Official RAZZIE® Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > FORUMS on 2009 RELEASES > KNOWING
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Deja-P.U. All Over Again...
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

Deja-P.U. All Over Again...

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 14>
Author
Message
HeadRAZZBerry View Drop Down
Berry Important MODERATOR
Berry Important MODERATOR


Joined: April 23 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5106
Post Options Post Options   Quote HeadRAZZBerry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Deja-P.U. All Over Again...
    Posted: March 16 2009 at 3:57am

IS NICOLAS CAGE SUFFERING from "OSCAR®-HEIMER's"?

HOW ELSE CAN YOU EXPLAIN HIS ARGUABLY RE-MAKING a MOVIE THAT BOMBED (and ALSO GOT HIM a WELL-DESERVED WORST ACTOR RAZZIE® NOMINATION) JUST 2 YEARS AGO??

KNOWING LOOKS SUSPICIOUSLY LIKE CAGE's 2007 TURKEY NEXT (with a SPRINKLING of FELLOW 2007 DOG and RAZZIE® NOMINEE THE NUMBER 23 THROWN in for BAD MEASURE). AND IT's LIKELY to DO AT LEAST AS BADLY AS EITHER of THOSE UTTERLY UN-SUCCESSFUL MOVIES...

THE ONE "BRIGHT" SPOT: KNOWING COULD FINALLY EARN CAGE THAT OVER-DUE RAZZIE® NIC's MOVIE CHOICES HAVE BEEN ALL-BUT-BEGGING-for SINCE ABOUT 1996.

AND NOW...IT's YOUR TURN to PREDICT CAGE's FUTURE!

CAGE: "Oh, my God...this chart predicts the per-screen averages for KNOWING will be even worse than the ones for NEXT..."

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


Joined: May 12 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2848
Post Options Post Options   Quote Michaels Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 16 2009 at 10:29am

I think it's time for Nic Cage to take a break from big budget movies and stick with some low key indie films for now.

PS: "Super Capers" should be the Bonus Worst Movie of the Weak.

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


Joined: January 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2137
Post Options Post Options   Quote moviewizguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 16 2009 at 11:49am
I thought "Next" was a fantastic sci-fi film -- it broke some barriers and took some risks. I also thought the ending was original and fresh. The sad thing is, people don't like different things, and decided to bash the movie because it didn't stick to their comfort zone.
Back to Top
SchumacherH8ter View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: September 06 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3080
Post Options Post Options   Quote SchumacherH8ter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 16 2009 at 1:32pm
People didn't bash "Next" because it was different; they bashed it because it was poorly made. While, the first part was decent, the ending was terrible because it was another f*cking dream ending! I can't stand dream endings, there a big middle finger to the audience: "Oh, you liked the movie, will f*ck you none of it happened.
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
Back to Top
Michaels View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: May 12 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2848
Post Options Post Options   Quote Michaels Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 16 2009 at 3:44pm

Exactly SchumacherH8ter. People go to the movies to see a beginning, a middle and an end, not a movie that is 50% made up of a dream that the main character has and then ends with no closure whatsoever.

"Watchmen" broke all kinds of barriers and took all kinds of riskes that were well out of any comfort zones by being a three hour, R-rated movie about superheroes who spend most of their screentime talking and being morally ambiguous. That makes it "boring", and "hated" by everyone. But "Next" being 90 minutes of events that never happened and leaves you with a cliffhanger (which has been done in movies before, "American Psycho" for example), it's "fantastic" and just misunderstand by everyone. Go figure.

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


Joined: January 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2137
Post Options Post Options   Quote moviewizguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 16 2009 at 4:13pm

Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

People didn't bash "Next" because it was different; they bashed it because it was poorly made. While, the first part was decent, the ending was terrible because it was another f*cking dream ending! I can't stand dream endings, there a big middle finger to the audience: "Oh, you liked the movie, will f*ck you none of it happened.

I said it and I'll say it again:

It wasn't poorly made. The beginning was fantastic, along with the middle. The problem everyone who didn't like the movie is the end. I can understand why but let me give a full analysis, if I may. The ending is FINE. It's different but it's not a cliffhanger. People say that because they don't know what else to say and because it's easier to bash the movie that way.

Those who fully understand the concept will say this: The ending is, in fact, not a cliffhanger, but a different way to show the good guys winning. So what if it was all a premonition whatever you guys may call it? You know Cage and Moore will work together and try another situation. If that failed, he could go back and do another situation and if that failed, he can do it until he finally get the perfect steps to save his girlfriend.

The fact that the movie didn't show the perfect solution just made everyone angry because movies always show the perfect solution. "Deja Vu," in fact, told you the THIRD time Denzel Washington had to go back to get things right. He didn't get it right the first time.

The same applies to "Next." The fact that it didn't show the perfect solution bugs the audience but the filmmakers took the risk and it's a good one because it's different. You know Cage will get it right but you don't know when. You know he's going to save his girlfriend. You know he's going to set things right but the filmmakers decided just to show his first move and why should that be bad? Why is that a bad thing?

Oh, right, because you guys just want resolutions and have things being spoonfed to you. That's sad. That's just sad. The movie didn't deserve the hate because idiotic people like you won't praise it from going a different route with basically the same message. It's a different ending to show the same thing. It's like "Watchmen," in fact. I heard they changed the ending for the movie but the two endings from the movie and book just spell the same message. That's what "Next" did. It took the same message but applied it to something more risky and more inventive.

If audiences like you complain about different endings all of the time, no wonder we always get predictable BS, the very thing you guys are bashing on in the first place. So please, before you ever bash a movie, think about it first because the very thing you guys are bashing on may not be the thing it has it from being wrong.

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: March 16 2009 at 5:09pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

 "Oh, you liked the movie, will f*ck you none of it 

I said it and I'll say it again:

It wasn't poorly made.

It was crap. If you liked it, fine. I have no problems with that. But let's face it...there is a track record here. You've managed to embrace all sorts of stuff that most of us here have found pretty wanting. Perhaps you might give a little consideration to the possibility that we aren't the ones that are clueless.

 

 

The fact that it didn't show the perfect solution bugs the audience but the filmmakers took the risk and it's a good one because it's different.

For the most part, I generally applaud "different," but I don't live with the illusion that different always = good. Once upon a time, the Hari Karishnas came up with a "different" approach to raising funds. They sold flowers and crappy propoganda books at airports. It didn't inspire me to give them money. It made me want to beat the living daylights out of them, and I'm basically a pacifist. Evidently, a lot of other people felt the same way, because they were banned from airports both for their own and the public's safety and comfort.

 

 

Oh, right, because you guys just want resolutions and have things being spoonfed to you. That's sad. That's just sad. The movie didn't deserve the hate because idiotic people like you won't praise it from going a different route with basically the same message.

Hang on there, Bucky. Personal attacks win no points in debate. They put you on a level with the George Bushs and Rush Limbaughs of the world, which destroys your credibility pretty rapidly.

 

If audiences like you complain about different endings all of the time, no wonder we always get predictable BS, the very thing you guys are bashing on in the first place. So please, before you ever bash a movie, think about it first because the very thing you guys are bashing on may not be the thing it has it from being wrong.

I'm kind of busy thinking about what you just wrote there and trying to figure it out...however....

I don't think any of us mind endings that are different, providing that there is some logical consistancy resulting from what has come prior. For example, there is nothing I hate more than reading some mystery novel where the author leads me this direction and that for 300 pages, then pulls something completely unforeshadowed out of his @ss on page 301. That isn't good nor is it original...it's just jerking your audience around.

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
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: March 17 2009 at 3:04am
I agree I also think Nic Cage needs to take a break. And he also needs to take hold of his career, and not let his people keep talking him into making these kinds of Movies...
Back to Top
moviewizguy View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2137
Post Options Post Options   Quote moviewizguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 17 2009 at 5:03am
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

It was crap. If you liked it, fine. I have no problems with that. But let's face it...there is a track record here. You've managed to embrace all sorts of stuff that most of us here have found pretty wanting. Perhaps you might give a little consideration to the possibility that we aren't the ones that are clueless.

Yet you manage to ignore my point...

For the most part, I generally applaud "different," but I don't live with the illusion that different always = good. Once upon a time, the Hari Karishnas came up with a "different" approach to raising funds. They sold flowers and crappy propoganda books at airports. It didn't inspire me to give them money. It made me want to beat the living daylights out of them, and I'm basically a pacifist. Evidently, a lot of other people felt the same way, because they were banned from airports both for their own and the public's safety and comfort.

Again, you've managed to go off topic and talk about how different doesn't always mean good. Please, I've made a long point. I would appreciate if you read my side of the ending.

I don't think any of us mind endings that are different, providing that there is some logical consistancy resulting from what has come prior. For example, there is nothing I hate more than reading some mystery novel where the author leads me this direction and that for 300 pages, then pulls something completely unforeshadowed out of his @ss on page 301. That isn't good nor is it original...it's just jerking your audience around.

Read my point. It's not a cliffhanger. You just think it's a cliffhanger. That's why you hate the movie along with several other people. I'm just trying to put in a new perspective on the ending, which is hotly debated on the IMDb forums, which is where I got my argument from.

The main argument is this: The movie just showed one of the many possibilites that could happen. There are many ways Cage could've saved his girlfriend. However, the movie didn't show the timeline that he did save his girlfriend which is why the ending bugged a lot of people and I say that's not fair. Here's what someone said that sums up the reactions to the ending:

"I don't think the ending was cut short at all. The fact is we know that he goes off and saves the day, that's your bog standard orthodox ending. To sum it up in terms of the film, it's already happened, it just hasn't happened yet. I applaud such techniques for not insulting the intelligence of the viewer, people need to stop expecting a film to do all the thinking for you."

"We only saw one senario from the time she and he were lying in the bed. How many more did he use her to see other senarios.

But how many more senarios there were, doesn't matter. He had already figured out the solution in determining where the bomb was.. That why the phone call at the end and the condition that she need not be involved.... Because Cage's character already used her to get the solution. And she could be kept in the dark about his abilities.

There only holes if you don't listen to the whole movie."

So, like I said before, it's easy to bash "Next" because of the unorthadox ending. Anyone can do that. It's better if you appreciated it because it has done something different. People need to appreciate it and understand what it's trying to do to really get the whole movie. This is why I think "Next" was one of the most underrated film in 2007.

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: March 17 2009 at 8:03am
Originally posted by moviewizguy

So, like I said before, it's easy to bash "Next" because of the unorthadox ending. Anyone can do that. It's better if you appreciated it because it has done something different. People need to appreciate it and understand what it's trying to do to really get the whole movie. This is why I think "Next" was one of the most underrated film in 2007.

No, actually, it's easy to bash Next because it was crap. You accuse me of not addressing your points, but to put it as kindly as possible, your ramblings are so close to unintelligible that I can only address brief portions that can be deciphered. That I chose to address some of those points by analogy was intended to keep the proceedings somewhat lighthearted. However, if I like a particular movie that almost everyone else hates, I invariably hesitiate to assume that everyone else is wrong. I usually chalk it up to a quirky quilty pleasure on my end.

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
Michaels View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: May 12 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2848
Post Options Post Options   Quote Michaels Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 17 2009 at 8:08am

The ending of "Next" was more of an M. Night Shamlaynading-dong twist than an original ending. In fact, I was expecting M. Night to jump out and yell "50% of this movie was a dream! What a twist!". Why stop at the first time Nic Cage and Jessica Biel slept together? While you're at it, why not make it that the ENTIRE movie was something Cage daydreamed while he was sitting in the diner at the very beginning? It's would be like the studio heads saying "Any wannabe writers in the theater who think they have a good idea for a movie? Well guess what, we just made you pay for a movie that was all about some guy thinking about one, too! HAHA!".

Here's what a REAL outside the box ending would have been: Just after Cage and Juliana Moore save Biel and kill all the bad guys, the nuke goes off. Everything becomes frozen in time. Cage does a final voice-over that goes something like this: "In that very moment, I realized that even a man who can see into the future can't know what will exactly happen as a result of his own actions. I had the choice to use my powers to save peoples' lives. The life of my lover, the lives of many innocents, my own life. But I chose not to, and now I will not live to regret it". BOOM, everyone gets blown away. Hero fails and dies along with everyone else because he didn't act, much like how 9/11 could have been avoided had Bush done something besides spending months on his private ranch. Now THAT is a movie breaking barriers.

A movie that did the different outcomes trick a helluva lot better was "Run, Lola, Run". It showed the same 20 minutes three times, each time had a different ending. It was well crafted, instead of just being a Hollywood gimmick of "what a pointless plot twist near the very end" like saturnwatcher mentioned. Now please, do yourself a favor and stop bringing your IMDb message board debates to our forum.

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


Joined: January 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2137
Post Options Post Options   Quote moviewizguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 17 2009 at 8:20am
Originally posted by Michaels

The ending of "Next" was more of an M. Night Shamlaynading-dong twist than an original ending. In fact, I was expecting M. Night to jump out and yell "50% of this movie was a dream! What a twist!". Why stop at the first time Nic Cage and Jessica Biel slept together? While you're at it, why not make it that the ENTIRE movie was something Cage daydreamed while he was sitting in the diner at the very beginning? It's would be like the studio heads saying "Any wannabe writers in the theater who think they have a good idea for a movie? Well guess what, we just made you pay for a movie that was all about some guy thinking about one, too! HAHA!".

Here's what a REAL outside the box ending would have been: Just after Cage and Juliana Moore save Biel and kill all the bad guys, the nuke goes off. Everything becomes frozen in time. Cage does a final voice-over that goes something like this: "In that very moment, I realized that even a man who can see into the future can't know what will exactly happen as a result of his own actions. I had the choice to use my powers to save peoples' lives. The life of my lover, the lives of many innocents, my own life. But I chose not to, and now I will not live to regret it". BOOM, everyone gets blown away. Hero fails and dies along with everyone else because he didn't act, much like how 9/11 could have been avoided had Bush done something besides spending months on his private ranch. Now THAT is a movie breaking barriers.

A movie that did the different outcomes trick a helluva lot better was "Run, Lola, Run". It showed the same 20 minutes three times, each time had a different ending. It was well crafted, instead of just being a Hollywood gimmick of "what a pointless plot twist near the very end" like saturnwatcher mentioned. Now please, do yourself a favor and stop bringing your IMDb message board debates to our forum.

So you're saying I shouldn't bring IMDb debates on here because we're debating on the same exact thing? I've seen "Run Lola Run" but there were plenty of films that use that process. "Vantage Point," "11:14," "Sliding Doors," etc. And it wasn't a "pointless plot twist." It's only pointless if you want it to be. Like I said, he already saved her girlfriend but he hasn't saved her yet. That's why people liked "Deja Vu" more. in "Deja Vu," they showed the timeline that made the hero succeed. In 'Next," they showed the timeline that the hero failed because it was his first time doing so. They both are basically the same film coming out in the basically the same time frame. One showed the resolution while the other doesn't. If you try to understand this, you would understand why "Next" is not a bad film.

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


Joined: May 12 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2848
Post Options Post Options   Quote Michaels Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 17 2009 at 8:46am

The real problem with "Next" is that it stated time and time again that Cage can only see two minutes into the future. What he saw when lying in bed took place over many hours. Right there is a HUGE plot hole. That is why people hate it. The movie set up a clear rule, then broke it.

And like it or not, the ending they had was just the biggest set-up for a sequel ever. It could have shown many different outcomes that all resulted in failure just to prove his seeing the future would never help matters. Only ending, good or bad is what people want to see. "Next" had no ending, it had a cliffhanger, plain and simple, you can't work your way about it. All it was missing was clips from the up-coming sequel and a voice-over saying "tune in next time when...".

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: March 17 2009 at 10:54am
I'm gonna have to weigh in here, and say that Next was indeed a crap-fest.

I wouldn't call the ending a cliffhanger, though. A cliffhanger implies that it makes the viewer WANT to see more. What Next had was a giant bird flip to the audience that said "HA! We just stole 2 hours of your life that you will never get back." I don't know many people who would want to see more after that.

And yet, somehow that makes this a "Good movie". Why would I give a damn what Nic Cage dreams? In the end, the entire film amounts to a gigantic hallucination, how is that fun? How is it a good time, to go and pay full price for a movie that is like 20 minutes long?

Good story telling involves several key elements. Exposition, climax and Resolution... How can a story be considered worthwhile, if it features only one of those key features? The movie had a lot of exposition... But the Climax and resolution don't happen, except in Nic Cage's mind... that's not a story, that's a trailer for the actual story...

Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang
Back to Top
sportsartist24 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 16 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 955
Post Options Post Options   Quote sportsartist24 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 17 2009 at 11:05am
I'm agreeing with NEXT being completely crappy. From what I saw, it just didn't make any sense at all. It just got me confused.
The Mormons were'nt really popular in the beginning, they're now becoming more popular, even in Hollywood.
Back to Top
moviewizguy View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2137
Post Options Post Options   Quote moviewizguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 17 2009 at 12:50pm

Originally posted by Michaels

The real problem with "Next" is that it stated time and time again that Cage can only see two minutes into the future. What he saw when lying in bed took place over many hours. Right there is a HUGE plot hole. That is why people hate it. The movie set up a clear rule, then broke it.

And like it or not, the ending they had was just the biggest set-up for a sequel ever. It could have shown many different outcomes that all resulted in failure just to prove his seeing the future would never help matters. Only ending, good or bad is what people want to see. "Next" had no ending, it had a cliffhanger, plain and simple, you can't work your way about it. All it was missing was clips from the up-coming sequel and a voice-over saying "tune in next time when...".

But I doubt they were going to do a sequel...

Originally posted by CriticalFrank

I'm gonna have to weigh in here, and say that Next was indeed a crap-fest.

I wouldn't call the ending a cliffhanger, though. A cliffhanger implies that it makes the viewer WANT to see more. What Next had was a giant bird flip to the audience that said "HA! We just stole 2 hours of your life that you will never get back." I don't know many people who would want to see more after that.

And yet, somehow that makes this a "Good movie". Why would I give a damn what Nic Cage dreams? In the end, the entire film amounts to a gigantic hallucination, how is that fun? How is it a good time, to go and pay full price for a movie that is like 20 minutes long?

Good story telling involves several key elements. Exposition, climax and Resolution... How can a story be considered worthwhile, if it features only one of those key features? The movie had a lot of exposition... But the Climax and resolution don't happen, except in Nic Cage's mind... that's not a story, that's a trailer for the actual story...

The end was a resolution. Like I said. We know he's going to save his GF. He just hasn't yet. Again, I'll take "Deja Vu." If they had shown the movie the first time he went back in time to save his GF (or friend) and have him fail, but have him also leave clues for the second him to redo the whole thing, people won't like the movie, yet it's the first few steps of how he's going to save her in the first place.

However, "Deja Vu" wasn't like that because the movie brought us in the middle of the situation without letting it explain to the audience the first place so now we're seeing him go back in time the third time. It's implied in the movie he has failed two times before.

Well, "Next" is simply that: It was the first of many moves Cage can make to save his girlfriend. It's not the move to save her but it's the first few moves he know not to do a second time. Now that's not a bad thing, is it? The movie ends with him trying a second plan to save his girlfirned but now deciding to side with Moore. They could make a second movie, sure, and finally show him succeeding or they could've done that in the first place like "Deja Vu" did but it didn't. That's not a bad thing. It's just different.

I think this debate could last a long time...

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 14>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down