“Big Momma’s House 2”? Multiple nominations for Tim Allen? Sharon Stone’s Lopsided Breasts? Yes, folks, awards season has rolled around yet again, and with it the glorious parody that is the Razzie Awards.
With award categories ranging from Worst Picture to Worst Excuse For Family Entertainment, the 27th Annual Golden Raspberry (Razzie) Awards will present America’s choices for the “Berry Worst of 2006” — a refreshing change of pace from the season’s more traditional red-carpet ass-kissing. Indeed, the very fact that red-carpet ass-kissing has become traditional is what lends the Razzies their credibility, as they call Hollywood out on its most obvious quick-cash-in films.
Speculation surrounding the winners of this year’s Razzies seem to have singled out a few particularly deserving — deserving here being a synonym for atrocious — films and actors. Sony Pictures’ “Basic Instinct 2,” entered as “Basically, It Stinks, Too” and bearing the distinctly profound tagline, “Everything interesting starts in the mind,” has several betting on its ability to take home a number of spray-painted statuettes.
“My money is on ‘Basic Instinct 2’ to sweep the Razzies, kind of like ‘Titanic’ swept the 1997 Oscars,” Yale Film Society Co-Chair Stephanie Cunnane ’07 said. “Something had to be amiss about this picture if the budget was $70 million, and it made less than $6 million.”
Kate Bosworth is also attracting her fair share of Razzies investments, too. Nominated for Worst Supporting Actress for her role as Lois Lane in Warner Bros.’ “Superman Returns,” her performance has attracted less-than-incredibly-fantastic reviews.
“She sucks so bad. Seriously. I saw this movie and could not believe she was doing such a terrible job as Lois Lane,” Justin Jannise ’09 said, with blunt grace, of Bosworth’s performance.
Indeed. As if Bosworth’s being the blond and skinny center of Orlando Bloom’s life weren’t irritating enough.
Jannise is a movie reviewer for the News.
While films such as “Basic Instinct 2” and performances like Bosworth’s may clearly deserve their Razzie nominations, some of this year’s nominees perhaps don’t deserve their extreme label. Michael Schmale ’08, co-chair of the Yale Film Society, insists that Warner Bros.’ “Lady in the Water” was more than just another cheap Hollywood attempt at a quick buck.
“A movie like ‘Lady in the Water’ may have been sucky, but at least it was trying to be something greater,” Schmale explained.
Jannise defended MGM’s “Material Girls,” and 20th Century Fox’s “Just My Luck.”
“They weren’t so much bad as they were just juvenile and predictable,” said Jannise.
Fortunately for Hilary and Haylie Duff, because they are not televised, the Razzies may have no more than a limited effect on the press and profit surrounding the nominees. The awards itself are somewhat unnecessary, Janisse pointed out, since most of the nominees were already blatantly terrible in the eyes of most of the public.
“No one ever expected ‘Little Man’ to be Oscar-worthy, and it isn’t,” Jannise said. “We don’t need something like the Razzies to tell us these movies are bad because we already know.”
Relevant or not, it’s hard to deny that the Razzies are at least a guilty pleasure. Who didn’t enjoy hearing about the crowning of Sylvester Stallone as Worst Actor of the Century? Or watching footage of Halle Berry actually showing up to accept her Razzie award with one hand, while proudly displaying her Oscar in the other? As Schmale explains, the Razzies may not have much of a lasting effect, but neither does the “Daily Show” with respect to its criticisms of the Bush administration.
“But nonetheless it is out there formulating a clear position, through parody, that calls out the shortcomings/ mistakes/ idiocy of the powers that be,” Schmale said.