| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 01/07/2008 : 04:09:17
I'm probably the only person here who's gonna take the time to think of ten movies they hated this year, so everyone else can just pick the handful they hated.
Now, let me be clear, these aren't the worst films of the year. Most of us don't go out of our ways to catch the films most universally derided as bad, so we miss them. These films are ranked not in how bad I thought they were, but how much I hated them. I think that Balls of Fury, Disturbia, I Know Who Killed Me and even The Kite Runner are probably worse films than some on this list, but I can't really hate them the way that I hate such films as:
10. Dan in Real Life -- Actually quite charming in a lot of ways and easily the best film on this list, the film still veered into unwatchability on too many occasions, mostly as a result of those fucking Full House daughters. Infurating whiners to a one, they all deserved to be grounded without allowance for years, and the extent that they ran roughshod over their poor dad was infuriating. But its biggest problem is how it claims that real love is messy, then shows it being messy in the cleanest, most organized way possible -- a flaw it shares with #5 on the list.
9. Blades of Glory -- I am a Will Ferrell fan, but from here on out, what he desperately needs to do is 1) stay away from human black hole Jared Hess, 2) make fun of something which isn't already well beyond parody, and 3) find a new shtick besides pseudo-macho hot air machine who competes in some kind of sport. Looming on the horizon: Semi-Pro.
8. The Brave One -- A snoozer and a half, this is a pro-vigilante film that buries itself in pretension and vague mindgames so that it won't have to admit that it's a pro-vigilante film. It excuses the justice-miscarrying ways of its protagonist by virtue of her victimhood, and while Jodie Foster is more than on form as an actress, I suspect her backstage meddling as producer may have turned this film into outright shit.
7. Ghost Rider -- Absolutely the wrong way to make a superhero movie, it never gives any character any understandable superpowers, making every battle meaningless, and it scrubs its lead character clean of any moral ambiguity despite the fact that he sold his soul to the devil, and it also sinks the film by refusing to take its own premise seriously -- but mostly, it's just halfassed and irritating.
6. The Golden Compass -- The worst literary adaptation I may have ever seen, this film treks from plot point to plot point without ever once trying to make it clear what the hell is going on, imbuing any character with any personality whatsoever, or once attempting to engage the human element.
5. Enchanted -- Inexplicably overrated, this movie is an infuriatingly limp satire of fairy tales, lacking even the balls of the Shrek movies. It decries Giselle's romance with her Prince because it takes place in a day, then holds up Giselle's romance with Patrick Dempsey as pure because it takes place in three days. Most dumbass chick flicks are excused by saying that it's a fairy tale, not a documentary -- but then what to make of this movie, which is explicitly supposed to NOT be a fairy tale, yet falls under every mindless fairytale trope, the worst of which is the world's most easily resolved love triangle. This movie has nothing to do with the real world and shouldn't have pretended to take place there.
4. Underdog -- Were I ranking on objective quality and not the amount of bile it stirred in me, this would go right to the top of the list. Lazy to the point of barely existing, this film is an exercise in no one at all caring to do anything except taking money out of mommy's purse, and a testament to the lack of respect Hollywood has towards children and children's films. A generation raised on this is doomed.
3. Transformers -- The death of the action movie. I've actually enjoyed Michael Bay movies in the past, honestly, and this film still felt like a giant robot was pissing on me and laughing. That it dispenses with character development and goes over the top with spectacle is just part of the charms of its genre; what it adds is a glut of kindergarten-level jokes, no cool heroes or cool villains, an overcomplicated and meaningless plot, and action sequences so unfollowable it may well qualify as experimental cinema. Stupid in a stupid way, one of the worst films ever made.
2. Michael Clayton -- I've ranted so hard about this movie that I'm surprised it's not my number one. I've already made my objections known over and over again: it's pretentious, slow, mind-numbingly boring, and features a truly sorry horseshit ending. Every overwritten line begs for significance and ambiguity it doesn't have. I will spend the rest of my life picketing against this movie.
And our number one...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1. Waitress -- The late Adrienne Shelly may have been a talented actress and even a talented director, but she was an absolutely atrocious writer. Had this come from a studio hack and not a respected indie actress, this would have been easily dismissed as the puerile, fairy-tale chick-flick fluff that it is. Shelly puts her own character in the worst storyline, but it's her horrifyingly stupid take on domestic abuse, marriage and motherhood that puts this right at the top for me. Obnoxious and odious to an endless degree, and I really wish I wasn't saying about a recently dead person, but the facts are what they is -- I hated this film more than anything else this year. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| GHcool |
Posted - 01/24/2008 : 22:50:00
Speaking of terrible movies of the year, check out this year's Razzie Award nominations honoring the year's worst films. Fortunately, I have not seen any of the nominees for Worst Picture. |
| Chris C |
Posted - 01/24/2008 : 18:00:07
In reply to various points above:
I don't get to the cinema very often, and when I do I try to pick and choose what I see, hopefully getting to see something good. I resent paying good money only to find out that the movie is a load of tosh.
I found Die Hard 4.0 and Spiderman 3 both more than vaguely disappointing: Die Hard because of the higher than usual (for Die Hard) BS-quotient and the inadvertant laugh out loud moments, and Spidey 3 because of some very poor visuals (close-ups of Spidey swinging through New York), and some very cringeworthy moments (Peter Parker trying to be cool). We came out of the cinema after both movies saying "What a load of crap" and would be very unlikely to watch either movie again. |
| demonic |
Posted - 01/24/2008 : 10:29:38
I follow you, MBI, and agree to a point. Part of my diet is heavily genre... AvP2 and I Am Legend represent the last two films I saw in the cinema and they hit the spot very nicely, but I'm wary of some people who only watch rubbishy movies and try to say they are great films just because they enjoyed them. |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 01/24/2008 : 02:11:33
quote:
I happen to like a bit of trash now and then to keep the flavours in the cinema pot mixed up, but I don't really follow your argument. You're actually saying someone who hates shitty action movies can't really appreciate films? Sounds like the person who can't appreciate film is the person not watching the good stuff - ie. the person spending time watching all the bog standard action movies.
Well, I was half-joking, but yes, I think simple gut pleasures from delivers-the-goods genre films are a very large part of what I enjoy about cinema.
But for the record:
1) I was talking about DECENT action movies, not shitty ones.
2) You can't tell whether a film is going to be "the good stuff" or "shitty" until you actually watch it, so a person who only watches action movies and not the critically acclaimed stuff is just looking for greatness down a different avenue than the person who does the reverse. There's always a hidden gem among the trash, and professional critics are often full of shit.
quote:
As for your final point - what I'm having trouble understanding is why it isn't screamingly obvious that we don't all share the same tastes in film and therefore don't use your or anyone else's opinions as a guideline. I personally didn't see Die Hard 4, but even if you did like it or love it or hate it, what exactly has that got to do with anyone else?
I will take the hit for this, I got my own point confused on that one. I got my perspective tangled with Chris C's perspective. What I was saying to Chris C is I don't understand the perspective of someone who can find Die Hard 4.0 any worse than vaguely disappointing, and what I was saying to Sean is that vaguely disappointing films shouldn't be on the list. Somehow I got the idea that Chris C was only vaguely disappointed by Die Hard 4.0, which I'm guessing he was not, and which, again, I totally do not get. |
| demonic |
Posted - 01/24/2008 : 01:39:35
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
As far as I'm concerned, the day you stop liking generic action movies is the day you stop liking movies at all
I happen to like a bit of trash now and then to keep the flavours in the cinema pot mixed up, but I don't really follow your argument. You're actually saying someone who hates shitty action movies can't really appreciate films? Sounds like the person who can't appreciate film is the person not watching the good stuff - ie. the person spending time watching all the bog standard action movies.
quote:
But that's very, very beside the point I was trying to make. My point was, this is the WORST FILMS OF THE YEAR list, not the VAGUELY DISAPPOINTING FILMS OF THE YEAR list. I can't understand at all what would make anyone who's seen more than two dozen films in a year put Live Free or Die Hard on their worst list.
That argument makes sense, but basically I chose the ten (or so) films I enjoyed the least last year - some of them may have only been vaguely disappointing, but they were still the worst of the films I saw in the year.
As for your final point - what I'm having trouble understanding is why it isn't screamingly obvious that we don't all share the same tastes in film and therefore don't use your or anyone else's opinions as a guideline. I personally didn't see Die Hard 4, but even if you did like it or love it or hate it, what exactly has that got to do with anyone else? |
| Sean |
Posted - 01/22/2008 : 10:27:26
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
But that's very, very beside the point I was trying to make. My point was, this is the WORST FILMS OF THE YEAR list, not the VAGUELY DISAPPOINTING FILMS OF THE YEAR list. I can't understand at all what would make anyone who's seen more than two dozen films in a year put Live Free or Die Hard on their worst list.
That's a fair point, except that I do some serious filtering before watching films (like I'd guess many will do), and deliberately avoid the rubbish. But, you did entitle the thread "TOP TEN LEAST FAVOURITE FILMS OF THE YEAR", not "WORST FILMS MADE THIS YEAR". I think people will put the ten movies they liked least on the list, which is probably gonna include generic action flicks. The fact that someone's put a movie on their "least favourite" list doesn't necessarily mean they think it's unredeemable garbage.
I'd give my ten least favourite a score of at least 6/10, i.e., a pass mark in my book, as I didn't see any real shockers. I very seldom watch a movie and give it less than 6/10, perhaps 1% of movies I see, due to my filtering process. |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 01/22/2008 : 05:28:46
And as an addition to that, I just realized that I tragically neglected the atrocity Bee Movie from my list. |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 01/22/2008 : 05:14:20
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
[quote]Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
The same applies to generic action movies, there may not be much that's particularly wrong with them except that there's nothing new in them, hence they are rubbished. I've seen it all before and get bored completely. So watching Die Hard 4 is like watching Die Hard for the fourth time, or more to the point, watching Generic Action Movie 47 for the first time or Generic Action Movie for the 47th time.
As far as I'm concerned, the day you stop liking generic action movies is the day you stop liking movies at all -- like Kael said, we've got to learn to appreciate great trash because there's very little great art. I'm happy dissecting the minute differences between Bridget Jones's Diary and Bridget Jones's Diary 2, and I have to think that people aren't trying hard enough if they can't do that, let alone if they need to have explained what makes Sunshine, of all things, distinct.
But that's very, very beside the point I was trying to make. My point was, this is the WORST FILMS OF THE YEAR list, not the VAGUELY DISAPPOINTING FILMS OF THE YEAR list. I can't understand at all what would make anyone who's seen more than two dozen films in a year put Live Free or Die Hard on their worst list. |
| lemmycaution |
Posted - 01/21/2008 : 23:58:52
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Again, do we just hate all action and genre movies here? "Live Free or Die Hard" wasn't a great film, it had real problems, it had a lousy villain and it should have not tried to connect itself to 9/11 and technoparanoia crap. But for fuck's sake, it had Bruce Willis being Bruce Willis, it had Lucy McClane, and it had some really good action sequences. I don't understand you people at all.
I think it's a case of disliking generic movies due to the boredom they cause. There's nothing wrong with Britney Spears's music either, her voice is pretty enough, she can sing in tune, the rhythm section is flawless, the melodies are... melodic, there is nothing wrong with it at all. Except for the fact that it's totally generic, emotionless, boring and unfulfilling.
The same applies to generic action movies, there may not be much that's particularly wrong with them except that there's nothing new in them, hence they are rubbished. I've seen it all before and get bored completely. So watching Die Hard 4 is like watching Die Hard for the fourth time, or more to the point, watching Generic Action Movie 47 for the first time or Generic Action Movie for the 47th time.
I've just realised I haven't the faintest idea how old you are, perhaps you aren't old enough to have become bored by this stuff yet? I'm 40.
Most of the movies in my netlflix queue are from 1930-1970, as I haven't seen enough stuff from these eras to be bored yet (although that day will probably come - hopefully not before I'm as old as lemmy  ). There's not that much from post-1980 Hollywood that I watch these days, as much of the product is formulaic. BTW, I'm not a repeat-movie watcher, a movie needs to be brilliant for me to want to watch it a second time; for the same reason I have no interest in genre movies, as I've seen them all before.
 First you diss Britney, and then insult me!!!!
Why I ought ta...! 
|
| Sean |
Posted - 01/21/2008 : 22:47:15
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Again, do we just hate all action and genre movies here? "Live Free or Die Hard" wasn't a great film, it had real problems, it had a lousy villain and it should have not tried to connect itself to 9/11 and technoparanoia crap. But for fuck's sake, it had Bruce Willis being Bruce Willis, it had Lucy McClane, and it had some really good action sequences. I don't understand you people at all.
I think it's a case of disliking generic movies due to the boredom they cause. There's nothing wrong with Britney Spears's music either, her voice is pretty enough, she can sing in tune, the rhythm section is flawless, the melodies are... melodic, there is nothing wrong with it at all. Except for the fact that it's totally generic, emotionless, boring and unfulfilling.
The same applies to generic action movies, there may not be much that's particularly wrong with them except that there's nothing new in them, hence they are rubbished. I've seen it all before and get bored completely. So watching Die Hard 4 is like watching Die Hard for the fourth time, or more to the point, watching Generic Action Movie 47 for the first time or Generic Action Movie for the 47th time.
I've just realised I haven't the faintest idea how old you are, perhaps you aren't old enough to have become bored by this stuff yet? I'm 40.
Most of the movies in my netlflix queue are from 1930-1970, as I haven't seen enough stuff from these eras to be bored yet (although that day will probably come - hopefully not before I'm as old as lemmy ). There's not that much from post-1980 Hollywood that I watch these days, as much of the product is formulaic. BTW, I'm not a repeat-movie watcher, a movie needs to be brilliant for me to want to watch it a second time; for the same reason I have no interest in genre movies, as I've seen them all before. |
| Salopian |
Posted - 01/20/2008 : 20:58:28
quote:
Originally posted by Chris C
slightly worse than Spiderman 3, which was just bad.
  |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 01/20/2008 : 20:02:13
Again, do we just hate all action and genre movies here? "Live Free or Die Hard" wasn't a great film, it had real problems, it had a lousy villain and it should have not tried to connect itself to 9/11 and technoparanoia crap. But for fuck's sake, it had Bruce Willis being Bruce Willis, it had Lucy McClane, and it had some really good action sequences. I don't understand you people at all. |
| randall |
Posted - 01/20/2008 : 17:15:35
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
For what it's worth, I don't spot a movie even remote worth defending on your worst list -- not even your most controversial pick, Inland Empire, which I hated. Lynch has very much lost his touch, he's always made abstract films, but now he's making abstract abstract films. Super-tedious, and this comes from someone who loved Mulholland Drive.
I liked INLAND EMPIRE. Then I rented it a year later and, surprisingly, liked it even better. |
| Chris C |
Posted - 01/20/2008 : 16:43:56
I'd humbly like to nominate Die Hard 4.0 for the "worst action movie of the year" list. So bad it was laugh-out-loud at times, and slightly worse than Spiderman 3, which was just bad. |
| Salopian |
Posted - 01/20/2008 : 04:25:27
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
not even your most controversial pick, Inland Empire, which I hated. Lynch has very much lost his touch, he's always made abstract films, but now he's making abstract abstract films. Super-tedious, and this comes from someone who loved Mulholland Drive.
Yep, it is just so pretentious. That might even be O.K., were it interesting. I did find the occasional scene of some value, hence it isn't a 1/5, but there is just so much of the same. There's maybe enough material for a half-hour film. And all the rabbit stuff I just found dull. That said, it was so soporific I slept through some sections. Perhaps I missed the fascinating bits. |
|
|
