For Your Consideration in All Razzie Categories: Clint Eastwood
Razzie authority Dan Kois is on to something: "Clint Eastwood is due! The man is 81 and has directed some real howlers, from Any Which Way But Loose to Invictus. Count us among the Razzie experts who really thought last year was his year; Hereafter, after all, was a metaphysical hash of half-baked ideas and ridiculous plot points, wrapped in a stomach-churning tsunami re-creation. But Hereafter didn't even get nominated! In fact -- and I know this will be hard to believe -- Clint has never been nominated for a Golden Raspberry Award, not even for Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil. [...] As one Razzie voter told me, "Even if J. Edgar is subpar -- that is, less bad than usual -- I plan to vote for Clint. The old man deserves it for all the crap he's made me watch over the years." [Grantland]
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
Wow, Dan is a douchebag. Just because a hugely talented director has made some films he didn't like, Dan is going to nominate him on purpose because of that, when the movie itself will gain Clint a lot of positive feedback.That's just sad.
I enjoyed Hereafter. While it wasn't perfect, I found it moving in some respects.
That's just stupid. I haven't trusted the Razzies for years (they're the most corrupt "award" out there, beating both the Oscars and the Globes by far) and if they truly think "Invictus" and "Hereafter" are bad, let alone "worst of the year"-worthy, they're even worse than I thought.
What utter crap! Even when his movies aren't great, they aren't freaking horrible. Invictus was perfectly fine. Not great, but certainly not awful. And to claim Hereafter was worse than Sex & the City 2, Vampires Suck, Twilight Saga: Eclipse, The Bounty Hunter or (ugh) The Last Airbender - that year's Razzie nominees - is just sheer ignorance and any person that ignorant shouldn't be allowed to vote on ANYTHING. EVER.
It's not the movies themselves that are so terrible (though some of them, like _Hereafter_, really are), it's that they are often emerge from the hype cocoon as bloated, self-serious (and self-impressed) mediocrities rocking an unduly awards-baiting patina of prestige. At least crap like _Sex and the City 2_ has the integrity to succeed at being the empty-caloried confection it knows it is.
Wait and see about _J. Edgar_. People do _not_ like this movie.
Well, Sex and the City 1 was an empty-caloried confection. Sex and the City 2 was everything bad about current cinema rolled up into one obnoxious souffle. Which cannot be said about any Eastwood films, at least. Hereafter, if anything, was just another Hollywood attempt to mimic the horrendously overrated Babel. Better to mimic a film with something to say rather than one that mimics a million other horrendous rom-coms (or moronic action films or laugh-free comedies).
That said, it's not Eastwood's fault all his movies get treated like the second coming of Zombie Jesus. He just makes the things, and everybody else (including Movieline) whips themselves into a frenzy before the films even see the light of day. Which they all do for every upcoming film from Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, Terrence Malick, Spike Lee, Roman Polanski, Ang Lee... the list goes on. And all of those good directors have created some royal stinkers also. Yes, J Edgar looks awful, but at least it isn't The Last Airbender 2!
this article is blasphemous! How dare anyone speak badly of the almighty Clint Eastwood! AHHH! (*actual rage)
...that may be true, but Clint Eastwood movies are rountinely premired at or near awards season. It's a pretty safe bet that Clint plans it that way.