But if that was true more people would say they didn't like the movie....I also disagree that people only reluctantly liked it. Many people have said they would not mind seeing another Indy movie because this one was pretty good. They might not have liked the ending so much, but they do like the movie.
The difference between you and me is that you use the words "many people" without a safety one. I just flat-out say "Nobody liked it." In this case, I'm righter than you.
Blech...arguing the merits of the Razzies can grow tiresome. Mike Myers is not and will never be an actor, Paris is not and will never be an actress, and Uwe Boll is not and will never be a director. However, as has been echoed here from several of us, the Razzies drifting into irrelevance is far less alarming than the Oscars mimicking such events.
Why award a hotel heiress and comic and video game director when M. Night wants to be important and attempts to write and direct as such, Spielberg more often than not puts out less than stellar stuff that is occasionally shit, and Mark Wahlberg has a year like this when we know he can do Departed and I Heart Huckabees type stuff?
Sabin wrote:The Razzies should award the most disappointingly bad, not the most irrelevantly bad. Something like The Love Guru is birthed of Hollywood ego, greed, and myopia. This is a fine winner. But so is Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The problem with your logic, criddic, is that most critics cannot pan a movie like Indy 4 because their parent corporations are financed by the people who produced the film. The Matrix Reloaded got fine reviews because Entertainment Weekly is owned by AOL-Time-Warner...and because critics are skittish about their continued worth on the planet. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a lousy movie. People who like it, just say "I don't know. I liked it." I don't know ANYBODY who liked the movie. It's a miserable filmgoing experience.
Without attempting to blow smoke up his ass, the only interesting piece I've read on the film is Eric's defense of the film.
But if that was true more people would say they didn't like the movie. I simply don't believe that critics are going to hold back on panning a movie based on who owns their magazine or paper. They are critics, it's their job. The same company may make a movie that they really love. Any critic who is afraid to give a bad review to a movie has no business being a critic. Even at my job, where we sell and rent movies, we are encouraged to tell the customer the truth, because customers will return if they don't feel like we are only there to sell. Some people avoid doing so, for fear of not selling something, but the company actually has said that customer appreciation can go a long way. Now I do believe that if someone asks me if a movie is worthwhile, I should tell them the truth. However, I also have the luxury of not saying anything if not asked (though, sometimes I still volunteer an opinion). Critics should behave the same way. Their readers will appreciate it more if they are honest. Roger Ebert has a whole book called "i hated hated hated hated this movie."
I also disagree that people only reluctantly liked it. Many people have said they would not mind seeing another Indy movie because this one was pretty good. They might not have liked the ending so much, but they do like the movie.
Edited By criddic3 on 1236037117
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
I read a number of articles on Indy 4 and most of them seemed to enjoy the pastiche of it and how they were entertained by it, but no one I read said it was a good piece of filmmaking.
This film isn't nearly as well liked as you think it is. A 6.7 on imdb is fairly low. Transformers, which got a 57% over at RT has a 7.4 from users at imdb...so, in comparison, both audiences and critics didn't really care as much for Kingdom of the Crystal Skull as you thought.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
The Razzies should award the most disappointingly bad, not the most irrelevantly bad. Something like The Love Guru is birthed of Hollywood ego, greed, and myopia. This is a fine winner. But so is Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The problem with your logic, criddic, is that most critics cannot pan a movie like Indy 4 because their parent corporations are financed by the people who produced the film. The Matrix Reloaded got fine reviews because Entertainment Weekly is owned by AOL-Time-Warner...and because critics are skittish about their continued worth on the planet. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a lousy movie. People who like it, just say "I don't know. I liked it." I don't know ANYBODY who liked the movie. It's a miserable filmgoing experience.
Without attempting to blow smoke up his ass, the only interesting piece I've read on the film is Eric's defense of the film.
criddic3 wrote:I disagree with their choice for worst sequel or remake. The Indy film was well-recieved, fairly well-liked among most audience members and made a lot of money. Surely they could have picked something more like, oh, Prom Night?
No, this is exactly what the Razzies should be honoring. Jack put it wonderfully down below.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
Sabin wrote:No, it wasn't. Didn't you see South Park?
I don't watch South Park anymore. I used to, but that was a long time ago. Generally, people I've talked to have liked Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Some people said they would even welcome another installment.
Rotten Tomatoes has it at 76% fresh, with 186 fresh reviews and 58 rotten.
Metacritic has it at 65, based on 40 reviews.
Roger Ebert, Variety, New York Post, New York Daily News, Time, Entertainment Weekly and Rolling Stone all gave it positive reviews.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
I disagree with their choice for worst sequel or remake. The Indy film was well-recieved, fairly well-liked among most audience members and made a lot of money. Surely they could have picked something more like, oh, Prom Night?
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
Looking through the history of the Razzies makes for interesting reading. It seems that the movies they nominated back in the 80s were movies that should have been successes, but wound up being shit. The 1981 awards have movies like Heaven's Gate and Mommie Dearest (which 'won'), now I would have to asssume that back in 1981 a lot was expected from these films. I know Heaven's Gate had a lot of hype sourounding it before it's release.
I guess my point is why do these people now feel the need to nominate movies we all knew were going to be shit before they were released? A movie like Australia could be seen in the same way as Heaven's Gate - a highly anticipated film that before release, but when we all saw it we were left with a bloated, self-indlugent crap-fest.
Worst Picture: The Love Guru
Worst Director: Uwe Boll - In the Name of the King, 1968: Tunnel Rats, Postal
Worst Actor: Mike Myers - The Love Guru
Worst Actress: Paris Hilton - The Hottie and the Nottie
Worst Supporting Actor: Pierce Brosnan - Mamma Mia!
Worst Supporting Actress: Paris Hilton - Repo!
Worst Screenplay: The Love Guru
Worst Screen Couple: Paris Hilton and either Christine Lakin or Joel David Moore
Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Worst Career: Uwe Boll
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
