…both Razzie and the Oscar (in different categories or whatever)?
Wall Street won an Oscar for Michael Douglas as Best Actor and a Razzie for Daryl Hannah as Worst Supporting Actress.
Not quite what you asked but Sandra Bullock won both the Best Actress Oscar (for The Blind Side) and the Worst Actress Razzie (for All About Steve) in the same week. And she showed up at both ceremonies to accept her award in person.
James Coco was nominated for both the Best Supporting Actor Oscar and the Worst Supporting Actor Razzie for his role in Only When I Laugh. Amy Irving was nominated for both the Best Supporting Actress Oscar and the Worst Supporting Actress Razzie for her role in Yentl. Neither won any of the awards.
It’s gutsy in-your-face nominations like those remind me how the Razzies have gotten rather dull and safe over the last few years. This year, for example, the latest Twilight and Adam Sandler movies got the bulk of the nominations but neither are really that aren’t that interesting as bad movies. The Twilight series is pretty much aimed at a specialized–albeit fairly large–audience. Outside of that group, nobody really cares one way or the other about those movies. Adam Sandler’s effort is a typical lowbrow comedy that’s not even worth getting truly upset about.
Halle Berry did this as well.
Well, it wasn’t the same week. She won her Oscar for Monster’s Ball and two years later got a Razzie for Catwoman. She went to the Razzie ceremony and accepted her “award” while holding her Oscar in her other hand, wearing the same dress she had to the Oscars and making an exaggerated version of her Oscar speech.
Bryan-The OP never mentioned that they had to be the same week. (Sorry, didn’t notice Nemo’s was same week)
Actually, the OP asked for “a movie” that won both awards. Citing one movie that won an Oscar, and a totally different movie that won a Razzie is not a valid answer. Especially if they are two years apart.
Absolutely. All the Razzies do anymore is focus on the lowest-hanging fruit they can find, and it’s just become tiresome. If you want to mock bad movies, go right ahead, but at least be a little creative about it.
That’s not quite true. The organization has said that it could easily find worse low-budget movies than the ones they nominate. But they intentionally limit themselves to only looking at major big-budget releases. They’re mocking the studios that spend millions of dollars to make movies like Battleship, Breaking Dawn 2, and That’s My Boy.
From what I can tell, four people have picked up their Razzies in person: Berry, Bullock, Tom Green, and Paul Verhoeven.
Yes. There are hundreds of low-budget movies made every year, moreso as the hurdle for indie companies gets lower (with digital filming and production), and there’s nothing to be gained from mocking them. It’s the films with top-drawer talent and seemingly unlimited budgets that turn out to be stinkers - movies those same indie companies could outdo with a fraction of the budget and some good repertory players - that are fun to snipe at.
But that’s not really what I’m talking about. Sure, there are movies made on a shoestring budget that got a one-week release somewhere before going to DVD that are really shitty. That goes without saying, and there’s little point in nominating them. I’m talking about movies that have the air of prestige or that were made by very notable directors or actors that are actually terrible movies, but the Razzies won’t nominate them because that would interfere with their ability to nominate Adam Sandler in every category year after year, or nominate men in drag as actresses. (I don’t even understand why they think it’s so funny to do that. They’re just doing the same thing that the movies they claim to think are awful are doing: looking at a man in a dress and saying, “Ha, we should pretend he’s a woman! Because he’s actually a dude in a dress! Get it?”)
Like the Wall Street example I gave above. Daryl Hannah is indeed pretty terrible in that movie and worthy of a Razzie nomination. But can you imagine her getting nominated today? Not in a critically acclaimed movie like that, no matter how bad she was. Now, they’re just interested in the biggest, easiest targets possible, and the whole exercise just seems so lazy anymore.
I don’t follow the Razzies, so I didn’t know about Green or Verhoeven.
I see your point. But I think the Razzies also have a legitimate point. You’re essentially asking them to switch their focus from bad movies to overrated movies. It’s a valid target but not the one they’ve chosen.
Perhaps the Golden Raspberry organization feels that overrated movies at least deserve some credit for trying to make a good movie even if they failed in the execution. But when Adam Sandler makes a movie, everyone involves knows right from the beginning that the final product will suck but they go ahead and make it anyway - that to me is a worst offense than trying and failing.
I think the Razzies’ dude-in-drag (or fatsuit) nominations are mainly because they’re lazy and tired jokes. The fact there still seem to be at least one of these movies every year is further proof that Hollywood Is Out of Ideas.TM - Fark
There was more to Daryl Hannah’s nomination for Wall Street than her wooden performance. Hannah, at that time, was a ubiquitous presence in movies despite the fact she had little actual talent beyond looking pretty. Also, Wall Street, despite Michael Douglas’ iconic (and over the top) performance, was a perfect example of Oliver Stone’s filmmaking at its most preachy and anvilicious. The movie was a big bag of wind that deserved to be deflated a bit.
Anyway, you are correct in saying the Razzies never seem to have the nomination that pokes a finger in the eye of the Hollywood establishment. For example, if the Razzies still had the same attitude today, I can imagine them nominating Russell Crowe for his croaking attempts to sing in Les Misérables *
- I actually haven’t seen Les Misérables myself so at this time I reserve comment on the film’s quality. However, I have read a number of reviews calling attention to Crowe’s limited vocal range. That and Crowe’s reputation as a pretentious humorless hothead I think would’ve made him a ripe target for the Razzies in years past.