|
Title: worst of 2004 Post by: BeyondTheGrave on December 27, 2004, 01:22:52 AM After reading the top of 2004 by the bouncer I was wondering what was worst movies 2004 and heres my vote:
Aliens vs Predator- everything about this movie was a joke the chestbusters to the aliens and predators themselves. Resident Evil Apocalypse- they decided to put jill from the game in it and thats the only good thing. Underworld- didnt know haveing kickass war between werewolves and vampires could be so boring. Darkness-pointless and not scary at all. Catwoman- someone let me borrow a bootleg. didnt last 20 mintues for I shut it off. "I know I know ive been exposed permeant psychoses.. at least the colors are nice"- Aeon Flux Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: daveblackeye15 on December 27, 2004, 02:10:10 AM Hmm, normaly I'm good at avoiding crap in the theaters because I don't go very often, I suppose the closest would be Alien vs. Predator. I didn't think it was terrible but it could be (and should be) a lot better (it could be better when the DVD comes out with the cut out scenes) I guess Resident Evil 2 wasn't that great but I had a pretty good time with this one than the last one. If someone reminds me of a even worst movie that I forgot I saw then I'll mention it.
Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: iluvdolma on December 27, 2004, 02:44:52 AM I thought 2004 was a pretty good year at the box office. Maybe because I saw only good movies there. I know, I know, there were a lot of bashed movies, but can't really say anything about them 'cause I did not see them.
AvP - I really wanted to kick Paul Anderson's ass 10 minutes into the movie. I could continue on, but you've heard the same from everyone else. Chronicles of Riddick - not necessarily a bad movie, but the lack of character development, horrible editing, acting, and pacing dwarfed it in comparison to Pitch Black. And CoR had five times the budget of PB. Sky Captain - I happen to be one of the seven people in the world that hate this movie. Everyone else seems to think it's the second coming or something. I thought it was the most boring and pointless movie ever. Everything was CGI. Even a simple captain's office...the desk...chair...map on the wall. The Sky! The Clouds! Everything! I'm surprised the actor's clothes weren't CG as well. Along with Jude Law as well. And what was up with Angelina Jolie's character. She was only in 2 scenes! I would love to say that AvP was the worst movie of 2004, but I can't. At least I didn't mind sitting through AvP. But this, I wanted to leave before it ended, so bad! Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: daveblackeye15 on December 27, 2004, 03:27:46 AM iluvdolma:
Oh that movie was the most boring movie ever? You defintatly havn't seen enough movies to consider that one pointless. Try looking these ones up for torture (shutters) Prototype X29A (eee) Alien Warrior (aaa) Children of the Living Dead (oh oh ho! Please stop!) NO MORE NO MORE! Now THOSE are pointless and boring I think Manos holds both titles but I think there are quite a few worthy continders. Believe it or not I was surprised that I didn't become enraged when I saw that the almost the whole movie was CGI. Why? Because it looked good and I guess they were trying to get a certain feel and look that they couldn't get with real life action stuff. I'm not bashing your or anything (of course not) but seriously those three movies I mention are TORTURE! And if they'd been released this year then they'd sure as hell be on my first post. Hey was Gigli released this yea-OW OW OW OW!! Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: Neville on December 27, 2004, 06:23:53 AM Mmmm... Quite a good year now that I think of it. But yes, everyone involved in "Catwoman", from actors to best boy, should be tared and feathered.
Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: JohnL on December 27, 2004, 02:42:11 PM >Believe it or not I was surprised that I didn't become enraged when I saw that the
>almost the whole movie was CGI. Why? Because it looked good and I guess >they were trying to get a certain feel and look that they couldn't get with real life >action stuff. Dark, dreary and hazy? I haven't seen the movie, but that's the impression I got from the ads and the stills I've seen. Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: Mr_Vindictive on December 27, 2004, 02:58:45 PM My vote would have to be for "The Grudge". The piece of crap put me to sleep.
They should have released the original instead. Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: blkrider on December 27, 2004, 03:39:10 PM I didn't like SKY CAPTAIN much either...thought it was really flat and uninteresting.
The characters just didn't draw me in. It was probably the worst time I had at the movies this year. The EXORCIST prequel was pretty bad, although I enjoyed parts of it. Quality-wise it was probably the worst movie I saw in the theater, but in general I would give it a thumbs-up. Personally, I liked the RESIDENT EVIL sequel better than the original. I won't say it's a "bad" movie, but I didn't care for SPIDERMAN 2. Plot was a little too similar to SUPERMAN 2, and they had Spidey doing stuff that was a little too far from the spirit of the character [and again, more in the category of Superman--that scene where he tries to stop the subway car with his legs, for example. In the comic books, Spiderman isn't invulnerable to injury or even resistant to it...his powers just enable him to sense, duck, and dodge whatever the villains are throwing at him.] However, I really dug Alfred Molina as Doc Ock--I think it's probably the best villain performance since Nicholson as the Joker. Really wish they'd given him more to do. So though it's not the worst movie of 2004, I'd say it's the biggest disappointment. Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: StatCat on December 27, 2004, 03:51:52 PM Puppet Master vs Demonic Toys
Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: Hugomarink on December 28, 2004, 03:37:49 PM I'm sure you are in the minority on your view of SPIDER-MAN 2. Most (me included) think it is a pretty marvelous comic book film. Btw, Spidey does have augmented strength in the comic books. His powers are not just the ability to sense, duck, and dodge. Sure, Spidey is not Hulk or Thor in the strength department but he's definitely a lot stronger than the average man.
Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: iluvdolma on December 28, 2004, 07:16:44 PM Yo Dave, I have heard a lot of bad things about Children of the Living Dead. A couple of weeks ago I went to Blockbuster to rent Cube, but the guy almost gave me CotLD and I quickly discovered this and made him change. Luckly, I got to see Cube and it was as good as people have made it out to be.
Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: Ozzymandias on December 28, 2004, 09:15:13 PM Recipe for one of the worst movies of 2004.
Take an idea that Peter Cook and Duddly Moore turned into a skit for their TV show in 1967, MTV used in a short lived show in the late 90s and Orbitz Travel revived in their commercials in 2002. Steal the good ideas from each. Use the F-word every chance you get. Blow up stuff every few minutes. Throw in jokes about child molestation and oral sex. Re-use gags from South Park. Top off with the kind of bitter, axe-grinding celebrity bashing that makes Al Capp look like Mr. Rogers. It killed Capp and Lil Abner in the 70s, it'll do the same for the South Park guys. My nomination ( people will hate me for this) is TEAM AMERICA. It could have been great but it just seemed uncreative and uninspired. I was really disappointed with this movie. Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: Kory on December 29, 2004, 01:01:33 AM "Saw"
Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: odinn7 on December 29, 2004, 08:11:18 AM The Village...I've been bored by movies in the theater before but this is the first time I was angered that I wasted money and time.
Actually, now that I think of it, it was the third time I was angered about a film. The first was the U-2 film "Rattle and Hum" that my first wife dragged me to. What a wretched piece of self-serving crap that was. The second movie was "The Doors" as I really didn't like the way Morrison was portrayed in that movie. Ah, I'm done, carry on with 2004 dislikes... Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: dean on December 29, 2004, 10:21:00 AM I thought Saw and Team America were fantastic films. Saw, partially because it was made by a few local boys, and just because it was a great film that wasn't the normal shlock we usually get. Team America was helped by a great soundtrack really. Though I still liked it, I have found the Spiderman series to be somewhat dissapointing. I guess I just don't care about Peter Parker that much compared to my idea of Spiderman. Biggest Dissapointment by far was AVP. As was said, it could have and should have been so much better than it was. It was a shame really. Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: Hugomarink on December 29, 2004, 06:49:54 PM No way! "Saw" was a lot of fun. As long as you didn't go in expecting "Seven" (as some idiots compared it to) then you should've enjoyed it. And the ending truly fooled me, which rarely happens. (Hell, I even guessed the ending to "The Sixth Sense"!)
Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: Kory on December 29, 2004, 09:30:21 PM The pacing was slow, the acting was HORRIBLE, the ending was, yes, predictable, and the promise of all the gore & suspense was never met.
Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: blkrider on December 29, 2004, 11:11:57 PM I didn't say Spiderman wasn't strong, I said he wasn't any more resistant to injury than a regular person. The comic book Spiderman would have been killed if he'd tried to stop a speeding subway car with his legs. Anyone who's read the comic knows that he's been injured numerous times, especially in situations when the villains have managed to mess up his Spider-sense. The movie just didn't work for me at all, and I think it failed to follow up on the promise of the first film [which had its problems too but was more true to the character.]
God, I've hit a new low, I'm having "comic book guy" discussions. Barf. Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: Fearless Freep on December 30, 2004, 12:39:57 AM God, I've hit a new low, I'm having "comic book guy" discussions. Barf.
Worst...post...ever Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: Hugomarink on December 30, 2004, 01:58:46 PM I'll respect your opinion. I know others who had problems with the film and I'll agree that the acting was not the greatest and that the overall plot was ludicrous. But I was still entertained. I went in with fairly low expectations and was pleasantly surprised. And if you found that wacky, twisted ending to be predictable then you are truly gifted at spotting unexpected story turns. I guessed the "Sixth Sense" and "Crying Game" endings halfway through those "surprise ending" films. but "Saw" completely fooled me.
Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: ulthar on December 30, 2004, 03:30:03 PM Guessing the twist I think is partially in response to how engaged in the story you are. If you let the story take you away, you tend to miss those little cues. The story is either hitting or it's not.
Sadly, I've come to find myself looking for twists in movies where there are none. I find myself getting distracted looking for the cues of 'okay, where's the twist going to be.' This is the extent at which Hollywood has overused the 'twist' device, and a statement to how weak many of the stories are. Post Edited (12-30-04 20:39) Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: Menard on December 30, 2004, 03:36:50 PM I will agree with that; with regard to expecting a twist in a story. What should it be called: the expected unexpected twist?
Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: Joe on January 01, 2005, 07:38:59 PM The Villiage has my vote. I've never been so bored at a suspense movie in my life. The setup wasn't too bad, but once the audiance figures it all out (about 10 to 15 minutes in) the rest just seems like a long, uphill climb for nothing.
Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: Kory on January 02, 2005, 12:13:33 PM Maybe my problem was that my expectations were too high.
Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: Cawdor on January 02, 2005, 09:30:29 PM I can't believe nobody has mentioned Van Helsing yet! Am I in the minority in thinking that this was an absolute abortion of a movie?
Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: blkrider on January 03, 2005, 02:55:08 AM Still haven't seen it....
I've gotten to the point where I just won't take a chance on a movie if I have misgivings about it. Tickets are too expensive and audiences are too annoying to put up with for the sake of a mediocre movie. The place we live in now has air conditioning so we'll probably see fewer movies next summer. The only reason we saw DAY AFTER TOMORROW, EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING, and RESIDENT EVIL: APOCALYPSE was to escape the heat for a few hours. Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: Kory on January 03, 2005, 12:32:07 PM Ah- Van Helsing. I forgot to mention it because, thankfully, that 2 hours of my life had been blacked out of my brain. I'll have to agree.
Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: Hugomarink on January 03, 2005, 01:50:40 PM Actually, I didn't think it was that bad. Of course I went in with very low expectations since all I heard from the critics was how bad it was. It's not that bad. It's a big budget action thriller popcorn movie and I think it basically succeeds as that type of movie. I've certainly seen worse in that genre.
Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: Hugomarink on January 03, 2005, 01:54:28 PM I know what you're saying. In both "The Sixth Sense" and "Crying Game" I went in knowing there was some big twist so I was looking for it and figured it out before the twist was revealed. Same goes for any M. Night Shyamalan film. You go in wondering what the twist will be. I did not realize that "Saw" had a twist ending so I was not looking for it. I suspended my belief, got sucked up in the story, and thoroughly enjoyed myself.
Title: Re: worst of 2004 Post by: Master Blaster on January 03, 2005, 03:20:36 PM I'm behind you. Rubbing my own feces on the screen would have made for a better movie. I didnt even find it mildly entertaining. It was so stupid I was actually rendered a little dumber for having watched it.
|