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

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...

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!

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).  
 

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.

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

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.

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

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.