Thanks to rottentomatoes.com, I’ve been luckily forewarned about most of the movies in this thread. That being said, the worst movie I’ve seen this year is Abandon. I hate, loathe, detest, and generally want to defecate profusely upon movies like this - movies that think all “authentic” university students are joyless, pretentious, sneering cynics. At least make something they say halfway interesting or humorous.
Moreover, you know you’re in a bad movie when there’s an extended shot of Katie Holmes in her underwear and all you can think about is how gratuitous and pointless the shot is.
A close runner up is Enough. I’ve met pieces of limestone more intelligent (and much less annoying) than the kid in that movie.
I reckon if this thread stays going long enough, we’ll eventually see every movie released in 2002 mentioned here.
But I cast my vote to Rob Schneider’s The Hot Chick. It opens on Dec. 13, but I just saw a press screening and it was nothing but a steaming pile of crapola.
All of you people have obviously never seen Kung Pao: Enter the Fist.
this is without a doubt, by far, the worst movie I have ever seen. And while I have yet to see Plan 9, I am something of a conossieur of bad cinema. I love bad movies, and appreciate them for their badness.
What about that Al Pacino movie of a few months back, the one called Simone or something? Did I just imagine the previews? It must have been yanked a day after release. Did anybody see it??
Huh? I don’t think I believe you. If you REALLY paid attention to reviews and word of mouth, you’d WANT to go see One Hour Photo and, especially, Punch-Drunk Love. Both are excellent movies and have gotten high praise, for the movies themselves, and for the performances of Robin Williams and (no, seriously, really, honest-to-god) Adam Sandler.
I have hated Adam Sandler to the depths of my being, and, based on the trailers of his new animated thing, will continue to do so. But, for one brief, shining moment, he hooked up with one of the most interesting directors working today, who wrote him a sweet but edgy script full of wonder and romance, and was part of one of the best films of the year so far.
For either of these movies to be mentioned in this thread is beyond silly. There’s been a lot of quality whooshing going on, I can tell.
Oh yeah, and Signs too. (And Changing Lanes and Frailty should those happen to be mentioned.)
While no 1999, this has been a GREAT year for good movies, and it’s only going to get better in the coming weeks.
It kills me when people bitch and bitch and moan and groan about there being so many bad movies released, but can’t tell a good movie when it slaps them in the face.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Speaking of slapping people, don’t make me smack you for blatant overuse of the rolleyes.
The thing is, there are always going to be tons and tons of bad movies every year. This is partly due to the higher volume of movies being made (either for the theater or sent direct to video/DVD). Since there are more movies being made in 2002 than, say, 1940, there’s going to be a higher number of crappy ones - especially since movies get at least two lives, the theater and the home (not to mention later viewings on TV).
Plus, a lot of movies target a specific audience, such as the myriad martial arts films that are out there now. The filmmakers have a distinct audience, and they just throw everything at them. With so many subgenres, more movies are made with lower expectations and budgets.
I think Legomancer was saying that he just had no plans to watch either PDL or OHP and that he hadn’t seen the others named in this thread because of the critics. I’ve also heard praise for these two movies, which is why I asked why they were listed.
I’m sorry if you don’t believe. The jury’s out for me on Punch-Drunk Love, but I won’t see One Hour Photo on a salary. I can’t stand Robin Williams and have no desire to pay to see him do anything. I saw Insomnia this year because the wife wanted to see it and saw quite enough of him then. I don’t need a second dose.
Listening for word of mouth and reading reviews doesn’t mean I go running out to see everything everyone else is great. I also have my own interests and tastes to take into account. And as I said when I mentioned them, I only included them in my list because someone had already mentioned them before. You got a beef with people not liking those two movies, talk to those guys, because I haven’t seen them.
Strictly speaking, there are actually fewer movies being made today. Sure, if you count the half-assed attempts by people who think a digital-video camera and a Firewire setup makes them Martin Scorsese, there are more, but in terms of movies you have a legitimate shot at seeing (from mainstream releases down to festival-only tours or rentals at specialty houses), there are many fewer films being released. Back in the 30’s and 40’s, the studios would crank out upwards of 50 or 60 per year, or more, because they had to fill the bottom half of their double-bill programs. Nowadays, the average studio puts out around 20 movies a year. MGM/UA will release fewer; the Time/Warner empire will release more.
But that nitpick aside, your point remains. In any given year, there will be a large volume of crap. That’s been true from the 1910’s to the present moment. Sometimes it’s deliberately-made crap cynically designed for a lowest-common-denominator audience (e.g. Sweet Home Alabama), and sometimes it’s an honest attempt by the filmmakers to produce a good movie that went horribly wrong somewhere (e.g. Road to Perdition).
I would agree that, so far, the year 2002 has seen not very much middle-of-the-road filmmaking. We’ve gotten some astoundingly good work – e.g., Monsoon Wedding, Y Tu Mama Tambien (not strictly a 2002 film, but released in the U.S.), Femme Fatale, Punch-Drunk Love, and others – along with a lot of stillborn garbage, as described in this thread. Discounting the latter category, 2002 has the potential to be compared to 1999, which was a banner year for quality filmmaking in my opinion. And the remainder of the year – Adaptation, Scorsese’s newest, the next LOTR installment, etc. – should be amazing.
Yes, but that does not include the direct-to-video market at all, which I thought I mentioned. Because that avenue has opened up, there are far more opportunities for filmmakers to make a buck. A lot of the movies from back in the day that were considered crappy were seen as popcorn flicks, movies you could see for a quarter, no big deal. Those are the movies that today are shown strictly on the ol’ TV set, since the producers know they’re more likely to get cash from people renting it for $4 than from people seeing it in the theater for $8.
Also, remember that those films in the 30s and 40s were generally shorter than the movies you see today - at least there were more then that were 70 minutes or less in length than there are now. (And let’s not forget the movie shorts, the nickelodeans.)
