Can anyone explain the criteria for establishing a "worst film of the year"? Because I know for a fact that the worst movie made in the year 2000. was this one. The worst film of that year. Period. However, it wasn't awarded a Razzie it so richly deserved for its (lack of) accomplishments. Instead, the Razzie went to... Battlefield Earth. Which, bad though it may be, definitely wasn't the absolutely worst film of 2000. But, hey. It appears that merely being bad isn't enough for the Razzies, because giving the prizes to the actually bad movies instead of merely mediocre blockbusters would soon plunge the Razzies into obscurity. The movies they nominate and the people vote on are more specifically "the most disappointing movie" of the year, one that was anticipated but turned out not so good as the propaganda promised. The word they like to use is "infamous". Of course, this is not the truth either, because the list of "nominees" is merely all the MTV movie awards and Academy awards nominees combined. And then letting people spit at them. Because poking fun at popular culture is great and makes you look cool and extends your e-penis. What do you think?