Print Page | Close Window

DISCUSSION of 2004 RAZZIE® Nominees & "Winners"

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: RAZZIE® Basics
Forum Name: Entire RAZZIE® History, Year-by-Year: 1980-2013
Forum Discription: Every Golden Raspberry Nominee & Every Winner...EVER!
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=354
Printed Date: September 30 2014 at 11:26am


Topic: DISCUSSION of 2004 RAZZIE® Nominees & "Winners"
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: DISCUSSION of 2004 RAZZIE® Nominees & "Winners"
Date Posted: December 04 2005 at 5:23pm

TO SEE the COMPLETE LIST of NOMINEES & "WINNERS" for 2004's WORST ACHIEVEMENTS in FILM, http://www.razzies.com/forum/2004-razzie-nominees-winners_topic5533.html - TO OFFER YOUR FEEDBACK on OUR CHOICES, FEEL FREE to POST BELOW...  





-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: June 27 2010 at 9:04pm

I have numerous gripes here.

White Chicks: If non-professional critics unanimously adored this movie, why was it nominated for Worst Picture?

Anchorman: One of three movies that wasn't bad enough to get nominated for the Worst of 2004, even if it did star Ben Stiller.

Starsky & Hutch: Not bad enough

Dodgeball: Again, not a bad enough movie.

Worst of the first 1/4 Century: So it's TRUE then! Movies took a turn for the worse overnight with Y2K! But I have one question: Where are the movies released in 2004 under this heading?



-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: June 27 2010 at 9:51pm
I think the 2000s should be called The Decade When Good Movies Died. We had a great list of excellent movies in 1999, and then the following year, creamy, smelly s*** from then on.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: July 07 2010 at 1:26pm
Quinin Aibori Uallans should've won, but WHITE CHICKS was good. 
 
Ben Stilller was good in ALONG CAME POLLY, and in ANCHORMAN he was just a cameo. 
 
Don't even get me started with FARENHEIT 9/11!  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I assume the unfamiliar title you refer to above was a Stinker from Your Native Country?? 


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: July 08 2010 at 1:33pm
Originally posted by Vits

Quinin Aibori Uallans should've won, but WHITE CHICKS was good. 
 
Ben Stilller was good in ALONG CAME POLLY, and in ANCHORMAN he was just a cameo. 
 
Don't even get me started with FARENHEIT 9/11!  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I assume the unfamiliar title you refer to above was a Stinker from Your Native Country??
Huh?


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: July 22 2010 at 12:13am
By the way, was a complete list of eligible 2004 titles ever posted?

-------------


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: July 22 2010 at 10:26am
No.Only from 2005 to the present.
Originally posted by Vits

Originally posted by Vits

Quinin Aibori Uallans should've won, but WHITE CHICKS was good. 
 
Ben Stilller was good in ALONG CAME POLLY, and in ANCHORMAN he was just a cameo. 
 
Don't even get me started with FARENHEIT 9/11!  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I assume the unfamiliar title you refer to above was a Stinker from Your Native Country??
Huh?
HeadRAZZberry,can you please explain your comment?I honestly didn't get it.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: July 22 2010 at 1:23pm
I totally agree for Arnold!


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 22 2010 at 4:03pm
Yeah, Ah-nuld's a man who can barely speak English, let alone act!


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: October 04 2010 at 12:44pm
I gave CATWOMAN 3/10. It deserved to "win" Worst Picture, Director and Screenplay. But the performances were passable, and I didn't see anything wrong with Halle and Benjamin as a couple, and Halle and Sharon weren't even a "couple" (I know you really meant "on-screen match"). Why wasn't it nominated for "Remake Or Sequel"? Because of the same reason why it's bad: it has nothing to do with the comics?  

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 04 2010 at 2:11pm
No, CATWOMAN deserved to sweep. The acting was either campy as can be, over the top, or sleep-walked through. Hell, the model who was at the club with Sharon's husband gave the best performance of the movie, and she only spoke two lines! It was the worst excuse for a movie that year. If that is what a major movie studio thinks counts as a blockbuster adaptation (of a product that they own, no less!) then they have no right to make another. Thankfully, the creative genius that is Chris Nolan swooped in for "Batman" to show those idiots at Warner Bros. how should be done.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: October 04 2010 at 3:38pm
Why wasn't CATWOMAN nominated for "Remake Or Sequel"??  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Although the character of "Catwoman" had appeared in previous movies (and was played by several different actresses on the mid-1960's TV series BATMAN: http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0000184/ -


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 04 2010 at 5:42pm
Because CATWOMAN is not a remake or sequel to any movie before it. And it's not like it was loyal to the comic book in any way besides the title.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: October 13 2010 at 9:33am
I give WHITE CHICKS 5/10. Since film is a visual art, the bad make-up alone should be a reason not to consider it good. Did anyone really think the 2 Wayanses actually looked like the twins?! And although it was funny, there were many plot holes. This is a rare movie that deserves Razzie awards for "Worst Director" and "Screenplay," but not "Worst Picture". Why?Like I said, it was funny. As for the performances...Shawn & Marlon weren't hilarious, and it wasn't like I thought they really were women. like Dustin Hoffman in TOOTSIE, but they were decent. I know "Screen Couple" was just because you hated the movie so much you wanted it to be as nominated as possible,but they had chemistry!  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: There is a dramatic device called "willing suspension of belief," which refers to the audience's agreement, in certain circumstances (especially comic ones) to overlook minor plot-holes and stretches of credulity. In the case of WHITE CHICKS, the willingness to forgive such errors would have required removing one's brain before entering the cinema -- Like most of what they Wayans brothers make, the basic premise of this film, combined with the hideously unconvincing, zombie-like makeup on the stars when they are posing as the two blonde twins, is simply too much to ask of any audience with an IQ larger than their shoe size... 



-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 13 2010 at 3:27pm
You give White Chicks 5/10?? You have got to be kidding me, that was some of the worst make-up ever done on film. And if it's full of plot holes, why a 5? Are you pulling an MWG and just giving it extra points for a few laughs here and there?

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: October 13 2010 at 3:31pm
Did you not read the rest of my post?  

A few laughs here and there would make a movie worth or 3 maybe 4. But I thought WHITE CHICKS had a lot of funny jokes!  


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 13 2010 at 3:50pm
No, no it doesn't. To me, being slightly entertaining doesn't earn a movie more than a single point, not 3 or 4...  



-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: October 13 2010 at 4:07pm
I was always puzzled as to why pro critics and the RAZZIES hated White Chicks, but everyone else in America adored it. Can the negative professional and positive reader reviews be explained?  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: First of all, where did you get the idea that "everyone else in America adored" WHITE CHICKS? Here's http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=whitechicks.htm - , showing that, while the film didn't bomb, its $70 million domestic gross hardly qualifies it as a runaway audience favorite. It should also be noted that audience ratings for the film (found at the bottom right of its MoJo page) show that over 40% of those voting gave it a D or an F. In fact, on the yearly chart for 2004 ( http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2004&p=.htm - ) CHICKS only ranks 41st, just above the all-but-forgotten HIDALGO and the aptly titled THE FORGOTTEN. As for reviews on the film, they were 85% negative ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/white_chicks/ - ) not quite as bad as the eventual Worst Picture "winner" CATWOMAN ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/catwoman/ - ) but close. 

I think it's fair to say that a few movie-goers actually "adored" WHITE CHICKS, while an overwhelming majority of movie critics (and apparently RAZZIE® Voters) loathed it...  



-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 13 2010 at 5:12pm
Sure, critics and the Razzies have standards...the rest of America doesn't!

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: October 13 2010 at 5:15pm
I'm talking, why White Chicks? Why not Alien Vs Predator or Envy or Around the World in 80 Days?


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: October 13 2010 at 6:20pm
Actually ENVY deserved "Worst Picture".

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 13 2010 at 7:00pm
"Envy" was pretty bad and unfunny, but "Catwoman" was just an unwatchable mess from start to finish.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Jennifar
Date Posted: December 25 2010 at 4:36am
Not only for a single point but some other aspect are also there.


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: December 26 2010 at 8:59am
Vits, What is Quinin Aibori Uallans?  

I googled it and it just directs me back here!!  

Originally posted by Vits

 Quinin Aibori Uallans should've won,


-------------


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 26 2010 at 1:34pm
Jaja! I hoped someone would understand. It's "Keenen Ivory Wayans" how it would be spelled in Spanish, in order to be pronounced the same way...  




-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 26 2010 at 4:51pm
Yeah, well...that "in joke" went right over everyone's head.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 27 2010 at 10:27am
In order for you to get the joke I should've wrote Keenen Aybori Wayanz...or something.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Jennifar
Date Posted: January 04 2011 at 9:55am
Stilller was good in along came polly, and in anchorman he was just a cameo. But there are some others as well.


Posted By: Jennifar
Date Posted: January 04 2011 at 10:01am
It was the worst excuse for a movie that year. If that is what a major movie studio thinks counts as a blockbuster adaptation (of a product that they own, no less!) then they have no right to make another.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: January 04 2011 at 12:50pm
Originally posted by Jennifar

Stilller was good in along came polly, and in anchorman he was just a cameo. But there are some others as well.
How come he was nominated for 2 good movies,a good movie in which he only had a cameo,and not for MEET THE FOCKERS?I loved that movie but no one else did so...
Originally posted by Jennifar

It was the worst excuse for a movie that year. If that is what a major movie studio thinks counts as a blockbuster adaptation (of a product that they own, no less!) then they have no right to make another.
Which movie are you talking about?


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Jennifar
Date Posted: January 10 2011 at 9:44am
Yes I am agree with you that One of three movies that wasn't bad enough to get nominated for the Worst of 2004, even if it did star Ben Stiller.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: January 21 2011 at 6:51pm
I just saw THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA '04 and gave it 4/10.It deserved to be at least nominated for "Worst Director".I didn't see BATMAN & ROBIN but I don't think it's that bad because of it's visuals.They didn't match what BATMAN represents,true.But how many directors have their own style?I liked that Joel Schumacher at least tried to put it into the movie.But in this movie his style is so different from the play that it reduces impact.Also there were major pacing issues.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: January 22 2011 at 4:21pm
The visuals in "Batman & Robin"?! Gotham City were not supposed to be full of statues of naked men! And don't get me started on the cartoon sound effects and the 150+ bad puns.  

Originally posted by Vits

I just saw THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA '04 and gave it 4/10.It deserved to be at least nominated for "Worst Director".I didn't see BATMAN & ROBIN but I don't think it's that bad because of it's visuals.They didn't match what BATMAN represents,true.But how many directors have their own style?I liked that Joel Schumacher at least tried to put it into the movie.But in this movie his style is so different from the play that it reduces impact.Also there were major pacing issues.
 



-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: January 23 2011 at 6:44am
I repeat: The style wasn't appropiate for that specific movie.

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Gotham City is not suppose to be full of statues of naked men!


What do these have to do with the visuals?  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

And don't get me started on the cartoon sound effects and the 150+ bad puns.




-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: January 23 2011 at 9:04am
Nothing, it just made a bad movie worse.  

Originally posted by Vits

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

And don't get me started on the cartoon sound effects and the 150+ bad puns.

What does that have to do with the visuals?


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: July 29 2011 at 1:31pm
I just saw the saga of THE EXORCIST.I'll write a conjoined review of the 5 movies soon.The 4th movie deserved it's nomination and more.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Yingchun
Date Posted: August 04 2011 at 1:37am
I'm thinking, why White Chicks? Why not Alien Vs Predator or Envy or Around the World in 80 Days?




Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 10 2011 at 6:07pm
Originally posted by Vits

I just saw the saga of THE EXORCIST.I'll write a conjoined review of the 5 movies soon.The 4th movie deserved it's nomination and more.
Click here:
http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic5208_post44927.html#44927


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: October 07 2012 at 1:41am
2004. Tragically, Agent 004 died in a training session in Beirut. Georgi Koskov severed his climbing tether and sent him plunging to his death. The Russian words "Smiert Spionam" ("Death to Spies") was found spraypainted on the rockface. Here's my take on the Year of Smiert Spionam:
 
Films that should've been RAZZed, but didn't: 5
Thunderbirds
Christmas With the Kranks //This proves that films making tons of money and sucking to high heaven aren't new to 2009
After the Sunset
The Alamo [remake]
You Got Served
 
Films that got RAZZed, but shouldn't have: 3
Starsky & Hutch
Anchorman
Dodgeball
 
Films that got RAZZed to the wrong degree: 3
Exorcist 4: The Beginning (Not RAZZed enough)
Around the World in 80 Days [remake] (Not RAZZed enough)
Fahrenheit 9/11 (RAZZed too much) //It should've settled for 3 runner-up nominations for Dubya, Condoleezza, and Rumsfeld. No wins, no Spears, no Pet Goat.
 
Worst Trends/Events of 2004:
V. A generic street dancing film becomes Episode 805, but luckily one of the best of South Park Season 8 (You Got Served)
IV. The Passion raises controversy and divides America along sectarian lines (Maybe not to the degree that Episode 804, The Passion of the Jew, suggests, but it still caused discord between Christianity and Judaism)
III. Inaccurate, comical period pieces and historical dramas (Ex. King Arthur, Alexander, The Alamo [remake])
II. Jinx Johnson was the frying pan, Catwoman is the fire. (You thought Halle Berry's role in Die Another Day was the worst? Less than 2 years later, things got so bad she accepted her RAZZIES!)
I. The "Dubya" administration vs Britney Spears, Michael Moore, and Roland Emmerich's ice age (Fahrenheit 9/11 was apparently RAZZed so much in order to make a statement against how out-of-control the Bush Jr. administration had spiraled after 3 1/2 years in office, while the scientific community rejected The Day After Tomorrow because it was SO loosely based in reality, and despite the debate over global warming and climate change, planetary ice ages and global cooling became a fad in the mid 00-Agents' decade.)


-------------


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 03 2012 at 1:56pm
Originally posted by HeadRAZZBerry

WORST PICTURE

SUPERBABIES: BABY GENIUSES 2 (Triumph Films)

WORST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Jon Voight / SUPERBABIES: BABY GENIUSES 2

WORST DIRECTOR

Bob Clark / SUPERBABIES: BABY GENIUSES 2

WORST SCREENPLAY

SUPERBABIES: BABY GENIUSES 2, Written by Steven Paul and Gregory Poppen
Skip to 01:11.

[TUBE]BBp_zdCqeuQ[/TUBE]

Any thoughts?


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 02 2013 at 2:06pm
Originally posted by Vits

I gave CATWOMAN 3/10. It deserved to "win" Worst Picture, Director and Screenplay. But the performances were passable, and I didn't see anything wrong with Halle and Benjamin as a couple, and Halle and Sharon weren't even a "couple" (I know you really meant "on-screen match"). Why wasn't it nominated for "Remake Or Sequel"? Because of the same reason why it's bad: it has nothing to do with the comics?
My review, along with the rest of the BATMAN franchise (skip to 02:07):

[TUBE]ljFE6ermZr4[/TUBE]

Any thoughts?


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: moviecritic1994
Date Posted: May 11 2013 at 6:09pm
I Watched "Catwoman" on Cable (I Believe it was the Oxygen Network). Anyway, I wanted to keep an open mind and see what this film was all about it. I can honestly say after seating through the entire movie I can say it deserves all 4 Razzie Awards that it got. Here are it's faults:

Sharon Stone is a villain, yet she has no real reason poisoning women with facial cream. (Yeah I felt stupid saying it too).

Why in the world does Catwoman look like a dominatrix with a Cat Fetish? I know the character is known for being sexy but they over did it. There is more to Catwoman than being seductive and sexy.

And Finally, that ridiculous and weird Basketball scene.... enough said there. My Rating for Catwoman is... 2/10. I might as well give Pitof points for trying... I think.

-------------
If you care to find me, Look to the Western Sky :)


Posted By: moviecritic1994
Date Posted: May 11 2013 at 6:17pm
The thing with White Chicks was that it was almost unbelievably offensive to a lot of people. As for me, I just thought it was stupid, with no real purpose whatsoever. However, out of all the Wayans brothers films, "Little Man" is probably the most idiotic -- Nothing funny or clever anywhere in that film. I believe it even won a few Razzies?

-------------
If you care to find me, Look to the Western Sky :)


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: May 11 2013 at 7:08pm
Welcome MovieCritic1994. LITTLE MAN did win a few of our awards, but WHITE CHICKS didn't win any of the Razzies it was up for.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: moviecritic1994
Date Posted: May 12 2013 at 12:39am
Thanks for the Welcome!   :)

-------------
If you care to find me, Look to the Western Sky :)


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: October 19 2013 at 12:53pm
This episode includes Worst Picture nominee ALEXANDER:

[TUBE]ECG31wr-7iQ[/TUBE]

Any thoughts?



-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 22 2014 at 7:40am
On this episode, I compare Worst Actress nominee A CINDERELLA STORY to its sequels, and, the other adaptations of CINDERELLA:

[TUBE]rX-qsC1fXbM[/TUBE]


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 15 2014 at 12:14pm
This episode includes Worst Picture nominee SURVIVING CHRISTMAS (skip to 01:23):

[TUBE]M1YMvzq85w8[/TUBE]


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile



Print Page | Close Window