Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Jon D, Aug 21, 2003.
...and, I don't think I've had so many mods agreeing with me, ever, and now this many in one thread. There must be something wrong. :p) I never would have seen Daredevil except for Jennifer Garner, and even that reason ended up being a disappointment.
John, I don't think 2001 had any particularly terrible movies (as I'm one of the people who didn't hate Planet of the Apes ) but I felt like I was beaten near to death with medicority. The Royal Tenenbaums, Fellowship of the Ring, Memento, The Man Who Wasn't There Waking Life and In the Bedroom were all stand-outs, and Ocean's Eleven is well made despite a cast of characters that kind of annoy me, instead of endear themselves to me. Of course, it probably bears mentioning that movies like Ghost World, Amelie, and Muholland Drive failed to ignite me. Moulin Rouge and AI were watchable and fascinating, but intensely flawed and severely fragmented (like this year's The Hulk .) Of course, one could argue 2002 was worse if you value quality over quanitity. But more movies went down easy then any year I can imagine, even if not all of them were particularly sparkling. Oh Brother Where Art Thou, Crounching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, You Can Count On Me, Traffic, Best in Show, Shadow of the Vampire, and Almost Famous were just great accomplishments. Also, despite Gladiator's backlash, and no, it wasn't the best movie of the year, it still holds up better then its Oscar competitors (and stablemate Almost Famous ). Also, you won't be able to convince me X-Men isn't the best "pure popcorn" film in recent memory. People complain it's too short, and Halle Berry's performance, but it is just unquestionably cool, slickly pased, and packed full of electric performance. And it is the best comic book movie since the original Superman and in some ways may be even better. Oh, and there's the masterfully done, if not exactly watchable Requiem for a Dream and Quills. I won't even bother comparing 2001 to '98 or '99. I generally don't bother seeing movies I think will be bad, hence my ability to stay absolutely clear of Bad Boys II and Full Throttle to say nothing of the second Tomb Raider movie (I never saw the first). I checked out Daredevil because I was hoping at least there would be a heart in there (there was, but one of a rather foolish child who keeps pulling earnest-but ill-advised stunts to get our attention), and I don't particularly regret seeing it, as I'm sure whatever success it has drives Owen Glieberman batty.
Unscariest Horror Film: Freddy vs. Jason. Two homicidal maniacs kill teens and then each other. Singlehandedly creates the new film catagory (cata-GORY, get it?) "Live Action-Goth-Slasher-Splatter-Anime". Scared no one. Boringest movie to rip-off Hudson Hawk: Pumpkin. Mediocre acting in a pointless film about love between the mentally handicapped and college co-eds, ends with the gripping finally of one characters car suddenly cutting-away to the exploding limosine falling over the cliff from Hudson Hawk Bottom of the barrel from the land down-under: Reign of Darkness: How are AIDS, vampires, pollution, global economy, military drug testing, the homeless, and Harley-riding ex marines connected? Watch the movie and find out! Thrill to the all rental-car chase scene! Be amazed at the worst use of photoshop to add gunfire effects to a film so cheap they couldn't afford blanks! Gasp at the horrible dubbing (Dubbing your film makes it "classy" acording to the director/producer/writer/star)!
Rob, I'm glad to see someone who liked In the Bedroom. I think I underestimated the general dislike of it here when I chose it for my cine discussion.
Al, I think they mean Bad Boys II was a sucess compared to most other summer movies. It seems this year breaking $100 million is a feat for the few. Nearly all the major releases fell short of it: Full Throttle, Tomb Raider, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, etc...
My Worst Movies of 2003 (so far): #1. Head of State #2. Darkness Falls #3. Old School & National Security #5. The Life of David Gail #6. Basic #7. Final Destination 2 #8. House of 1000 Corpses
Dunno if I agree with this. Tom Cruise's amazingly wooden performance in Legend has never prevented me from admiring the movie as a whole. And as far as the Michael Bay thing goes, you old-school HTFers have probably heard me praise the guy in the past. I am a fan of both The Rock and Armageddon. But what he put me through in Bad Boys 2 felt like a shit-bath. He easily deserves one of my nominations.
I've managed to steer clear of the truly awful films of 2003 as I try to do every year. The worst films I've seen so far are The Hunted & The Good Thief. The Hunted is a rather poor take on the First Blood theme. Been there, done that, seen it done much better. The Good Thief - Neil Jordan's very poor remake of Melville's Bob le flambeur. Very annoying editing, the honorable Bob is turned into a heroin junkie & worst of all They gave it a happy ending
I think the last decade of film has been pretty bad. (mainstream). The only decent movies I have seen that were released this year would be, “City of God” and “Spider”. IMO, as film gets older, the movies and their crowds become more idiotic and tolerant to crap. Now I am sure there is a bunch of independent films that are actually quite good out, but because I live in a land where those types of films are hard to come by, I must wait for the DVD.
I wouldn't call this the worst year in movies by far. It's just filled with mediocrity (a trend for the last several years) with nothing great and very little I'd call exteremely bad. Even the arthouse films I've seen are just mediocre (Bend it Like Beckcham, Spider) with not one being anything close to what I'd call outstanding. I saw most of the sequels and honestly it was hard to tear them down because what did I expect from them? Not much more than they delivered. For the record, the absolute worst thing I saw this year was Legally Blonde 2 which we had free tickets for and still walked out on it (only the second time I've ever done that). It wasn't that it was so offensively bad, it was just so boring and unfuny we just decided we had better things to do at home.
Regardless of expectations, a bad film is a bad film, and Daredevil is a bad film. I would have loved to have been pleasantly surprised, but no dice. As far as Matrix Reloaded, or any sequel for that matter, how does one interpret or critique it without making reference to its precursor, or without bringing some "baggage" along? I agree that sequels should be judged independently, on their own merits (says the guy who digs Empire Strikes Back, but doesn't dig Star Wars, and is pretty confident that the latter is a far better film), but part of evaluating a film that is integrally tied to another involves using some frame of reference from the other.