, that's probably why I didn't know that Chuck & Larry was ripoff of either of them...

 

Back to Top
XmasWnd4WrstPic View Drop Down
Berry New Comer
Berry New Comer


Joined: January 13 2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 12
Post Options Post Options   Quote XmasWnd4WrstPic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 13 2008 at 9:46am
Christmas in Wonderland needs to take the bag for Worst Picture, Worst Special Effects (it may not have much special effects, but the CG elves mad Barnyard's animation and art direction look appealing), Worst Actor, (Patrick Swayze), Worst Director (James Orr), Worst Screenplay. And worst film editing, if there's a catagory for that. Sorry for my ignorance, I'm a noob to the Razzies. And, I'm not usually interested in bad films, I'd rather enjoy my Miyazaki movies instead. But Christmas in Wonderland is just....so...bad. I had to come on the forums and promote it.

I was an extra in that movie, and I am ashamed. :(
Back to Top
dropkickkennedy View Drop Down
Berry New Comer
Berry New Comer


Joined: January 13 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
Post Options Post Options   Quote dropkickkennedy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 13 2008 at 9:36pm
Farce of The Penguins, needs to be put on this list for sure
Back to Top
XmasWnd4WrstPic View Drop Down
Berry New Comer
Berry New Comer


Joined: January 13 2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 12
Post Options Post Options   Quote XmasWnd4WrstPic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 14 2008 at 9:42am

By the way, I think that "Shrek the 3rd" should be nominated as well. Sure, the first two Shrek movies were good. But the third movie was butchered storytelling!! 

 

Christmas in Wonderland didn't get a single Razzie nomination. Truly tragic.
Back to Top
saturnwatcher View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: July 14 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2577
Post Options Post Options   Quote saturnwatcher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 14 2008 at 6:08pm

Originally posted by dropkickkennedy

Farce of The Penguins, needs to be put on this list for sure

Farce of the Penguins was a pathetic piece of trash to be sure, but there are two problems with considering it this year:

1. It was a 2006 release.

2. About 12 people on the entire planet were unfortunate enough to sit through it. Count me among them, but I rented it, so I didn't even count in the box-office numbers. After a brief search, I couldn't even find domestic box-office numbers for this movie, and I'm not sure that it didn't go straight to video. However, the total foriegn box-office was an unbelievably crappy $6832, which is even less than A Sound of Thunder. So my "12 people" remark above isn't that much of an exaggeration.

Incidentally, welcome to the board. I hope you will be a regular participant!

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


Joined: July 14 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2577
Post Options Post Options   Quote saturnwatcher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 15 2008 at 4:45am

After a little further research, permit me to include an addendum with regard to Farce of the Penguins. While IMDB lists it was a 2006 film, which was when the project wrapped, it was a straight to DVD release in the U.S. and almost everywhere else in early 2007. (On the one hand it qualifies it as a 2007 release, but the straight to video status disqualifies it for the purpose of our consideration, worthy as it might be.)  It only received theatrical releases in Australia and Japan, which partially accounts for the crummy box-office performance. Even so, allowing for an average ticket price of $8, that translates to exactly 854 people unfortunate enough to pay theater prices to see this piece of trash.

Somebody should send them some sort of prize...maybe a can of penguin poop...just to have something to remember it by. As for Bob Saget, who was the principle creative force behind this film, a whole truckload of penguin poop in his front yard would be very worthy.

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
Back to Top
XmasWnd4WrstPic View Drop Down
Berry New Comer
Berry New Comer


Joined: January 13 2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 12
Post Options Post Options   Quote XmasWnd4WrstPic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 15 2008 at 6:46am

By the way, why is Transformers being considered for a Worst Picture nominee? I haven't seen the film yet, but I know that everyone I talked to liked the film a lot. Sure, it's no artistic achievement, but who says it has to be? And who says that's what the director's goal was? He was no doubt just trying to make a fun movie about giant robots fighting, and trying to do so with fun explosive action.

That's probably why most critics hated the movie, while the average person gave the film a generally positive response. The film critics who saw the movie as dumb fun gave the movie good reviews!

Judge films by their own merits. Take a look at what they are, and what they are supposed to be. If Transformers failed as a dumb action flick, sure, it should be a contestant. Remember, I think the purpose of "awarding" the worst film possible is to shame people who put in a lousy effort. Film is a beautiful medium, and I personally like to talk about good films more than bad films. And, I think, if you spend millions of dollars on 2 hours of entertainment, you better give it your all. Because, if you make a useless product, then you practically threw money away in the trash. There are a lot of people need money in the world. So, give filmmaking your all if your going to be involved with a product, I think. 

Response from Head RAZZberry: TRANSFORMERS is the subject of a discussion on our Forum,  (LINK) but is only likely to be a RAZZIE nominee in one category -- Jon Voight as a possible Worst Supporting Actor contender (for his work in TRANSFORMERS, BRATZ, SEPTEMBER DAWN and NATIONAL TREASURE: BOOK OF SECRETS).  
 

Christmas in Wonderland didn't get a single Razzie nomination. Truly tragic.
Back to Top
tomsmobr View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: March 18 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 255
Post Options Post Options   Quote tomsmobr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 15 2008 at 7:33am
Originally posted by XmasWnd4WrstPic

By the way, why is Transformers being considered for a Worst Picture nominee? I haven't seen the film yet, but I know that everyone I talked to liked the film a lot. Sure, it's no artistic achievement, but who says it has to be? And who says that's what the director's goal was? He was no doubt just trying to make a fun movie about giant robots fighting, and trying to do so with fun explosive action.

That's probably why most critics hated the movie, while the average person game the film a generally positive response. The film critics who saw the movie as dumb fun gave the movie good reviews!

Judge films by their own merits. Take a look at what they are, and what they are supposed to be. If Transformers failed as a dumb action flick, sure, it should be a contestant. Remember, I think the purpose of "awarding" the worst film possible is to shame people who put in a lousy effort. Film is a beautiful medium, and I personally like to talk about good films more than bad films. And, I think, if you spend millions of dollars on 2 hours of entertainment, you better give it your all. Because, if you make a useless product, then you practically threw money away in the trash. There are a lot of people need money in the world. So, give filmmaking your all if your going to be involved with a product, I think. 

Response from Head RAZZberry: TRANSFORMERS is the subject of a discussion on our Forum,  (LINK) but is only likely to be a RAZZIE nominee in one category -- Jon Voight as a possible Worst Supporting Actor contender (for his work in TRANSFORMERS, BRATZ, SEPTEMBER DAWN and NATIONAL TREASURE: BOOK OF SECRETS).  
 

To Head RAZZberry: I was wondering if I could get my Ballot Switched from Regular Mail To E-Mail
Back to Top
saturnwatcher View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: July 14 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2577
Post Options Post Options   Quote saturnwatcher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 15 2008 at 6:05pm
Originally posted by XmasWnd4WrstPic

By the way, why is Transformers being considered for a Worst Picture nominee? I haven't seen the film yet, but I know that everyone I talked to liked the film a lot. Sure, it's no artistic achievement, but who says it has to be? And who says that's what the director's goal was? He was no doubt just trying to make a fun movie about giant robots fighting, and trying to do so with fun explosive action.

First of all, excuse my oversight in failing to welcome you to the board as well. We always love new blood aboard.

Now, back to the topic, count me among those who found Tranformers to be a very contrived and not particularly entertaining film. It utterly lacked originality. It wasn't bad enough to win a lot of nominations from us, and had its supporters among our group, but there were many of us who felt it was pretty much of an artistic failure.

Originally posted by XmasWnd4WrstPic



Film is a beautiful medium, and I personally like to talk about good films more than bad films. And, I think, if you spend millions of dollars on 2 hours of entertainment, you better give it your all. Because, if you make a useless product, then you practically threw money away in the trash. There are a lot of people need money in the world. So, give filmmaking your all if your going to be involved with a product, I think. 

I think you will find that everyone here is, in fact, a huge fan of film, but there are any number of forums on the web where the primary discussion centers around good movies. That isn't what we do here, for we are not only fans of the good ones, but the bad ones as well.

In regard to your second point in this paragraph, you are giving Hollywood WAY too much credit. A brief survey of the number of films that were actively discussed on this board just this year reveals that a lot of expensive films were foist upon the public with no real intent of creating art or releasing a quality product, but simply because someone cynically judged that money could be made.

To cite an example that looms in the near future, I guarantee you that no one bankrolled Rambo IV out of any deep conviction that it will ever be immortalized in the annals of great cinema, but simply because there is a built in fan base that will go for the express purpose of worshipping the kind of garbage that Stallone regularly "treats" his fans to up on the screen.

Yes, there are a lot of needy folks in the world, but that has precious little to do with how much money it costs to make a movie. Much like any other corporate enterprise, the major studios don't give a flip about poor people, or have much of a social conscious...they are fed by bottom lines. If Hollywood were truly driven by some desire to constantly elevate an artform to sublimity, Daddy Daycamp would have never seen the light of day and the world would have never heard of The Three Stooges. (yes folks, corporate money grubbing was not born in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan)

Yet, lest we take the whole "art" business too seriously, let us not forget that Ed Wood thought he was making great movies, and he wasn't all that driven by making money. So somewhere out there, a happy medum must exist

 

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


Joined: January 10 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 117
Post Options Post Options   Quote moat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 15 2008 at 9:18pm
Transformers is also quite possibly the best example of corporate film-making released last year, what with its massive budget, formulaic storytelling, sell-out director, mindless narrative, unrelenting product placement, and being an extension of an already popular franchise. It was a film that knew exactly how to pander to the widest audience possible, and as far as its success in that arena goes, the box office numbers are self-explanatory. I'll admit it's far from the worst picture of 2007, but I think it's the best example of how problematic Hollywood products and film-goers habits are today.
Back to Top
saturnwatcher View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: July 14 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2577
Post Options Post Options   Quote saturnwatcher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 16 2008 at 1:52am
On the nosey
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
Back to Top
XmasWnd4WrstPic View Drop Down
Berry New Comer
Berry New Comer


Joined: January 13 2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 12
Post Options Post Options   Quote XmasWnd4WrstPic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 17 2008 at 5:10am
I'm well aware that Hollywood is filled with money grubbing scumbags, guys.

But, I guess I'm also not as cynical as some of you. I believe there many films that emerge out of Hollywood with artistic intentions first. And some films that could be seen as both an artistic achievement, and a popcorn commercial blockbuster. (Lord of the Rings comes to mind. While I had problems with a few aspects of the story, I thought it was a beautiful, moving film that reflected some truths about the world.)

See, I'm not against mass releases of movies or anything like that. In fact, marketing a film in a clever way I think is important if you actually want people to see it. However, I don't think marketing should be the concern of anyone involved with the storytelling.

As for Transformers, sure it was money-first. But hey, the common man enjoyed it right? Sure it was mindless and derivative, but hey, when people go to see a movie about giant robots attacking things, people don't want artistic vision.

And honestly, I don't know where to look for good indie films. All my favourite movies are commercial ones. (I like MOST of the movies from Pixar Animation Studios, except Cars. That one wasn't very good. I also LOVE Hayao Miyazaki's movies. Not too commercial over here, but definitely in Japan.)

So, as an odd change of topic, what kinds of movies do you guys like?
Christmas in Wonderland didn't get a single Razzie nomination. Truly tragic.
Back to Top
Mrs. Magnatech View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: December 09 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 71
Post Options Post Options   Quote Mrs. Magnatech Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 17 2008 at 8:09am

But hey, the common man enjoyed it right?

That doesn't mean it's good. And, believe it or not, there are some "common men" who wouldn't be caught dead seeing something like Transformers.

I haven't seen the film yet, but I know that everyone I talked to liked the film a lot.

You must spend a lot of time around mentally challenged people. Transformers sucks even by the lowered standards of big budget action moives.

 

Back to Top
XmasWnd4WrstPic View Drop Down
Berry New Comer
Berry New Comer


Joined: January 13 2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 12
Post Options Post Options   Quote XmasWnd4WrstPic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 17 2008 at 9:07am
Originally posted by Mrs. Magnatech

You must spend a lot of time around mentally challenged people.


Okay, that's just plain rude.

Also, I think it's unfair to call a person with bad taste in movies stupid, anyway. Because some people have more serious things to worry about other than entertainment. And for them, trite movies are fine. For me, personally, I want more, since I'm the artistic type. And look to good films for inspiration.
 
Now, if the people I knew liked the film on a thinking level, then, I'd have something to worry about. But, some people like mindless entertainment. Once we get over that, then snobbery doesn't have to pursue.

Again, I haven't seen the film, so, I don't really have a right to judge it either way. Although, now I am tempted to rent the movie so I can give a solid opinion once and for all.

There is a difference between a well made, entertaining mindless movie, and a sloppy, poorly done mindless film. Christmas in Wonderland, the very reason for me getting on this forum, is one of those poorly made productions. Transformers, may, or may not be one.
Christmas in Wonderland didn't get a single Razzie nomination. Truly tragic.
Back to Top
cvcjr13 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: September 01 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1178
Post Options Post Options   Quote cvcjr13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 17 2008 at 4:52pm

I don't mind popcorn movies.  For example, I loved Live Free and Die Hard.  Mind you, it was no masterpiece, it pandered to the fanbase and my suspension of disbelief was left at the theatre door.  But it was done in such a way that I didn't mind at all.  It was fun, even in the ridiculously over-the-top sequence of the jet fighter shooting at the semi.  I loved it.

I also love The Three Stooges.  Used to watch them as kid.

Transformers, on the other hand, sucked.  I watched the cartoon series with my nephew, and we both went to see the movie, and we both hated it.  I've outlined my reactions over at the Transformers thread, but needless to say, the ONLY thing Transformers had going for it was its special effects.  The special effects were brilliant.  But, once better special effects are developed, pretty soon all you're left with are a dull story, a lot of cheesy human characters and one particular parents-to-kids sequence that rips off American Pie.

 

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1112131415>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down