Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Boozi Says STARDUST Does Not Shine!!

Funny when a reviewer drops something like: by major_tom_aint_dead	Jan 31st, 2007 10:53:41 AM
" Lets face it, Vaughn struggles to jump from small independant brit-flick to hollywood blockbuster wannabe... the blockbusters should be left to the blockbuster directors... Will the studios ever learn?!" Yeah, whatever; here´s one who cant wait for the "Transformers" film.
first by darthhirsty	Jan 31st, 2007 10:53:58 AM
again!!
second by darthhirsty	Jan 31st, 2007 10:54:17 AM
ohhhhhhh
third by darthhirsty	Jan 31st, 2007 10:54:44 AM
oh yeah
fourth by darthhirsty	Jan 31st, 2007 10:55:20 AM
go go go!!
fifth by darthhirsty	Jan 31st, 2007 10:55:43 AM
hell
damn!! by darthhirsty	Jan 31st, 2007 10:56:46 AM
was all going so well then monkey boy pops in from no where
THIS YEAR'S LITTLE MISS SUNSHINEDUST!!! by Err	Jan 31st, 2007 10:58:24 AM
I don't care about this film.
CHILDREN OF FUCKING MEN!!! by PwnedByStallone	Jan 31st, 2007 11:06:37 AM
Pull my finger.
Diabolicle by Banky the Hack	Jan 31st, 2007 11:08:03 AM
So, to enjoy a movie that you didn't and appreciate and congratulate the director of said movie is now patently evil, and reminiscent of the devil? Maybe he actually liked the movie? What a concept And, by the way, it's diabolical. I think this review is one of the nuggets it mentions at the end.
hmmm, no score, and no effects? Where did the money go? by modlight	Jan 31st, 2007 11:08:53 AM
You can't say that you like the score from MJB and then complain this movie is too long. I dont even know why they show things when they aren't done yet.
Whats a reverse-plant called? by CarmillaVonDoom	Jan 31st, 2007 11:11:16 AM
Phieffer should have past lol
TNALP by all your base	Jan 31st, 2007 11:19:24 AM
reverse plant
Reverse Plant by instant_karma	Jan 31st, 2007 11:23:15 AM
I think they should be called Audreys. They're plants, but evil. Also, they GOTTA EAT. I hate myself now...
This review... by Imokliel	Jan 31st, 2007 11:26:16 AM
...is terrible, it was way too long, very cliched and very predictable. It was agonising reading it, honest! Boozi had a chance to work with a very big website and a stellar computer but still manged to mess it up!
Wow... by Purgatori	Jan 31st, 2007 11:26:27 AM
Not one mention of the fact this was based off a Gaiman book. That's strange.
Typical British Comedy????? by james2025	Jan 31st, 2007 11:29:09 AM
I admit there is a fair share of terrible light-hearted brit comedy, but to label it all that way is just stupid. Shows like Blackadder, The Young Ones, Bottom, Darkplace, Knowing Me, Knowing You amongst many others are what demonstrate that British comedy tends to be the best on the market. I guess the reviewer must be a yank. He can stick with his shitty Everyone Loves Raymond, Friends et al. American comedy (with the exception of Seinfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm and Police Squad) would not know a good joke if it was neck deep in one.
no one has mentioned, about this review by BadMrWonka	Jan 31st, 2007 11:41:34 AM
there isn't ONE THING in the review that proves he actually saw the flick. all he mentions are vague references to actors that he could have got from anywhere online, and a few vague references to the screening, that he could have got from anywhere. my guess? failed actor. waited outside the screening, talked to someone enough to get a few pieces of info about it, looked up some shit online, and trashed it because he failed in an audition for a walk-on role. not to mention he writes like a moron (no offense actors out there, but you know most of you can barely write a sentence) this is the dumbest, vaguest and most useless review I've seen in a while. boozi's next acting job should be a commercial for shit toothpaste...
Have to agree by Captain Mal	Jan 31st, 2007 12:00:58 PM
with everyone who's said this review is worthless.
Boozi, NO WAY you saw this... by Abin Sur	Jan 31st, 2007 12:09:01 PM
But geez, dude...you could have faked it a little better by at least reading Neil Gaiman's graphic novel. For shame!
phieffer should've passed... by andyny29	Jan 31st, 2007 12:11:53 PM
is what you mean.
Why would AICN even post this drivel? by Ricky Henderson	Jan 31st, 2007 12:30:25 PM
This schmuck has easily posted the most incoherent and rambling movie review I've read in a long time. Coming from someone who clearly remember's Harry's "Blade II" review, that's saying an awful lot.
but what about the domestic posters ? by durhay	Jan 31st, 2007 12:36:15 PM
Oh, must be in another thread
TOTAL FUCKING DESTRUCTION!!!!! by Motoko Kusanagi	Jan 31st, 2007 12:40:36 PM
Yeeehaaa!!!
My favorite part of this review... by The Funketeer	Jan 31st, 2007 12:40:37 PM
was when he was able to read the mind of the guy in the front row and how he knew the guy didn't really like the film but wanted to suck up to the director anyway.
this reviewer = no credibility by oisin5199	Jan 31st, 2007 12:40:55 PM
based on all the points given above and oh, yeah, the "review." He says the feeling was mutual throughout the audience and then points out a guy who liked it. And yeah, spell check would be nice. Is this guy 14 years old? I'll wait for a real 'review,' thanks.
Wow! A great review! by Phimseto	Jan 31st, 2007 12:50:34 PM
That's the best review I have read in a while. This guy is fast on his way to becoming the next David Manning!!!
James 2024 by Iamagoodguy	Jan 31st, 2007 01:02:37 PM
Dude British comedy blows with the exception of those few shows you mentioned and a couple more to boot. And you forgot to mention the awesomeness of other american shows like Simpsons, Futurama et al. You are right about friends though.
never said this before but... by Frank Black	Jan 31st, 2007 01:02:42 PM
...PLANT! No, seriously I stopped reading it when he wrote "past" instead of "passed." Loved Layer Cake and can't wait to see this!
LOL by SG7	Jan 31st, 2007 01:10:48 PM
Damn, must be a slow news day at AICN to post drivel like this. The only thing that could make it better would be to mention Harrys girlfriend a few times.
You take that back, Blarneyman! by Childe Roland	Jan 31st, 2007 01:26:40 PM
I will not have you speak ill of America's president that way! Oh, wait...
I think I've got this fucker sussed..... by Stebop	Jan 31st, 2007 01:46:58 PM
The overall tone and standard of this review fucking stinks of smartarse, semi-literate (British?) high school kid with a hard on for their Media Studies class and dreams of a career writing The Sun's (UK tabloid) film review column. Pay no heed to the writer who cannae write, they only write about themselves. Enough said. Apart from the fact I'm a Brit, not some crazy Anglophobe.
BOOZI GOTTA EAT!!!! by TheUglyBaby	Jan 31st, 2007 01:47:35 PM
(__)__)
Oh Boozi... by Imokliel	Jan 31st, 2007 01:49:29 PM
...you crazy little Anglophobe.
Reverse Plant = Weed by tonagan	Jan 31st, 2007 01:49:34 PM
Or Potato Bug
An unoriginal film from the bloke who made Layer Cake? by Spandau Belly	Jan 31st, 2007 02:00:04 PM
Duh! Layer Cake was the least original film I've ever seen. It wasn't badly done, it just seemed to exist in some world where Lock Stock had never been made. And DeNiro's been slumming for a long time now. He hasn't made a good flick since Ronin. BTW where's Ronin 2?
Just got off the phone with De Niro... by Abin Sur	Jan 31st, 2007 02:05:14 PM
He wants to thank Boozi for the glowing review...
Seems like a lot of personal attacks on the talent... by Kraken	Jan 31st, 2007 02:05:22 PM
and not much in the way of an actual review.
Reviews need to be a lot more descriptive than that by coolguyaaron	Jan 31st, 2007 02:21:13 PM
"His only other film has been Layer Cake... and fingers crossed Stardust will be his last...", uh, what? Layer Cake was great. Apparently this is your first review, and it's clear you didn't like the film. But it's not enough to just repeatedly call it "bad" and "boring". You need to be a lot more descriptive if you expect readers to take your word for it.
Anybody notice by MPJedi2	Jan 31st, 2007 02:50:27 PM
How it was a critics/cast and crew screening, and then a test screening all within the same paragraph - fake.
So he bases a part of his review... by Kid Z	Jan 31st, 2007 02:54:57 PM
... on DENTISTRY??
WHAT THE FUCK by El Scorcho	Jan 31st, 2007 03:04:42 PM
is up with this guy's use of exlamation marks?!?!?! Seriously, what the fucking hell?
Shitty reviewer = good film? by Zardoz	Jan 31st, 2007 03:23:54 PM
When an illiterate jackass gives a negative review the film will probably be good. I hope this boozi wanker is just talking out of his arse...(maybe he's pissed because Claudia didn't have her hand in HIS popcorn during the screening!)
So Boozi, was this movie bad? by Tin Snoman	Jan 31st, 2007 03:24:23 PM
If so, please explain WHY, beyond the vaguest of general statements and personal attacks against actors, at a length of no less than one paragraph but no more than eight. Please feel free to use spellchecking software, or a dictionary as necessary. Maybe this movie does suck, but I'm not convinced of much based on this review other than the fact that Boozi is a hack. In short, TRY AGAIN EVIL PLANT PERSON. Seriously, this review is a joke, right?
studios should really waste money using CG to yellow... by Demosthenes2	Jan 31st, 2007 03:40:51 PM
...the actors' teeth, because white teeth are surely the most offensive anachronisms, and every other period film has somehow managed to yellow actors' teeth, maybe with paint or a special dye or caps pre-CG. The sad thing is this was the only specific example he gave as to why he didn't like this film.
I don't blame the guy... by epitone	Jan 31st, 2007 03:52:39 PM
...for having difficulty sitting through two and a half hours of this film. It seems he had enough difficulty sitting still for two and a half minutes to write the review. Time to wire up the meth lab for WiFi, Boozi!
Review? What review? by finky089	Jan 31st, 2007 03:53:48 PM
The guy just gave us a bunch od his dislike without any real support for what "sucked". "Gosh, it was SO unbearable..." Why? What didn't work? WHy post shitty "reviews" that review NOTHING and espouse only a marginally coherent perspective with no supporting facts? Merrick, come on man.
"spackling her fine shorn auburn carpet w/ mancheadle" by finky089	Jan 31st, 2007 04:02:20 PM
fuckin Abom always comes up with the best lines!!
Boozi GOTTA NAME DROP!! by finky089	Jan 31st, 2007 04:05:27 PM
schmuck
I can't believe by Purgatori	Jan 31st, 2007 04:14:30 PM
they actually posted this. There's nothing in this review that gives any indication he saw the movie. And if he DID he had no idea what he was going to see. Saying that he was anxious to see this and then not even mentioning the fact that it was based on a novel or anything about the comic books or history...wow. This is suckage.
Anybody who says Narnia was "okay"... by pip1345	Jan 31st, 2007 04:26:22 PM
...is an idiot, and shouldn't be reviewing movies. Try 'awful.'
As bad as TINO will be, my review will be better by finky089	Jan 31st, 2007 04:27:49 PM
written. At least I'll be able to state specific problems with the film (eg. story dwells too much on the humans instead of the robots, the dialogue was corny and contrived, the robots looked like crappily designed guyvers, Bay does great with explosions, but not so hot with directing humans or honing in on a coherent plot, fans of the G1 series will be disappointed with the numerous departures from G1 cannon- did I miss anything major?)
Verified? by Phangs01	Jan 31st, 2007 04:30:19 PM
So often I see comments before a review indicating that the review is plausible (a date or location verified by someone tied to the production) or unlikely. Is AICN skipping this step now? Based on content, this seems HIGHLY unlikely. Please post if there is more information (or less) avaliable for this. Oh and, hey, a good point was made above: What's the point of a focus group if you're going to taint the results by putting the cast or crew in the same theater? I'm an actor. Well read but unable to read or write. Please send books. I'll learn, for the honor of my guild.
I just got off the phone with Neil Gaiman... by Childe Roland	Jan 31st, 2007 04:37:43 PM
...and he wants a piece of Boozi's ass. I've never heard him so upset. I think he actually stood up while talking to me.
"The movie was boring, and it was boring, it was also.. by LittleDudes	Jan 31st, 2007 04:48:28 PM
Boring. One other thing worth mentioning is that it was boring." Fucken awesome review, man! Fucktard.
Aarg! by PolyesterRage	Jan 31st, 2007 05:38:01 PM
My IQ dropped around 50 points just reading the opening paragraph! Boozi pretty much had to be to write this piece of shit.
This is whats making it onto this site as a 'review'??? by Ridge	Jan 31st, 2007 05:39:17 PM
Christ, like BadMrWonka said, there was NOTHING in there that proved he saw the movie. All it came across as was 'BAD MOVIE! DONT SEE IT!' with no evidence, no actual parts or reasoning of things he didnt like... I'm sure there was some other article they could've put up in space of this shit that would've been more interesting. God guys...
WHY THE FUCK DID YOU POST THIS NON REVIEW??!! by DOGSOUP	Jan 31st, 2007 05:48:13 PM
We learned nothing, so the little puke didn't like it....wow that's all we know. Not why or exactly what went wrong...just various ways to say the same thing over and over and over again...Well Boozi, go fuck yourself you little twat and leave the film critique to people who actually enjoy movies. Stardust: I'm there opening night.
Bollox to this feckless gobshite by Pitch Invader	Jan 31st, 2007 06:46:05 PM
It's obvious this prick got all the info in his non-review from reviews posted on this very site in December.
I ruined a great comedy moment by Pitch Invader	Jan 31st, 2007 07:09:02 PM
But this wasn't it.
get this fucking "reviewer" out of here by jrbarker	Jan 31st, 2007 07:12:12 PM
that was terrible...come on AICN, have a little quality control here
Dumber than the average bear... by CZ	Jan 31st, 2007 07:14:45 PM
Boozi sounds like your average trash-talking wannabe poser man-child. The kind that was probably so absorbed with Claudia Schiffer's bosoms during the screening, he didn't bother watching the movie and had to cover up his embarrassment by unleashing the whole of his vitriol (impotent and puerile as it is) upon said film. Neutering is in order. Bring me the foreceps! Chop, chop!
Yeah attacking the reviewer will make the movie good!!! by IndustryKiller!	Jan 31st, 2007 07:35:59 PM
Jesus people get ahold of yourselves. So he didn't get as in depth into the film as we may have liked. Maybe the review isn't great but there is definitely no reason to disbelieve him. In fact I think it would do the film alot of good to give it a healthy dose of skepticism to bring lofty expectations down. personally I'm giving Boozi the benefit of the doubt for just that reason. I remember when I posted a nagative review of the plodding overlong bore that was Zodiac and caught endless amounts of shit for it even when I backed up my review with facts and examples from the film. (I await with baited breath to see how the final cut turned out.) Calling the reviewer out will not make the film good and since we all know so little about the film there is no reason to expect greatness thus far. I will say leaving the blockbuster films for the blockbusters directors is a pretty asinine thing to do since there are no good blockbuster directors out there right now and the ones that are had to start somewhere.
Why post this crap? by Ecto-1	Jan 31st, 2007 07:38:50 PM
Come on Merrick, why the hell did you post this rubbish? I don't have a problem with someone out there not liking a film that's had some great reviews so far. But that clearly wasn't a review, more like a half-arsed whine. There's no details, everything's completely vague and it wasn't constructive in the least. It's pretty obvious that this guy hasn't seen this film. So why bother to post it? Really, why? You guy's will post any shit and it's disappointing.
IndustryKiller by CZ	Jan 31st, 2007 07:43:36 PM
Oh, the movie's beside the point. Don't tell me you're going to try and defend that empty onslaught of grand high bitchery as anything resembling a review.
No CZ by IndustryKiller!	Jan 31st, 2007 08:13:30 PM
The review itself I won't defend, the opinion on the other hand I will. After all it could be he's right about the film. As for it being "bitchery", since none of us have direct power in Hollywood we are all bitching.
I just got off the phone with my buddy Matthew Vaughn by dregmobile	Jan 31st, 2007 08:16:16 PM
He remembers the name 'Boozi' from that screening. Some ten year old hitting on Ms Schiffer and later dragged away by Security, screaming 'Remember the name Boozi - for it will be the chilling sound of your doom!" The kid wet his pants. De Niro laughed. Shortly after, Vaughn broke out some real stardust ...
"Negative Plant" is more accurate... by Anti-fanboy	Jan 31st, 2007 09:07:12 PM
honest!
yeah merrick by occula	Jan 31st, 2007 09:10:52 PM
did you post this coz you knew everybody would go postal and get all kerfluffled? if so, well done. if not, fucking read it first next time!
Damn! I was worried there for a second... by AhQ	Jan 31st, 2007 09:31:50 PM
Then I realized that the reviewer is a fucktard who can't, even, use commas, correctly.
people makin' it up by CornsilkSW	Jan 31st, 2007 11:19:40 PM
this guy is just making Sh!t up. why this was even posted to the site is beyond me. It's nigh unintelligible, completely off-base, and a "review" of a movie he hasn't seen in anything resembling a finished state. stop wasting my time.
Reverse Plant = Drinking The Haterade by Darth Fabulous	Jan 31st, 2007 11:41:11 PM
Pure and simple...WTF spelling errors...diabolicle (!). Is this person in the fifth grade? I can't believe AICN even ran this review...there are zero spoiler plot points and what's with "the general feeling was mutual throughout the members of the audience"? Did this guy pick the brains of the audience members following the screening? If so, why isn't there any mention of this? This person has it in for Vaughn.
EXtremely fun Review by T 1000 xp professional	Feb 1st, 2007 12:17:44 AM
Went back and actually read the whole review after reading all these negative talkbacks. I kind of agree about the iffyness of this guy's credibility. I don't think the guy saw the movie, and I wondering how many times he visited imdb while he was writing this thing....
Boozi is asking to be anally raped by my fist by LittleDudes	Feb 1st, 2007 01:10:09 AM
Sorry, just needed to get the hate out, y'know?
Wow, a 'reviewer' that makes Harry look like... by Sledge Hammer	Feb 1st, 2007 03:58:08 AM
...a fucking poet laureate by comparison, a rare feat indeed! Seriously, is the site really so desperate that it now accepts more than likely made up (and at the very least, utterly useless) reviews from bored ten year olds just because they clearly have the imdb bookmarked (and yet still can't even spell Pfeiffer right...), yeesh.
IndustryKiller by raw_bean	Feb 1st, 2007 04:01:35 AM
Your post was kind of out in two crucial ways. 1) the vast majority of posts in this talkback haven't been "this review is terrible, therefore the film is probably good", they've been simply "this review is terrible". And secondly, we've had at least two positive reviews of the film already, either of which were far more coherently and intelligently written than this one (and of which it seems much more likely that the reviewer actually saw the film), so while it's certainly possible that Boozi is a useless but correct reviewer, the balance of evidence leans the other way at the moment. On a more general note, this is all part of the charm of AICN. Much of the time, it's great to get a wide range of opinions from critics and industry insiders, and all stripes of movie fan. The downside to this is the occasional review (usually by either some illiterate fool that gets posted just to offer an alternative opinion to the prevailing one, as here, or by Harry when he gets too carried away) that just hurts my brain to read.
Any reviewer that can cram.. by Bigmacx	Feb 1st, 2007 04:18:54 AM
.. that many exclamation marks into a review (and especially teh one at the end of 'meh') is a rare talent indeed. Watch this space people, we may be present at the birth of a reviewing legend.
"leave blockbusters to blockbuster directors"? by filmcoyote	Feb 1st, 2007 04:31:39 AM
So then all blockbusters would be the kind of shit churned out by Michael Bay, McG and Brett Ratner! This guy mentions "thank god for LOTR" but has he no idea of Jackson's pre-LOTR history. And what about Raimi, Nolan, Singer - all have made great blockbusters coming from indie backgrounds. Hell, even Spielberg (Sugarland Express) and Lucas (American Graffiti) have made both. The creativity of these directors is what makes the best blockbusters stand out and stick in the memory. Sure occasionally you end up with Hulk but still indie directors have the talent and it's good to see Hollywood backing that up with the means.
Just got off the phone with Boozi... by LittleDudes	Feb 1st, 2007 04:40:48 AM
...he says Dick Laurent is dead. Don't know what the fuck was up with that.
Mr Monkey... by MonkeyManReturns	Feb 1st, 2007 07:13:20 AM
The MonkeyManReturns...you hear me...returns! I am that Monkey!
Pitch Invader, was that a Podge & Rodge reference? by slone13	Feb 1st, 2007 07:14:06 AM
Feckless Gobshite! I can't get enough of those dirty old homophobic puppets.
Thelma & Louise review by T 1000 xp professional	Feb 1st, 2007 09:16:52 AM
In the end the movie just ended up being a bore....The movie was still disapointing even though it had a amazing cast( the ooooo so hot Susan Sarandon and the ruff ruff, lick lick hotness of Geena Davis) Brad Pitt gave a really good performance though, can you say Oscar. Michael Madsen has seen better roles like when he played the brother in Corky Romano ( one of my all time favs)
Ledger Pie = Michelle WIlliams? by finky089	Feb 1st, 2007 01:22:12 PM
???
Pile of manure by Jesus Maniloff	Feb 1st, 2007 08:58:31 PM
Really, there are good reviews, bad reviews, lots of things that wouldn't qualify as a review on a chilly day in Hell, and then there is this crap. Unlike some of the posters here I don't even care whether this carbuncle on the backside of humanity actually saw the movie or not. With a brain cell count in the single digits this moron shouldn't be reviewing anything more complicated than Wildest Police Videos. He just sucks at everything that requires mental effort, and "reviewing" this movie is his only chance of enjoying somebody's attention. The only other way this Boozi can have an audience so captivated would be to actually kidnap somebody. Harry, what the fuck?!
ACTUALLY... by El Scorcho	Feb 1st, 2007 11:14:00 PM
As poorly written as this review is, there may be some truth to it. The release date for this film was just moved to August 10th. Never a good sign.
Last! by finky089	Feb 2nd, 2007 03:27:45 PM
yeah

Talkbacks

Boozi Says STARDUST Does Not Shine!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks