quote:

Originally posted by LordSmoogsbottomIII:

quote:

Underworld Evolution

Totally, that was the lamest ending they could have possibly done. There are probably several worse movies this year, but this is the worst one ive seen

Okay... I have to ask. How is the ending in Underworld: Evolution possibly lamer than the original Underworld ending? I mean SPOILER ALERT: she cleaves Victor's head in two and then he somehow manages to stand up and ready his sword before it splits. Now that is lame. [CODE]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: TruNight,

Posiedon sucked. Glad I saw it for free.

quote:

Okay... I have to ask. How is the ending in Underworld: Evolution possibly lamer than the original Underworld ending? I mean SPOILER ALERT: she cleaves Victor's head in two and then he somehow manages to stand up and ready his sword before it splits. Now that is lame. [CODE]

I don't know, maybe it isn't, or maybe they both suck, i dont remember the first one's ending, but Iknow one thing for sure: the underworld 2 ending was pretty pathetic.

SPOILER ALERT (if you want to save yourself $5 rental): The main guy who supposedly died comes back to life for no real reason, then he and the girl easily defeat these two brothers (one's a vampire and one's a werewolf) that are supposed to be like the most powerful monsters of all time, and it finally concludes with a happily ever after ending as the girl is saying something like: I dont know what changes are ahead for our world, but we are moving into a new age.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: LordSmoogsbottomIII,

It's still FAR too early to talk about the worst films of 2006, but I suppose I can vent my spleen right now about three films that I've seen so far this year that are absolutely horrible, and will probably make my "Worst 10" list at the end of the year.

1. A Prairie Home Companion
2. Keeping Up With the Steins
3. Friends With Money

You've been warned!

Syrania's a total snore.

Syriana was a 2005 release.

quote:

Dale M. Posted 08 April 2006 04:59 PM

I heard Basic Instinct 2 really did stink. Given the amount of promo that was thrown out for this film, perhaps there needs to be some special "You've got to be kidding" award for films like this which are heavily promoted in the media and yet still fail to impress anyone.

I managed to rent Basic Instinct 2 (2006) for $2.00 expecting it to be really, really bad. But actually it's the best detestable movie. This mystery crime thriller isn't about pornographic sex as it is the real deal about a strong, intelligent female you love to hate and in so doing so hating the movie that's actually really good. The script and the performances are solid. It's just the character that's almost impossible to like or if one did, one would be vilified for doing so. This movie raises some great ethical, moral, cultural, sociological, and psychological questions about film making.

I never saw Date Movie, but I don't doubt it is and will be the worst movie of the year. If one of the Scary Movies came out this year, that might be a close second. The Scary Movie series is probably the worst set of movies ever made.

Lady in the Water was another terrible movie that I did actually see.

quote:

Originally posted by tabuno:
I managed to rent Basic Instinct 2 (2006) for $2.00 expecting it to be really, really bad. But actually it's the best detestable movie. This mystery crime thriller isn't about pornographic sex as it is the real deal about a strong, intelligent female you love to hate and in so doing so hating the movie that's actually really good. The script and the performances are solid. It's just the character that's almost impossible to like or if one did, one would be vilified for doing so. This movie raises some great ethical, moral, cultural, sociological, and psychological questions about film making.

So, tabuno, how does it compare to the first Basic Instinct? I love that movie. What d'ya say?

quote:

Mark f posted:

So, tabuno, how does it compare to the first Basic Instinct? I love that movie. What d'ya say?

I will have to take the Fifth Amendment and memory loss until I see the original movie again.

OK, you're safe. No Commie implications 50 years later.

Pirates of the Caribeen 2. God what a terrible movie. And it had such potential but it all was drowned in terrible pacing, muddled dialogue, unclear plot, exhausting action sequences, lack of character development or even any believable human interaction in general. And God what a devicive ending.

I only see about a 25%/30% of the films that receive a commercial release, though this year the percentage is down to around 20%.

I was going to completely skip MISSION IMPOSSIBLE III because it received a horrible review from Manohla Dargis in the "New York Times," but then the Metacritics score was good so I said "what the hell."

Well, I should have listened to Ms. Dargis because this one was a bit of a dud. Movies in this genre work best when there is a good villain, i.e., John Malkovich's bad guy versus Clint Eastood's good guy in IN THE LINE OF FIRE or Tommy Lee Jones' bad/good guy versus Harrison Ford's good-good guy in THE FUGITIVE. Malkovich and Jones made those movies work.

Here the formidible Philip Seymour Hoffman played the bad guy, but he wasn't on screen long enough to really register and provide a foil to Tom Cruise.

And I felt the action scenes were not all that great. I wasn't on the edge of my seat like I was in, say, the original JURASSIC PARK.

Another film that I found to be a bit of a dud was SUPERMAN RETURNS. I again went with much trepidation, but the reviews were so good my willpower wilted and I thought it was just really silly.

Another big disappointment was Robert Altman's PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION. I just thought of this one as a dud and a trifle. Maybe it is because I also can't stand Garrison Keillor and all that false nostalgia. I love Altman when he is on the top of his game, but after the back-top-back successes of THE PLAYER & SHORT CUTS from the early 1990s, it has been more miss than hit from Mr. Altman. The only good film he's made since then has been GOSFORD PARK.

quote:

mark f Posted 24 July 2006 08:47 PM

So, tabuno, how does it compare to the first Basic Instinct? I love that movie. What d'ya say?

It's not often that I take the time and money to undertake following up on a movie I haven't seen in a while in order to respond to a comment or inquiry, but something about Basic Instinct 2 (2006) made me want to examine the initial movie on which it was based namely Basic Instinct (1992). The original movie now seems both more amorous and in your face while at the same time a bit stodgy and traditional. The original was made more interesting by its shock value and sex as well as the strong Sharon Stone character and caught audience members off balance back in 1992. Today, it doesn't play quite as well. Law enforcement is characterized pretty much with two-dimensional characters. The alcohol flows a plenty and in the case of the side-kick, oddly.

The sequel is in many ways much better. Avoiding overt sexual use and a much more high road approach, the sequel is a stronger psychological thriller and Sharon Stone's character is even more refined, sophisticated, and perhaps dangerous. By the end of the movie the manipulation is so smooth and concentrated that the impact is even greater and the confusion and ambivalence more emotional intense. Sharon's performance and the script in the sequel was very good and like a fine wine, the subtle nuance, flavor, and body have developed very well.

V for Vendetta totally sucked.

I know some liked it, and I am sure there are some really bad movied I didn't see; but I hated Lady in the Water. When it got to the mean "monkey-monsters" in the trees keeping the "grassy beasts" at bay I had enough.

I'm giving LADY IN THE WATER a wide berth, but one that no doubt is going to end up on my 10 worst list will be THE OH IN OHIO. Dreadful,

quote:

V for Vendetta totally sucked.

Nope, I'm afraid you're wrong on that one. Check the metacritic rating and the best of 2006 topic. Anyone who doesn't like this movie is a communist.

oops, actually just look at the first two reviewers.

One of the amazing technical acting components of V is the performance by the leading character whose face is almost never seen. In order for this movie to have even made it worthwhile, the ability to project emotions, feelings, and character without moveable facial features is remarkable, perhaps more so than John Hurt's performance in The Elephant Man (1980). Whether or not the current political, national security fears allow audience members to relate to V even more makes V at least relevant in this contemporary period of time. Only the future will determine whether such a connection continues to hold.