The 25th Annual Rasberry Awards (a.k.a. The Razzies)

[Nerull]

I love these awards, held the day before the Oscars. For those of you who don't know about the Razzies, they are the awards for the worst movies of the year. They give out a gold-spraypainted award that costs like $3.50 US to make, and of course the stars never show up at the ceremony (with the notable exception of Tom Green for Freddy Got Fingered). The list of nominees is here. What do you think about this list? Any you would add or take off? Since it is their 25th anniversary, they have some "worst of" categories they are giving out, too.

[Sir Degrader]

Take off Stallone
Why? Rocky, Lords of Flatbrush, Cliffhanger, Copland, all were good movies, and Rocky I was sheer genius. In addition, Rocky IV, nominated on that site for worst director/actor wasn't nearly as bad as people say it was.

[ 02-25-2005, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: Sir Degrader ]

[Davros]

Yes it was that bad - it really really was.

[Sigmar]

Originally posted by Davros: Yes it was that bad - it really really was.

It wasn't that it was bad as such...

It's just that they couldn't have made it even more hammier if the film were about the fantabulous adventures of "Hammy the ham-eating pig".

The speech at the end is especially bad...God...

Anyway, give Stallone some credit, he isn't that bad.

Now Steven Seagal...God...he and his movies are a special type of crap.

[Nerull]

If you notice, part of their criteria in choosing what is bad is a matter of scale. The reason Steven Seagal doesn't make the lists is because he does B-grade action movies that no one expects to have high quality acting, great scripts, lots of potential, etc. However, the reason Stallone makes their list is because he is still a Big Name Draw, an actor that can draw people to a movie on name alone. That's the reason that Catwoman and Alexander have the highest number of nominations. Catwoman has Halle Berry (Oscar winner plus name draw) and Sharon Stone (not as big a draw anymore, but still up there a ways), so you would expect it to be at least mediocre (it wasn't, not by a long shot). Alexander has a strong cast, and an ordinarily strong director in Oliver Stone. It was the kind of movie that you would expect to be at least decent, so when it tanked it got 6 nominations. That's why movies like Seed of Chucky didn't make the list; they just don't have that "hype factor" to have such a big drop to get their notice.

Oh, and about Stallone, I have one word to end the discussion on that: Rhinestone. That is by far one of the worst movies I've ever seen, and Stallone is horrible (as are Dolly Parton, the script writers, and the director). I agree the first (and grudgingly admit the second) Rocky movies were good. The third and fifth were mediocre, and the fourth was a "studio piece" (the suits at the studio pretty much controlled that piece of "rah rah American" garbage that came out). Oh, and did I mention Rambo III?
How about Driven?

[Sir Degrader]

Yeah, but "Over the Top" and "Stop: Or my mom will shoot" salvages whatever messes he might have made.

[Albromor]

I love the Razzies because, IMO, they are more honest than the actual Oscars (by the way, do you know anyone who watches the Oscars??? I don't).

The only major exception I take with them this year is their choice of Bush, Rice, and Rumsfeld as worse couples. No, I am not being political, I am being logical. Farenhite 9/11 was so full of half-truths, down right lies, "creative" editing, etc., that this so called documentry was little more than a vehicle for Moore's pathological angst as wellas a means for him to line his pockets.

Look at it this way, the others that are nominated chose to do those movies, Bush, et. al. were edited here and there. I think the Razzie people are letting *their* political side show.

[Sigmar]

Originally posted by Nerull: If you notice, part of their criteria in choosing what is bad is a matter of scale. The reason Steven Seagal doesn't make the lists is because he does B-grade action movies that no one expects to have high quality acting, great scripts, lots of potential, etc. However, the reason Stallone makes their list is because he is still a Big Name Draw, an actor that can draw people to a movie on name alone. That's the reason that Catwoman and Alexander have the highest number of nominations. Catwoman has Halle Berry (Oscar winner plus name draw) and Sharon Stone (not as big a draw anymore, but still up there a ways), so you would expect it to be at least mediocre (it wasn't, not by a long shot). Alexander has a strong cast, and an ordinarily strong director in Oliver Stone. It was the kind of movie that you would expect to be at least decent, so when it tanked it got 6 nominations. That's why movies like Seed of Chucky didn't make the list; they just don't have that "hype factor" to have such a big drop to get their notice.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I actually enjoyed Rambo III...

But Driven, Stop: Or my mom will shoot and...there's a special place in my heart for this film "Over The top" are truly amongst the worst films I've ever seen. So you may have a point.

Sir Degrader, sometimes its hard to tell whether you're being serious

[Sir Goulum]

Hehe, George Bush for worst Actor.... [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Balintherlas]

I know there not saying dodge ball was a bad movie.