Your Five worst films you have seen this year.

[Eggmundo]

Quick post...unlucky post number.....

 

[Biscuit]

Afro Whores 2. Really didnt live up to the origional at all.

The Erotic Adventures of Zorro I wish the mask had stayed on...

George and his technicolored dream-boat. Not what I thought it was..

Lord of th Ring: Two Manly Towers. I had lost my glases and hired this by mistake...

Alexandra THE WORST BY A MILE.

 

[Marc]

Doom - absolute pile of shite, puts a bad name on the great game

 

[sullyshuffle]

War of the Worlds

what trash!...just for American market

 

[johnnyjetlag]

My picks are:

Sahara - Sail power = DUMB!
Land of the Dead - actually thought last year's Dawn of the Dead remake was better!
Charlie & the Chocolate Factory - just lacked any magic of the books or even the Gene Wilder jobbie
Stealth - Schmealth...

And my bit of controversy:
Revenge of the Sith - Visually good, but I hated the plot/dialog/acting soooo much.

Honourable mention for Flight Plan and The Island too for just being nonsense.

(I liked War of the Worlds though...)

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Mr & Mrs Smith.

good point: Brad Pitt in it a lot (or no doubt Angelina Jolie for the lads).

Bad point: everything else about the film.

2 nonstop hours of them shooting at each other. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

 

[Juan Albion]

No-one else saw 'The Man' then?

 

[Gully]

Only seen two films at the flicks this year, not much I know, went to see Mrs Henderson Presents the other week, it was pretty good, Hoskins and Dench at their best. Can't remember the name of the other film, it was that memorable, although I think it had Scarlet Johanssen in it, so that must be the worst.

 

[dougdeep]

I haven't been to the cinema for 13 years.

 

[Jello]

Yes i'm sure they do.
"Here have my £7, i'm only here so i can slag you off in an end of year poll, it's money well spent"

These rental DVD clubs are great, if I want to see a film badly enough I'll pay my money and go to a cinema but a lot of the time like WOTW, I can wait till its out on DVD.

 

[GNF on Tour]

I really do not know what planet some of you are on. War of the Worlds was extremely good.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

IT WAS UTTER COCK OF THE FIRST ORDER.

I was so eager to see that film and was gutted when I eventually did. The ending was pants, I was waiting in anticiaption for final scene (Burton/Cruise stumbling through broken London/Boston waiting to die and seeing the machines dying) instead the US fuckin marines save the day, what utter shite.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Mr & Mrs Smith.

good point: Brad Pitt in it a lot (or no doubt Angelina Jolie for the lads).

Bad point: everything else about the film.

2 nonstop hours of them shooting at each other. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

good shout

 

[Les Biehn]

At first I didn't want to comment coz Spielberg will automatically disagree and start a thread called Les made me cry and other such ball'less stories. But then I thought f*** it this a man who thinks Pulp Fiction is shit! Dickhead. Cinderella Man worst film of the year. Second place is Constant Gardener or Fantastic Four. Utter shit.

 

[Les Biehn]

good shout

Double good shout!

 

[Gwylan]

Hang on though D J...you're forgetting. War of the Worlds had a massive budget, was advertised heavily, had a high profile director, a big name playing the lead role, and had lots of special effects. Those ingredients alone will absolutely GUARANTEEE that loads of people would automatically thumb their noses at it, so they can stick two fingers up at Hollywood and bask in their own self-satisfaction that they're far too clever to be caught up in all the hype. How CRASS it would be to actually enjoy such a film, eh.

I just don't believe people do this - although it's a complaint I commonly hear. As a theatre critic, I've become used to people whining that I didn't like so-and-so because it had X in it and because X is a big star, all the critics were determined to hate it. I often get emails from punters accusing me of just that.

It just doesn't happen that way.

Critics will call it as they see it, there's no pre-arranged meeting to slag off a play and it's not discussed in the interval or afterwards -I'd be astonished if film critics behaved very differently.

If you're saying that the general public will slag off a film because of who's in it, then I think you're even more off-beam. My feeling is that, having paid good money for something, you're determined to make the most of it and hype up the good bits and ignore the bad ones. People are loath to admit that they've spent money on something totally pony. Keaton's already pointed this out and he's spot on.

I don't think anyone on this thread has said that WOTW is one of the worst films of 2005, just that it was very poor (all right, wank). I'm sure it's not one of the worst, Spielberg is too good a director for that. If you and DJ think admittedly great special effects can compensate for a laughable script mouthed by implausible characters, then good for you.

It's a subjective opinion after all, if we all liked the same thing, life would be very boring.

 

[The Laughing Bluebird]

Seriously though I cannot have a sensible discussion about films with someone who says War of the Worlds is one of the worst 5 films of the year as they are either mad, deluded, drunk on drugs or clinically stupid.

You asked us what were the five worst films WE HAD SEEN this year.

I very rarely go to the cinema these days. In the past twelve months I've only been about five or six times. One of the films I did go to see was War of the Worlds, and I was very disappointed indeed. I had high hopes, but thought it was a dismal effort.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

The Ugc cinema card is great, its a tenner a month and you can go as many times as you want. This allows you to see some really bad films.

 

[Kenhead]

For me:
The exorsisim of emily rose as the traliers made it look much better than what it accually was, most of the film is spend it a court from trying to find out wether or not the priest killed emily rose by takeing her off her medication. i though it was goping to be all action instead of talking.

The arisocrats, a film about american comedians trying to come up with the most gross punchline to a joke, i really felt that i had wasted an hour and half of my like watching that!

Must love dogs, was a sloppy love accually kind of film that a widower started dating again and the only concetion she had was that the bloke must like dogs, total and utter rubiush. the women went mental at one of the guys she was dating as he slept with someone else even though she was also seeing someone else. so it was ok with her but not for him. a typical men are bastards for middle agred women that have been cheated on kinda film

 

[JJ McClure]

My picks are:

Sahara - Sail power = DUMB!

Good call. It's a great book, but in typical Hollywood style they screw it up completely

 

[Easy 10]

I just don't believe people do this - although it's a complaint I commonly hear. As a theatre critic, I've become used to people whining that I didn't like so-and-so because it had X in it and because X is a big star, all the critics were determined to hate it. I often get emails from punters accusing me of just that.

It just doesn't happen that way.

Critics will call it as they see it, there's no pre-arranged meeting to slag off a play and it's not discussed in the interval or afterwards -I'd be astonished if film critics behaved very differently.

If you're saying that the general public will slag off a film because of who's in it, then I think you're even more off-beam. My feeling is that, having paid good money for something, you're determined to make the most of it and hype up the good bits and ignore the bad ones. People are loath to admit that they've spent money on something totally pony. Keaton's already pointed this out and he's spot on.

I don't think anyone on this thread has said that WOTW is one of the worst films of 2005, just that it was very poor (all right, wank). I'm sure it's not one of the worst, Spielberg is too good a director for that. If you and DJ think admittedly great special effects can compensate for a laughable script mouthed by implausible characters, then good for you.

It's a subjective opinion after all, if we all liked the same thing, life would be very boring.

Hairy muff.
I still believe that there are a fair proportion of people who go to see a film with a set of pre-conceived ideas, and have to be "won over" by it in order to pass on any credit. Such people tend to focus on the negatives and totally disregard the positives, as their opinion has largely been formed before they buy the ticket. A bit like Leons detractors - he could have a great game over 90 minutes, but those with an axe to grind will pick up on the one ball he didn't bother chasing, and say "what a lazy bastard Leon is" etc etc, and THATS what they'll walk home moaning about.

As for WOTW, I saw nothing wrong with the script, and thought it was refreshing to have a lead character (Cruise) who was NOT the usual all-American hero - he was a bit of an arsehole, and was ultimately just caught up in the maelstrom of the events surrounding him, and was just as helpless as everyone else. I thought that worked well. The sappy ending DID spoil it somewhat, but other than that, it was (for me) very entertaining.

As you say, its all down to opinion innit. I bet we've got some common ground on loads of other films.