MovieChat Forums > Dreamcatcher (2003) Discussion > Why no Razzies?

Why no Razzies?

posted 14 years ago by eWolfski
4 replies | jump to latest

I don't mean to offend anyone who liked this film, but I think it's a relatively common agreement that this film was pretty sh*tty. I like the director (Silverado, Wyatt Earp) and I like most of the actors (Freeman, Jane, Olyphant, Sizemore), but somehow they still managed to *beep* up a Stephen King adaptation. Even Goldman's screenplay was terrible! Anyways, the Razzies always nominate bigger names from bigger movies. From what I remember, this movie had a full release with a known director and many known stars, yet it wasn't nominated for anything. Any ideas why?

[–] j-c-s-f-akkerman 14 years ago

We keep the film poster in the toilet: the irony

[–] Simian_Jack 14 years ago

The Razzies, I think, are not really about what they claim: shaming the worst of the worst. Rather, they're about the celebrity game. They "award" whoever and whatever is the most popular name or title to ridicule (thereby ensuring themselves publicity). As bad as Dreamcatcher (the movie) was, whatever actually got nominated that year was bigger fish.

[–] eWolfski 14 years ago

Yeah that definitely makes sense. Thanks

[–] furtherintime 14 years ago

Also I don't think there was anything specific that was SO bad as to draw attention from the Razzie board. The movie and all its aspects were just all round mediocre to pretty bad, there was no stand-out WHOA THAT SUCKS SO MUCH element for them to glean humour/publicity from (I mean, compare it to the likes of Catwoman, Gigli and Battlefield Earth, all nominees/winners of previous Razzies).