I agree...she spoke every one of the few lines she had in this movie with her teeth tightly clinched. I half expected her to pull a ventroliquist's dummy out of a case and carry it with her for the rest of the film.

No special props to the real Condi Rice from this quarter, but that was an unflattering portrayal -- even by the standards of this movie! 

Originally posted by Mrs. Magnatech I just saw this. It's hardly a masterpiece, but not Razzie material, either. The only Razzie-worthy performance is Thandie Newton as Condi - it was like something you'd see in an SNL sketch.

I'm a bit surprised how the numbers are shaking out. Perhaps the showing I attended was an anomoly, but the theater was pretty full for the screening of W that we saw. It's not like any of this week's releases are generating big numbers either.

I disagree that neither Momma Mia or W deserve nominations either. Pierce Brosnan simply can't be overlooked, and the Worst Screen Couple consideration for "W" and "Vice" would be a compelling going away (and for God's sake stay away) present.

Wow, "W." opened fourth place. It even lost to a period piece movie about beekeepers! Wow, America must be THAT sick of this lame duck President.

Actually, I think I'd like to amend a comment I made above...

In the category of Worst Screen Couple, any two people appearing on the screen at the same time in the movie Momma Mia deserve the nomination...especially if one of them starts to sing.

As far as the movie W goes, I think there is a potential Worst Couple nomination here too...either W and "Vice"  (because one of them is a moron and the other is a terrifying meglomaniac who shot a guy) or W and Karl Rove (played by a very creepy looking Toby Jones).

"Mamma Mia", both the stage musical and the movie, is really just an excuse to tie a bunch of ABBA tunes together. I want ABBA singing ABBA songs; I can't bring myself to listen to others sing them, especially the likes of Pierce Bronson (!).

I'd second the notion that Momma Mia deserves some ballot attention. Potential categories:

Worst Actor: Pierce Brosnan...that one should be a given. No one that sings that badly should ever even be allowed to watch a musical, let alone sing in one.

Worst Screen Couple: Stellan Skarsgard and Meryl Streep, Pierce Brosnan and Meryl Streep, and Colin Firth and Meryl Streep

Worst Screeplay: Hey folks, a musical based on Abba songs, most of which weren't even on the same album let alone related in context...no brainer

Worst Movie: maybe...the competition is stiff this year

I know, but it just screams "See Me!" Even though I tired of this Texan a long long long time ago, I just couldn't resist. Plus I hadn't seen a Stone picture since U-Turn. Yes I could resist Alexander -- and did.   

The one person who really had a ball with this had to be Brolin. I imagine Dreyfuss did too. You can probably give nods to Burstyn for total miscasting, and Scott Glenn for playing you-know-who, who isn't around anymore... 

Yes, many reports say Stone is giving Bush a "fair" chance. He is simply telling the man's life story. Bush only has himself to blame that his life story has elements of him drinking alcohol like it's milk, ruining every business his father put him in charge of, being unable to speak  proper english, and making a laughing stock out of America.

Back to "Max Payne", I think it's safe to say it will be on the same level as past Razzie "Worst Movie of the Weak", "Hitman", another lazy video game based movie. It seems video game movies alway end up a disaster, unless they are directed by Uwe Boll, in which case they are a sign of the end of good filmmaking as we know it.

I'll bet you wish you would have listened when we TOLD you he would, don't you?

I won't see this film (although I voted for Bush 2X). He's failed this country.  Oliver Stone promises this will be a  "Fair portrait" of George W Bush...being released right before the election (like we have any good candidate to pick from). And this movie stars some of the most far-left actors in Hollywood -- somehow they missed Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarrandon, and Alec Baldwin...I guess they were too busy??   

Originally posted by RoadDogXVIII HeadRAZZ, are you serious? Now, I take your views to heart, because most of the films that get their own discussion boards here are justified pieces-o-sh*t (Horror films mainly). But you're choosing W. over Max Payne? Sure, the film is released at the worst time when Bush has completely bankrupted America (and all you Bush-f**kers can stick it up your ass), but it looks better than John Moore's raping (God, that South Park episode last week was priceless) of a classic video game. I mean, teeny-weeny Mila Kunis as a hard-boiled assassin? Oh, my bunny isotoners are laughing their asses off. Seems like Tara Reid have some competition as the most miscast actress in history. Anyone wanna offer a rebuttal?

I got to agree on this one, as I mentioned "Max Payne" before. Yes, Oliver Stone has a history with the Razzies, but I doubt "W" will be on par with the likes of "Postal" or "Disaster Movie". "Max Payne" on the other hand, does. 1. It's the typical Hollywood raping of source material. Winged harpie demons have nothing to do with the video game the movie claims to be based on. 2. It stars Marky Mark, who sure, got an Oscar nod for "The Departed", but since then has made bad choices as of late. "The Happening", need I say more? Plus, he's been in what, 6 remakes in the past? "Planet of the Apes", "The Italian Job", "The Truth About Charlie", just to name a few. 3. The casting of Mila Kunis! I know she's well into her 20s, but she's working in a visual medium, and visually, she looks like she should be in high school, not running around as an assassin. I agree with Roaddog and have "Max Payne" added as a Bonus Worst Movie of the Weak.

Originally posted by moat Early word is that this movie is pretty even-handed. I saw Stone on The Colbert Report, and he sounded more like a Bush-supporter than Bush-basher during the interview. However, I was having a lot of trouble telling if some of his comments were sincere or not -- A lot of what he said was pretty extreme, and not leftist extreme. If all else fails, Brolin's performance should be worth seeing.

I saw that interview as well...it was obvious that Stone was playing along with Colbert's schtick. It was a pretty funny interview, but not particularly insightful as to what to expect from the movie.

From the IMDb newsdesk, it appears that Stone isn't trying to undermine the current administration, but rather is a commentary of how swayed our society really has gotten.

I read a quote by Stone who states that "This man hasleft us with three wars - in Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terror - and the legacy of the pre-emptive strike.", which is kind of true the more I think about it.

Even to this day, I am still stumped as to why the hell we diverted half our military to Iraq???!!! We had Osama bin Laden in our sights and he escaped through our fingers. (I DO acknowledge though that it may have been Bush''s vendetta for the assassination attempt on his father post-Gulf War. But still, it begs the question "why?")

Read the whole article here, then I would maybe reccomend to see the movie and judge for yourself whether this supports/is worth a Razzie nomination or not. I think this may be one of the first Razzie-nominees that is truly questionable.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1175491/news#ni0582165

I doubt the movie will be Razzie-worthy. From what I've seen in the trailers, it's a Bush-bashing movie about how the man was a party animal for most of his life, became president by sheer luck, and then screwed the country over time and time again.

I think it will have a modest box office take, based on people who just want to see what it's like...

This has to be the most poorly timed release in cinematic history. There aren't even any Republicans left that can't wait to get him out of office, and a lot of them aren't too excited about the McBush-Caribou Barbie ticket.  So the question becomes, who is the audience for this movie?

Perhaps 20 or 30 years from now, there might be some historical interest in the question, "Just how badly can one man screw up America in 8 years?" In the meantime, I think most of us are more interested in getting through the next 3 months than we are reviewing the past 8 years.