2010 Razzie Awards predictions

Every year I find that the Razzie Awards are more on the mark and widely agreed upon than anything the Oscar Awards ever comes up with. The Oscar's inevitably select some of the least seen, least enjoyable films and give them the biggest awards. But the Razzie's stick with what the public saw (or refused to see), and what we were going to the movies for - entertainment.

Given this year the Oscar's added Avatar to it's list of nominees (which may have more than a bit to do with the political statements of the film as much as anything else). But who saw the Hurt Locker, Crazy Heart, An Education, and/or A Serious Man? Besides critics and family of the various cast and crew.

Doesn't mean they aren't good films. It just means that the Oscar's don't really address what people see. But the Razzie's...

3 of the films up for Worst movie of 2010 are films I previewed/reviewed and hated. Each one was cited as a waste of your money, and an excursion into the depths of nausea that only Hollywood could create. It seems that I was spot on.

Worst Film of 2010 -

All About Steve
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra - I reviewed, hated it
Land of the Lost - I previewed, and saved myself the waste of life it would have required to see it
Old Dogs
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - I reviewed it, and still am amazed that people paid money for this crap. Then again people bought pet rocks too.

Prediction - winner will be Land of the Lost. Even though it would be quite funny to see Sandra Bullock win an Oscar (she is favored for another film) and a Razzie in the same year, I think she is going to be hit with the same thing that got Eddie Murphy. Hollywood has a problem with an actor/actress that does one film that is serious, and in the same year does a film that gets them paid.

Thus Will Ferrell will be picked, signalling the absolute end of his short-lived career as a movie star.

Worst Actor

Kevin, Joe and Nick Jonas -- Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience
Will Ferrell -- Land of the Lost
Steve Martin -- Pink Panther 2 - I recommeneded against this film
Eddie Murphy -- Imagine That
John Travolta -- Old Dogs

Prediction - Well, to be honest I avoided all of these films. Every indication was that they were awful and likely painful to see. But I have to believe that Steve Martin will win. Because not only is he insulting as Inspector Closeu - if you have seen any of the Peter Seller originals, he is abysmal from a revisioned new viewer point of view as well.

Worst Actress

Beyonce Knowles -- Obsessed
Sandra Bullock -- All About Steve
Miley Cyrus -- Hannah Montana: The Movie
Megan Fox -- Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Sarah Jessica Parker -- Did You Hear About The Morgans?

Prediction - In a crowd of horrible acting and worse films you go with what was the biggest let down. We know Beyonce can't act, and Parker gave up on the idea after cashing in with Sex in the City (movie or television show, take your pick). Cyrus is a kid, in a kid movie so there was no real acting expectation. That leaves Bullock and Fox. Fox was supposed to be sexy, an up-and-coming actress and important to the sequel. She wound up being none of the above.

Worst Remake, Rip-off (ie. revisioned), Sequel

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
Land of the Lost
Pink Panther 2
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Twilight Saga: New Moon

Prediction - wow this is a tough category. Every one of these films turned my stomach. In each one the best part of the film was the end credits rolling onscreen. How do you pick the worst of true wastes of far better ideas?

GI Joe. Because this was an action figure for decades (before they got shranks to 3 inches), a fun if moronic television cartoon for decades, and thus the stuff of positive memories and fantasy. All crushed and mangled after seeing this equivalent of a purse-snatching of the public's money.

Future prediction - When the sequel comes out, and you know it will, avoid that too. It won't get better, just worse.


As a bonus this year we also get to select the worst films in the last decade. Considering the decade and the rash of politics-instead-of-entertainment films the list choices could be huge. The Razzies picked the following.

Worst Picture of the Decade

Battlefield Earth
Freddy Got Fingered
Gigli
I Know Who Killed Me
Swept Away

Actually I would have had Lions for Lambs and Redacted in this list. Then again, no one saw those film. War, Inc. is also another great choice, and only a handful of critics saw it (the only audience likely).

Of the Razzie choices I picked Gigli. Not only because it was horrible, but because no one can pronounce the name right. But if I had my choice in the last decade I'd go with Capitalism by Michael Moore. Because the very subject this multi-millionaire rails against is the thing that provided his wealth, is the purpose of the film in a theater, and the freedom to be a hypocrit.

Worst Actor of the Decade

Ben Affleck
Eddie Murphy
Mike Myers
Rob Schneider
John Travolta

While Eddie Murphy will likely win - he does have more roles to pick on since he has played more roles in a single movie than most other actors play in a decade - I don't think he should. I'd go with Myers. Affleck occasionaly does something decent, and other than Gigli has not been gut-wrenchingly bad. Travolta, even in BattleField Earth, is interesting to watch. Schneider couldn't make a good film if James Camerron centered a film around him. Thus Myers is the only one that really was supposed to be interesting and completely failed. Plus who didn't hate how he killed Dr.Suess's beloved Cat in the Hat.

Worst Actress of the Decade

Mariah Carey
Paris Hilton
Lindsay Lohan
Jennifer Lopez
Madonna

Talk about a list of women whose main talent is their body. Seriously, Lopez is better known for her ass and who is getting to bump it than acting (and rightly so). Lohan is best known for being a drunken lush. Carey and Madonna at least can sing, though when was the last big hit for either?

Hilton is a special category. Her only claim to fame is she inherited so much money that everyone can get a peice of it (and her for that matter) and she will still be wealthy. The only redeeming quality of Hilton is her money.

But I guess the winner will be Carey. Not that any of the women on the list have more talent, or were in any degree better actresses. It's just that Carey broke an unspoken rule: If you have no ability, but look great, shut up and just walk sexy (in tight clothes) as much as possible. It's the only reason the movie Catwoman made any money (though Halle Berry does have acting skills).

Prequels and Laura Croft: A combination worth seeing?

Ah the joy of prequels. Yes there is nothing quite like the ability of Hollywood to go back in time, on a movie set, and to generally screw up the history and persona of any character or storyline that can make an extra buck. As you might notice, I tend to dislike prequels. They tend to be as good as revisioned movies, and you know I hate that word.

I know that everyone, including me, loved The Dark Knight. That had a lot to do with the script, which kept the theme of the Dark Knight series of graphic novels, more than Christian Bale. Though Bale did a great job. And honestly there wasn't that much of the storyline that was changed.

Another prequel that worked out well was the restart of the James Bond series of films. Of course Bond restarts every time there is a new lead. So the public can accept every change without it being a major revision. Still there is something lost in the action first, thought nowhere, Bond that is Daniel Craig.

The Superman restart was pretty much what you would expect. Not a revisioning as much as it was an attempt to draw attention back on the movie franchise. I never was a big fan of Superman to start with - he's too much of a boyscout for me - so I'll leave that alone.

But then there are movies like Wolverine, which was horrible. Yes lot's of action, and Hugh Jackman without a shirt for the ladies. But it was disappointing. The storyline was basically missing. It was just action for the sake of action. Dare I say that the majority of the film was boring. And as for any attempt at logic, well they really stretched it even for a comic book to movie conversion film.

It gets worse when you think of films like Star Trek. Lot's of action (note the recurring theme in these prequels) and angst. Not much logic or plot. Most of the things that made Trek so enduring were thrown out. And I really disliked this new version of Spock.

So to summurize, when Hollywood wants a prequel these days they load up on action, throw out the plot, ignore all logical actions, and rewrite (or revision) everything to ensure that a youthful audience will show up for the flash of skin and lots of explosions.

Thus we are led to what got me thinking about this in the first place. Laura Croft and the Tomb Raider series. Which is set to get revisioned - excuse me, a prequel is planned. A prequel without Angelina Jolie.

To be exact, Jolie is not confirmed to be out of the film yet. But unless there is some Spock-like temporal vortex, she is too old to play herself young enough to satisfy Hollywood executives. Especially with the current emphasis on more action and more explosions vs. plot (which the Tomb Raider movies were short on to start with).

Will the prequel work for Tomb Raider? Well it's hard to imagine it being worse than Cradle of Life. That film sucked. So in regard to that, there is a huge upside potential since expectations at this point are limited to a pretty woman with big boobs (likely fake enhancements as with Jolie) in a tight shirt with explosions going off around her. Sad to say but it is honest.

Of the potential actresses being rumored to take the Croft role, Megan Fox is at the top of the list. This is likely due to her performance (if it can be called that) in Transformers. A film which the director insisted

"It seems that [Michael] Bay feels women should have curves and look like a person as opposed to the near-anorexic looks usually found in actresses these days. In fact he is making Megan Fox GAIN 10 lbs. for her next film Transformers 2."

A similar need for food, and exercise, will be needed if she is to be the new buxom adventuress.

The only 2 actresses I think fit the bill are Malin Akerman, of Silk Spectre II (Watchmen) fame. Though she is too old.



And Summer Glau, of Firerfly (Serendipity)



But we will see, once the director and screenwriter are picked, how this prequel will be geared. Don't expect much.

Will a Hex be good for DC Comics?

You know when news comes out on April Fool's Day, you have question it's validity. But some things are too silly to be made up. Take the decision from DC Comics as an example. They are moving forward with a film based on the great character Jonah Hex.

You must recall this character. Jonah Hex was born in 1839, under a bad sign. He was abandoned by his drunk parents, and taken in by Apaches. He was then abandoned by them. So he joins the U.S. Cavalry until the Civil War when he joins the Confederate Army (though he did not support slavery - one of the vital requirements to a prosperous Southern economy). Eventually he becomes a bounty hunter scarred with a "Mark of the Demon". Somehow he gets transported to the year 2050, gets married, has a child, is abandoned by both and then returns to the Old West. He is then shot by a bank robber, stuffed and put on display outside of New York City.

How can anyone forget that comic book character.

Honestly there are elements of the story that might be interesting. But there have been few Western's made in the past 2 decades that were really worth watching. Add in Josh Brolin as Hex, and John Malkovich as a voodoo user that wants to create a zombie army to win for the Confederate South, and the potential starts to go bad fast. (I believe they offered Malkovich a lot of money for this one.)

It is also reported to have Megan Fox in some capacity, Will Arnett as Hex's Union soldier partner in the battle, and Michael Shannon as the ringleader of a gladiator circus. I swear I am not making this up.

If it were just a western, I might buy it. If Brolin was not involved I might be interested. But voodoo armies? A wild west gladiator circus? Really?

DC Comics has long been regarded as the poor red-headed step-child to Marvel. This was because DC was very silly and childish in their storylines as opposed to the generally more complex and compelling stories of Marvel. When it comes to movie conversions of these comics, DC has generally followed that same policy (with the exception of the latest Batman movies - based on the graphic novel and not the comic book). Thus Marvel shines, and has a huge audience following.

I don't think that this film, of a mostly unknown and uncared for comic book character will work. DC might as well make a movie based on Metamorpho or Doom Patrol for all their popularity.

I'll be looking for the trailer, and we will see.