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).

Movie Preview: Not Evil Just Wrong

Remember when a regular guy stepped up and took on the mega-corporations in a movie. There was no end to coverage in the media and support for the film created a career for Michael Moore. Since that time he has jumped up and down on the Conservatives of the nation, and most recently hypocritically denounced capitalism as he reaped rewards from it. All to acclaim from the media and Hollywood.

Because the media loves when regular people step up and fight injustice and wrongdoing. At least that is what they claim.

When former Vice President Al Gore skipped around the world on private jets to promote global warming in his movie An Inconvienient Truth, the media lauded praise. The movie was instantly setup as if it were fact. It became a mantra for eco-fanatics and an instrument to dynamically change society across the world. Hell, they even gave Al Gore an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize (at least he did something to earn it).

Again the reason this film was promoted, with jet fuel being guzzled like gatorade, was because it was fighting a wrong. Or so we were told by the media and politicians.

But what if someone stood up and said, "hey, I think you got it wrong." Well that would be fighting an injustice and preventing a wrong. The media should love it. They should be all over such a film, and praising its challenge to the big money of mega-ecology organizations. They should, but they aren't.



The movie being ignored is Not Evil Just Wrong. You probably haven't heard about it, since the media wants it to die on the vine. The film simply looks at the hype surrounding the "green" movement - especially global warming - and points out all the flaws. It's a bit of honesty and prepercussions that Al Gore and others like him refuse to acknowledge.



Note the key things, which are fact. Al Gore has not answered a question about global warming in 4 years. Even as scientists are becoming more sure that global freezing is likely more of an issue than warming. When asked what he has done to correct the errors in the film he has shoved down the throats of schoolkids as fact (yes it was allowed to be shown - with a requirement that actual facts be presented with the film correcting those errors), he refuses to answer the question. In fact he hides behind the emotion of the danger to polar bears, mitigating the FACT their numbers have increased. Then he has his people shut off the mike to end the possibility of debate, the need to answer the question asked, or to prove his position.

This is what Not Evil Just Wrong proposes to address. The questions that the media REFUSES to ask. The FACTS that eco-fanatics refuse to acknowledge. And it does so not with guesses, it uses science and scientists to do so.

Further the film does something that Al Gore (and I believe Michael Moore) doesn't. It provides the real full consequences of the actions taken. What happens when eco-fanatics get laws passed that change society. What will happen if they change things more?

If anyone believes in global warming (which I never have and continue to not believe) then they must - in my opinion - at least hear what facts and consequences exist against that arguement. They must be able to debate these findings without the crutch of emotion, to ensure that they are leading EVERYONE down the right path. Because if they can do so, then even those who disagree will join them in their efforts. But if they cannot, then we all must join together to find solution that really works, and not just make some people feel good at the expense of others.

I suggest that you see this film. Throw out every reason I have just presented. See this movie because Al Gore, the media, and the eco-fanatics are motivated to make sure you DON"T see this film. See this because they don't want you to think about the debate. See this because they are trying to actively control your choices.

You may not agree afterwards, but like with President Obama's attacks on Fox News, the question you should be able to answer is this

Why are they afraid to let you find out what is going on?

Remember something I have said often

"Liberals and the media are happy to have people say and do absolutely anything they want, as long as it agrees with them. The second it does not, they want it shut down and shut away. Isn't that liberal of them."

Sean Hannity vs. Michael Moore

Commentary about these interviews can be found at VASS.

Connecting Cuba's Seguera and Hollywood

I have to wonder if Michael Moore ever bothered to check out the local radio station when he was in Cuba. If he did he might have noticed the dearth of diversity in the music heard there. Or at least that was how Cuba was for a long time.

I’m not saying that latin music is not diversified, nor that it is anything but great music. What I am saying is that in Cuba the type of music available (at least for a time in recent history) is anything but widespread. Or at least it was until Jorge "Papito" Serguera died.

Serguera was the man responsible for the banning of huge genres of music and artists from the airwaves of Cuba. One of the bands he restricted included the Beatles, a group he admitted to listening to in private and enjoying – though the public could not do so as well. That might have likely been due to the song Money (That’s what I wa

“Money don't get everything it's true.
What it don't get I can't use.”

Cuba is definitely one of those nations that reminds me of Hollywood liberals, China, segregation and the old USSR. The kind of mentality that divided people “for their own good” or acted to “help” the people since they can’t help themselves. The single-minded attitudes that claim equality and freedom for everyone, except if they think differently or want to act on those freedoms.

But at least Cuba, and Serguera, were upfront about their actions. Hollywood is not. Numerous executives and celebrities tout the banner of liberal, and yet so little is ever done about the disparity of movies and television to real life. Hollywood wants to shout about the injustice everywhere in the world, except in the studios and lots that it runs. Kind of like Barney Frank and the mortgage crisis.

There isn’t an overall theme in this post. I just heard about Serguera’s death and his actions to limit the minds of the people, to deny creativity, to kill the souls of freedom and expression. And I just noticed how much of that same kind of thinking exists today in Hollywood and politics.

A real shame when you think about it.

Movie preview alert: Bill O'Reilly in An American Carol

Well the ultra-liberal fanatics will surely be up in arms about the latest item to be presented on the O’Reilly Factor last night. It seems that Bill O’Reilly has landed a small roll in an up-coming film. The film is a satirical look at people like Michael Moore, and many of the Hollywood Liberals that are just one step from Hanoi Jane Fonda.

Here is the video of the film



So what do you think of it? I found it to be very funny.

Michael Moore and many of the far-left nuts need a bit of air taken out of their blustering. And I think the concept of using A Christmas Carol as a format is original. Considering one of the writers and director here is the same man, David Zucker, responsible for Airplane, Top Secret, and the Naked Gun series, I expect the jokes to be pretty good.

The cast is filled with notable actors, including Kelsey Grammer, Robert Davi, Jon Voight, James Woods, Leslie Nielsen, Dennis Hopper, Kevin Sorbo, Travis Schuldt, and Trace Adkins.

That’s a lot of talent. I should mention that Kelsey Grammer and Dennis Hopper were previously paired in a movie that just came out – Swing Vote. I already panned the film in my preview of the film. Reviews by Rotten Tomatoes give it a 39% negative approval rating, and most reviews believe its ok to bad and a DVD pick at best. No surprise to me.

But Grammer and Hopper should redeem themselves in this film. Not that the liberals aren’t complaining already

“This is just more of the right wing believing their own BS to make themselves feel better. They know their time is almost up. A great deal of effort is put forth daily to keep morale up (see talk radio, right wing blogs/forums, Fox News) among the true believers. This film is another example…

Come October, the film may do well, if a campaign like the one for "Passion of the Christ", along with a "let's stick it to the liberals" message is ginned up via the usual outlets.

So go and have fun liberal-haters, laugh all the way into the political graveyard, you are proud to be part of an ugly history which will not be judged mercifully.”

I’m sorry, the self-important and more-righteous-than-thou attitude of Moore needs a pin to pop his balloon. In fact most on the far-left need a hit as well. Not that they haven’t been trying to, unsuccessfully, sell the “horrors” of America in films for the last few years.

I expect this film will be decent, based on the writer and actors involved. And America will likely flock to a film that pokes fun at the groups that are so serious and so sure they know what’s best for everyone. My bet is that the film makes more money than Redacted, Swing Vote, Lions for Lambs, and War Inc. combined. Actually since that isn’t much of a number to beat (Swing Vote is the big winner of the group having made about $13 million, still less than what it cost to make the film) I will say it makes $20 - $25 million it’s first week and nets a total of $40 million at least.

Do you agree?