I decided to make a list of the most disappointing films of the decade. I came up with 21 that have some major significance as far as pissing people off. I did not, however, find any films in the years 2000 and 2009(because people didn't expect a lot in 2009, I guess) A rule I created for this list are that sequels or prequels do not qualify.(because I could create a whole list full of these. Yeah, I'm looking right at you Matrix and Pirates of the Caribbean sequels.) Well, to the list......................,
21.XXX(2002)
Vin Diesel+Bad Director+Crummy Script+Hot but terrible Italian Actress playing Russian woman+Dumb Plot=A lot of pissed off moviegoers and number 21 on this list. Enough explained.
Thomas Jane taking on a role much more than he can handle:check. Bad, whogivesashit director:check. Another version of a terrible movie:check. Washed-up hall of fame actor who doesn't belong at all in this movie:check. Enough said.(Why did anyone have high hopes for this? I mean, just 15 years earlier, Dolph freakin' Lundgren(the Swedish Steven Segal) was the star of this horrible movie with the same plot and story. DOLPH LUNDGREN!!!!!!!! Alright, enough said.)
Best example: A director makes two largely independent films.(one is this, the other one rhymes with twenty-one yams. Figure it out.) Both movies have similar characters with similar development, with similar plots and breakdowns, except, one makes sense, the other goes off in the distance to a point I can't even understand.(and I'm a David Lynch fan.)(and this also explains how bad of a year 2006 was for movies. Great example:21 yams=2 Oscar Nominations, Quality Movie. Babel=7 Oscar Nominations, and...............a win? What!? I didn't know that. Ok, lets move on.
18.Big Fish(2003)
How about big flop?(!!!!!!!!!!!) This, in addition to another Tim Burton crapterpiece later on down the list, were sure fire signs he was explicibly an overrated talent. This film loses me about 60% of the way through. 60% of the way through, I immediately knew what was going to happen from then on until the end. It seems like Burton had a super-good idea for a movie, pitched it, and didn't know at all how to put any element into the story when it came time to actually make the movie, and had someone else do it instead. Tim Burton is like Artie Buco on The Sopranos. He builds such a strong reputation with his restaurant in which he used to cook the food, but now he has Puerto Ricans and his wife do it, while he annoys the hell out of his customers. That's who Tim Burton has become in the last 10 years.
17.Road to Perdition(2002)
Can I see a show of hands of how many people were thoroughly disappointed and wanted their money back after seeing this?(I guarantee 8 out of 10 people do, but 6 out of the 8 are morons and were only disappointed because Tom Hanks dies at the end. Oops! **SPOILER ALERT!!!**) I was disappointed because the story is about bloody gangster violence, but features a father/son relationship sub-plot the prime piece.(I didn't buy the kid's performance either.) The previews tell you to expect a prohibition/mob story with a few twists and double-crosses. Not a gayed-up bonding story with minimal mob plot lines.
I'm not gonna lie. This actually was a really good movie. But, considering the the simple fact that this is about as interesting as watching glass being made, I have a hard time paying attention to this.(I have a great attention span when it comes to movies. I even sat all the way through Miracle at St. Anna for god's sake.) But, even then, there's a bigger problem. The film's director just let this issue fly right by. This is a super realistic propaganda film(or it's trying to be) that never once in this movie does anything to prove true to what the films saying to be true. So, it's a subjective-ranting nonsense story that comes out of all of this. Is that what I wanted from this movie? Absolutely not. What if the film's production team told the real story? It'd be super boring. So, I guess the film's story outline is just plain rubbish and couldn't be effectively made into a movie in the first place.
15.The Number 23(2007)
What happened to this movies expectations once people actually saw it? Here's an example.(the stuff is our expectations) I assume many had a wft look on their face after this.(I didn't see this in theaters) A, for the most part, forgettable, retarded film. One positive thing to say: Jim Carry=Awesome actor. I credit him for pretending to pull our interest in even though he couldn't even make sense of this incredibly confusing story. I got nothing else.
14. The Day the Earth Stood Still(2008)
Another year, another highly anticipated remake that falls flat on it's face and enrages all us moviegoers. What happened you ask? How about asking Jennifer Connelly to stare into the camera with a semi-surprised look for an hour and a half? Casting Kathy Bates?(for any role. It's never a good idea unless she's playing a psychotic bitch who kidnaps a famous writer and imprisons him in her home.) How about not having any story and solely relying on special effects to carry the movie?(see Transformers movies as well as just about any Roland Emmerich film) Anybody got anything else? No. Ok. (Actually, I have one little thing left to add. I am shocked that Keanu Reeves was not the problem at all with this film. I'm not saying he was good, but he didn't screw it up. The production team and director did.)
13. The Illusionist(2006)
This was totally on par with what it could have and should have been through the first 30-40 minutes of the film. I honestly can say I absolutely enjoyed this up until the point Jessica Biel shows her beautiful, plot-killing character face in this movie. That combined with Paul Giamatti who couldn't grasp his character. (or I'm convinced he's just mentally retarded. I'm not ruling that out. There's been a lot of movies he's blown it big time in these last few, couple of years.) The film also loses it's direction with Jessica Biel's character.(combined with the fact Biel can't act.) She joins a long list of other woman who kill the plots of movies.(Julia Roberts in Charlie Wilson's War, Natalie Portman in any Star Wars movie, Juliette Lewis in What's Eating Gilbert Grape, Winona Ryder in The Age of Innocence. etc..........)
12. V for Vendetta(2005)
I actually thought the reason I hated this was Natalie Portman's character. After watching it a few more times, I realize she actually was not bad. The problem with this film is how the plot develops. It develops too early, and doesn't allow the viewer to fully understand it or get swayed with it. It's a movie about revolution, but it turns out to be a character study instead of focusing solely on the story's plot? That lone reason left me very disappointed in what I thought would be this generation's version of Brazil.
11. I am Legend(2007)
Here's a classic example of a terrible novel adaption that gets made into a forgettable movie. Will Smith was good, the roleplaying as a whole wasn't bad. But, when a really good book gets butchered into a Hollywood piece of offal like this, (not to mention the retarded Bob Marley reference that I guess was supposed to be part of the story, but wasn't at all in the book.) All I can say is; thoroughly disappointed. Hollywood should not add Will Smith+awesome book+crappy additions to story+1 man tries to save mankind and ends up sacrificing it his life for it. It didn't work at all.
10. The Da Vinci Code(2006)
Ron Howard should not have directed this. Ron Howard is a family-film, imaginative type director. I find myself in a deja vu moment from the last post, with this being another crappy adaption from an excellent book. I also hate to say this, since I really like Tom Hanks, but he just was not believable. It was kind of like John Cusack in Grosse Point Blank, where I just don't see him as an contract killer no matter how good of an actor he is, or how good he was in the movie. I just can't watch that movie. Just like I can't watch this because I can't see Tom Hanks as the character he plays. On top of that, the book was gripping, powerful, and just freezing cold at times with the way the characters handled situations. This movie had none of this. This is Ron Howard's fault and the main reason this disappoints.
9. Pearl Harbor(2001)
It's a war movie that is ultimately a love story, although the love story makes no sense and the whole film is historically inaccurate. I just summed up why this movie sucks in one sentence. Very impressive. But, I'll dig deeper to destroy the performances of Ben Affleck, Kate Beckinsale, and the biggest monster stinker of them all.......................Josh Hartnett. I mean he has murdered so many big roles in big movies(see The Black Dalia, Black Hawk Down, Sin City, Lucky Number Slevin, O, The Faculty and Wicker Park) Why this movie depended so much on their performances, and the dumb love triangle sub-plot, I'll never be able to understand. I love to rip Micheal Bay and his inability to make one single believable film, but I'll save him a few spots down.(you should know for what movie it is)
8.Planet of the Apes(2001)
Awful......awful...........just awful film. Nothing much to say here except bad direction, terrible special effects and mechanical effects(where did the budget go?), some of the worst acting in a lead role aside from John Travolta in Battlefield Earth, and one of the worst remakes of all time, if not the worse.
7. Hulk(2003)
Another crappy remake. Ditto the same as last post except even more misguided and driveled. Kinda reminds me of this.
6. Transformers(2007)
How to piss off half the people who saw this-By Micheal Bay:(mostly nerdy film geeks like myself) Take a dump in the most evil way possible by making the film nothing like the original series and comic book and ignoring any urge imaginable to do any justice to the living fanbase of the origin of this story, use CGI and slow motion in every other scene, and worst of all.......make the story so hollywooded-up it doesn't seem believable at all. I'm finished. Oh, and fuck you Shia Labeouf. You're a bad actor and I hate you. Now I'm finished.
5. Walk the Line(2005)
Let me say: Good film. Powerful where it needed to be, emotions are felt. But, that's the story's doing there. The only reason this is on here and high as it is, is because of the wildly overrated performance of Joaquin Phoenix as Johnny Cash. This is not only Joaquin's fault but director James Mangold's. I am a huge Johnny Cash fan and have watched tons of old videos of his performances and interviews. Joaquin acts almost nothing like Johnny. The retarded facial expressions he makes me bewildered as to what he's trying to do. Lousy performance from Joaquin Phoenix. And I could never understand the whole "lets make him look like nothing more than a troubled drug addict" schick. I asked several people what they thought of this and they all gave me a variation of "I didn't know he was such a big drug user" response. That's not exactly the reaction you want to get out of people who see the movie about a legendary musician.
4. Jarhead(2005)
I already ripped this movie already in my soon to be overrated directors post under the Sam Mendes section. Refer to that for a good review that hammers the nail on the head of why this movie should not have been made.
3. The Village(2004)
"What? Huh?" I swear those words were uttered out of my mouth when the whole plot came undone and I discovered the true horror of the creep terrifying the crap out of this small community. He was a deranged person who felt he was told by the voices in his head.(I guess?) Why M. Night Shyamalen movies are so confusing and have more questions than answers I can't understand. I can't wait to slam him in my overrated directors post.
2. Righteous Kill(2008)
1. Miracle at St. Anna(2008)
I light of the Chisrtmas season just being over, I have a short video to show you that sumed up my reaction outside the theater after seeing this from one of the greatest and delightful Christmas films ever. Enjoy: (oh, and uhh....What I thought of Spike Lee is what is said of Frank Shirley. So, yeah. Enjoy)
Here's what became of this film; We will NEVER take Spike Lee seriously again. When he crumbled after Crooklyn, then rose from the ashes of it's disgust with Clockers, He got Game, Summer of Sam, 25th Hour, and Inside Man, we could consider him a good director. But, after this and (just for sports fans) Kobe Doin' Work, I can say I can't him seriously anymore. This was supposed to be his answer to Steven Speilberg's Saving Private Ryan. Spike gets too caught up in personal opinions about race(which is what the big problem is with this film. Not the only one, the big one.) and can't make a good movie at times because this screws with the dynamic of everything that goes into the film. The editing, the story, the film's message, the acting of the Italian actors and D.W. Sweeney, the script, and the stupid degrading scenes such as the scene near the beginning where the German woman speaks on the intercom to the all-black platoon, and the actual effects during the war/fighting scenes. Much of the editing was attempted to be covered up by emotional continuity(such as the scene where the Germans questioned a group belonging to an Italian church and murdered them in slow motion while Angelo and his invisible friend escape. Sounds rediculous right? It gets worse. I'm not going to spoil the rest for you. Just watch it for the scattered scenes of humor especially when Angelo calls Train 'Chocoltate Giant'.(that's the only reason I rewatched it)
