<![CDATA[Why Wasn't This Nominated For Any Razzies?]]>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Black Dahlia

gnolti — 16 years ago(October 27, 2009 11:00 AM)

I have never gotten over how bad this movie was, and cannot believe people are still taking it seriously today.
It practically SCREAMS for Razzies in so many categories.
Anyone?
There, daddy, do I get a gold star?

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/239504/why-wasn-t-this-nominated-for-any-razziesRSS for NodeThu, 14 May 2026 22:31:52 GMTMon, 04 May 2026 11:24:34 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to Why Wasn't This Nominated For Any Razzies? on Mon, 04 May 2026 11:24:43 GMT]]>dalldorfw — 12 years ago(December 17, 2013 05:43 PM)

"it wasnt nominated for any because its a fantastic movie"
You're on of the very few people that has figured that out.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2005616https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2005616Mon, 04 May 2026 11:24:43 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Why Wasn't This Nominated For Any Razzies? on Mon, 04 May 2026 11:24:42 GMT]]>AnxietyAlex — 15 years ago(October 20, 2010 11:14 AM)

it wasnt nominated for any because its a fantastic movie

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2005615https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2005615Mon, 04 May 2026 11:24:42 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Why Wasn't This Nominated For Any Razzies? on Mon, 04 May 2026 11:24:41 GMT]]>gorgsharpy — 15 years ago(October 17, 2010 08:29 AM)

Brian's got 5 already.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2005614https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2005614Mon, 04 May 2026 11:24:41 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Why Wasn't This Nominated For Any Razzies? on Mon, 04 May 2026 11:24:39 GMT]]>DeuceWild_77 — 15 years ago(August 03, 2010 08:44 AM)

Hillary Swank should have been nominated for Worst Actress and won!!! the same for Fiona Shaw in the supporting category. Now about the Oscars, had Brian De Palma gave more screentime to Mia Kirschner, she could have been Nominated for Best Supporting Actress, she gave the best performance in such a limited screentime.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2005613https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2005613Mon, 04 May 2026 11:24:39 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Why Wasn't This Nominated For Any Razzies? on Mon, 04 May 2026 11:24:38 GMT]]>Gus-69 — 16 years ago(February 20, 2010 05:18 AM)

Because it wasn't one of the worst films of the year. Obvious.

Mulholland CineLog:
http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2005612https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2005612Mon, 04 May 2026 11:24:38 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Why Wasn't This Nominated For Any Razzies? on Mon, 04 May 2026 11:24:37 GMT]]>Gus-69 — 16 years ago(February 20, 2010 05:19 AM)

Make a case why Zsigmond's lensing shouldn't have been nominated - I dare you.

Mulholland CineLog:
http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2005611https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2005611Mon, 04 May 2026 11:24:37 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Why Wasn't This Nominated For Any Razzies? on Mon, 04 May 2026 11:24:36 GMT]]>BQQ — 16 years ago(November 16, 2009 03:18 AM)

No, but it somehow got nominated for an Oscar. (????)
Sorry, but this film, nominated for an Oscar you gotta laugh! HA! HA! HA!

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2005610https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2005610Mon, 04 May 2026 11:24:36 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Why Wasn't This Nominated For Any Razzies? on Mon, 04 May 2026 11:24:35 GMT]]>rowenad — 16 years ago(November 16, 2009 12:04 AM)

I think this film is so bad that it doesn't even deserve razzies

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2005609https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2005609Mon, 04 May 2026 11:24:35 GMT