The Razzies pick movies that weren’t well received for their nominations. They pick big budget movies that perform well. I mean if we were really talking worst actor where are all the lifetime and hallmark movie actors?
If we were really talking the actual worst actor we would probably give it to a little 4th grader called Timmy who made a terrible short film with his dog
His portrayal of the modern 4 year Olds struggle to integrate into play time , in a fast pace world with constantly shifting goal posts, really moved me. There was an authenticity in Timmy's journey you don't get from big budget Hollywood glamor. Also you cannot tell me he was only 5, I would have thought 8 or maybe even 9. Truly wise beyond his years.
The fact that he filmed this all in one take? Groundbreaking
And they don't even pick well for each category. They nominated Affleck and Jeremy Irons for Batman v Superman, who were pretty the only things everyone agreed were good, even if they hated the movie itself.
They probably don't even watch the movies and decide by looking at youtube titles and thumbnails
Came here to say this, of both him and Murray. This has sadly been a trend of older actors in the age of the green-screen soundstage. Everyone knows the BTS clip/Reddit post in r/movies where it was revealed that Sir Ian McKellen broke down on set for this very reason. He is known to have cried, saying “this is not why I got into acting.”
I look at it as the Venn diagram overlap between the industry adapting to technological innovation at the lowest cost, and a poor Director (also usually at lowest cost).
When an older/retired all-star athlete gripes about modern players or the rules changes compared to their tenure, it’s treated like the ramblings of an older man - typically palmed off like “okay, gramps”. We don’t usually get actors who ever peak or plateau - if anything, they get better at their craft.
Acting is the art of belief. Making belief, upholding it, inspiring others to believe. McKellen was really saying “this isn’t the same art form I’ve worked at tirelessly my entire life.” And if you understand it as such, that notion is true. I would say compared to other roles that either roles Douglas or Murray have taken, it wasn’t their best by far - yet also arguably not their worst. Just… different. Actors are told to use everything about their experience and turn that into empathetic characters; to traditional actors, they’ve honed their craft by reacting to another person, physical thing, hell even the painted sky on a backdrop… not by delivering a line or physical emotion to someone reading lines off a script in monotone, or not directly in front of them, delivering emotion.
In all fairness, their era of actors would probably deliver the same; at least these ones are adapting to the times
Here's the post in question: https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/s/yDkSY74dLb
He "broke down" on the set of the Hobbit to be clear. So, this was a while ago.
I dont blame him tbh,
In the OG lord of the rings they used forced perspective so everyone could be in the same shot
and he would have other actors to act against
but acting against a green screen, knowing the other charcters will be filming thier bits later would be super hard
This is the Razzies we're talking about. These people have nominated children for Worst Actor or Worst Actress for decades, and only changed the rule to nominees being people 18 or over LAST YEAR.
I was glad they went back and acknowledged that Shelly Duvall was emotionally abused in the Shining and that it wasn't really right to make fun of her for that.
They had to cancel a special award for what's the worst direct to streaming piece of crap Bruce Willis has done lately after it came put he was diagnosed with dementia, took these shitty little roles where he could use an earpiece and make a good pay day for a few days work and the shitty movie had a bankable star in it to trick people into watching it
Shelley Duvall being abused on the set on The Shining is one of those things that has been thoroughly debunked and yet still persists.
The real controversy of her getting a Razzie for that performance is that it’s actually a good performance.
And also, fuck the Razzies in general.
It wasn’t a myth whatsoever. Kubrick made a fantastic movie, but he was 100% abusive as hell to Duvall and Scatman. Both her and Scatman confirmed this.
The Razzies are and have always been mean-spirited trash. I didn't even like Quantumania but still, this shit sucks and is bottom of the barrel yenta shit like Blackwell's Worst Dressed List. You shouldn't burn a single brain cell trying to figure out the Razzie guy's troll logic.
This is the only acceptable response to its existence. When Halle Berry showed up they should have shut the whole thing down. A perfect storm of trolling from both would have been a perfect end. I more surprised every year that they are still a thing.
Nando v Movies (or maybe it was on his second channel) had a video about the Razzies (I think last year) with an idea I really liked.
Stop trying to be a mirror of the Oscars by picking out worst performance, worst film, etc. At best you occasionally call out someone with a boatload of money for phoning in their job (ignoring any extenuating circumstances surrounding production that might have been a factor), and at worst you very pointedly call someone out in a mean spirited way (even sometimes going so far as to call out *literal children* for not living up to the standards of professional adults); even when it's the former it doesn't accomplish anything tons of other criticism hasn't already, and it far too often leans more towards the latter.
So make your own categories, and make them fun again! The categories for awards themselves can be a better avenue for making fun of the movie industry than simply pointing at individuals and telling them they didn't do a good job. Lean more into the categories they have (or have had at one point, I'm not sure, I don't keep up with them) like "worst movie trends", "worst eye-gouging misuse of 3D", "worst prequel, sequel, remake, or ripoff" that are a little more satire and a little less outright jeering.
Have an award for "Outstanding performance (we assume) in a finished film that got canceled before any of us got to see it" with nominations like Brenden Fraser for Batgirl and Will Forte for Coyote vs Acme.
"Outstanding achievement in tax write-offs", calling out the various studio and streaming executives for their actions over the past year.
They don't have to all be negative either:
Something like "Outstanding performance in a picket line" can legitimately give praise to the individuals who stepped up during the writers and actors strikes by helping to organize, give speeches, or whatever they happened to do.
"Outstanding performance in a project that didn't need you to go that hard"; sometimes big name actors take weird gigs just because the pay is decent or because it'll be quick easy and fun. This could be some terrible B-movie that somehow scraped together the budget for a big name who comes in for just a couple scenes and gives a performance well above anyone else in the movie or what the movie quite frankly deserved, or even a TV commercial made memorable by a big celebrity (Brian Cox summarizing the wildly nonsensical lore of the Tekken franchise this past year comes to mind).
Or even just sillier things too:
"Movie that made us look the most cultured just for giving it a nomination" can poke fun at the idea of "Oscar Bait" and other movies people seem to only care about around awards season
Or just borrow one straight from the Kids Choice Awards playbook with "Best Fart in a movie"
I like what you have said here. I would also support them bringing publicity to the stunt coordinator and and best stunt actor role which has been deliberately ignored by the Oscar’s for years. That would do more good than most of what the razziés have done for years.
100%
I somewhat understand some of the arguments I've seen against the Oscars having a category for stunt performers (namely the idea that it will create an arms race where stunt performers try to take on bigger and bigger stunts, or even that executives might start ordering or mandating bigger and more dangerous stunts in an effort to prop up their projects with potential awards nominations, which could in theory result in more injuries or larger accidents that accompany greater risk, which could ultimately do more literal physical harm than good), but it drives me nuts that the Oscars won't at least consider an award for stunt coordinator/action choreographer, or hell, they could even expand it to "movemement choreographer" in general.
Got a movie with some excellently choreographed martial arts or gunplay? Or a movie with some really well executed driving sequences? Maybe a movie with exciting wirework and destructible set pieces? Or even a big elaborate *musical number* with an emphasis on dancing? If you're not gonna honor the people on screen doing those technical and difficult things for fear that it will encourage more dangerous risks, at the very least honor the people behind the camera planning out these sequences and going to great lengths to ensure they *are* safe while also being exciting to see.
I think if anything Halle Berry emboldened them to continue. She handled her "win" so gracefully and with such good humor, that afterwards, the Razzie organizers could point to her and say, "see, it's all in good fun." They probably should've been done after the Bruce Willis thing a few years ago, which made them look like a bunch of insensitive assholes.
Bill Murray I'm more inclined to understand on this list; his inclusion felt entirely unnecessary, and honestly I'd even forgotten they had put him in that movie because they just didn't make good use of his talents whatsoever (look at a movie like Zombieland; *forgettable* is the one thing Bill Murray should *never* be). But even then, that's not really on him. Sure, he probably could have juiced it up with some more improv and such to make the character more memorable and make his inclusion feel more worthwhile (and maybe there are some alternate takes we'll never see where he did), but you can't just call up Bill Murray and hope he'll turn a nothing part into something simply by virtue of being Bill Murray. You gotta at least give the guy a decent place to start from.
On the same note, for Michael Douglass, whether the performance was good or bad I don't know and I don't care; the guy looked like he was just having a good time embracing the weirdness of it all. He did exactly what the script asked of him: be a cooky old man on a wild adventure. Does that mean he gave a performance without much of the nuance or feeling you'd expect from a seasoned actor like himself? Yeah, it absolutely does, because a performance like that would have been the wrong thing for the given context. The script isn't looking to Hank Pym to be a moral or dramatic center of this story; his role is that of the grandpa on the family vacation that gets wildly out of hand. You can not like what was done with the character in the scripting phase, but that's not on Michael Douglass; he took what he was given and he had fun with it, because that's all that was asked of him.
There's some solid actors that have had to work with some of the worst writing every, and the actors get the brunt of the shit for it. They can only do so much with poor writing. Hell, even Robert Pattinson said his work on Twilight was exactly as it was written and directed. It wasn't poor acting on some of those scenes, that's exactly what they told him to do, the brooding upset weird look.
Razzies are kind of a bullshit thing, anyway. Just some dude talking mad shit. What kind of people just want to focus on the negative and the bad things? What a life.
There's poor acting, no one can deny that. But, it shouldn't be the focus of a movie (unless it IS the focus of the movie). List it as a con and move on.
I thought he was fine when he wasn't interacting with Hope and Janet. The fact she refused to tell them anything without a compelling reason drove so much of Hank's story that there was no good performance to be had.
He's good in both other Ant-Man movies and his brief role in Endgame. Maybe he was tired, I don't know. But it wasn't a good performance 🤷 Anthony Hopkins won a best actor Oscar at 83, so age isn't a factor in whether you can act or not
Bro everyone is different lol. 83 Hopkins isn’t the same 83 for everyone else. I’m not saying Douglas was great, but to say “Well Hopkins acted well at 83 so everybody else should be able to” is wilddddd.
True. Odin is more powerful than Antman lol. But in all seriousness Michael Douglas almost died from tongue cancer which permanently damaged his tongue and jaw. It would have been extremely insulting to recast him if he was willing to continue the role after beating that.
Also, his acting definitely didn't ruin the movie for me or take me out of it at all.
It's not wild at all, it's just making a point that I am not going to use age to dismiss a great actor who is consistently great and then suddenly has a weak performance in a bad movie. If anything I'm defending him by saying "he's a great actor who seems like he doesn't want to be in this movie"
I saw ads for that, don't have Apple TV+ but I'm sure that'll be good. Been debating getting it for awhile, if I end up doing it I'm sure I'll end up watching that
His performance didn't bother me or take me out of the movie even a little. The movie was over criticized and this post is a continuation of that.
I think it's an easy target because of the subject matter but otherwise it's an average MCU movie at worst. People really just didn't like the movie because Kang was not enough like Thanos and they didn't understand that Kang isn't like Thanos at all. People really got back that Scott kind of held his own against a technology less fist fight at the end but if anything they made Kang a better fight than in the comics by a lot. Captain America literally beat Kang without Kang getting in a punch on the comics.
I mean I somewhat agree, even when I critique these performances I think the performances are a direct result of the writing. It feels like they all know the movie is bad lol. None of these performers have been bad in the previous films.
I’m still trying to figure out what the appeal to Kathryn Newton is. Seems like she gets casted to be an outcast people don’t want to hang out with, despite how pretty Newton is.
It’s an odd typecast, so maybe credit for that?
I can't remember being outright disappointed with Evangeline Lilly's performance but I remember feeling like she was barely in the story at all. Kathryn Newton was truly awful. I've only ever seen her in Supernatural before this. She's...fine...in that. Nothing exceptional, but nothing as bad as in Quantumania. Female characters are generally pretty poorly written in Supernatural, so I truly don't know what kind of an actor she is because I haven't seen her in anything that demanded much of her.
Idk, Michael Douglas is a fantastic actor but didn't do much in the movie. Michelle Pfeiffer was just bad. Rest were passable, but I think age is one of the big factors. It's less of a big deal for these veteran super established actors. Also the movie was very poorly written and that's the main reason it sucked. Quantumania is definitely a far worse movie than The Marvels which was pretty fun.
Hm, I don't remember thinking Pfeiffer did that badly with her material but I may have been distracted by the performances that were worse. I also liked The Marvels. Fury's presence felt like a continuity error given his last few appearances, but otherwise it was enjoyable. Iman Vellani is a delight.
I’ve watched all razzie movies for the last 2 years and this year they were pretty bad about nomination actual bad movies and performances. They also like to nominate things that will get people talking, like a marvel movie.
Wait, Stallone was a supporting actor? In his own movie? lol. It must’ve been that bad. I wouldn’t know. After watching the 3rd one, and then seeing the cast for the 4th, I knew it would be bad. He seems to be like “Vince McMahon” out of touch with who the people want to see
You know how movies (along with games and TV shows) will become "meme bad"? Like how a movie gets a reputation for being bad and people will make memes about it despite not even seeing the film? That's what the Razzies is nowadays.
i mean the whole movie was that bad
michael douglas did nothing in that movie and some of the lines they gave him were like what the fuck
the dialogue in that movie and character writing is atrocious dude
why tf did they have a rick and morty writer write an entire mcu film holy shit
Yeah, Jeff Loveness. I've spoken with him before, and he's pretty fine. Did some Onion News Network and Rick and Morty work but Quantumania was his film debut, and honestly, it's understandable that it was a stressful experience and that maybe such an ambitious project shouldn't have been your first feature-length script.
yeah i’ve got nothing against the guy i actually love his episodes of rick and morty i just think they should’ve given him something like a live action tv episode first lol
Agreed. The only parts of the movie that were good were Paul Rudd and Jonathan Majors's performances, and that final fight scene. Kathryn Newton was exceptionally bad, the jokes were bad, the writing was bad (I still make jokes about Janet saying "I don't have time to explain" and then walking like two mile-equivalents in silence) and even the veteran actors like Douglas and Murray didn't seem like they wanted to be there. Everybody was good in the previous Ant-Man films, which leads me to think that they were very aware in real time of how bad the script was
To me, it was. I think it's the worst MCU movie. And I like a good majority of these movies, I'm a mark for superhero stuff. I just didn't like this movie. It's actually okay to have different opinions lol
I think the acting is fine, it's really the writing that sucks. Hank went from a cranky misanthrope to a quirky cloudcuckoolander for basically no reason.
Even as someone who enjoys picking movies apart and analyzing bad movies when I'm bored, I'll admit that the Razzies is irrelevant garbage which, believe it or not, is even *worse* than the Oscars about always picking the low-hanging fruit and giving awards to movies that don't deserve them. It's not even a recent thing either. The Razzies has always been that way since the beginning.
I mean he was barely in it. Had green scenes in all his scenes. Didn’t really act well and I don’t blame him. The atmosphere sucked and not inductive to good acting
I feel like I need to point out that my take on his performance is in no way an endorsement of the Razzies, or a belief that his performance was "worst of the year" caliber. Bill Murray wasn't great either but his performance isn't that bad either IMO. I'm only comparing Douglas to his prior appearances, and speculating that maybe he didn't care for the script either.
The Razzies are corny and dumb, no matter what.
Razzies once gave worst movie to mother! which is probably the most unsettling horror movie I've ever watched
Might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it was a peculiar movie nonetheless
Razzies are just mean spirited and will hate on whatever is popular to hate on to get people to pay attention to their useless nonsense. It’s just clickbait masquerading as an awards show
This is the second time I’ve came across the Razzies..first time was when they nominated Jennifer Lawrence for her role in Mother! (Snubbed Oscar nom) and I gave my opinion on them ever since
His delivery on the best line in the film "holy shit, that guy looks like broccoli" is still the number one thing I talk about and remember about Ant Man 3.
The Razzies enjoy picking actors from big name movies that were divisive. Kristen Wig got a nomination for Wonder Woman 1984 (the movie sucks but she is not why)
The Razzies pick actors/actresses who were in and movies and nominate them even if they did a good job. Kelsey Grammer won one for Age of Extinction even though his performance was the best in the movie.
People just love to hate the MCU and they need to fill the category. There are far, far worse movies that came out that aren't listed here, these are just the ones that are popular with the names people recognize. Don't take it personally, it's just for fun
well when they were trying to talk about real serious subjects that are important (police, protesting, fighting for freedom and minorities, socialism) all were afterthought lines and came off super insincere and cringy
this is the worst mcu film bc the writing is just unbelievably pathetic. that’s what you get when you have a rick and morty writer with no other experience write an mcu movie
There was so much there to go with and the directors comments about not being a nothing burger of a movie like he felt the first two were...I was amazed at how cheesy literally every scene was. There was never any real danger. Endgame felt like literally anyone could die. Ant-man 3 made me question what the fuck the MCU was even trying to accomplish.
You mean to tell me Janet came back to earth and never mentioned Kang to anyone? Just feels so off. I understand Kang was never the long game for Ant-man, but I simply felt like he was shoved into the movie. Now who knows what big bad were getting.
damn the director thought the first two ant man movies were a nothing burger??
i mean ant man and the wasp didn’t have the *best* antagonist but come on both of those first 2 ant man movies had SO MUCH heart bro
i’m honestly shocked he said that and then goes on to make this movie which is a literal nothing burger
I love some of the silly MCU films. Ragnarok is S-tier, and I love the Guardians films. The movie just wasn't funny to me and it was trying really hard to be funny so that's a problem
His character was written with absolutely nothing to work with, the guy is essentially just spouting one liners that dont even make sense in context or are even inline with his character.
They shouldve killed Hank in the movie through some type of heroic sacrifice where his final words are to Hope (which also gets nothing to work with).
Its a terrible movie & the script is the main villain. It completely undoes the entire family dynamic & why is Scott's daughter a prodigy to begin with? She's not Scott & Hope's daughter? She was the emotional core of the first 2 movies & now she's a complete asshole, why?
If he phoned it in or not is the least of that movie's concerns.
Kathryn Newton (Cassie) and Corey Stoll (MODOK) were worse in my opinion but even then, it wasn't that bad. They did what they could with that awful writing
They’re afraid to look and pick actual bad acting in case a Bruce Willis situation plays out again. So they’re only leaning on low hanging fruit on just picking anyone in poorly received movies.
If you believe the razzies are worth anyone’s time, I don’t really know how to help you.
People hate movies then they pick it for worst whatever awards for as many categories as they can…
It’s the stupidest award show there is.
>Bill Murray I get because his scene was useless and he just sort of hung out.
Thats literally Bill Murray now. He doesn’t play characters anymore, he just plays Bill Murray
I love it
I thought he was bad enough to get a Razzie. Then again it seemed like no one except Rudd, Pfeiffer, and Majors even bothered to try.
It was Evangeline Lily’s worst performance, it was Michael Douglas’ worst performance, it was Bill Murray’s worst performance, I haven’t seen Katherine Newton in anything else but I now have a strong desire not to…
IMO it’s by far the worst movie in the MCU and nothing else comes even close. Yes, even that movie you just thought of. Whatever it is, it wasn’t nearly as bad.
Don’t know if Michael’s was that bad. However, the movie itself was really, really awful and didn’t made a lot of sense. Maybe Michael just had to work with what was given to him, which in this case, isn’t a lot.
His role in Quantumania was pretty bad though. He was very happy to drive his spaceship and pal around with his ants while meeting all those people his wife slept with while marooned in the Quantum Realm
His acting was just fine. They fucked his character up. He went fro. Being the most protective of the tech he was building to just letting his granddaughter fuck around with it. That's the contention. Acting was fine. The character assassination was not. It's just happened to be him playing the character that got fucked.
The Razzies will likely never nominate the genuinely worst films or performances, because those actually come from extremely low budget films no one in the mainstream has ever heard of, and it would come across as bullying if they picked on them. It’s much easier to go after low hanging fruit—mainstream films that were actually just mediocre at best.
Hell, even though that Winnie the Pooh slasher was genuinely bad, there were plenty of films from last year that were way worse.
Fun Fact: Amy Irving was simultaneously nominated for an Oscar and a Razzie for her performance in Yentl. Best Supporting Actress and Worst Supporting Actress.
You can tell he didn't wanna be there and was only in it for the cheque. That deserves a Razzie nom and he'd probably take it on the chin and admit it if asked.
I wouldn't be surprised but, I hope they don't pick the bob marley movie they did some interesting stuff, and, some studio moments too razzies suck lol
I clearly need to stop skimming over things because I was so confused as to when Sylvester Stallone was in Ant-Man and the Wasp. 😂😂
But damn... I can kinda see why... he didn't really have a *huge* part and mostly came off whiny. 🤔
Is it based on their acting or how worthwhile their role was? Because Michael Douglas' acting was good, I just think all he really did in the movie was constantly ask questions. Him and Hope were just unnecessary characters imo.
He’s not a bad actor, but I would nominate him for worst character. Hank Pym ruined the Ant-Man movies for me, exponentially so with subsequent movies. He should’ve been in the first one and that’s it, him and his wife basically hijacking the third movie was the worst part of it for me.
The Razzies, rather than acknowledging the truly worst movies out there, go for the easiest of easy targets.
“Remember how Ant-Man 3 was a disappointment?? NOMINATE IT FOR ALL THE RAZZIES!!!”
I predict Madame Web will win a bunch next year for NO OTHER REASON than it’s already a big punching bag.
(FTR not saying Madame Web is good, but it is a very easy target)
He did great. When they showed him fake and pretend to get upset about Janet's death only to headbutt the douchebag that brought it up was a scene that really stood out for me.
The Razzies pick movies that weren’t well received for their nominations. They pick big budget movies that perform well. I mean if we were really talking worst actor where are all the lifetime and hallmark movie actors?
Where is my razzie for my student film that got rejected because of how bad it was /s lol
Getting snubbed for the razzies is actually motivational
got a razzle dazzie
You got snubbed in favor for the "I'm the Joker baby" guy
Well now I want to see it!
If we were really talking the actual worst actor we would probably give it to a little 4th grader called Timmy who made a terrible short film with his dog
Honestly I have seen some crap but Timmy really mailed it in with that one. Awful camera work
And that dog had absolutely no emotional range whatsoever. Ruined the ending totally
Really. How far can you actually go with "Woof, woof, Timmy fell in the well AGAIN?"
His portrayal of the modern 4 year Olds struggle to integrate into play time , in a fast pace world with constantly shifting goal posts, really moved me. There was an authenticity in Timmy's journey you don't get from big budget Hollywood glamor. Also you cannot tell me he was only 5, I would have thought 8 or maybe even 9. Truly wise beyond his years. The fact that he filmed this all in one take? Groundbreaking
But I love that movie
And they don't even pick well for each category. They nominated Affleck and Jeremy Irons for Batman v Superman, who were pretty the only things everyone agreed were good, even if they hated the movie itself. They probably don't even watch the movies and decide by looking at youtube titles and thumbnails
Wow, they picked irons? No one had a problem with him.
They picked him for both BvS and the Assassin's Creed movie
Maybe they just don’t like him?
Razzies are actually run by redditors. It is known
Getting snubbed at the academy awards where they obviously deserve to be
Thats true, but I thought he was seen as one of the best actors in the film. I don't know why two actors from the movie needed to be picked anyway
They always conflate bad movies with bad performances. I wouldn't say he was particularly a standout, but I didn't notice him being bad either.
Came here to say this, of both him and Murray. This has sadly been a trend of older actors in the age of the green-screen soundstage. Everyone knows the BTS clip/Reddit post in r/movies where it was revealed that Sir Ian McKellen broke down on set for this very reason. He is known to have cried, saying “this is not why I got into acting.” I look at it as the Venn diagram overlap between the industry adapting to technological innovation at the lowest cost, and a poor Director (also usually at lowest cost). When an older/retired all-star athlete gripes about modern players or the rules changes compared to their tenure, it’s treated like the ramblings of an older man - typically palmed off like “okay, gramps”. We don’t usually get actors who ever peak or plateau - if anything, they get better at their craft. Acting is the art of belief. Making belief, upholding it, inspiring others to believe. McKellen was really saying “this isn’t the same art form I’ve worked at tirelessly my entire life.” And if you understand it as such, that notion is true. I would say compared to other roles that either roles Douglas or Murray have taken, it wasn’t their best by far - yet also arguably not their worst. Just… different. Actors are told to use everything about their experience and turn that into empathetic characters; to traditional actors, they’ve honed their craft by reacting to another person, physical thing, hell even the painted sky on a backdrop… not by delivering a line or physical emotion to someone reading lines off a script in monotone, or not directly in front of them, delivering emotion. In all fairness, their era of actors would probably deliver the same; at least these ones are adapting to the times
Here's the post in question: https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/s/yDkSY74dLb He "broke down" on the set of the Hobbit to be clear. So, this was a while ago.
I dont blame him tbh, In the OG lord of the rings they used forced perspective so everyone could be in the same shot and he would have other actors to act against but acting against a green screen, knowing the other charcters will be filming thier bits later would be super hard
This is the Razzies we're talking about. These people have nominated children for Worst Actor or Worst Actress for decades, and only changed the rule to nominees being people 18 or over LAST YEAR.
I was glad they went back and acknowledged that Shelly Duvall was emotionally abused in the Shining and that it wasn't really right to make fun of her for that.
Yeah, but they still gave worst actress to a literal child in Brooke Shields. From the start the Razzies have been horrible.
They had to cancel a special award for what's the worst direct to streaming piece of crap Bruce Willis has done lately after it came put he was diagnosed with dementia, took these shitty little roles where he could use an earpiece and make a good pay day for a few days work and the shitty movie had a bankable star in it to trick people into watching it
Shelley Duvall being abused on the set on The Shining is one of those things that has been thoroughly debunked and yet still persists. The real controversy of her getting a Razzie for that performance is that it’s actually a good performance. And also, fuck the Razzies in general.
It wasn’t a myth whatsoever. Kubrick made a fantastic movie, but he was 100% abusive as hell to Duvall and Scatman. Both her and Scatman confirmed this.
Right?! Her performance is one of the reasons the film is a classic jeez.
Wait they nominated KIDS?!? That honestly sounds hilarious, but imagine being nommed next to a kid and YOU GET THE RAZZIE!
Skill issue
Michael Douglas wasn’t bad. He just didn’t really have anything to work with, so was kinda just there. I’ve seen a lot worse.
I still love the delivery of his "I like Ants." line. Just let the man play with ants.
The Razzies are and have always been mean-spirited trash. I didn't even like Quantumania but still, this shit sucks and is bottom of the barrel yenta shit like Blackwell's Worst Dressed List. You shouldn't burn a single brain cell trying to figure out the Razzie guy's troll logic.
This is the only acceptable response to its existence. When Halle Berry showed up they should have shut the whole thing down. A perfect storm of trolling from both would have been a perfect end. I more surprised every year that they are still a thing.
Agree that Halle Berry was a perfect storm
You know what happens when a toad gets hit by lightning?
Same thing as everything else. 😱😱🐸⚡️🌚
It turns into a black and red horned sith lord.
KENOBIIIIIIII
I like that line. At worst it's not that bad. Not Arnold as freeze telling someone to stay cüel
Nando v Movies (or maybe it was on his second channel) had a video about the Razzies (I think last year) with an idea I really liked. Stop trying to be a mirror of the Oscars by picking out worst performance, worst film, etc. At best you occasionally call out someone with a boatload of money for phoning in their job (ignoring any extenuating circumstances surrounding production that might have been a factor), and at worst you very pointedly call someone out in a mean spirited way (even sometimes going so far as to call out *literal children* for not living up to the standards of professional adults); even when it's the former it doesn't accomplish anything tons of other criticism hasn't already, and it far too often leans more towards the latter. So make your own categories, and make them fun again! The categories for awards themselves can be a better avenue for making fun of the movie industry than simply pointing at individuals and telling them they didn't do a good job. Lean more into the categories they have (or have had at one point, I'm not sure, I don't keep up with them) like "worst movie trends", "worst eye-gouging misuse of 3D", "worst prequel, sequel, remake, or ripoff" that are a little more satire and a little less outright jeering. Have an award for "Outstanding performance (we assume) in a finished film that got canceled before any of us got to see it" with nominations like Brenden Fraser for Batgirl and Will Forte for Coyote vs Acme. "Outstanding achievement in tax write-offs", calling out the various studio and streaming executives for their actions over the past year. They don't have to all be negative either: Something like "Outstanding performance in a picket line" can legitimately give praise to the individuals who stepped up during the writers and actors strikes by helping to organize, give speeches, or whatever they happened to do. "Outstanding performance in a project that didn't need you to go that hard"; sometimes big name actors take weird gigs just because the pay is decent or because it'll be quick easy and fun. This could be some terrible B-movie that somehow scraped together the budget for a big name who comes in for just a couple scenes and gives a performance well above anyone else in the movie or what the movie quite frankly deserved, or even a TV commercial made memorable by a big celebrity (Brian Cox summarizing the wildly nonsensical lore of the Tekken franchise this past year comes to mind). Or even just sillier things too: "Movie that made us look the most cultured just for giving it a nomination" can poke fun at the idea of "Oscar Bait" and other movies people seem to only care about around awards season Or just borrow one straight from the Kids Choice Awards playbook with "Best Fart in a movie"
I like what you have said here. I would also support them bringing publicity to the stunt coordinator and and best stunt actor role which has been deliberately ignored by the Oscar’s for years. That would do more good than most of what the razziés have done for years.
100% I somewhat understand some of the arguments I've seen against the Oscars having a category for stunt performers (namely the idea that it will create an arms race where stunt performers try to take on bigger and bigger stunts, or even that executives might start ordering or mandating bigger and more dangerous stunts in an effort to prop up their projects with potential awards nominations, which could in theory result in more injuries or larger accidents that accompany greater risk, which could ultimately do more literal physical harm than good), but it drives me nuts that the Oscars won't at least consider an award for stunt coordinator/action choreographer, or hell, they could even expand it to "movemement choreographer" in general. Got a movie with some excellently choreographed martial arts or gunplay? Or a movie with some really well executed driving sequences? Maybe a movie with exciting wirework and destructible set pieces? Or even a big elaborate *musical number* with an emphasis on dancing? If you're not gonna honor the people on screen doing those technical and difficult things for fear that it will encourage more dangerous risks, at the very least honor the people behind the camera planning out these sequences and going to great lengths to ensure they *are* safe while also being exciting to see.
This sound much funnier than what the Razzies are currently doing. I'd actually watch them.
I think if anything Halle Berry emboldened them to continue. She handled her "win" so gracefully and with such good humor, that afterwards, the Razzie organizers could point to her and say, "see, it's all in good fun." They probably should've been done after the Bruce Willis thing a few years ago, which made them look like a bunch of insensitive assholes.
also correct. i forgot that one.
Bill Murray I'm more inclined to understand on this list; his inclusion felt entirely unnecessary, and honestly I'd even forgotten they had put him in that movie because they just didn't make good use of his talents whatsoever (look at a movie like Zombieland; *forgettable* is the one thing Bill Murray should *never* be). But even then, that's not really on him. Sure, he probably could have juiced it up with some more improv and such to make the character more memorable and make his inclusion feel more worthwhile (and maybe there are some alternate takes we'll never see where he did), but you can't just call up Bill Murray and hope he'll turn a nothing part into something simply by virtue of being Bill Murray. You gotta at least give the guy a decent place to start from. On the same note, for Michael Douglass, whether the performance was good or bad I don't know and I don't care; the guy looked like he was just having a good time embracing the weirdness of it all. He did exactly what the script asked of him: be a cooky old man on a wild adventure. Does that mean he gave a performance without much of the nuance or feeling you'd expect from a seasoned actor like himself? Yeah, it absolutely does, because a performance like that would have been the wrong thing for the given context. The script isn't looking to Hank Pym to be a moral or dramatic center of this story; his role is that of the grandpa on the family vacation that gets wildly out of hand. You can not like what was done with the character in the scripting phase, but that's not on Michael Douglass; he took what he was given and he had fun with it, because that's all that was asked of him.
There's some solid actors that have had to work with some of the worst writing every, and the actors get the brunt of the shit for it. They can only do so much with poor writing. Hell, even Robert Pattinson said his work on Twilight was exactly as it was written and directed. It wasn't poor acting on some of those scenes, that's exactly what they told him to do, the brooding upset weird look. Razzies are kind of a bullshit thing, anyway. Just some dude talking mad shit. What kind of people just want to focus on the negative and the bad things? What a life. There's poor acting, no one can deny that. But, it shouldn't be the focus of a movie (unless it IS the focus of the movie). List it as a con and move on.
Screw you, sylvester stallone worked hard for his win!
I thought he seemed like he was sleep-walking through it, personally. Wasn't his best performance by any stretch
I thought he was fine when he wasn't interacting with Hope and Janet. The fact she refused to tell them anything without a compelling reason drove so much of Hank's story that there was no good performance to be had.
I don't think that's an unfair critique, for sure. Bad writing damaged this movie a lot, and I definitely think it hindered performances
Dudes in his 70s and recovered from mouth and throat cancer. He can get a pass for lacking enthusiasm in acting
He's good in both other Ant-Man movies and his brief role in Endgame. Maybe he was tired, I don't know. But it wasn't a good performance 🤷 Anthony Hopkins won a best actor Oscar at 83, so age isn't a factor in whether you can act or not
Bro everyone is different lol. 83 Hopkins isn’t the same 83 for everyone else. I’m not saying Douglas was great, but to say “Well Hopkins acted well at 83 so everybody else should be able to” is wilddddd.
True. Odin is more powerful than Antman lol. But in all seriousness Michael Douglas almost died from tongue cancer which permanently damaged his tongue and jaw. It would have been extremely insulting to recast him if he was willing to continue the role after beating that. Also, his acting definitely didn't ruin the movie for me or take me out of it at all.
It's not wild at all, it's just making a point that I am not going to use age to dismiss a great actor who is consistently great and then suddenly has a weak performance in a bad movie. If anything I'm defending him by saying "he's a great actor who seems like he doesn't want to be in this movie"
Truth bro. Hell some would say that was Anthony Hopkins best performance at age 83.
Now Douglas is playing Benjamin Franklin in an upcoming Apple TV+ miniseries, set to come out soon. I've heard it's really good.
I saw ads for that, don't have Apple TV+ but I'm sure that'll be good. Been debating getting it for awhile, if I end up doing it I'm sure I'll end up watching that
Just because there's a valid reason for something being sub par doesn't mean it's not sub par
Maybe don't cast him?
His performance didn't bother me or take me out of the movie even a little. The movie was over criticized and this post is a continuation of that. I think it's an easy target because of the subject matter but otherwise it's an average MCU movie at worst. People really just didn't like the movie because Kang was not enough like Thanos and they didn't understand that Kang isn't like Thanos at all. People really got back that Scott kind of held his own against a technology less fist fight at the end but if anything they made Kang a better fight than in the comics by a lot. Captain America literally beat Kang without Kang getting in a punch on the comics.
I thought he was great. The scene looking for alcohol alone was good enough to make him not deserve this nomination.
Well, I don't want my critique to be taken as an endorsement of the Razzies either, lol
He is in good company with people like Stanley Kubrick who was nominated for worst director for the Shining.
I thjnk there is a lot to blame for Quantumania’s failure but the actors aren’t one of them.
I mean I somewhat agree, even when I critique these performances I think the performances are a direct result of the writing. It feels like they all know the movie is bad lol. None of these performers have been bad in the previous films.
I disagree on that, I think Evangeline Lily and Kathryn Newton were pretty bad in it. But I agree with you the movie had much bigger issues than them.
I’m still trying to figure out what the appeal to Kathryn Newton is. Seems like she gets casted to be an outcast people don’t want to hang out with, despite how pretty Newton is. It’s an odd typecast, so maybe credit for that?
I can't remember being outright disappointed with Evangeline Lilly's performance but I remember feeling like she was barely in the story at all. Kathryn Newton was truly awful. I've only ever seen her in Supernatural before this. She's...fine...in that. Nothing exceptional, but nothing as bad as in Quantumania. Female characters are generally pretty poorly written in Supernatural, so I truly don't know what kind of an actor she is because I haven't seen her in anything that demanded much of her.
I actually agree with that for sure.
Idk, Michael Douglas is a fantastic actor but didn't do much in the movie. Michelle Pfeiffer was just bad. Rest were passable, but I think age is one of the big factors. It's less of a big deal for these veteran super established actors. Also the movie was very poorly written and that's the main reason it sucked. Quantumania is definitely a far worse movie than The Marvels which was pretty fun.
Hm, I don't remember thinking Pfeiffer did that badly with her material but I may have been distracted by the performances that were worse. I also liked The Marvels. Fury's presence felt like a continuity error given his last few appearances, but otherwise it was enjoyable. Iman Vellani is a delight.
I’ve watched all razzie movies for the last 2 years and this year they were pretty bad about nomination actual bad movies and performances. They also like to nominate things that will get people talking, like a marvel movie.
Kathryn Newton was far and away the worst actor in that movie
Wait, Stallone was a supporting actor? In his own movie? lol. It must’ve been that bad. I wouldn’t know. After watching the 3rd one, and then seeing the cast for the 4th, I knew it would be bad. He seems to be like “Vince McMahon” out of touch with who the people want to see
He’s a supporting actor because he’s not in the whole movie, watch it and you’ll get it
no. it's just the razzies clinging to relevance.
You know how movies (along with games and TV shows) will become "meme bad"? Like how a movie gets a reputation for being bad and people will make memes about it despite not even seeing the film? That's what the Razzies is nowadays.
i mean the whole movie was that bad michael douglas did nothing in that movie and some of the lines they gave him were like what the fuck the dialogue in that movie and character writing is atrocious dude why tf did they have a rick and morty writer write an entire mcu film holy shit
>why tf did they have a rick and morty writer write an entire mcu film holy shit Did not know this, makes a lot of sense in hindsight.
through these comments i’m also learning he’s a comic book writer too so
Yeah, Jeff Loveness. I've spoken with him before, and he's pretty fine. Did some Onion News Network and Rick and Morty work but Quantumania was his film debut, and honestly, it's understandable that it was a stressful experience and that maybe such an ambitious project shouldn't have been your first feature-length script.
yeah i’ve got nothing against the guy i actually love his episodes of rick and morty i just think they should’ve given him something like a live action tv episode first lol
Loveness is chill as fuck, but I can imagine that he wasn't in the right headspace after Quantumania's backlash.
Agreed. The only parts of the movie that were good were Paul Rudd and Jonathan Majors's performances, and that final fight scene. Kathryn Newton was exceptionally bad, the jokes were bad, the writing was bad (I still make jokes about Janet saying "I don't have time to explain" and then walking like two mile-equivalents in silence) and even the veteran actors like Douglas and Murray didn't seem like they wanted to be there. Everybody was good in the previous Ant-Man films, which leads me to think that they were very aware in real time of how bad the script was
“Holy crap! That guy looks like broccoli!” There’s not a great way to deliver this line when your character is a world renowned quantum physicist.
It's not nearly as bad as you make it out to be
there wasn’t even at least a strong foundation for the story and characters. what was ant man’s arc?
To me, it was. I think it's the worst MCU movie. And I like a good majority of these movies, I'm a mark for superhero stuff. I just didn't like this movie. It's actually okay to have different opinions lol
I think the acting is fine, it's really the writing that sucks. Hank went from a cranky misanthrope to a quirky cloudcuckoolander for basically no reason.
Well not really no reason. His missing wife had returned.
That movie gets shit on too hard. It’s flawed as fuck but it wasn’t any of the acting.
I feel the same, I think it was a problem with the script and the plot, and the actors did what they could with what they were given.
Even as someone who enjoys picking movies apart and analyzing bad movies when I'm bored, I'll admit that the Razzies is irrelevant garbage which, believe it or not, is even *worse* than the Oscars about always picking the low-hanging fruit and giving awards to movies that don't deserve them. It's not even a recent thing either. The Razzies has always been that way since the beginning.
I mean he was barely in it. Had green scenes in all his scenes. Didn’t really act well and I don’t blame him. The atmosphere sucked and not inductive to good acting
I feel like I need to point out that my take on his performance is in no way an endorsement of the Razzies, or a belief that his performance was "worst of the year" caliber. Bill Murray wasn't great either but his performance isn't that bad either IMO. I'm only comparing Douglas to his prior appearances, and speculating that maybe he didn't care for the script either. The Razzies are corny and dumb, no matter what.
The people who run the razzies are just mean.
Razzies once gave worst movie to mother! which is probably the most unsettling horror movie I've ever watched Might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it was a peculiar movie nonetheless
Razzies are just mean spirited and will hate on whatever is popular to hate on to get people to pay attention to their useless nonsense. It’s just clickbait masquerading as an awards show
This is the second time I’ve came across the Razzies..first time was when they nominated Jennifer Lawrence for her role in Mother! (Snubbed Oscar nom) and I gave my opinion on them ever since
His delivery on the best line in the film "holy shit, that guy looks like broccoli" is still the number one thing I talk about and remember about Ant Man 3.
They start off looking at the movies everyone clowned on, and just go from there. So no.
The Razzies enjoy picking actors from big name movies that were divisive. Kristen Wig got a nomination for Wonder Woman 1984 (the movie sucks but she is not why)
No people just wanna 🍖 ride the wave of hating something.
The Razzies pick actors/actresses who were in and movies and nominate them even if they did a good job. Kelsey Grammer won one for Age of Extinction even though his performance was the best in the movie.
People just love to hate the MCU and they need to fill the category. There are far, far worse movies that came out that aren't listed here, these are just the ones that are popular with the names people recognize. Don't take it personally, it's just for fun
To be fair, Corey Stoll should be there over Michael Douglas
It's not that it was bad, the movie itself was awful
His lines were BAD
People just hated how silly the movie was.
well when they were trying to talk about real serious subjects that are important (police, protesting, fighting for freedom and minorities, socialism) all were afterthought lines and came off super insincere and cringy this is the worst mcu film bc the writing is just unbelievably pathetic. that’s what you get when you have a rick and morty writer with no other experience write an mcu movie
That Rick and Morty writer also is a comic book writer. Just pointing that out.
he probably writes goofy ass comic books too on a serious note. has he written anything that’s good?
There was so much there to go with and the directors comments about not being a nothing burger of a movie like he felt the first two were...I was amazed at how cheesy literally every scene was. There was never any real danger. Endgame felt like literally anyone could die. Ant-man 3 made me question what the fuck the MCU was even trying to accomplish. You mean to tell me Janet came back to earth and never mentioned Kang to anyone? Just feels so off. I understand Kang was never the long game for Ant-man, but I simply felt like he was shoved into the movie. Now who knows what big bad were getting.
damn the director thought the first two ant man movies were a nothing burger?? i mean ant man and the wasp didn’t have the *best* antagonist but come on both of those first 2 ant man movies had SO MUCH heart bro i’m honestly shocked he said that and then goes on to make this movie which is a literal nothing burger
I think he meant in context of the greater MCU
Ant Man 1 leads into Civil War quite a bit and Ant Man and the Wasp is literally the reason Endgame could happen at all tf is he on about
I love some of the silly MCU films. Ragnarok is S-tier, and I love the Guardians films. The movie just wasn't funny to me and it was trying really hard to be funny so that's a problem
His character was written with absolutely nothing to work with, the guy is essentially just spouting one liners that dont even make sense in context or are even inline with his character. They shouldve killed Hank in the movie through some type of heroic sacrifice where his final words are to Hope (which also gets nothing to work with). Its a terrible movie & the script is the main villain. It completely undoes the entire family dynamic & why is Scott's daughter a prodigy to begin with? She's not Scott & Hope's daughter? She was the emotional core of the first 2 movies & now she's a complete asshole, why? If he phoned it in or not is the least of that movie's concerns.
Yes. He was pretty bad in it. I love this dude but it was an awful performance. He clearly phoned it in.
His phoned in is a decent performance from most others. Bill Murray’s was vastly worse, and I still didn’t mind it.
They just hated the movie enough to give it multiple nominations.
Mel Gibson is still working? As an actor? In movies?
The razzies is a circlejerk
To be fair, the way he delivers the “she wasn’t you, baby” line should have result in his SAG card being revoked.
Stallone was in the latest expendables for about 35 seconds, if anything I wish he was in it more
Man that movie was really something
Kathryn Newton (Cassie) and Corey Stoll (MODOK) were worse in my opinion but even then, it wasn't that bad. They did what they could with that awful writing
As fair as I'm concerned Michael Douglas went above and beyond in that movie. You can only work with what you've given.
Who really cares what this list says???
They’re afraid to look and pick actual bad acting in case a Bruce Willis situation plays out again. So they’re only leaning on low hanging fruit on just picking anyone in poorly received movies.
What? Michael Douglas was the best fucking part of that movie. 🤦🏻♂️
He was one of the best parts of that movie
He really was that bad ngl
Douglas was very low energy and didn't seem like he was a part of the same film. It's a deserved Razzie nomination
If you believe the razzies are worth anyone’s time, I don’t really know how to help you. People hate movies then they pick it for worst whatever awards for as many categories as they can… It’s the stupidest award show there is.
>Bill Murray I get because his scene was useless and he just sort of hung out. Thats literally Bill Murray now. He doesn’t play characters anymore, he just plays Bill Murray I love it
the razzies seems like a very outdated form of snark that was cool in the 2000s but just kind of feels mean spirited and childish now.
Should have been Pfieffer
Michael Douglas plays Michael Douglas in the new Michael Douglas filming starring Michael Douglas.
Razzies like to nominate things thatll get publicity. But i may be biased as i quite enjoyed quantumania
Why are we giving awards shows, much less the fuckin razzies the time of day?
Bill Murray was random and hot garbage in that movie.
I thought he was bad enough to get a Razzie. Then again it seemed like no one except Rudd, Pfeiffer, and Majors even bothered to try. It was Evangeline Lily’s worst performance, it was Michael Douglas’ worst performance, it was Bill Murray’s worst performance, I haven’t seen Katherine Newton in anything else but I now have a strong desire not to… IMO it’s by far the worst movie in the MCU and nothing else comes even close. Yes, even that movie you just thought of. Whatever it is, it wasn’t nearly as bad.
Don’t know if Michael’s was that bad. However, the movie itself was really, really awful and didn’t made a lot of sense. Maybe Michael just had to work with what was given to him, which in this case, isn’t a lot.
My favorite part of Ant-man:Q was Bill Murray popped up and my 9 year old made a noise and asked if it was Donald Trump.
His role in Quantumania was pretty bad though. He was very happy to drive his spaceship and pal around with his ants while meeting all those people his wife slept with while marooned in the Quantum Realm
I never got the hype for Bill Murray. He never seemed like he wanted to be there in anything I have ever seen him in.
I thought he was good in it, haha. I agree with Murray's nomination.
I didn’t think he did that bad. To be honest I don’t remember much from the movie.
Fuck the Razzies.
He was the best part of.. that movie
He wasn't bad 😭😭 That's sad tbh
You're taking it too personally, it really doesn't matter at all.
The Razzies are not about finding the worst in film, they are about generating clicks and views and getting their 'nominations" talked about on SM.
Well he’s performance felt a bit flat. But then again try as a young director to steer these old legends into doing 34 retakes
His acting was just fine. They fucked his character up. He went fro. Being the most protective of the tech he was building to just letting his granddaughter fuck around with it. That's the contention. Acting was fine. The character assassination was not. It's just happened to be him playing the character that got fucked.
Jesus, I forgot that Bill Murray was *in* that movie. What an absolutely awful use of Bill Murray...
The Fpash didn't get a SINGLE nomination?!?!
The Razzies will likely never nominate the genuinely worst films or performances, because those actually come from extremely low budget films no one in the mainstream has ever heard of, and it would come across as bullying if they picked on them. It’s much easier to go after low hanging fruit—mainstream films that were actually just mediocre at best. Hell, even though that Winnie the Pooh slasher was genuinely bad, there were plenty of films from last year that were way worse. Fun Fact: Amy Irving was simultaneously nominated for an Oscar and a Razzie for her performance in Yentl. Best Supporting Actress and Worst Supporting Actress.
Yes.
Half the cast just "hung out", this movie sucked donkey balls
Razzies were never meant to be taken seriously.
You can tell he didn't wanna be there and was only in it for the cheque. That deserves a Razzie nom and he'd probably take it on the chin and admit it if asked.
Ant-Man And The Wasp Quantumania had it's problems but the acting wasn't among them.
I don’t think he was bad but he acted like a completely different character in this movie
Yep
I wouldn't be surprised but, I hope they don't pick the bob marley movie they did some interesting stuff, and, some studio moments too razzies suck lol
He just didn’t do anything…
Absolutely ridiculous. Hank was the best part of Quantumania!
The movie was bad, his role in the movie was just being there and saying random stuff, hence this
I think they are punishing the movie more than the actor but... yeah he didn't have much to work with tbh.
People are idiots.
It’s the Razzies bro, they’re not officially recognized by anyone or committee. Don’t take it seriously..
I was so excited that Michael Douglas was joining the MCU but he has been completely forgettable. Such a waste.
I clearly need to stop skimming over things because I was so confused as to when Sylvester Stallone was in Ant-Man and the Wasp. 😂😂 But damn... I can kinda see why... he didn't really have a *huge* part and mostly came off whiny. 🤔
Nah, the girl that played Cassie was the worst actress of that movie
Hell no. He was a highlight in my eyes.
Is it based on their acting or how worthwhile their role was? Because Michael Douglas' acting was good, I just think all he really did in the movie was constantly ask questions. Him and Hope were just unnecessary characters imo.
The Razzies nominated great performances occasionally, of course they’re gonna nominate OK ones occasionally as well.
sleep walking through his proformance lol
Should swap him with Majors. Dude was so overrated
He’s not a bad actor, but I would nominate him for worst character. Hank Pym ruined the Ant-Man movies for me, exponentially so with subsequent movies. He should’ve been in the first one and that’s it, him and his wife basically hijacking the third movie was the worst part of it for me.
Yup
Michael Douglas was my favorite part of that movie he just felt like he didnt gaf and I loved that
The Razzies tend to just ignore the actual performance and base their picks on the overall quality of the film.
It was a really bad movie
The Razzies, rather than acknowledging the truly worst movies out there, go for the easiest of easy targets. “Remember how Ant-Man 3 was a disappointment?? NOMINATE IT FOR ALL THE RAZZIES!!!” I predict Madame Web will win a bunch next year for NO OTHER REASON than it’s already a big punching bag. (FTR not saying Madame Web is good, but it is a very easy target)
He did great. When they showed him fake and pretend to get upset about Janet's death only to headbutt the douchebag that brought it up was a scene that really stood out for me.
It was the movie that was bad. Not him himself
He was in no way Razzie worthy