First up, the worst films that I witnessed on the big screen.
Worst of 2007:
1. Epic Movie. Wow. It is amazing that stuff like this actually gets made. Beyond that, can someone tell me why I insisted on putting out money to see it? The "creative" behind this movie obviously do not know what funny is. The best part? Someone has allowed them to continue inflicting their "humor" on society with the upcoming Meet the Spartans.2. Delta Farce. Here is a question, did the makers of this mess actually think they were making a funny movie? Also, you have to realize that taking Larry the Cable Guy off the stand up stage and his funny quotient deteriorates rather quickly.
3. Norbit. Eddie Murphy playing a woman in a fat suit, just what we all needed. Aside from Eddie Griffin and Katt Williams there is nothing funny in this movie. It is offensive and laughably bad.4. Mr. Bean's Holiday. Bean is a character best taken in small doses. Even then, those small doses should not come from this movie. All this movie succeeds at is being boring, dumb, and completely uneventful.
5. Happily N'Ever After. One thing becomes abundantly clear the more you see of this movie. It was apparent that the title wasn't just a clever title - it was indicative of the lack of fun it contained. Rehashed jokes that don't land and the energy was as leaden as the story turned out to be.
6. The Seeker: The Dark is Rising. In short, this is not a good movie. Fans of Susan Cooper will already know this. In the end it doesn't matter if you are a fan of the book or not, you will be falling asleep or struggling to figure out what the purpose of this was.7. Blood & Chocolate. I have to recommend that this one be skipped. It just is not all that interesting, blandly written, poorly acted, and to top it off, they do something in the film that I wouldn't mind doing to this print. They burn some film for the silver. Sounds like a good idea.
8. I Know Who Killed Me. This was just a poor movie. It was pieced together in a maddening fashion, the acting was sub par, the screenplay didn't click, and in the end you are left wondering "why?" This genre bender seeks to bring the torture porn horror sub-genre into contact with the serial killer thriller by way of this graphic psychological thriller. Sounds good, but it's not.
9. Perfect Stranger. Looking for a way to waste an evening? Do you like films that lack any pretense of believability? Do you like having everything explained in the final minutes of a movie? Do you enjoy movies that are all about the plot, even when the plot doesn't know where it's going? If so, Perfect Stranger may be the perfect movie for you. Otherwise, avoid it at all costs.10. Slow Burn. Shot in 2003, this overly convoluted thriller is finally saw the light of day in 2007. It probably should have been relegated to the direct-to-DVD market. It sets up an interesting tale of identity, both racial and personal, but quickly slips into a cheap knockoff of Christopher McQuarrie's infinitely superior Usual Suspects.
Biggest Disappoints. of 2007 (no particular order):
1. Spider-Man 3. What a disappointment this was. The first was a very good adaptation of the character and the second film took the genre to new heights. Then this came out and it felt like all the good will that was built up in the first two was thrown out the window in favor of attempting to create the wow factor. Could this drop off be due to director Sam Raimi picking up the pen and co-writing the script? One wonders...2. Shrek the Third. This movie was just tedious. It was dragged out, not funny, and rather boring. They went off the rails as direction was lost and the original idea of the fractured fairy tale slipped away into the night leaving behind a shell of what it once was.
3. American Gangster. This was not a bad film, but considering the talent involved I expected much more. When the film ended I could not help but feel that surface had barely been scratched. It was like a boiled down version of Coppola, Scorsese, or Diploma.4. The Golden Compass. So much promise right down the drain. It was like the studio decided to suck the soul out of the novel and regurgitate the remainder onto the screen, with amped up effects to help make it more palatable to a wide audience. Little did they know that we actually like substance.
5. Evan Almighty. I do like the positive intentions behind the film, but the execution is just awful. There is no substance to latch onto, no humor, no excitement, nothing. The script was an original work that was bastardized into a new form to fit the sequel mold while also removing the heart and spirit.
6. War. Jet Li versus Jason Statham? This should have been an action classic. Unfortunately, they give away the story very early on, and for an action film, they sure seemed to forget the action. Plus, the much anticipated one on one was brief and anti-climactic.7. The Invasion. The latest take on the classic body-snatching tale is a mess that doesn't know what it wants to be. Sure, it is entertaining but it has no staying power. It is no secret that the film was monkeyed with by the studio and I have no doubt that this helped drag the final film down.
8. 30 Days of Night. Talk about wasted potential. There was some nice cinematography and a healthy dose of blood, but the logic boggles the mind. At one point I actually thought that a reel was skipped.
9. Hannibal Rising. The continuity with the rest of the franchise seems to be at odds with this film. It does not feel like a Hannibal movie. The funny thing is that this flick seems to be exactly like Batman, that is, if Batman chose to kill people and eat the occasional lizard.10. AVP-R. Well, it is better than the original film, but there are still issues. Firstly, the humans are boring, next is that the film has horrible geography, and third, there is no suspense or horror. It was nice to see some blood and the creature designs were better, but there was still a lot to be desired.
Special Jury Prize:
This special award is to give some notice to a film that was such a complete and utter cinematic mess that it transcended its badness and entered an area that few
filmmakers dare tread. It goes to a film that is so epic in scope and ambitous in execution that it is hard to be ignored. For as bad as it is, it deserves credit for attempting to be something special. That film is none other than Richard Kelly's Southland Tales. It is not a good movie, not by a longshot. However, for as bad as it is, it was made with love. Richard Kelly's effort can be likened to Ed Wood's efforts, shots, scenes, and movies made by someone who was in absolute love with what he was making, regardless of its actual quality. Southland Tales is definitely worth spending some time with so you can see just how the ideas come together in this trainwreck. Enjoy.And with that, we are done with the worst of the year. Keep on the lookout for part three.
You have to admit, Pig Destroyer is a hell of a band name. The name brings up images of violence and weight. That pretty much sums up the sound of Pig Destroyer. The music stirs up violent feelings while it proceeds to crush anything and everything in its path. Now, this is not to say it is good, but it does not say it is bad either. If anything, Pig Destroyer is aiming themselves squarely at one subset of music fans, and to that end they deliver. This is clearly not for everyone, I am not sure it is even for me. The band is encompassed by the label of “grindcore,” a subgenre that contains elements of hardcore, punk, death, black, and thrash metal resulting in a dissonant sound that is driven by growled/screamed vocals, blast beats, and down-tuned and heavily distorted guitars. That description sounds like a lot of other metal subgenres, and could possibly be attached to metal itself. I guess the only way to know grindcore is to recognize it. I am not a big fan of this particular genre, but there are always bands willing to welcome in new victims.
Seriously? You cannot actually believe there is a market for this stuff, can you? Okay, I am sure that there are those who love these films and look forward to spending a little of their disposable income on the latest installment. However, even if you enjoy it, do you really think it is a good movie? If so, I have to wonder what you think a bad movie is. Better not tell me, I really don't need to know.
Cartoon Network is prepared to unveil the latest addition to their primetime line-up. That addition is none other than George of the Jungle. The series first premiered on Teletoon in Canada back in July of 2007 and has already aired 26 half hour shows, each show being comprised of two eleven minute episodes. It should be noted that the episodes are not airing in the same order as in Canada, although it is not serialized and the order does not ultimately matter. The series is set to debut January 18 at 7:30PM Eastern time with a pair of episodes entitled "Brother George" and "Rebel Without a Claw." Now guess what? I have seen them both! Exciting stuff, no?
The Bucket List is a mash up of star power, comedy, and pathos. Unfortunately, it takes broad swipes and connects mostly with empty air. Judging by the crowded theater I saw this in, I was in the minority. There is no denying that the film contains laughs, tugs at the heartstrings, and definitely benefits from strong chemistry between the two leads. Seriously, how can you go completely wrong when you have Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman? With two of the finest actors to ever grace the screen, you are bound to have something watchable. It is just a shame that the plot of the movie fails to live up to what the leads are able to provide.
Oh yes, introductions should be made. If you have seen the commercials (and who hasn't), you will know that these two could not be more different if they tried. Cole is a self-centered hospital administrator who has spent his life making money at the cost of his humanity, while Carter is a family man who has made a living as a mechanic and seems to be filled with knowledge on just about everything plus the added weight of a lifelong of regrets. While their relationship may start off a little rocky, they quickly begin to see the other side of the coin, what their lives have been missing in each other.
Beyond that issue, The Bucket List is all surface and no substance. There is very little beneath the comic veneer that covers everything in a slick, glossy finish. If you scratch it away you will discover a film that doesn't want you to do any digging. When you have Nicholson and Freeman in the lead roles it is easier to get away with lack of substance as those two can bring gravitas to a phone book reading. You would never guess that these two were struggling with inoperable cancer. The approach to their condition seemed overly simplistic; leading to dialogue that never really digs into their situation. I know this is a comedy, but comedy without heart is comedy without resonance. I did not feel these characters.
When I decided to go and see The Orphanage I was unsure of what to expect. Considering the title and the setting, I was expecting a redux of the French film House of Voices. There are distinct similarities between the two, mainly in their similar setting and the central character experiencing strange goings on within the creepy confines. However, there are some pretty big differences as well. The biggest difference is that The Orphanage comes complete with a high level of positive buzz swirling around it, something House of Voices did not have as it was unceremoniously dumped to DVD. Then there are the rest of the differences that can be summed up by simply stating that The Orphanage is just a better film from start to satisfying conclusion.
Before long, strange things begin to happen. Simon develops friendships with invisible friends, things begin to go bump in the night, a strange woman roams the grounds, and Laura's sanity begins to crumble bit by bit. Everything culminates with the disappearance of Simon. Was he kidnapped? Did he runaway? No one seems to know, and he left no trace.
At the center of The Orphanage, with either interpretation, is Belen Rueda's Laura. Her performance is captivating. She perfectly plays the grief, anguish, panic, paranoia, and terror that Laura goes through following the disappearance of Simon. I could not help but be sucked into her journey, right through to the conclusion which sneaks up on you and lands like a punch to the gut.
This week's top pick was a relatively easy choice given the competition. It is none other than Family Guy: Blue Harvest. It made its debut just this past September, but it proved to be a hilarious hour as Seth McFarlane and his troupe aimed their sights on the Lucas Ranch with Star Wars as their ultimate target.
If one is to judge a book by its cover, or a movie by its trailer, First Sunday is not a good movie. To judge this movie based on the promotional material, one would expect a sophomoric comedy that does nothing other than reinforce stereotypes and revisit the same tired jokes. To a degree that is true, but there is more to it than that. The characters are given surprising amounts of depth, and the themes of family and redemption are woven nicely into the comedic fabric that makes up this surprisingly entertaining January offering. No, it is not the best of its kind, but it succeeds at being more than one would expect and sometimes that is enough.
kicked into high gear when LeeJohn makes a deal with some unsavory Jamaicans (who are simultaneously hilarious and frightening). Needless to say the deal goes bad and the two find themselves back in front of a judge (Keith David) who is clearly tired of having these guys in his courtroom. So, instead of putting them behind bars, the judge sees potential in these two, despite all that he has seen, and sentences them to community service.
The plot is simple, this is not really about the story so much as it is about the characters and developing them beyond the stereotypes. I found it interesting that there were no actual villains in the traditional sense. Sure, our lead characters are committing a villainous act, but they are expected to change by the end so they don't really count. Then there is Durell's ex whom you would expect to be towards the mean side, and it is true that she is not initially very nice, but she is revealed to be someone looking out for her future and her son's future and is quite logical.
Now, it is not all good. It is a broad comedy robbing it of some of its subtlety, plus some of the jokes do fall flat. Some of those jokes I just did not like at all, including the bit with Rickey Smiley as an old lady. That scene just did not work at all and would have been better served on the editing room floor. Another malfunctioning scene was the one with Mordecai, it had its moment but ultimately overstayed its welcome. Still, it is successful more often than its not and is definitely worth giving a shot. On the dramatic side of the coin, Chi McBride and Loretta Devine are there to do the heavy lifting. Their presence is always a pleasure.
The infamous Uwe Boll has struck again. He has unleashed his latest creation. Let me begin by saying that if you have a love for all things that are good about the movies, do not see In the Name of the King. However, if you derive perverse pleasure from bad films, or cannot help yourself when it comes to a Boll film, or if you just happen to like Mystery Science Theater 3000, by all means, go and spend your hard earned money on this bloated "epic." As I sat in the theater, I could not help but shake my head and roll my eyes (even if it was only for my personal benefit) as the nonsensical story played out in front of me.
Farmer (Jason Statham) is a, you guessed it, farmer who lives in a remote part of the Kingdom of Ehb. He lives a quiet, simple life working the land and taking care of his wife, Solana (Claire Forlani) and his son Zeph. Meanwhile, the wizard Gaillan (Ray Liotta) and the simple-minded Duke Fallow (Matthew Lillard) are plotting to overthrow King Konreid (Burt Reynolds). The lives of all these characters are about to cross and become inextricably linked as their fates become clear.
When it comes to a reason for what makes this movie so bad, it is difficult to choose just one. Looking at the big picture, it is, and I hate to be repetitious, a cheap knock-off of Tolkein and his Lord of the Rings universe. Not a good way to start. Next up are the sets, which look like the forest next to your house. Then there is the script which has the actors delivering some of the worst lines to grace the screen since, well, last week's One Missed Call, but you get the idea. The performances are all laughable, makes you wonder how Boll manages to attract the talent that he does. Finally, there are the numerous action scenes that cannot be distinguished one from the other.