Golden Raspberry Awards

Criticism[edit]

The Razzies have received criticism, including from news sources such as IndieWire  ^[34] and The Daily Telegraph,^[35] for several issues, including that members of the Golden Raspberry Foundation are not required to watch the nominated films.^[34] The awards follow a different set of rules^[34] from the invitation-only Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.^[36][37] Critics take issue with the Razzies picking "easy targets" and critically panned mainstream films instead of those perceived as less popular but more deserving of notice,^[38] and continuing to appeal to celebrities, seemingly for publicity and attention.^[34]


Sam Adams of IndieWire has said the Razzies are "like hecklers hurling insults at comedians or a concertgoer yelling out 'Whoo!' during a quiet song, they're not-so-secretly crying out to be noticed. The Razzies, properly enough, avoid pouncing on the little guy; they don't trash no-budget indies no one has seen for having bad lighting or terrible sound".^[34] Robbie Collin of The Daily Telegraph wrote, however, that "the Razzies' ongoing failure to train its sights on anything but the most obvious targets means it grows more tired and redundant by the year".^[35] CraveOnline's William Bibbiani stated that the Razzies follow "a cheap shot of pranksterism", and "with only a handful of exceptions, the Razzies have only seen fit to nominate the most infamous movies of the year, and not necessarily the worst."^[38] In 2018, Scott Meslow, writing for GQ, accused the Razzies of being "pretty lazy, very sexist, and a little racist" in their choices, reiterating criticism that voters were overreliant on films already widely perceived as notorious, and further asserting they disproportionally nominated films directed by and starring Tyler Perry and films marketed towards women.^[39]


In 2021, Liam Gaughan of the Dallas Observer wrote, "It’s easy to find fault in any awards nominations, be it Oscars or Razzies, but the greater issue that the Razzies face is that making fun of bad movies is no longer original. Film criticism, essays and satire all live in abundance on the internet, from both established publications and non-professionals."^[37] Daniel Cook Johnson of MovieWeb echoed a similar sentiment, writing, "Wilson and Murphy’s insulting event may have been a wonderfully snarky and skewering enterprise back in the ‘80s when there was much less film criticism and audience reactions to recent movies. But now, there’s little reason for such an invalid vehicle, and the retirement option should be recognized before their relevance and shaky reputation are completely gone."^[40]


The Razzies have also seen significant criticism from both within the industry and its own voting body for including underage actors and actresses in their ballots and nominations, with many noting the outcome of their careers and later personal and legal issues. Among those who were nominated or won include Gary Coleman (at age 14) for On the Right Track in 1982, Macaulay Culkin (at age 14) for Getting Even With Dad, The Pagemaster, and Richie Rich in 1995, Jake Lloyd (at age 11) for Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace, Jaden Smith (age 15) for After Earth (winner), Ryan Kiera Armstrong (at age 12) for Firestarter. Maddie Ziegler, though 18 years old when nominated, won Worst Supporting Actress for Music, released in 2021, for a role she played at 14 years old during filming in 2017. In 2023, the Razzies announced they would no longer nominate individuals under age 18.^[9]