Print Page | Close Window

SOME BAD CHOICES

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: General MOVIE & DVD Discussions
Forum Name: Disagree w/Any Past RAZZIES®??
Forum Discription: Even we don't ALWAZE get it right. If you don't agree with any of our many years of choices, here's your chance to argue your case...
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4517
Printed Date: November 20 2014 at 6:40pm


Topic: SOME BAD CHOICES
Posted By: Vits
Subject: SOME BAD CHOICES
Date Posted: July 07 2010 at 2:51pm

XANADU should've won more awards for 1980 -- Especially "Worst Song!" 




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



Replies:
Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: July 07 2010 at 3:28pm
I would protest against I DON'T WANNA MISS A THING being nominated as Worst Song for 1998 -- but since it was also nominated for an Oscar and is considered one of the greatest rock songs, I'm OK with it.

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


Posted By: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 12:59pm
The razzie voters have made some huge mistakes over the last couple of years in deciding what they think is "bad cinema". Here are some:
 
Tom Cruise in War of the worlds (what was wrong with that, there was a great amount of intesity in his performance).
 
Ben Stiller in Dodgeball and Anchorman (The performance was meant to be over the top and look dumb btw).
 
The Star Wars Prequels (they arent as good as the originals, but the visuals deliver and its better than most summer films).
 
William Shater in various Star Treks (Your kidding, right? What makes those films so bad? What makes him so bad? The dude is a legend, and it's not because he sucks at acting, like you seem to think, or makes funny albums).
 
The Blair Witch Project ( I'm pretty sure you  stand alone here Mr. Head Razz dude. This film changed horror cinema and I dare you to go camping after seeing this one).


-------------
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE


Posted By: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 1:04pm
I also left out the new Indiana Jones movie. Heavens no, there are Aliens! I'm sure that that looks stupid and corny even though our archeologist has seen weirder stuff in his day (don't you just love my sarcasm). As for the "nuke the fridge" scene, Indy has been through more difficult situations than that, and ones way more unbeleivable. To not like that scene is to miss the point of all four movies!

-------------
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE


Posted By: Mraspiringactor
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 1:27pm
I still don't think Jim Carrey deserved a razzie.

Also while Maria Pitillo was bad in Godzilla there were other cast members that were more worthy of a razzie.

Also The Hunchback of Notre Dame being nominated for Worst Screenplay.


-------------
Kevin Higgins.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 1:30pm
Okay, the Tom Cruise thing for that year was more about his infamous couch jumping, rather than his acting in that movie. Ben Stiller, I guess the voters for that year thought he getting annoying, considering he starred in something like 6 movies that year alone. Star Wars Prequels, no, sorry they deserved to be Razzed, they can have all the pretty CGI they want, they failed on every other level of filmmaking. William Shater, the man who needs to take a breath in between every other word. Have you seen the 5th Star Trek movie? It sucks! And Blair Witch ... it's three morons in the woods screaming about nothing. Paranormal Activity was a thousand times scarier, most people who saw it had trouble sleeping later that night. Blair Witch, people were laughing at it after leaving the theaters. So yeah, I'll give you 1 out of 5.  

Originally posted by ramonesun

The razzie voters have made some huge mistakes over the last couple of years in deciding what they think is "bad cinema". Here are some:
 
Tom Cruise in War of the worlds (what was wrong with that, there was a great amount of intesity in his performance).
 
Ben Stiller in Dodgeball and Anchorman (The performance was meant to be over the top and look dumb btw).
 
The Star Wars Prequels (they arent as good as the originals, but the visuals deliver and its better than most summer films).
 
William Shater in various Star Treks (Your kidding, right? What makes those films so bad? What makes him so bad? The dude is a legend, and it's not because he sucks at acting, like you seem to think, or makes funny albums).
 
The Blair Witch Project ( I'm pretty sure you  stand alone here Mr. Head Razz dude. This film changed horror cinema and I dare you to go camping after seeing this one).


-------------
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: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 3:04pm
I find it rather funny how you think Mr. Shatners acting sucks. Its very good, and one really only needs to see several star trek episodes and one very great twilight zone episode to know that. His breathing schtick is overplayed by comedians, the media, and shatner himself, though he dosnt really do it that often. And if you think Star Trek 5 sucked, why dont you go ahead and compare it to the summer movies you see now. You'll be happy to find that its a bit more complex and well acted than todays drek. Secondly, there would be no paranormal activity without the blair witch project, and similar to what you said about the BWP, paranormal activity is nothing more than a fat chick and an obnoxious bf screaming in a house they can run out of (and should have). I find it also hilarious that you said people had trouble sleeping after seeing it, I got quite the opposite response from all my friends and associates. Lastly, the star wars prequels didnt fail on every level. Sure the dialouge sucked, and the acting wasnt so perfect either, but you could say the same about the original films (with the exception of  truly memorable one liners and alec guiness as obi wan, ford as solo, and frank oz doing the voice of yoda, and james earl jones doing the voice of vader). We love the star wars films because they appeal to the child in us as well as having sensational effects and characters rooted in civilizations oldest mythology, not because of grand acting or dialouge. It's incredible how Lucas was able to even tie all the films together...just think about how one event led to the other and so forth until we arrived at the events of a new hope. Remarkable. There were worse films that year and you know it.

-------------
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 6:14pm
People didn't like the 4th Indiana Jones because Indy worked mostly in fantasy element, then was brought into this sci-fi world. Not to mention ants, I don't care how many there are or how strong people claim they are, can't carry a 300 lb. Russian man away into their ant hill. Also, Shia "No-No-No-No-No-No" Lebeouf doing his best, worst Tarzan impression. And the "nuke the fridge", sorry, most eye rolling scene in the movie. Yes, he had done some other outlandish stuff in the other movies that could be chalked up to fantasy elements, but this ... come 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: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 6:27pm

it was the 50's: the golden age of Sci Fi. Of course they were gonna have aliens! No one cares about ants and nukes doing things they cant do, because if all the other movies followed natural laws, then Indy would be dead by now.



-------------
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 6:27pm
1. If Shanter is such a great actor, his breathing wouldn't be the running gag of his career, now would it? No, he would be a respected actor, remembered for a diverse career. And guess what, he isn't! Also, "Star Trek 5" is universally considered the worst of the series by critics and fans alike. Any "ST" movie before or after it blows it out of the water. And considering most movies today are s*** remakes, sequels, or reboots, it's not hard to say that the worst "ST" of all time is somewhat better than the s*** movies of today.
2. Yes, there would be no "Paranormal Activity" without "Blair Witch", but "PA" greatly improved the idea in which "BW" fell short on. There's a sense of realism, it has more dialounge other than idiots screaming "f***" every second, and it uses a primal fear that is universal to all us humans: what does go on when we're asleep and helpless. As for your friends' reactions compared to my friends' reactions, well, that's just difference of opinions of what's scary.
3. Okay, so you admit that the "Star Wars" prequels suck, yet we shouldn't consider them to be Razzie worthy? This makes sense to you? Yes, there were plenty bad films those years, but the "SW" ranks right next to them. If you admit that they suck, then there's no point in defending them.


-------------
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: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 6:29pm
Originally posted by ramonesun

it was the 50's: the golden age of Sci Fi. Of course they were gonna have aliens! No one cares about ants and nukes doing things they cant do, because if all the other movies followed natural laws, then Indy would be dead by now.
Because it was a fantasy series, based on magic, which can't be explained. Now he's in a more realistic sci-fi realm and he's doing things that not even people who write sci-fi would agree could happen.

-------------
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: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 6:31pm
the movies were based around serials like buck rogers and flash gordon... both of them sci fi. And how can u call nuking the fridge more realistic?

-------------
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE


Posted By: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 6:42pm

Shatner isnt just remembered for his breathing! That was something he started as a joke and people took way too far. The man was famous beofre star trek, he was a serious broadway actor, and appeared in critically acclaimed episodes of the twilight zone and the outer limits. He is now in other shows such as boston legal and sh*t my dad tells me (or whatever its called), which have received rave reviews due to his performances. To say that shatner isnt good because he is mostly remembered for star trek is to say alec guiness isnt a good actor cause people mostly remember him for playing obi wan (and we all know that is bs). Also, i didnt say the prequel trilogy was great or perfect, im just saying it wasnt bad enough to deserve a razzie, or even the huge amount of negative criticism its given, when there were other films out there that actually did suck and werent nominated. Lastly, your telling me paranormal activity has a sense of realism...even though there were hidden ghosts and demons?  The Blair witch project also touches a universal fear, an even bigger and broader one than PA's: What you don't see can be the scariest thing of all and that mankind is still extremely afriad of the nature and the wilderness.



-------------
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 6:45pm
I can't, that's why no one took Indy #4 seriously. I mean more "realistic" as in stepping away from magic.  

Originally posted by ramonesun

the movies were based around serials like buck rogers and flash gordon... both of them sci fi. And how can u call nuking the fridge more realistic?


-------------
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: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 6:48pm
The most magic to be seen was the kind in the temple of doom: arguably the worst received of the series. So it seems people had trouble with fantasy as well. So i don't think it has anything to do with that. I think people came in weary simply cause indy was old, which is dumb, because the film was clearly a labor of love from speilberg and lucas

-------------
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 6:53pm
1. Yes Shatner was a good actor, but if he was a great actor, he wouldn't allow himself to be typecast like he was. All other actors and actresses who have played Star Trek captains since him were able to make their characters be taken seriously, rather than be seen as campy.  

2. Okay, you're telling me that Darth Vader (considered by many to be the greatest movie villain of all-time) being played like a whiny, emo brat doesn't warrant a Razzie?  

3. Let me get this straight, "Blair Witch", which was about campers looking for a WITCH is more real than ghosts and demons? I take it you never heard of such shows as "Ghost Hunters", "Paranormal State", "Most Haunted", etc. To some people, hauntings are a very real thing and there are even professionals who track ghost activity. Fear of what happens in the afterlife, and violence caused by ghosts, are just as extreme fears as the uncontrolled forces of nature.


-------------
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: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 6:54pm
No, audiences just came into Indy #4 with high expectations ... and they are shot down ... hard.  

Originally posted by ramonesun

I think people came in weary simply cause indy was old, which is dumb, because the film was clearly a labor of love from speilberg and lucas
 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Actually, many people found INDY #4 to be a labor...for bux (as well as a bore to sit through). And given the fairly consistent tone of the previous 3 films, the overall "flatness" and lack of fun in this most recent one was a major source of disappointment to millions of fans of the series...  



-------------
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: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 7:05pm
HAH! Shatner wasnt typecast! He has been in so many different genres: Sci Fi, Comedy, Drama, Cop Thrillers, Sitcoms, muscials, even in Shakespeare plays on Broadway! The type casting thing was also a poor excuse because great actors like Al Pacino and Robert De Niro are often typpecast. Second, It doesn't matter what people believe, it's all a matter of what science can prove so far. 

In Blair Witch, they didn't go into the woods to find a witch, they went in too shoot a documentary on an urban legend that they failed to believe in. There were no special effects, and even the ending leaves one doubting if there was truly a supernatural entity in the woods. Fear of violence caused by ghosts isnt as big as the Blair Witch's fear because most people dont belive in ghosts, whereas everyone knows that really bad stuff can go down when you're in the woods alone. 

Lastly, Darth Vader wasn't born evil, so of course there has to a transformation somewere. The acting was bad on Hayden's part, but u r missing the greater point. He wanted power over death, and fame as well, which led to his downfall and the blackening of his heart. Something everyone wishes they had (power), and a formula that Shakespeare used often (in Macbeth for instance). And don't tell me people came into Indy 4 with high expectations, people were making old people jokes as soon as the trailers started popping up all over the globe.


-------------
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE


Posted By: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 7:07pm
Also, Shatner played over the top because he thought it would fit the source material best. Star Trek never got the special effects budget that Star Wars had, so he had to add campiness to the role in order for people to come in light-hearted to the show. But if you see the movies and the shows, you realize that you grow to love his character, with all his faults and goals, no matter how bad the movies may get plot-wise. And that is greatness. 

He didn't deserve to be a nominee for Worst Actor of the Decade, or even Worst Actor of the year for Star Trek 5... 


-------------
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 7:37pm
A few simple facts:
 
1. Shatner has, indeed, appeared in films and TV shows covering a wide variety of genres. But he has yet to demonstrate that he is particularly good at any of them.  
 
2. Yes, we all caught on to the fact that Darth Vader wasn't born evil. The larger point that you are evidently missing is that Episodes 1-3 sucked!  
 
3. People weren't laughing at the most recent Indiana Jones because Harrison Ford is aging. That may be an uncomfortable realization that those of us in his approximate age group have to deal with, but people laughed at the movie because it was bad. 
 
4. Star Trek 5 was 3 too many.  
 
5. This one is for you, Burn...I wish that those pseudoscience shows like Ghosthunters would include 2 more cast members: 1. a qualifed, degreed scientist, preferably someone with an advanced degree in physics and 2. a professional magician. But people would stop watching them in a big hurry if they actually had people who could not only explain away oddities, but also expose some of the nonsense being fobbed off by the show's principals.  



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 7:52pm
I'll just stick mostly to "Blair Witch", since saturnwatcher answered the other questions for me. But I'll just add that 1. In Razzie voters' eyes, it doesn't matter if you were a great actor in the past (Shatner not being one of those), if you do a bad acting job in an equally bad movie, you're ripe for a razzing. 2. Yes, Darth Vader had to become evil, but he didn't have to be a whiny crybaby on his way to becoming so. Not too mention with all the mistakes in the storylines from the prequels to the original movies, you can clearly tell Lucas was making stuff up as he went along. 3. "Indiana Jones 4" was a campy, overly light-hearted, almost always winking at the camera mess, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was more serious with a few light-hearted moments. THAT is why people hated the fourth movie.
 
Sure, I'll admit "Paranormal Activity" has its share of flaws. It's "they go to sleep, something happens, they talk about it in the morning, repeat" cycle does get annoying and repeative. However, the pay off in the in end was worth it, as the inhuman screaming and loud footsteps from off-screen were enough to harken anyone back to their childhood, when they were afraid of the dark and the unknown. "BW", on the other hand, you couldn't get scared of the unknown because you were too busy wondering what the hell was going on with all the camera shaking and the screaming and the running around, plus the let-down ending. Even today, over ten years later, people are wondering what the big deal was with that movie! I'm not saying "PA" will last the time of time any better, but "BW" is already considered a joke. Oh, and not that it matters to the quality of the movie, but most studies show that 65% of Americans (or 1 in every 3 people) believe in ghosts.
 
As for saturnwatcher and pseudoscience shows, well, some of those shows, like "Most Haunted", do have such members like a scientist who at the end of the how explains how what happened could be scientifically explained. Not all, but some.


-------------
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: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 9:57pm
Wrong on the first one, good sir: Shatner has recieved critical acclaim for his performances in each of the genres he dipped his feet in, even TJ Hooker. 

Secondly, saying a movie sucked is not a valid argument, state why. 

Third, really? No age jokes? Get real. Don't tell me nobody went around saying Harrison Ford was too old. If people said it for Rocky, Rambo, and Terminator 3, they definatley said it for this film. 

Fourth, Star Trek 5 was clearly not enough,since the film after it, The Undiscovered Country, received much critical acclaim, as did two of the Next Generation films -- and the much-loved recent remake.


-------------
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 10:12pm
Let's just get this one little thing straight about the Razzies. We don't care what citicial acclaim an actor gets in the past, if you give a bad performance, you're worthy of a razzing. Halle Berry, former Oscar winner ... razzed. Al Pacino, former Oscar winner ... nods for several Razzies. Shatner ... let me put it this way, when Paul Newman died, he was remembered for being a great actor with a list of diverse roles. When Shatner dies, he will be remembered as the guy who had to pause for some failed attempt at melodrama between each...spoken...word. That is why he is typecast, and he only has himself to blame for it.  
 
As for Harrison Ford being too old, yes, that was a factor, but not THE factor. THE factor was that the movie just plain SUCKED. It was a shell of what the Indiana Jones movies had once been. Like I said, the entire movie was too campy and light-hearted. It was as if Ford was going to turn to the camera and wink at us "Hey, it's your buddy, Indiana Jones, in another movie. Isn't this fun!?". Indiana Jones was never about that. 
 
And as for "Star Trek 5," it just plain sucked.  Critics and most Trek fans agreed on that, so deal with it.  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: In support of the point made above, here is http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_v_the_final_frontier/ - to see reviews on STAR TREK 5 (78% Negative reviews)...and here is http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/ - , supporting the previously made point about the 2009 STAR TREK remake (with 94% positive reviews) being a superior film...  




-------------
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: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 10:15pm
I find it strange how you call the Indiana Jones films campy and lighthearted... which is preceisley their point. The one that got really dark, the temple of doom, recived bad reviews, and recieved criticism for not having enough campiness or light hearted moments.... so that can't be the problem  either. Secondly, Paranormal activiy did not have a good ending. Nothing was explained and little was seen (what was seen were terrible special effects), and it in fact, borried it's ending from the blair witch project (the offscreen screams, the loud footsteps, the nervous breakdown of a male and female duo, etc). The reason the blair witch project received such acclaim was because it was all so vivid and real. The fantastic merchandizing campaign made every step possible to make veiwers belive what they were watching was an actual documentary feature, and if you pretend it is, than that makes it really scary (you could say the same thing for PA, but the special effects ruin the realism that would allow us to make belive). Plus, the reason people were screaming in the BWP is because in real life, in those situations, you do freak out. You don't sit around and have a dialouge with the camera panning back and forth from face to face. You freaking run. Especially when its late at night, your alone in the woods with no direction to go, and your not sure if you hear the distant laugh of  children echoing through the trees, etc. The actors in the film were given no script except an outline and were handed cameras and told to film stuff. Their fright was genuine, as they were often alone by themselves and crew members were told to try and scare the actors. Lastly, i fear shows such as ones you mentioned are immoral as many of the people clearly dont contact ghosts and are just in it for a quick buck. that would be fine, accept for the fact that many ghosts are based on actual dead people, so in a way they mock the deceased, which is disgustingly innapropriate.

-------------
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE


Posted By: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 10:24pm

...and the Shatner insults keep on coming. Listen, I'm not saying the fith film wasn't bad, just not bad enough to get a nomination, especially by today's standards. Second, even though the film was bad, Shatner wasn't bad in it. He just did what he did in all the other Trek films, which was fine by fans and most critics. Secondly, he won't be remembered as that breathing guy upon his death, but for much, much more. He is an icon of "nerd culture," a vastly growing one, and showed the world that science fiction can be taken  seriously and given serious critical attention, including the actors of science fiction films and television. He is well liked by the media, and pretty much well liked by tv and film critics as well. No sir, you're wrong. 

You see, when Paul Newman died, teenagers and those under 30 the world over (or most of them), said "Aww man, that guy made good salad dressing." Wereas when  Shatner (who is loved by both the very young and the very old) dies, most kids and adults will be quite upset, not just the old and "cinematic elite," as was true in Paul Newman's case.



-------------
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 10:32pm
Okay, #1. Just accept the fact that for whatever reason, people thought "Indiana Jones 4" sucked. You may not agree with them, but for most people who saw it, they thought it sucked. Just comes to grips with that. I (or saturnwatcher, or whomever) can make as many excuses as we want, but you're not going to agree with any of them. Point is "Indiana Jones 4" was in the minds of many, a let down and not the movie that wanted from their beloved movie series.
 
2. I don't care about your opinions of ghosts. I understand just because people believe in something that hasn't been proven by science, that doesn't mean it's real. But "PA" as a whole is a better movie in quality filmmaking. It tells a story about a woman and her past with an unknown force and the bad outcome as a result of her boyfriend playing games with that force. The camera is kept straight and you can tell what's happening. This takes talent. Not to mention, think about, you're peacfully sleeping in bed, when all of a sudden, you are ripped from your bed and dragged by an unseen force. And as one of your loved ones tries to save you, a door is slammed in his or her face and he/she is unable to open it. Okay, the unseen force thing may not be real, but being taken against your will and no one being able to save you is scary! 
 
"BW" tells next to no story, it's a bunch of people running around like headless chickens, and you have no clue what is happening, and there's a lack luster ending. This is not talent. Any person can do this. You, me, saturnwatcher, even MWG. This is why ten years later (and even back then) "BW" is considered a joke. The one and only reason why it was so popular is because of it's Internet marketing and everyone thought it was real footage. Once they found out it wasn't they realized what a joke the movie was.
 
Again, like with "Indiana 4", you just need to come to grips with the fact that people think "BW" was a talentless movie and deserved the Razzie nods/wins it got.


-------------
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: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 10:39pm
Um, you do realize the 5th Star Trek movie was made some time like over 15 years ago, so Razzie voters were comparing to the standards of 15 years ago! Comparing it to today's standards is a moot point because the past can not be undone. What, are we suppose to give Razzie nods/wins to today's movies based on what we think the standards of moviemaking of 15 years from will be? No, we live in the now, and 15 years ago, by the standards of thT day, "Star Trek 5" sucked and not much has changed the opinions of that.
 
As for your Paul Newman comment, these little things you might heard of called Turner Classic Movies or DVDs in which movies from the past can be viewed by younger generations. So I doubt not all people under 30 were like "The salad dressing guy died". In fact, I find that FAR more insulting than anything we have said about Shatner.


-------------
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: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 10:41pm
But the thing is i wouldnt complain if you werent wrong. You see, Indy Four has a 76%  fresh rating on rotten tomatoes, and  BWP has an 85% (three percent more than PA). This includes user ratings, which mean even a few years after both films releases, most people dont think they suck. Your signature notes that what you write above is your opinion, but what you left out was the word "informed" next to it. The razzies were dumb to vote against films that have generally recieved critcial acclaim. Whats next? They're going to nominate Inception for worst mind trip?

-------------
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE


Posted By: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 10:46pm
The Newman statment is sad, if its true. I find him a good actor, a very good one, but still today's generation hasn't heard of him nor will they make the effort to, unlike with Shatner. And as for my Trek 5 comment, that is valid. Citizen Kane received negative reviews on release, as did 2001 a Space Odyssey, though they are now regarded as great films. So I can definitley say the Razzies were wrong to nominate a film such as that, for having little hindsigh and ignoring way worse crap that came out that same year. It was nominated for Worst Film of the Decade for Gawdz sake! I really doubt it is even close to that! 

-------------
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 10:50pm
Hey, like I said, for whatever reason, Razzie voters felt that "Indiana Jones 4" sucked and was an unworthy sequel to the series. Just deal with it. You might think a man being able to live through a nuke test by hiding inside a lead lined fridge is perfectly acceptable, but to Razzies voters, it was just as retarded as Fronzie and the shark jumping.  
 
And I find it laugh out loud funny that you mentioned being "informed". You claim Shatner helpped made sci-fi be taken seriously? Well, if you were "informed", you would know that a decade before Star Trek, there was "The Day The Earth Stood Still". And, all the way back in the 1920s, there was "Metropolis". These were the movies that helpped make sci-fi be taken seriously LONG before Star Trek showed up. So if you fancy yourself a film critic, try getting your film history right first.  

Are there young people who don't know who Paul Newman was? Sure. But Newman and Shatner are in totally different leagues. Newman is a legend of FILM. Years from now, he will be seen as a role model to all actors. Shatner is a legend of POP CULTURE. Years from now, he will be a foot note in the entertainment business, not an acting legend. See, you have the same problem with people here who defend Stallone as a great actor. You confuse what is popular and entertaining with what is good and enduring filmmaking. Newman's work will be remembered as an art form. Shatner and Stallone's work will be remembered as entertainment. Don't mistake them as the same thing.


-------------
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: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 11:11pm

Dont call me uninformed. Im well aware of Fritz Lang's silent works and who can forget klateau or however u spell it. Good as these films were, they were largely ignored by all but cinematic scholars/critics and film buffs (and it took a while for the original Day the Earth Stood Still to get the reputation it has today). Star Trek opened up the artistic potential of science fiction to the world at large, for EVERYONE(!) giving the genre the critical and universal attention it truly deserved, but was granted by only a few. 

Secondly, the whole point of this post was to argue against what Razzie voters (who don't really represent most of the movie-going public) said... I'm well aware that they already made up their minds long ago and like the forum says, even they make mistakes on their decisions. You're missing the point of this post entirely! 

Lastly, Shatner will be remembered as an artist because the show he was in was artistic (and I'm sure way more people agree with me than would ever dare to disagree with me on this one), morality plays in a science fiction universe, and he certainly helped make the show artistic, hence his "artist" and not just "pop culture" status. 

Also, Stallone isn't just an entertainer. The first Rocky film itself is testament to that. 

You're also forgetting many of Newman's films were made as pure entertainment and not art (such as Cool Hand Luke).  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Actually, COOL HAND LUKE was both mass entertainment and a work of art -- Here's http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061512/awards - showing that LUKE was nominated for FOUR Academy Awards (including Best Screenplay) and actually won Best Supporting Actor for George Kennedy...  

Also, the idea that anyone would attempt to equate William Shatner (a mediocre TV star who happened to hit it big by appearing in one iconic series, and who has made as many horribly bad movies as anyone, including INCUBUS, WHITE COMANCHE, IMPULSE, THE DEVIL'S RAIN, etc) with legendary screen icon Paul Newman ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000056/awards - ) is on the face of it ludicrous. Newman would deserve "legend" status for any ONE of the TEN films for which he was an Oscar nominee.  Shatner has basically built a career on ONE character, and self-aware parodies and variations of that character. 

Also, beyond the two men's "merits" as actors, Newman's much maligned line of food products have raised hundreds of millions of dollars for various humanitarian charities and causes -- What exactly has Shatner done to enrich anyone but himself??

In the real world, there is simply NO comparison between the two.


Oh, and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098382/ - tried to sit through it lately?? It's a lumbering, overlong, pretentious mess, representing one more attempt to milk box office bucks from a concept that should've been abandoned after the far superior http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092007/ -



-------------
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 11 2010 at 9:14am
Here's the problem though, you're not looking at the choices the Razzies made in the past as a critic, you are looking at them as a FAN. To you, Shatner is an artist, however, many people will only remember him as Captain Kirk or the guy who paused between every other spoken word. You may not like this, but it is true, same as some people may only remember Newman for salad dressing. Both are sad facts, but NO ONE seriously looks at Shatner as some artist. They see him as an ENTERTAINER, but not an artist, and as I said, there is a huge difference between the two.
 
And as I said, the Razzies are blind to whatever critical success an actor has had in the past. If they have a bad performance, they are instantly a Razzie contender. It doesn't matter if it's Halle Berry, Al Pacino, Stallone, or Shatner. We don't care if "Rocky" is an endearing movie that people loved or if Shatner helped make sci-fi mainstream (although many would debate that "Star Wars" did even MORE so), if you do a bad acting job, you will be razzed. You just have to accept that fact that there are people who don't look up at Shatner the way you do.
 
Lastly, complaining about past Razzie winners is a moot point. As I said before "it's not that bad by today's standards" is a weak arguement. No one votes for anything based on the question "He/she/it is right for NOW, but is he/she/it right for 15+ YEARS FROM NOW?" No, it doesn't work that way; we live in the NOW. Razzie voters thought Shatner and "ST 5" were the among the worst at the time, and they voting according to that. It might be as simple as they thought the "ST" series was getting stale and Shatner's acting was at its worse (it happens to all actors), and so they voted on that. You may not like this mocking of Shatner's acting, but it is a reality you have to deal with and accept, just as we have to accept that there are some people who may not know who Paul Newman is.
 
So, in conclusion, while you maybe a fan of the movies and actors that you listed, you have to realize that not everyone agrees with you, and that to other people, these movies were talentless, hack jobs and thus they voted according by that opinion. It's just that simple. 


-------------
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: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 11 2010 at 11:15am
Once again you have failed to come to grips with the point of this forum section, which was made by the website to argue over wether past decisions were wrongly made. I'm well aware of what they thought at the time, but the point of the forum is to argue against what the voters decided. The 5th film wasnt even below 50 % on RT, meaning that more than half the film going population enjoyed it, surely meaning it isnt bad enough to deserve a razzie. Yes, it was nominated for a razzie, no sh*t. Thats not the point. The forum pointed out that the goal of this section was to disagree with past razzie choices. You can deffend their choices, but you can't say im being pointless when im simply doing what the forum asked: to argue against the nominations of the past. Im stating my argument quite clearly. The films i mentioned that were nominated have recieved either fresh ratings (past reviews included, as well as public opinion), or  are somewere in the 50% range, which is far from crappy. Yet they got nominated for a razzie. Also, tell me this: if a film that got nominated for a razzie in, lets say, 1989, is now regarded as a masterpeice, would you still deffend the razzie voters choices (i'm being theoretical to point out an obvious statment here, star trek aside)? I don't care what they thought at the time, this forum was made so i can DISAGREE. DO U NOT UNDERSTAND?! DO you not comprehend that? I understand some people disagree with me, but im saying that more peope agree than disagree with me on the voters past choices (statistically of course, but that is the most acurate way after all). What if they nominated citizen kane for a razzie (ignore the point that there were no razzies then), would you still say that they thought it sucked at the time and thats all that matters, even though time has given us the true answer that most people like the films I have mentioned (love it even)? When the razzie nominates a film, they shouldnt pick films that got good, great, or even mixed reviews, but films that recived universal trashing! Lastly, to say that im judging star trek from a fans point of veiw is a correct statment, I am a fan, but then again, the films were made for fans, not casual watchers (such as, Im guessing, the razzie voters). The reason people enjoy the films is because you've grown with the cast and crew over the years and learned to love them like a family. Im guessing the voters of that year didnt watch star trek regularly, and are therefore biased in their own right (one could compare them to  little girls from down the lane who get in over their heads when they walk into an S&M bar never or rarely frenquented by all save the hardcore perverts).

-------------
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE


Posted By: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 11 2010 at 11:39am
What is the point of giving nominations to films that are loved, liked or given a so-so status? I thought the Razzies were supposed to look for absolute crap, not average (or even good) films!

-------------
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 11 2010 at 3:03pm
First, I really don't think it is necessary for me to provide yet another list of why episodes "1-3" of the Star Wars saga were lousy. A hundred professional critics have already done so. If you want my opinion as a sci-fi fan and someone in the scientific field, I'll offer that I've never been much of a fan of the entire series.
 
Second, yes, there were jokes being tossed around about Harrison Ford's age as the result of the last Indy movie. However, those jokes were spawned because the movie was bad. If it hadn't been, people would have readily taken the movie into their hearts. Maybe if they hadn't led off with that retarded "nuking the fridge" scene, things might not have gone so badly. On the other hand, the whole plot was so retarded it was difficult to forgive anyone involved.
 
Third, none of the Star Trek films after #2 were anything but #2, if you get my drift.
 
Fourth, while T.J. Hooker the Motion Picture is almost inevitable, it was hardly a classic in the history of television. William Shatner has his fans and apologists, but to most of us, he is just a mediocre actor at best and an hilarious disaster at worst.
 
 


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 11 2010 at 3:14pm
See the thing is, you don't have to be a science fiction fan to enjoy Star Wars, in fact, the film is more fairy tale than it is sci fi, hence the words: a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...  

Also, the fresh ratings for the prequel movies on RT prove that the majority of the film-going world liked the films, even though they arent as good as the first three. Also, you didn't like the well-received Search for Spock, The Voyage Home, or The Undiscovered Country? What about the much loved prequel that just came out? 

Lastly, TJ Hooker is considered a TV classic (though I'm not saying it's perfect), and to most of the people, he is an icon of science fiction, comedy, and popular culture itself. If you watch his films and his tv series, you grow to love his over-the-top yet loveable acting style. It adds a touch of fun to a very technological show (vulcan mind melds aside). 

Plot wasn't so bad for the fourth Indy film either. I dont really like the fourth film that much, I'll make that clear. But I don't think it was nearly bad enough to be nominated for any Razzies, especially when it was up against flicks like The Hottie and the Nottie (shivers all over and dies on the spot).


-------------
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 11 2010 at 3:40pm
The best thing about the prequel to the Star Trek series was that it didn't involve Shatner. But they took so many continuity liberties with the time lines and overall structure developed by the TV series and various novels that they could have renamed all the characters and divorced it somewhat from the original series and I suspect it would have been just as well received.
 
No..I didn't particularly care for the other three films in the Star Trek series. As previously noted, I didn't care for any of the films in the Star Wars saga. I had a degree of admiration for the first three (now called episodes 4-6) based upon ground breaking film making techniques, but the plotline, whether you want to call it fairy tale or sci fi wasn't very impressive.
 
You may regard TJ Hooker as a TV classic. If I meet anyone else who does, I will now be acquainted with two people. I suppose you could make a case that B.J. and the Bear or even Dukes of Hazzard were TV classics. But please don't try. People will giggle.
 
Sorry, but the plot for the fourth Indy film was just plain laughable.


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 11 2010 at 8:17pm

You do realize that "classic" is just another term for "TV series from 20 to 50 years ago", right? It means NOTHING to the actually quality of the TV series. Hell, EVERYTHING on the TV Land Channel is called "classic programming", but that doesn't mean all of the channel's programming is classy, untouchable masterpieces.



-------------
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: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 11 2010 at 8:22pm
Oh. LOL

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 11 2010 at 10:31pm

TJ hooker and Dukes of Hazzard are considered classic though. Not in the sense that they are perfect shows, but in the sense that they have had an impact on our popular culture significantly, and they certainly havent given us that impact by sucking. Im not calling them perfect, but they both deserve their place in the annals of tv history for being enjoyable. The word classic dosnt have to apply to art, it can also apply to just plain entertaiment. Lastly, you don't know how glad I am that pretty much the entire world disagrees with you on the star wars films (prequels somewhat included)! the world would have never been the same without them (at least the first three), and even if you didnt like them, i bet they somehow changed your life for the better, as those films made cinematic history....and not just for the special effects.



-------------
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 11 2010 at 11:19pm
There were large number of people who liked Star Wars very much and large numbers that didn't. I really don't think the world would have suffered immeasurable trauma if they hadn't bee made.  I'll permit your remarks about TJ Hooker and The Dukes of Hazzard to stand without remark. I think your opinions stand as a measure of the credibility of the overall argument.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 12 2010 at 11:58am
They are not just opinions, but informed opinions. Most big volumed books on television history contain a passage on TJ and Dukes somewere (though im not calling them masterpeices, just entertainment). I know, Ive read two such books. Secondly, considering star wars is the most influential film of the last 30 years or so (im too lazy to do the math since 77), I would say the world would be quite different without it. And at a loss too. Those films are loved way more than hated, thats for sure....WAY, WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY more. But anyways, ur missing the point. Im not here to talk about all the star wars films, nor hooker. Im here to adress Trek 5 (over 50% on RT, and therefore above average, since it includes public opinion), Indy four (76%), and the star wars prequels (all above 50%). Blair witch too (85%).  Why nominate films that more people like or feel so so about, when you could be nominating truely crappy films? That is the question i bring up. Shatner wasnt perfect in trek 5, but he wasnt bad either. He was typical shatner, which most people tend to enjoy. And surely it didnt deserve a nominee as worst film of the 80's! There was so many films that sucked way more than that movie.

-------------
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 12 2010 at 8:49pm

Many seriously question if the influence made by "Star Wars" was a good or bad one. Many debate that it is the movie that helped ruin filmmaking, and started the Hollywood craze of making a blockbuster first and caring about the art of filmmaking second. Like saturnwatcher, I also question if the public would have been better off if the movie was never made. I'm sure the world of movie making would be very different if those movies didn't exist. And sorry, there is no proof that the movies are loved more than hated. A documentart entitled "The People Vs. Geoge Lucas" explores this by showing equal sides of the argument about if Lucas and his films had either negative or positive effect on people's childhoods and lives.

Also, yes, I'm not doubting "TJ Hooker" and "Dukes Of Hazard" were entertaining and had impacts on pop culture, but they shouldn't be spoken about as if they should be compared to truly criticially acclaimed series like "I Love Lucy" or "M*A*S*H".
 
And your arguements in defending the movies because people liked them is no different than your unsupported comment about more people liking "Star Wars" than hating it. Just because something is popular, that doesn't make it good, look at 99% of the stuff that the Disney Channel produces that is popular among little kids. Shatner was a failure in "ST 5", mostly likely because he was wearing too many hats and he couldn't act and direct at the same time and he suffered on screen because of it. Sorry, but regardless of your opinion of the movie, many see it as one of the worst movies of the 80s, no matter how much you want to down play it, and that is why it was razzed.


-------------
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: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 12 2010 at 10:23pm

The people versus george lucas tackled the prequel trilogy and the speacial editions more than the original films themselves. Also, it was Jaws that started the summer blockbuster trend, two years before star wars. And although no study is taken, you can see that the hordes of fans, the articles and books praising the series, and the overall reception greatly outnumbers the haters of the first three films at least. If you dont belive me go on google and see how many articles you can find that trash the original trilogy, then see how many praise it. The proof is in the numbers! Also, Disney popularity is different than critical popularity, as disney popularity is commercial popularity. For instance, a lot of people saw the friday the 13th remake, making it lots of cash. But even though lots of people saw it, they ended up not liking what they saw, hence its low CRITCIAL RATING on rotten tomatoes. Popularity in films arent measured by cash, but by critical value. If love towards a film was measured in mollah, then people would be going around dressed as Jason Statham in Death Race (perish the thought).



-------------
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 13 2010 at 6:08pm
Actually, "The Godfather" was the original blockbuster, followed by "Jaws". Then "Star Wars" came around and by that time it was like "Okay, f*** art, let's make a s***load of money using formulas!", thus "Star Wars" is considered the final push in which Hollywood changed it's game plans. Also, the hordes of fans prove nothing. I'm sure just as many haters of "Star Wars" exist, it's just that they don't waste their time and money gathering together at sci-fi cons to declare their hatred or writing entire essays about how much the movies suck. And as for critical vs. cash value, sorry, that's wishful thinking. The reasons why all these remakes/reboots/sequels are being made is because the original movies made money, even if they were panned by critics.

-------------
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: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 13 2010 at 8:38pm
I know many people remake films because the first ones made money. I'm saying that the people who see the remakes often don't end up even liking them. So the film may make money, but the people who saw the remake probably left feeling their money was wasted. Its almost like someone taking a horrible, body-abusing drug over and over, hoping the next trip will be as good as the first lol. Like thats gonna happen :P 

I would think Star Wars haters would be quite vocal though. If there's anything more fun than seeing a great movie, its trashing the crap out of a bad one (as this website proves). 


-------------
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 14 2010 at 10:39am
On the subject of remakes, sadly, when you're a die-hard fan of something, you're going to see each any every remake/sequel of your favorite movie series, no matter how bad the last one is, in hopes that the newest movie will make up for the last one ... kinda like a certain fan we have here at the forum who is having wet dreams about seeing the 5th "Final Destination" movie. As for "Star Wars" haters, come on, if people really hate something, are they really going to waste every waking moment of their time bitching and moaning out loud about how much they hate it for everyone in public to see? Nah. Granted, people on Fox Noise Channel do that, but at least they are paid for it. Chances are they are just doing to keep quiet about it and pretend like the thing they hate doesn't exist in their minds.

-------------
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: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 14 2010 at 5:11pm
I think people love to make fun of things they hate. The Bush administration, twilight, The Kardashians, etc. The list goes on and on. People make carreers out of hating crap (hint hint, whoever made this website), and in a world full of injustice and unoriginality, there is certainly a lot more to dislike than like. Books are made attacking filmakers, authors, leaders, and their works. So why not Star Wars. Face it, people love to hate. It's the sad truth. In fact, thats why many people see remakes. Most people dont take remakes of classic horror films seriously now, but go to them anways, to laugh at the incompetent work of the filmakers who created them, and the actors. Also, the reason remakes and sequels are constantly made, is because people like familiarity, even crappy familiarity. For instance, not every James Bond film is perfect, but its become something of an American tradition to see one everytime one comes out. Even though James Bond went through something of a dark period from the late eighties through the ninties and early 2000's. America has something of a bizzare love affair with the mediocre. Crappy food, poppy music, remakes....the list goes on. The only way to survive being laughing and ridicule of said crap (hence the razzies).

-------------
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 14 2010 at 5:59pm
Yes, people love to hate, but there are just somethings out there that make it so damn easy to make fun of OR hate because they have little, if any, redeeming qualities, ie. Bush, Kardashians, Twilight, ... Stallone and Shatner, etc. And yes, Americans like crappy stuff because ever since the settlers landed in what would one day become America, we've been lazy as can be and anything that requires little effort is celebrated. Why else would we be the fattest country in the world?

-------------
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: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 9:58am
But thats not the point. The point im making is that Americans love to hate. So haters of Star Wars would be just as vocal as lovers of Star Wars. But yet here we are, with less complaints of star wars, way way less, than the praise of star wars. As for Shatner and Stallone, I garuntee most people would consider them artists. Your giving them so little credit its bordering on insanity. Even if you think them not artists, their seems to be little credit on their skills as entertainers as well. That's just wrong in general. Weres the respect? The admiration? I could show you again and again youtube clips or videos that show the true talent of these actors. Talent and artistic credibility you refuse to acknowledge.

-------------
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 11:53am
Originally posted by ramonesun

I could show you again and again youtube clips or videos that show the true talent of these actors. Talent and artistic credibility you refuse to acknowledge.
OOOOOH! That we have to see! Oh please, do post this so youtube clips of these actors being "talented", because I'm not the only one here who is going to want to see this ... for all the wrong reasons!

-------------
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: m0zart
Date Posted: October 30 2010 at 9:42pm
I have to say that I am amazed that "Sheena, Queen of the Jungle" didn't have any wins in 1984.  As a stupid kid hitting puberty at the time, I loved the film and saw it many times over.  But as an adult who is well past the period in which a Charlie's Angel can so completely dominate my faculties and slant my judgment, the film has to be one of the worst movies of all time, and both the leads have to be among the worst actors and actresses of the decade!  




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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 31 2010 at 3:16pm
True, true. It's guilty pleasure for the 12/13 year old in all of us. But it seems Razzie voters at that time just thought there were other movies that year that were much, much worse when compared to this early Marvel attempt at breaking into movies.

-------------
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: April 17 2011 at 2:16pm
Sienna Miller didn't even deserve to be nominated for G.I. JOE: RISE OF COBRA.

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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: April 17 2011 at 8:23pm
I think it was a result of a "we're sick and tire of hearing about your love triangle with Jude Law and his nanny for a whole year" sort of thing. Yes, Miguel, love triangles exist in real life, too! 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: May 25 2011 at 7:36pm
I don't think that DeForrest Kelly should have gotten a 1989 Razzie nod for STAR TREK V.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: collin2
Date Posted: December 30 2011 at 12:18am
Matthew Broderick and Hank Azaria didn't get nominated at all? I'm sorry, but I thought they were worse than Maria! Matthew even sounded like he was reading off of cue cards! 

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


Posted By: rushmore
Date Posted: January 14 2014 at 1:44pm
Jennifer Lopez's performance in Angel's Eyes surprised me for good, she gave a very genuine performance here, I don't think she deserved to be nominated for that particular role. For The Wedding Planner? Absolutely!

The Blair Witch Project, Batman Begins & Madonna: Truth or dare have incredibly high rating on RT (don't "critically acclaimed" movies above 80% have immunity?) how come they ended up being nominated? 




Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: January 14 2014 at 2:06pm
There's no such thing as a perfect movie. A movie that's good overall can still have bad elements.

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



Print Page | Close Window