Back to MOMMIE DEAREST. OK, so it won a bunch of Razzie Awards. But I looked on Amazon for the reviews, and found 95 Five-Star reviews of this movie. Yes, 95. And mine was one of them.
Response from Head RAZZberry: I was also one of those giving MOMMIE 5 Stars on Amazon -- But I'm fairly sure I wasn't the only one giving it that rating as a "Camp Classic." It's beyond me how anyone can sit through this movie without bursting out laughing at the make-up, wigs, costumes, dialogue and mile-a-minute melodrama. Almost every aspect of MOMMIE is deliciously, deliriously over-the-top. While we should all appreciate a good laugh wherever and whenever we can get one these days, I'm afraid some people still take this movie WAY too seriously...
Yes, and one of those people is Faye Dunaway herself. It is too bad that she cannot have some sense of humor about it by this time and accept the fact that people love this movie because of its kookiness and absurdity. Given the premise, how could it NOT have turned out to be campy? Ultimately, her success as a performing artist in Mommie Dearest is not to be denied; Dunaway is simply astounding in the role. She achieves what few actors have been able to do when portraying a famous person; she truly makes you believe she is Joan Crawford. My rating is based on the fact that Mommie Dearest is, as Joan herself might have put it, one hell of an entertaining movie. As a reviewer in The New York Times put it: on its own terms, fierce and compelling.
Originally posted by moorlock2003
Response from Head RAZZberry: I was also one of those giving MOMMIE 5 Stars on Amazon -- But I'm fairly sure I wasn't the only one giving it that rating as a "Camp Classic." It's beyond me how anyone can sit through this movie without bursting out laughing at the make-up, wigs, costumes, dialogue and mile-a-minute melodrama. Almost every aspect of MOMMIE is deliciously, deliriously over-the-top. While we should all appreciate a good laugh wherever and whenever we can get one these days, I'm afraid some people still take this movie WAY too seriously...
I get it. I knew the pun would have something to do with the leg-uncrossing, but it's been a long time since I've seen Leave it to Beaver. I think that Britney Spears got the no-underwear idea from Basic Instinct and the media attention it and Sharon Stone received.
Response from Head RAZZberry: I came up with the "Tribute to Theodore Cleaver" euphemism when I realized that "family newspapers" across America would not print a clear reference to what we had nominated -- And that at least a large percentage of those reading my pun would "get" what we were referring to. If "Sharon Stone's Lop-Sided Breasts" (in BASICALLY IT STINKS, TOO!) make our Worst Screen Couple category this year, it'll be interesting to see, 14 years later, if that requires a euphemism or not...
I have not seen Hoffa or Man Trouble, but I can't imagine Jack Nicholson giving a Razzie worthy performance. Plus, I think he was nominated for a Golden Globe for his Hoffa performance. So...how did he get a Razzie nomination?
Response from Head RAZZberry: If you've never seen MAN TROUBLE, consider yourself lucky. It's got an astoundingly high 25% Approval Rating at RT, considering it is one of the most lifeless, disjointed and nearly-unwatchable movies of the 1990s. And one of its biggest problems is Nicholson's performance -- The man simply cannot do screwball comedy to save his life. In addition to being listed for MAN TROUBLE on that year's RAZZIE Nominating Ballot, Nicholson also got write-in votes for HOFFA -- and enough of them that it seemed appropriate to add it to his nomination. As a film, I found HOFFA to be an overblown, lumbering mess without an ending (since to this day no one really knows what did happen to Jimmy Hoffa). I think it speaks to the mediocrity of Jack's work in HOFFA that he managed to "win" neither our Worst Actor statuette nor the Golden Glob award for Best Actor...
And while we're on the subject of the Golden Globs, most people are not aware that they were widely regarded as an industry in-joke until about 10 years ago. The voting body for the Globs is actually less than 95 people, most of whom claim to be show business journalists (but many of whom are actually cab drivers, restaurant owners and otherwise run-of-the-mill folks) who've ridden Dick Clark's clever exploitation of their awards to a degree of respectability they really don't merit. If you do the math, in a field of five nominees, it is statistically possible to win a Golden Globe by getting as few as 20 votes -- How can that be construed as important? They also have a long and ill-lustrious history of nominating high-profile performers they hope will show up and draw media attention to their ceremonies -- Given that it got no other major award nominations, Nicholson's Best Actor Glob nod for HOFFA looks to me like a possible example of that trend...
I always had a soft spot for Howard the Duck. True, the plot rambles and everyone goes well over the top, especially with the myriad gratuitous duck jokes, but that, I think, adds to its charm. Jeffrey Jones is an unintended scream when he's possessed (although it's tempered a little nowadays that we know he's been possessed by worse internal demons than shown here). Maybe Lucas shouldn't be as embarassed by Howard as he seems to be...
There has to be some explanation why Stop! or My Mom Will Shoot! did at least make it into the top five worst picture nominees, especially since it won worst screenplay. I know The Body Gaurd was bad and I don't know anything about Newsies or Cristopher Columbus: The Discovery, but how did Final Analysis get nominated and not Stop or My Mom will Shoot! ? Final Analysis was sort of a lame noir wannabe, but I would watch that over Stop or my Mom Will Shoot! anyday.
I also agree that Danny Devito was great in Batman Returns.
Pacino and Walken for Gigli, they were only in it for a minute, and those few minutes were the best in that movie (Although that admittedly isn't saying much)
I also consider Nothing But Trouble to be deeply under-appreciated by many. Again, there's not much of a script to work with, but the cast makes the best of it, and tries to get as much out of it as they can. And they don't always fail at squeezing something out of nothing ("Ah, so that's where they buried Flipper." "FLIPPER'S DEAD!?"). Aykroyd's Judge Valkenheiser is a pretty interesting and original character--if a little shallow--while John Candy in drag is easily better than most jokes they cook up today (and really, do we really want to put down one of Hollywood's rare compassionate persons that much? Especially since they often duped him into doing bad scripts, then rewrote them for the worse after he signed on, without giving him any input?). There's still a kernel of a unique idea underneath the slow parts, and a few bizarre scenes that manage to shine through.
I will not add my own opinion in, but I have a comment about the razzie attention the first two Star Wars Prequels got.
Headrazz, don't you use RottenTomatoes to help decide which movies should be on the ballot? You have cited RottenTomatoes many times on this forum, to show how the critics recieved a film. Well on RottenTomatoes....
The Phantom Menace is at 63% (FRESH!) and...
Attack of the Clones is at 66% (FRESH!)
It's just an observation. I just think it is odd that two movies rated "FRESH" on RotenTomatoes ended up all over the Razzie ballot!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum