10 Best Movies That Won A Razzie For 'Worst Picture'

The Golden Raspberry Awards, colloquially called the Razzies, are essentially the opposite of the Academy Awards. There's an Oscar for best picture, and a Razzie for worst picture. The Razzies presents nominations and awards to the worst movies of the year, based on a set of unknown criteria, encouraging creatives to "own their bad." It's a satirical ceremony that has crossed the line at times, but always owns up to it's mistakes. Some of the best in the industry have received Razzie nominations and wins, including Sandra Bullock, who notably accepted her Razzie for worst actress in "All About Steve" the same weekend she won the Oscar for best actress for her work in "The Blind Side."

Since the first worst picture award in 1981, several dozen films have received the award. Some years, there's even been a tie. While there are those who earned their wins, like 2024's "Madame Web" or 2019's "Cats," others are less deserving and seem out of place. There are plenty of Razzie award-winning projects that are worth watching, but which worst picture winners are the best? Join us as we take you back through the decades to movies that are better than their Razzie would suggest. These 10 films are the best of the worst, so to speak, and are certainly ones to add to your watch list if you haven't seen them already.

The second-ever worst picture Razzie winner, "Mommie Dearest" seems like an odd choice for a Razzie nominee, let alone a winner. While it probably hoped to receive Oscar attention as a biopic (it's based on Christina Crawford's memoir of the same name), it was instead hit with a harsh critical response regarding its subject material. It certainly wasn't the worst of the nominee pool (that designation should arguably go to "Tarzan, the Ape Man," which has just 9% on Rotten Tomatoes), and the reviews weren't even that bad, with the movie scoring a middling 50% on the Tomatometer. 

The biggest issues with the film revolve around the editing and the screenplay. "Mommie Dearest" took creative liberties when it came to Christina's relationship with her mother, Joan Crawford, and even Christina herself criticized the film for missing the point of her memoir. "My book is told from the point of view of a young person who is trying to get through trauma, while the movie tells the story from the stance of the movie star who creates that trauma," she told HuffPost. "That's a very different story."

There's no denying that "Mommie Dearest" went for sensationalism over the authenticity, but it's not as terrible as people often make it out to be. In fact, a lot of people staunchly defend the film, which is why it has a respectable score of 72% on the Popcornmeter. "Mommie Dearest" is now considered a cult classic in some circles, with fans embracing the camp nature of the movie. The line "No wire hangers!" comes from this film, and is the first thing that fans of the film say to one another when quoting it.

Is "Cocktail" Tom Cruise's worst film? It's probably on par with 2017's "The Mummy." Does it deserve a Razzie? We would argue that it doesn't. The 1988 dramatic rom-com is different from what audiences know the action star for today, but it isn't as bad a movie as the award makes it out to be. 

With a measly 9% on Rotten Tomatoes, it's clear that critics overwhelmingly disliked "Cocktail." They highlight that the film is pretty predictable and that there's little depth to the story, which follows a business student-turned-bartender. However, more recent critic reviews have argued that the film contains some great dialogue and that other films were more deserving of a Razzie. To be clear: "Cocktail" is very far from being on the list of the best Tom Cruise films, but it's fun and entertaining. Audiences agree that it's way better than critics say: It has a 58% score on the Popcornmeter.

What's more, "Cocktail" did very well at the box office, earning over $170 million against a $20 million budget. Poor critic reviews didn't discourage audiences from buying tickets, hoping to see Cruise in something else after the success of "Top Gun" in 1986, and they turned out in droves. If you want to see Tom Cruise before "Mission Impossible," "Cocktail" is a great option, and much better than its Razzie status suggests.

The original "Rambo" movie, "First Blood," became an unexpected franchise-maker upon its release in 1982. Critics raved about the film and Sylvester Stallone's performance as John Rambo, a Vietnam War veteran who clashes with some small town police after they accuse him of being a drifter. In the manhunt that follows, Rambo emerges as a force to be reckoned with, both within the universe of the film and in Hollywood. A sequel seemed inevitable, but 1985's "Rambo: First Blood Part II" — which was co-written by Stallone and James Cameron — was trashed by critics and won the worst picture Razzie.

Critics were unfairly harsh on the second "Rambo." Many reviews argued that the titular character had been turned into another pumped up action star, and that the depth of "First Blood" was gone, but that couldn't be further from the truth. While there is arguably more action where Rambo is concerned, he's still forced to grapple with his past trauma and the uncertainty of his future. In the sequel, he gets released from prison and sent to Vietnam to search for missing POWs. However, he's under strict orders not to rescue them — orders that he, of course, ignores.

The difference between the critic and audience score on Rotten Tomatoes (33% versus 60%) speaks volumes about who "Rambo: First Blood Part II" was made for. Living up to "First Blood" was always going to be difficult, but the sequel was supposed to entertain action movie fans, and it did just that. The over-the-top nature of it is what makes it so fun to watch. Over the years, the film has earned more fans: In 2009, Entertainment Weekly included "Rambo: First Blood Part II" on its list of the best action movies of the past 25 years.

1990's "The Adventures of Ford Fairlane" shared the Razzie for worst movie with the terrible Bo Derek rom-com "Ghosts Can't Do It," which doesn't deserve to be defended. However, "The Adventures of Ford Fairlane" is a lot better than people give it credit for. It's a movie that, on the surface, seems a bit hokey, but it's actually a lot of fun. Ford Fairlane (Andrew Dice Clay) is a private investigator who goes by the moniker Mr. Rock 'n' Roll Detective because he carries out investigations for musicians in Hollywood. Everyone has their beat, and his is the music industry.

Critics did not enjoy it. Roger Ebert called "The Adventures of Ford Fairlane" a "loud, ugly and mean-spirited" film, and the majority of critics agreed with him: The film has a score of 23% on Rotten Tomatoes. Ford Fairlane can't be both someone to root for and a character with a strong personality, so Clay plays him as the latter. It works out well, showing Clay's ability. It doesn't make him a detective we want to see succeed, and that's okay. Today, audiences accept that you don't necessarily have to like a protagonist, but at the time, people wanted to cheer for who they perceived the "hero" to be.

The movie is now a bit of a cult classic, especially as audiences continue to revisit it. With a 67% on the Popcornmeter, it's clear that, even if people weren't intrigued by the film during its release in 1990, that sentiment has changed. It's a unique concept that hasn't truly been replicated, making it a refreshing change of pace from the repetitive detective vehicle on screens today.

A World War II drama starring Michael Douglas, Melanie Griffith, and Liam Neeson sounds like the kind of thing that critics should eat up, but that wasn't the case with "Shining Through," which was named worst picture at the 1992 Razzies. It's the story of a woman called Linda (Griffith), who begins working as a translator for an attorney (Douglas) only to begin an affair with him. It leads her to travel with him, which brings a whole set of challenges, including imitating a Nazi wife while in Switzerland.

Many of the best World War II movies follow men in varying positions on both sides of war, so "Shining Through" was poised to do something different by focusing on a woman. However, David Seltzer (who was nominated for worst director) did not utilize the source material (a novel by Susan Isaacs) to the fullest extent, failing to use much of the book. This resulted in critics finding the story unbelievable, which is why it has a 41% on Rotten Tomatoes. However, there's still a lot to love about this film.

The audience score (which is 72%) proves that general viewers saw what was lurking underneath: Melanie Griffith is amazing as Linda. Amateur reviewers love her turn opposite Michael Douglas and they find the story intriguing, since it shows how intelligence was gathered during the war, and Neeson is compelling as General Franze-Otto Dietrich. It's a worthy film, despite its Razzie award, and deserves a second look, especially if you're a fan of war movies.

Jenny McCarthy wrote and played the lead in "Dirty Love," a 2005 rom-com about a photographer who is dealt a bad hand when she finds out her boyfriend is a cheater. She tries to make him jealous on several occasions, only for her efforts to backfire. Is it a unique premise? No, and that likely contributed to the film's awful 6% score on Rotten Tomatoes. However, audiences liked the film, with "Dirty Love" sitting at 68% on the Popcornmeter.

What accounts for that 62% difference? Well, what the critics took to be overly crude humor, audiences interpreted as dark comedy. They argue critics were taking it too seriously — likely more seriously than the movie takes itself — and that you just need to sit back and enjoy "Dirty Love" for what it is. It has great rewatchability, and, despite the jokes, Rebecca learns a lesson that's important for every young woman, giving meaning to the wackiness.

It isn't the best script in the world, and that's okay — not everything can be. When compared to its fellow nominees that year (particularly the dreadful "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo" and "Son of the Mask"), "Dirty Love" shines as something enjoyable and entertaining. It was never designed to be an Oscar winner, but to say it's the worst film of the year is a bit of stretch.

The romantic musical dramedy "Under the Cherry Moon" tied for worst picture at the 1986 Razzies with "Howard the Duck," which is widely seen as one of the worst movies ever made. To lump "Under the Cherry Moon" in with "Howard the Duck" is to do it a disservice, as it isn't actually as bad as many people think. The movie is musician Prince's directorial debut. He stars as a pianist pursuing a young woman who is seemingly out of his league because of their different social classes.

Many critics dismissed "Under the Cherry Moon" as an ego project, but the film has seen some re-evaluation since Prince passed away and is now considered by some to be a cult classic. Part of the issue at the time was that many saw it as a rip-off of Fred Astaire films, with the use of black and white film considered a shallow attempt to appear classy. However, judged on its own merits, it's actually quite an entertaining film with some genuinely funny moments, and the connected album, "Parade," did well commercially.

"Under the Cherry Moon" has a 38% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes, but general viewers have been kinder to the musical, as evidenced by its 67% audience score. The film is now seen as reminiscent of the older days of Hollywood, with some even suggesting it captures Prince's personality well. In its review of the film, the Philadelphia Inquirer said: "In Under the Cherry Moon, Prince does more for movie musicals than any performer since Frank Sinatra and more for bared midriffs than any sex symbol since Little Egypt."

At 177 minutes, "The Postman" is the longest movie to have been named the worst film of the year at the Golden Raspberry Awards. Kevin Costner directed and stars in this post-apocalyptic adventure film, which takes place in a near-future, neo-Western version of the United States. He plays a nomad who becomes known as the Postman after coming across a United States Postal Service uniform. The film bombed at the box office, earning just $17 million against its $80 million budget. However, it's a movie that was ahead of its time.

Is "The Postman" one of the best dystopian movies of all time? No, not by a long shot. But it's a lot better than its Rotten Tomatoes rating of 14% suggests. Costner's titular character — who unintentionally starts a revolution against the tyrannical rulers of this new world — would no doubt resonate with modern audiences if it came out today. People like to root for a character who doesn't realize how important they actually are, and, while that's always been the case, modern audiences are more attuned to the idea of an understated hero rising to the top.

At 51%, the film's audience score is a lot better than its critical one. Some amateur reviewers compared it to Stephen King's "The Stand," called it compelling, and noted that the themes stayed with them long after the credits had rolled. Audience reviews from the last year highlight how topical the film feels today, showing that "The Postman" was always something great and that the critics just didn't see it at the time.

The final three "Twilight" movies — "Eclipse," "Breaking Dawn – Part 1," and "Breaking Dawn – Part 2" — were all nominated for the Razzie for worst picture, but only "Breaking Dawn – Part 2" took home the most undesirable of trophies. However, "Breaking Dawn – Part 2" is actually the best film in the franchise. The final "Twilight" film — made in a time when splitting the final installment of a franchise into two parts was the trendy thing to do — definitely gets more hate than it should.

Unlike other book-to-screen adaptations (we're looking at you "Divergent"), Stephenie Meyer's "Breaking Dawn" had a natural point to divide the story into two halves: before Bella's vampire transition and after. Though the second half of the novel can be a bit slow, since it follows Bella and the Cullens trying to show their gathering friends that Bella and Edward's child Renesmee is not all vampire, the film managed to stay entertaining, particularly with the fake out during the Volturi fight. This was a surprising and unexpected addition that ultimately didn't change the narrative but added some much-needed excitement — a calculated risk that paid off.

In addition to the successful new sequence, "Breaking Dawn – Part 2" has the highest critics score of the five movies on Rotten Tomatoes. It's still considered Rotten with a score of 49%, but "Breaking Dawn – Part 1" was hit even harder, earning just 26%. "Breaking Dawn – Part 2" also has the highest audience score in the franchise apart from the original "Twilight." While the Razzie award is likely rooted in the wild "imprinting" plotline associated with Jacob and Renesmee, there's much more to "Breaking Dawn – Part 2" than that.

Bruce Willis has been on plenty of Golden Raspberry nomination sheets, but perhaps his most notable Razzie nominated film is "Hudson Hawk," which went on to win worst movie. That's because Willis was at the height of his powers at the time, meaning the failure of "Hudson Hawk" was all the more surprising. The film flopped at the box office and didn't go down well with critics, but a lot of that was down to the botched marketing campaign: The film was intended as an absurdist comedy, but, likely because Willis was famous for "Die Hard" at this point, it got promoted as another action flick.

If you watch "Hudson Hawk" in the spirit that the filmmakers intended, it's actually very entertaining. The creative team took a chance, and while it didn't initially appear to pay off, especially where reviews are concerned, it's something that's only continued to get better with age. "Hudson Hawk" has a score of 30% on the Tomatometer, meaning it's not among the worst Bruce Willis films according to Rotten Tomatoes. Critics at the time tried to compare the film to big action vehicles of the day, which didn't help. "Hudson Hawk" gets a bad rap that isn't warranted.