Worst Movies of 2005, thus far:

Any topic that doesn't fit elsewhere.
User avatar
Loomis
Signature Collection
Posts: 6357
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia ... where there is no Magic Kingdom :(
Contact:

Post by Loomis »

Spottedfeather wrote:Fantastic Four - this pile of garbage didn't have anything to do with the comic. Dr. Doom's costume didn't look like it's supposed to, Invisible Woman is supposed to be thin and white, Mr. Fantastic in the movie wasn't as old as he was supposed to be, and Thing.....good lord, who thought his costume was in any way correct looking ? He's supposed to have a neanderthal-like brow ridge. In the movie, he just looks like a horrible burn victim.
I'd have to disagree. Burn victims usually don't end up looking like orange rock :D

But seriously...

In the end, the problem is not - as the hardcore fans might suggest - that the film ignores many elements from the comic book. In fact, the opposite is true - much of the humour; the family rivalries and the most famous of the villains are present. The problem may be that it tried to include too many of these elements in too short a running time, and as result meshed Dr. Doom's origin with that of the FF. The frenetic pace glosses over much of the depth than can be found in recent issues of the comic, yet simultaneously takes its time to get going. As a consequence, the majority of the action is crammed into the last fifteen minutes, and much of the conflict comes about all too quickly. That said, the film works for the most part as a fun action/adventure story.

Becoming very tempted to list my own bottom five of the year, even if it does mean compromising my above statements :D

BTW, Prince Eric - thanks for the explanation on the Oscars/SFX selection. That has always been something of a mystery to me.
Behind the Panels - Comic book news, reviews and podcast
The Reel Bits - All things film
Twitter - Follow me on Twitter
dvdjunkie
Signature Collection
Posts: 5613
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:05 am
Location: Wichita, Kansas

Post by dvdjunkie »

Here goes my list of the Worst of 2005. This list is subject to change because I couldn't find all my notes about the past few months.

1. The Dukes of Hazard - what can I say that hasn't already been expounded on. They took a classic television show and put Jessica Simpson in it and then added Johnny Knoxville, Burt Reynolds, Willie Nelson, and a much longer list of no-talents and ruined it. What could have been a great tribute like "Starsky and Hutch" went right in the toilet along with their so-called attempt at humor.

2. Be Cool - This sorry attempt at a sequel to a classic movie was abissmal to say the least. 'nuff said.

3. Get Rich or Die Tryin' - 50-cent, need I say more?

4. The Bad News Bears - this horrible remake of a classic film with Billy Bob Thornton was terrible in every way possible. Bad story, bad acting, and just all around a bad movie.

5. Kicking and Screaming - This Will Ferrell film should have never been made. It lacked any sort of heart, and what a waste of talent. Just a terrible movie.

6. The Devil's Rejects - The gory, disturbing sequel to House of a Thousand Corpses is absolutely a waste of film and talent. The soundtrack of 70's pop hits even is a waste of time.

7. Elektra - What could have been a really good film, turned out to be a shoddy attempt at being a female super-hero movie and it was just awful. I like Jennifer Garner, and she was good in her cameo role in "Daredevil", but just totally wasted in this film.

8. The Honeymooners - Jackie Gleason and Art Carney are probably screaming "foul!!" at this attempt to make a movie of a beloved television show. Not because they made all the characters black mind you, but because it lacked story, heart, and above all good acting. Whoever thought Cedric the Entertainer lived up to his name was so wrong. Horrible, just horrible.

9. Guess Who - Ashton Kutcher couldn't save this remake from being a terrible movie. They should have left this one alone. The original film was so much better with Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, and Sidney Poitier. This tepid remake never gets off the ground.

10. George Romero's Land of the Dead - I thought I would like this fourth installment in the "Dead Quadrilogy", but I was way wrong. This was a feeble attempt at bringing some name stars like Dennis Hopper and John Leguizamo into the fold of his zombie blood-fest. The film fails on all fields of play. It isn't scary, it isn't funny, and it is just plain silly.

Now to answer the other question about those on Lazario's list that shouldn't belong there:

"Jarhead" - this is one great movie, that should be seen by every Liberal-left-wing-bomb-thrower. It follows one man from basic training to his advanced training, and then to his first assignment in Iraq for Operation Desert Storm. Look out at Academy Award time, there could be some surprises from this film.

"Stealth" - this is just a plain old 'check your brain at the door' popcorn movie. It is entertainment, and doesn't ask you to believe it for one minute. Movies are supposed to be entertainment, and this one does just that.

"Mr. and Mrs. Smith" - this was two hours of total fun and I thought it was totally out of the usual character that Brad Pitt plays. This was a smart and sassy comedy-drama about two people who didn't belong together, but through a twist of fate and an assignment to kill each other, brings them closer together. I really enjoyed watching the interplay of Angelina Jolie and Pitt in this one. Vince Vaughn chewed up the scenery whenever he was on screen.

"Madagascar" - this animated film, while a far cry from even being compared to a Disney or Warner Bros. animated film, was very entertaining. The voices fit the characters and I will agree it took a while to get the story going, but when it did, it was unbeatable. The animation was top-notch, and a big step above the Saturday morning 'stick' cartoons that we are subjected to relentlessly.

"Crash" - this was just one heck of a movie. All I can say is I liked it and I bought it and I am proud to have it in my collection.

"King Kong" is released next Wednesday and I don't think anyone can judge this film by just seeing the trailer or reading what any critic says about it. I have seen this film, and it is overhwhelming to say the least. Jack Black is really good as Carl Denham and what can you say about Naomi Watts. She is beautiful. This is truly a great remake of the 'beauty and the beast' story. Don't miss it when it comes to a theatre near you. Watch out Academy Award time, this is another surprise film.

'Nuff said.

:roll:
The only way to watch movies - Original Aspect Ratio!!!!
I LOVE my Blu-Ray Disc Player!
memnv
Collector's Edition
Posts: 2699
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 10:14 pm
Location: Carson City
Contact:

Post by memnv »

I think it is funny that you list Dukes of Hazzard Junkie, since you have not seen it. I think Stealth was a terrible movie and I am glad that I did not buy it.
Dark Knight Rulez
I am the Doctor
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2004 6:37 pm

Post by I am the Doctor »

Worst movies of 2005 that I've seen (I don't rate movies I haven't seen yet)-

House of Wax-I mean, come on, the whole House of Wax building is made out of Wax? Wouldn't it melt on a hot, sunny day? Don't believe me, try sticking a candle outside on a hot, sunny day and watch what happens. Logic's never been a big thing in horror movies, but House of Wax takes the cake!

Dukes of Hazzard-I would have rated this one the worst, but then I saw House of Wax! Still stinks, and I don't think an unrated DVD is going to make this one any better.

Bewitched-More disappointing than anything else. Kidman and Ferell aren't bad, but the whole we're remaking the television show and Kidman just so happens to be a real witch was too cute (and I don't mean in a good way). A straight remake would have been better.

The Island-What might have been an interesting story about cloning and clones is wasted on a big budget Michael Bay car wreck (and building destruction, helicopter crashes, shoot-outs, well you get the idea...)
Lazario

Re: Worst Movies of 2005, thus far:

Post by Lazario »

MICKEYMOUSE wrote:But I am suprized Sealth is there just because Jamie Foxx is in that movie.
It was nothing against Jamie Foxx, personally, but... that's a really stupid arguement against my having it on the list. Why, by all accounts I could say that Made In America was a great movie and/or wasn't the least bit farfetched just because Whoopi Goldberg was in it. When someone gets to say "it was great because (so-and-so) was in it", we have critical anarchy ( :wink: ).
DisneyFan 2000 wrote:Crash, in my opinion, is a piece of mainstream junk.
And preachy, and heavy-handed, and...

Madagascar : I know that a lot of people liked Shrek. And they're as happy as a pig in s*** that there are a dozen movies coming out that are just like it. But that trend is unoriginal to begin with. You can't just say it's great because it's family-friendly and all "nice" with a poppy music soundtrack and celebrity voices. Sorry to burst all your bubbles. Films DO suffer as a result of their absurd characters, half-filled senses of humor (how quickly everyone forgets the Dr. Dolittle movies!). And hey- who am I arguing with here? This is Dreamworks ripping off Disney's legacy with Shrek and all it's followers, and poorly at that. Try again.


Stealth : "'Stealth' is an offense against taste, intelligence and the noise pollution code -- a dumbed-down "Top Gun" crossed with the HAL 9000 plot from "2001." It might be of interest to you if you want to see lots of jet airplanes going real fast and making a lot of noise, and if you don't care that the story doesn't merely defy logic, but strips logic bare, cremates it and scatters its ashes." - Roger Ebert.

"Aiming to join the Jerry Bruckheimer/Michael Bay school of American movie war games, "Stealth" is just too dumb to make the grade. Director Rob Cohen's fifth high-speed production with producer Neal H. Moritz ("XXX," "The Fast and the Furious") turns near-future Air Force jets guided by artificial intelligence into objects for thrill rides and nearly erotic pleasure while warning of a corrupt Pentagon at the core. "Stealth" probably won't stay airborne for too long." - Robert Koehler, Variety

"'Stealth' has got the right stuff -- guns, guts and good looks. But instead of flying high, it sputters to get off the ground. The only highlight is a backstabbing computer named Eddie." - Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle

"Probably pitched as Top Gun meets Terminator, Stealth is more along the slapdash lines of Iron Eagle II meets Short Circuit. Its action sequences, more geeky than thrilling, fail to rescue the laughable plot. But like Top Gun, this gas-guzzling gearhead trip from director Rob Cohen (The Fast and the Furious) was made with the support of the real-life U.S. Navy—although only assiduous credit hounds would notice. Along with the other armed forces branches, the navy allows access to bases, equipment, and personnel for select projects after approving scripts to make sure they present an "accurate" depiction of service life; such joint efforts, the thinking goes, can enhance the military's public image and aid recruitment efforts." - Ed Halter, The Village Voice

"Keep 'Stealth' off your radar: there's plenty of computer-generated action but little in the way of plot or suspense. The funniest scene I've seen this year takes place about midway through the futuristic jet fighter flick Stealth. Supermodel-gorgeous Jessica Biel, playing - oh man, I'm starting to giggle again - one of the world's most elite jet pilots, ejects from her malfunctioning jet. Even though the jet has been malfunctioning for some time, Biel's Lt. Kara Wade waits until the last possible second to eject. And even though her jet appears to have every single piece of information on Earth at her fingertips - it's the Web times 50 - she doesn't happen to notice that she's ejecting over, whoops, North Korea. Then it gets better. Biel recites a progressively more hilarious play-by-play of her descent, which breaks about 72 laws of physics: She ends up beneath the exploding plane, which would have been miles away in seconds. She's getting smacked around by chunks of plane. And burning debris is raining down on her chute. If it doesn't sound hilarious, I guess I just don't have the touch of Stealth director Rob Cohen, who remarkably graduated from Harvard before helming such inane pap as The Fast and the Furious and XXX. Stealth - man, does that title not fit - is a headache-inducing, bombastic, utterly soul-crushing mess. It looks pretty, sure, with all its computer-generated bells and whistles, and its way-too-pretty cast. Grade: D" - Rick Gershman, St. Petersburg Times

"The twitchy tweener next to me offered running commentary along the lines of "awesome!!!" and "kickass!!!", but Cohen's film, despite its video-game, user-friendly toggles – clearly marked "Adrenaline" and "More Adrenaline" – plays like a slapdash assemblage of the greatest hits of conspiracy-minded action cinema. Stealth also mines everything from John Badham's 1983 renegade chopper opus Blue Thunder to, uh, John Badham's 1983 renegade computer opus WarGames, and, just for laffs, John Badham’s 1986 war-bot comedy Short Circuit. Sadly, the humor here is apparently unintentional and Ally Sheedy is nowhere to be found, but tonal quibbles such as these pale when confronted by the sheer Richter-trembling magnitude of Cohen’s bravura use of CGI and a 100-ton gimbal. The script, from sometime genre favorite W.D. Richter, is a hamfisted collection of cornball military clichés that frequently cross over into Absurdistan airspace before vectoring back toward the friendly skies of sci-fi, but even that fails to put much of a dent in the mental-whiplash-inducing forward motion of this two-hours-plus film. It's Hollywood hokum in extremis, and while the Gannon/Wade romantic-competition subplot threatens to ground the film every quarter-hour or so, Cohen’s mastery of the big-budget aerial action sequences repeatedly acts as a epinephrine jab to the heart of what might have otherwise been a high flying DOA." - Marc Savlov, The Austin Chronicle

"Given a better script, I probably would've loved Stealth, but it's more like a high school linebacker trying to take the SAT after an all-night kegger. Stay far, far away from Stealth, unless of course you yourself are a high school linebacker finding your way to your DVD player after an all-night kegger. Sometime in the near future, likely after Dubya declares the U.S. a military state and himself our Emperor, the U.S. steps up its fight against terrorism by building a fleet of three stealth fighters and training three exceptional pilots to destroy whatever's necessary to stop these threats. Does my insurance cover brain damage? In my history with DVD Verdict, I've reviewed Airheads, Encino Man, and Cabin Boy. These movies were supposed to be stupid—that was the point. I've also reviewed Dragonfly, Georgia, and Valentine. These movies weren't supposed to be stupid—it was just a side effect of lousy writing mixed with over-earnest filmmaking. And then there's Stealth. It definitely falls into the latter category. Its script isn't just stupid; it assumes that you are too. Not only that, it takes it all far too seriously, as if it buys into the ridiculousness of the yarn it spins. Let's break it down, shall we?

Okay, first off, we're asked to believe that jet fighters are the best way to fight terrorists. Never mind that jet fighters are best at blowing things up en masse, and terrorists are best at not congregating en masse. Then we're asked to believe that these "stealth" fighters are really, really loud and fly around with their afterburners on all the time. The whole point of a stealth aircraft is that it's quiet and creates a low profile—like not giving off a constant heat signature, like spewing burning jet fuel behind your aircraft would produce. And speaking of jet fuel, burning your afterburner uses a lot of fuel, yet these jets only need to refuel when it's convenient to the story. They're kinda like the six-shooters in the old westerns that could get off about two dozen shots before reloading…which only needed to be done when the hero absolutely needed to shoot the bad guy. These jets would do Bert Rutan proud—they can fly nearly around the world on a single tank of gas. If you tally up all the miles these planes put in, Kara would've had to have flown about 12,000 miles on a single tank of gas to crash-land in North Korea. Tin Man's journey is even more improbable. Sure, he gets to refuel, but you still gotta consider that he flies across Russia, over the pole to Alaska, then from Alaska to North Korea. I don't even want to do the numbers on that jump. Even worse than the logical inconsistencies and outright abandonment of real-world geography are the movie's attempts to be smarter than it is. Each of the pilots is given the chance to wax philosophical about the nature of war, about good people doing bad things to achieve good ends, that sort of thing. It's just filler, something to pass the time and use less budget than flying and blowing shit up. They're about as convincing as arguments in a high school civics class, and about as successful at making the movie look smart as putting glasses on a dog. Groucho glasses." - Mike Jackson, DVDverdict.com

"Cohen seems assured with action and effects sequences but when he tries for drama is a director who only reaches for clichés that more often than not collapse into the laughable. And expectedly Stealth is no more than an assemblage of clichés taken from other films." - Richard Scheib, Sci-Fi / Horror & Fantasy Film Review

"Rob Cohen, he of The Fast and the Furious and xXx infamy, is an engineer of dim-witted, belligerent, testosterone-fueled summer spectacles. His latest, Stealth, doesn't stray from this tried-and-true juvenilely aggro blueprint, and its story— reflects Cohen's own aesthetic modus operandi of replacing all traces of humanity with digitized artificiality. The director's fixation on CG-sculpted aerial dogfights and wholesale disinterest in character, plotting, or conversations which last longer than two snappy quips are the driving forces behind this melding of 2001 and Iron Eagle, in which ultra-cocky Naval flyboys must deal with the thinking, learning, emotional EDI once it's hit by lightening and, à la Short Circuit, develops an unpredictable, independent mind of its own." - Nick Shager, Slant Magazine
dvdjunkie
Signature Collection
Posts: 5613
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:05 am
Location: Wichita, Kansas

Post by dvdjunkie »

So, Lazario, you have no opinions yourself. You have to quote others to show what you lack in the ability to say how you feel. Too bad. Get out of your lair and go to a movie once in a while, you will be surprised that there are some good ones out there. Quoting other critics is not justifying why you don't like a film. Let's hear words from your own thoughts about these films.

And Memnv, I went out and wasted a free rental certificate and watched your ever-loving "Dukes of Hazzard" - even the unrated version - what a waste of time that was. How any one can say that it is movie making at its best is beyond me. "Dukes" remains my number one waste of time in a movie.

Back to our left-wing-bomb-thrower, critics are critics. We are our own best critic, and those people who judge a movie based on what they see in a trailer, or what they read in a critics corner, are just too lazy to go out to the cinema and see for themselves.

Movies are supposed to be entertainment. They all aren't supposed to be Academy Award winners, or even attempts at that. It is supposed to allow us a couple of hours away from reality. We are supposed to suspend belief in what can and what cannot happen and just sit back with some munchies and enjoy the ride. If you look at every movie as a potential Academy Award winner, then you are in for a very bad ride. Everyone's taste in films is different, and no two people are going to like a movie for the same reason, or dislike it for the same reason. That is why those over-paid critics are out there. They express their opinion and that is just what it is - an opinion.

:roll:
The only way to watch movies - Original Aspect Ratio!!!!
I LOVE my Blu-Ray Disc Player!
Lazario

Post by Lazario »

dvdjunkie wrote:So, Lazario, you have no opinions yourself. You have to quote others to show what you lack in the ability to say how you feel. Too bad. Get out of your lair and go to a movie once in a while, you will be surprised that there are some good ones out there. Quoting other critics is not justifying why you don't like a film. Let's hear words from your own thoughts about these films.
Um, smarts, I quoted the critics because we share many of the same opinions. Don't assume that I'm letting them make up my mind for me. God, you are a little too long in the tooth to make such ridiculously amateur mistakes in judgement. Assume nothing = you live longer. By the way, since I have to explain everything to you, in detail, that was an expression. Take it or leave it. All 13 of the movies on my list sucked. What do I have to prove to you? Nothing. I saw each and every one of them.
dvdjunkie wrote:Movies are supposed to be entertainment. It is supposed to allow us a couple of hours away from reality. If you look at every movie as a potential Academy Award winner, then you are in for a very bad ride. Everyone's taste in films is different, and no two people are going to like a movie for the same reason, or dislike it for the same reason.
And you refuse to accept my opinion, so you're going out on a limb to discredit me. Sure, you really understand your own point of view... Rather, I think you lost something in the translation. What do you think?
User avatar
Prince Eric
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1235
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 9:27 am

Post by Prince Eric »

Lazario - Don't even pay attention to DVDjunkie. He only views movies through his own narrow frame-of-mind and refuses to acknowledge the cinema as a form of art and higher expression. We're supposed to just go to the movies and have fun, but he can't take them seriously, so go figure. Also, notice his proclamation of "classic" movies - Get Shorty, the original Bad News Bears - and his constant use of "surprise" Academy Award contendors - Jarhead, King Kong - for every positively reviewed movie. (I guess he is ignoring the fact that Jarhead is considered dead-in-the-water.) Trust me, you have nothing to prove to him. :)
The Top 10 Films of 2005:
1) Brokeback Mountain 2) The Squid and the Whale 3) Me And You And Everyone We Know 4) The New World 5) A History of Violence 6) Match Point 7) Munich 8.) Crash 9) Wallace and Gromit 10) Pride & Prejudice
Lazario

Post by Lazario »

Prince Eric wrote:Also, notice his proclamation of "classic" movies - Get Shorty, the original Bad News Bears...
Oh God. Thanks Eric, now I'll never be able to take him seriously. Even when he says he's having a heart-attack, I'll have considerations of ingenuity slowing me from calling 911.
dvdjunkie
Signature Collection
Posts: 5613
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:05 am
Location: Wichita, Kansas

Post by dvdjunkie »

One last reply to these non-sensical postings.

When you get to be my age and have seen all the movies that I have you learn to appreciate film a lot more.

I was a projectionist for over 35 years and have more movies than you probably will ever in your lifetime. I know a good film when I see it, and I have seen a lot of good films.

Your choice of what you like is your choice and I can live with that. I was trying to get some spirited postings about why you don't like certain films and all you can do is post what critics say. That is not opinion, that is heresay. Prince Eric wants to be grown-up and make everyone think he is the 'critic-above-all-critics' and fails miserably. When the Academy Awards nominations are announced I will be man enough to admit how wrong I was if your predicition are even close. I doubt if you really know what Hollywood thinks when they choose movies to be Academy Award nominees.

I am in a movie theater at least four times a week, and I see all types of films. I am a true affeciando when it comes a variety of films. I watch Foreign Films, Art Films, commercial 'popcorn' films and those films that I think will be ones I want to have in my collection.

What you call classics and what I think are classics are all in ones opinion and that is what we express here. While your classics may differ from mine or Lazario's or any other member here, we are all entitled to call whatever movies we think are classics, just that "classics".

Some of my classics include: "How Green Was My Valley" (which neither of you have probably ever seen), "The Grapes of Wrath", "Gone With The Wind", "Casablanca", "The Caine Mutiny", "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo", "A Tale of Two Cities", "Les Miserables", "Joan of Arc" (the original with Ingrid Bergman), and some of the more modern films of our time that include "The Bad News Bears" (the original), "Old Yeller", "Pollyana", and too many more to list here.

:roll:
The only way to watch movies - Original Aspect Ratio!!!!
I LOVE my Blu-Ray Disc Player!
Lazario

Post by Lazario »

dvdjunkie wrote:I was trying to get some spirited postings about why you don't like certain films and all you can do is post what critics say.
If you find my postings nonsensical, you should truly look to yourself to find fault first. And here you go again, assuming. Even simple 3-word statements allude you, so in case you don't agree, I'll repeat myself - don't assume anything. It wasn't all I could do, it was simply the most productive thing I felt I could do at that time. Besides, it is a skill to find a common ground with other people expressing a similar opinion to a film. I also referenced those critics because they had good points. Now you're ignoring them because of your personal feeling on the movie, and pointing the finger at me. You're proving me right, you're not responsive to a point of view alternate to yours. Which is why I didn't want to get into this discussion in the first place, as I said in 2 other posts and a PM before this topic arose.
dvdjunkie wrote:I am in a movie theater at least four times a week, and I see all types of films. I am a true affeciando when it comes a variety of films. I watch Foreign Films, Art Films, commercial 'popcorn' films and those films that I think will be ones I want to have in my collection.
Wow. Oh yeah, how many movies do you have? Take a head count and get back to me. Even a ballpark-est will be sufficient.
dvdjunkie wrote:What you call classics and what I think are classics are all in ones opinion and that is what we express here.
I figure the biggest difference is that you seem to feel a good deal of new movies coming out today are actually good enough to compare to older classics. Perhaps I'm wrong...
dvdjunkie wrote: :roll:
This is you, all your life.
Last edited by Lazario on Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Escapay
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 12562
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
Contact:

Post by Escapay »

^

*applause applause*

Bravo, dvdjunkie! You said everything I was thinking, but I couldn't find the words.
dvdjunkie wrote:Some of my classics include: "How Green Was My Valley" (which neither of you have probably ever seen), "The Grapes of Wrath", "Gone With The Wind", "Casablanca", "The Caine Mutiny", "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo", "A Tale of Two Cities", "Les Miserables", "Joan of Arc" (the original with Ingrid Bergman),
How Green Was My Valley is an ESSENTIAL for everyone to see, so it would be a very big surprise if Prince Eric hasn't seen it!

Also, are you referring to the 1935 A Tale of Two Cities? Having never read the book, I found it to be a rather entertaining film when I watched it on TCM (though my brother Kram kept pointing out what was different in the book, which disrupted the viewing).

And I had no idea that Ingrid Bergman was in a Joan of Arc movie. I guess mainly because I only know of her as Ilsa Lund.

Escapay
WIST #60:
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion? :p

WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
User avatar
Prince Eric
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1235
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 9:27 am

Post by Prince Eric »

Well, I have repeatedly said that I'm not trying to be a big critic and I don't loom my opinions over anyone, I just feel the need to speak up when random and utterly thoughtless comments are made about movies.

As far as my hobby of tracking films through awards seasons, anyone will tell you that I'm pretty good at Academy Award predictions. Last year, I opened a thread and predicted 100% of the nominees in the major categories, give or take a nomination or two. I also predicted 3/5 in each of the technical categories which was really hard to do. Also, I won animatedmovies.com's Oscar prediction contest for the winners, and I won a gift certificate which I haven't been able to use, which totally sucks. :cry:

With that said, I will assure you that Jarhead is dead. That is not based on opinions of the film, that's based on tracking experience and what this past weekend of critics' awards are telling me.
The Top 10 Films of 2005:
1) Brokeback Mountain 2) The Squid and the Whale 3) Me And You And Everyone We Know 4) The New World 5) A History of Violence 6) Match Point 7) Munich 8.) Crash 9) Wallace and Gromit 10) Pride & Prejudice
dvdjunkie
Signature Collection
Posts: 5613
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:05 am
Location: Wichita, Kansas

Post by dvdjunkie »

Contrary to what you may think I read a lot of critics columns, and I do read them. Doesn't mean that I have like them or see the same thing they do. I agree "Stealth" is no award-winning movie by far, it is just pure entertainment and that's all that I wanted from it.

LAZARIO - click on My DVD collection and see what I have. There is about 1700 titles listed - not all of them will you agree with, but they are in my collection just the same. Then I have another 1200 titles on DVD-R and DVD-RW. My RW titles include several movies that are not nor have ever been available on DVD at this writing. The DVD-R titles are movies from the 30's and 40's that I am sure will never see the light of day on DVD.

Thank you Escapay for your support.

:roll:
The only way to watch movies - Original Aspect Ratio!!!!
I LOVE my Blu-Ray Disc Player!
User avatar
Loomis
Signature Collection
Posts: 6357
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia ... where there is no Magic Kingdom :(
Contact:

Post by Loomis »

I think the fact that there continues to be arguments in threads like these proves that you can't have an objective opinion over any art form. There will, of course, be universal factors that everyone can appreciate or disagree with, but art - and I am assuming everybody here considers film to be an artform - is the most subjective thing in the world.

Critics may all agree over a certain piece of art/film, but that may just means that experts have all found a common element that they like/dislike.

In the end, art - whether it is so-called "good art" or "bad art" - is down to the eye of the beholder. I will have seen 1000s of movies in my time as well, and I'm sure my opinions differ greatly from everybody else. Then again, we might all find common ground on a movie. But that is just tastes and preferences.

I know I continue to raise this point, but one person's trash can truly be another's treasure. Film is first and foremost there to entertain, and at the end of the day if you are/aren't entertained by a film, they you will form your opinions based on that. Even the most revered critics will freely admit to that. Let's face it - all a critics does that we don't is get paid for watching lots of movies and forming an opinion. A professional critic still has the same knowledge of film that your average buff does.

If this is going to turn into a contest over "who has the bigger DVD collection", then I think you are not really appreciating film for what it is and everybody has missed the point on a subjective "Year's Worst Film" list. A person may have a single DVD and it is their most beloved possession in the world. They could watch it over and over. For them, it is the greatest film in the world. By the same token, someone may have seen every film known to existence and still think "Breakin 2: Electric Boogaloo" is the greatest thing since cheese singles. It's all subjective people!

At any rate, it is good to see some debate over which film is best/worst, as it means we aren't all mindless drones!
Behind the Panels - Comic book news, reviews and podcast
The Reel Bits - All things film
Twitter - Follow me on Twitter
User avatar
Knight42092
Limited Issue
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:00 am
Location: The Gate of Babylon
Contact:

Post by Knight42092 »

Wedding Crashers and The Bad News Bears do not belong on the worst movies of the year list. They were both pretty bad, but they weren't the worst.
Image
SofaKing381222
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 8:35 pm
Location: Sugar Land, TX
Contact:

Post by SofaKing381222 »

Ok, here is my list. I am basing this only on the movies I have seen this year (the only fair way to do it)

5. Racing Stripes
4. XXX: State of the Union
3. Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Fabulous
2. Adventures of SharkBoy and LavaGirl in 3-D
1. Son of the Mask

I cant believe yall forgot about most of these movies. They were terrible!
We need season sets of all DCOSs and all DCOMs on DVD! And Better Cover Art!

My DVD's / My Space
User avatar
MICKEYMOUSE
Special Edition
Posts: 738
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 12:16 pm
Location: Disneyland

Post by MICKEYMOUSE »

I was the person who started this thread, and now I feel like I shouldn't of done it!!! The reason I did it is to start a good debate, to where it does not get out of hand!! I think we are all mature here, and we all also have our opinions of movie, music, food, tv shows etc.... I don't want this place to be a war, but a place where we can share our thoughts. It doesn't have to get violent. I will have my top 10 worst movie, by the end of the year. But guys keep your opinions coming, and not your bad attitudes!!!
"If you can dream it, you can do it." - Walt Disney
dvdjunkie
Signature Collection
Posts: 5613
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:05 am
Location: Wichita, Kansas

Post by dvdjunkie »

Add two more to the worst movies of 2005:

Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy - just a terrible waste of time. The BBC version was so much better.

Undiscovered - Ashlee Simpson..............'nuff said.


And "Racing Stripes" should not be on anyone's worst list. One of the few family films that was watchable.

And yes, "Bad News Bears" belongs on the worst list......it was one of the worst remakes of the year right behind "Dukes of Hazzard" and probably in front of "Fun With Dick and Jane" which I am sure from the trailers I have seen, Jim Carrey has ruined.

:roll:
The only way to watch movies - Original Aspect Ratio!!!!
I LOVE my Blu-Ray Disc Player!
memnv
Collector's Edition
Posts: 2699
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 10:14 pm
Location: Carson City
Contact:

Post by memnv »

I don't think Bad News Bears belongs on this list, Now if they redid Bad News Bears in Breaking Training or go to Japan I would put it on the list. I do hate the language the kids used throughout the movie though.

I totally agree about Racing Stripes. It was one of the best family films of the year.

Hitchhickers Guide does belong on the list but it wasnt the worst, I thought Hooneymooners and Bewitched were the worst of the tv show to movie remakes of the year.
Dark Knight Rulez
Post Reply