Here are my worst films of the year to date, in least preferrential order:

1) The Da Vinci Code
2) Idlewild
3) Nacho Libre
4) X-Men 3
5) A Scanner Darkly

Although it was not the worst movie of the year, I still consider V for Vandetta by far the most over-rated piece of trash I've seen thus far. If I extended my list to ten, V for Vandetta would certainly be there -- with Hostel somewhere in the mix. Fortunately, I have not seen most of the other films that folks have previously mentioned.

quote:

Butler11 Posted 28 August 2006 01:13 PM

Here are my worst films of the year to date, in least preferrential order:

1) The Da Vinci Code
2) Idlewild
3) Nacho Libre
4) X-Men 3
5) A Scanner Darkly

Although it was not the worst movie of the year, I still consider V for Vandetta by far the most over-rated piece of trash I've seen thus far. If I extended my list to ten, V for Vandetta would certainly be there -- with Hostel somewhere in the mix. Fortunately, I have not seen most of the other films that folks have previously mentioned.

I haven't seen either Nacho Libre nor Idlewild as they are not particularly the type of movies I enjoy. However as to your listing of The Da Vinci Code, A Scanner Darkly, and V For Vandetta, I'm surprised to see any of them on a list for Worst of 2006. I can surely name a number that I have seen that rank much worse namely (and which I guess I'll indicate IS MY WORST 2006 FILM LIST of movies I've seen so far) with the first one listed being the worst:

1. What the Bleep!?: Down the Rabbit Hole
2. Underworld: Evolution
3. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
4. Ultraviolet
5. Silent Hill
6. Poseidon
7. Failure to Launch
8. The Break-Up

The Da Vinci Code appeared to be a high quality production with a decent amount of mystery dependent less on action than storyline (making it a least an adequate thriller). I enjoyed the reasonable connections and the controversy.

A Scanner Darkly was quite amazing due to its ability to encompass its original source material so well compared to all the other attempts to bring Phillip K. Dick to the screen. The very visual and convoluted dialogue was rich with hard core science fiction.

V For Vandetta had a nice twist, rich with imagery and difficult performance acting with a strong message.

Thankfully, I have not seen any of the films in your Bottom 10.

The Sentinel
Miami Vice

quote:

NButler11 Posted 29 August 2006 07:12 AM

Thankfully, I have not seen any of the films in your Bottom 10.

I'm thankful too. Save your money on something worth it.

Click was pretty bad, not gunna lie!

V for Vendetta wasn't that bad. It had an interesting story to it and the essential bad ass knife moves. I suppose you could call it "light entertainment". I don't know about anyone else but i thought X-men 3 was pretty damn good to.

Any film you pay to see and then walk out of 40 minutes later has got to be #1:

A Prairie Home Companion

The descent was probably the worst movie i sat through this year

Reasons, please. Or you just don't dig claustrophobic, spelunking, cannibal horror movies with English female casts?

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
Reasons, please. Or you just don't dig claustrophobic, spelunking, cannibal horror movies with English female casts?

If so, he'd be the only one

I thought "Descent" was actually pretty darn good, especially compared to what we're usually given as "horror" movies these days (Saw 3, Hostel, Turistas, etc.) The people who made it did their homework -- it borrowed, or rather "nodded" to ideas from Alien, Deliverance, Alfred Hitchcock, and others.

The production values, and acting were pretty solid, again compared to the usual horror crap. I actually found the inclusion of the cave-dwelling monsters to be kind of unnecessary. It was already clausterphobic and unsettling enough before they showed up. Good use of lighting and editing.

"A Scanner Darkly" was nowhere near one of the worst this year. I knew the book before I saw it, and thought it was one of the most faithful and appropriate book adaptations I've seen in a long time. Like the first "Lord Of The Rings," many scenes in the film were *exactly* the way I'd pictured them in my head while reading--they could have downloaded the scenes of Arctor's house and backyard directly from my brain.

Worst movie I saw this year? Well, I'm pretty sure I just didn't GET Tideland, but that wasn't too great.

But no, the most disappointing, but not the worst - was The Black Dahlia. The worst was Saw III. And The Wicker Man was the most unintenionally hilarious - it's the only serious film I've been to where, by the end, the audience was in stitches. Oh man was that a ridiculous flick.

Mission Impossible Three*
The Da Vinci Code**

* Over use of quick cut editing and montages. The movie was poorly acted, directed, and written. The ending of the film, although contrived, was under-whelming; it was a poor effort with an exceptional cast.

** No character development and it relied on chases, aggravating music, and dim lighting to create an un-necessary mood. Tom Hanks appeared to be dull as the lead. The movie went nowhere, and Howard covered no issues that he should have.

quote:

d.zeleniouk Posted 14 December 2006 02:22 PM

The Da Vinci Code**

** No character development and it relied on chases, aggravating music, and dim lighting to create an un-necessary mood. Tom Hanks appeared to be dull as the lead. The movie went nowhere, and Howard covered no issues that he should have.

Considering the mystery-thriller genre of this film, I don't believe that much character development was necessary for this film to be considered good. Audrey Tautou as Agent Sophie Neveu had a good background story part of the way into the movie which provided a good revelation for moving this mystery movie forward. One also must understand the severe technical constraints that the director Ron Howard was under in regards to lighting at the Louvre and shooting on location. With actual art masterpieces, the exposure to direct lighting would have been quite destructive. As for Tom Hanks, as a smart everyman, his restraint was personally satisfying as so many well known actors can easily overwhelm the screen by their familiarity. I enjoyed his ability to grab from the very beginning the professional role with an interesting twist on symbology. Hank's character was much more human and real through his underplaying. His character wasn't supposed to be any James Bond. His character contrasted with the more eccentric characters in the movie, i.e., Jean Reno as Captain Bezu Fache, Paul Bettany as Silas, Alfred Molina as Bishop Manuel Aringarosa, and Jürgen Prochnow as Andre Vernet. As such, this is a credit to both the director and Tom Hanks.

quote:

Considering the mystery-thriller genre of this film, I don't believe that much character development was necessary for this film to be considered good.

Regardless of the genre, or form of storytelling, a solid piece of storytelling must consist of developing its protagonist(s) through actions or dialogue. Dialogue associated with literature, and actions associated with cinema. Memorable movies focus on building their protagonists, through their actions, and behavior. The reason that memorable movies do this is to allow these characters to resonate with the audience, so that the audience has an idea of their characteristics, of how human they are and what to expect, or not to expect from them. This is done to signify if the audience is expected to sympathize with the protagonist or to support the antagonist.

The Da Vinci Code heavily relied on jump cuts to previous times and locations, also referred to as ciphers, for the audience to resonate with the protagonists. The audience was not introduced to each character—Tautou and Hanks—through behavior, actions, or significant events that displayed their deep inner emotions, or triggered responses/reactions.

Tom Hanks’ character was introduced as a University Professor who is keen on researching the symbolic meaning of prominent art. The lecture he gave, informed nothing to the audience of his character. The lecture merely educated the audience of the different interpretations in various eras, people, and cultures of arts, sciences, and icons.

quote:

Audrey Tautou as Agent Sophie Neveu had a good background story part of the way into the movie that provided a good revelation for moving this mystery movie forward.

Cinema is so beautiful because you have a chance to not just tell a story, but to show one. Many critics, directors, producers, inform moviemakers that in movies your objective is to show not tell. The Da Vinci Code featured much of the latter. Audrey Tautou was just verbally presenting to Tom Hanks her grand father, a significant car crash—that was never further explored—and the cult following of her grand father. Ciphers—as in Hanks’ part—showed insignificant images that did not signify any useful information to the character.

quote:

One also must understand the severe technical constraints that the director Ron Howard was under in regards to lighting at the Louvre and shooting on location.

Barry Lyndon, a movie that was filmed thirty-years prior to this occasion, was filmed in the interiors of the Powerscourt House. It is recognized for its distinct, vivid lighting, and photography. All the lighting was natural, and illuminated the movie. This was thirty years ago in a prominent mansion, which requested that, in order for the interiors to be used, please provide us (the owners) with a wealthy check.

The Da Vinci Code was filmed with a budget over one hundred and twenty-five million dollars, as opposed to a ten million budget for Barry Lyndon.

quote:

As for Tom Hanks, as a smart everyman, his restraint was personally satisfying as so many well known actors can easily overwhelm the screen by their familiarity.

Tom Hanks’ subdued performance was necessary in The Road to Perdition, where he appeared to be a complex, troubled single-father. In a movie that he portrays a University professor, his performance should not seem dull, and un-inspiring. The performance should be jovial and charismatic. He possessed no restraint, just hesitation to appear natural; it is visible that he was not the character, but that he was an actor. Similar to what happened in Mission Impossible Three with Tom Cruise.

quote:

I enjoyed his ability to grab from the very beginning the professional role with an interesting twist on symbology.

Please elaborate.

quote:

Hank's character was much more human and real through his underplaying. His character wasn't supposed to be any James Bond.

He portrays an insipid character that has no emotions, or humanistic values.

quote:

His character contrasted with the more eccentric characters in the movie, i.e., Jean Reno as Captain Bezu Fache, Paul Bettany as Silas, Alfred Molina as Bishop Manuel Aringarosa, and Jürgen Prochnow as Andre Vernet.

The sole esoteric character in the movie is the one that is not mentioned here. Ian Mckellen’s performance, as Hanks’ colleague, acquaintance, and foe, was the sole ebullient performance that was given by any actor or actress in the moive. His monologue provided information about his human ethics, his past occupation, his preferences, and his beliefs. His fine example of coffee or tea added nuances and natural qualities to him. His appreciation for Miss. Tautou as a lady, and a researcher was with much sincerity.

quote:

As such, this is a credit to both the director and Tom Hanks.

More or less to Ian Mckellen’s fine improvisational skills as a leading actor. The director failed in attracting emotional power out of Bettany, or providing the audience with a reason for despising Molina and Reno.

quote:

Pulque Posted 31 October 2006 09:03 PM
Any film you pay to see and then walk out of 40 minutes later has got to be #1:

A Prairie Home Companion

While I don't agree with you about this movie being the worst, I won't dispute your feelings about the movie and your need to walk out. Part of me wanted to, but the movie reflects its origins and nature and having listened to a small amount of the National Public Radio broadcasts I came to enjoy some of the idiosyncracy of the small town banter. This is not a movie for the general, mainstream of all types. However, for a number of people, its flavor and tenor really hit a chord. I particularly was fascinated by the woman in white. But I won't disagree with you about your comments. A small part of me felt the same way.

quote:

zeleniouk Posted 18 December 2006 07:18 PM

quote:
Considering the mystery-thriller genre of this film, I don't believe that much character development was necessary for this film to be considered good.

Regardless of the genre, or form of storytelling, a solid piece of storytelling must consist of developing its protagonist(s) through actions or dialogue. Dialogue associated with literature, and actions associated with cinema. Memorable movies focus on building their protagonists, through their actions, and behavior. The reason that memorable movies do this is to allow these characters to resonate with the audience, so that the audience has an idea of their characteristics, of how human they are and what to expect, or not to expect from them. This is done to signify if the audience is expected to sympathize with the protagonist or to support the antagonist.

The Da Vinci Code heavily relied on jump cuts to previous times and locations, also referred to as ciphers, for the audience to resonate with the protagonists. The audience was not introduced to each character—Tautou and Hanks—through behavior, actions, or significant events that displayed their deep inner emotions, or triggered responses/reactions.

Tom Hanks’ character was introduced as a University Professor who is keen on researching the symbolic meaning of prominent art. The lecture he gave, informed nothing to the audience of his character. The lecture merely educated the audience of the different interpretations in various eras, people, and cultures of arts, sciences, and icons.

Tab Uno: I quote, "The Da Vinci Code heavily relied on jump cuts to previous times and locations, also referred to as ciphers, for the audience to resonate with the protagonists." The Bourne Identity is a good example of action thriller. Da Vinci is a good example of mystery thriller based on your definition of developing its protagonist through actions. Tom Hank and Audrey Tautou appear to have a lot of action in this movie - particularly of the running from. Again this is not a biography or drama or romance comedy but a mystery thriller. By the very nature of the use of cipher as you note, the character development by cipher is a great touch consistent with the nature of this movie's genre. Development of character in terms of detailed past history or some emotive connection between the two leading characters would have been distracting. The actions taken by the two leading characters to solve a world-shattering secret is the basis of the movie, not the exposure of some deeper human character of these individual people.


"Cinema is so beautiful because you have a chance to not just tell a story, but to show one. Many critics, directors, producers, inform moviemakers that in movies your objective is to show not tell. The Da Vinci Code featured much of the latter. Audrey Tautou was just verbally presenting to Tom Hanks her grand father, a significant car crash—that was never further explored—and the cult following of her grand father. Ciphers—as in Hanks’ part—showed insignificant images that did not signify any useful information to the character."

Tab Uno: Again, personally, the primary basis on this movie is not the characters but the mystery. Little clues offered by narrative into of showing as in Audrey Tautou's case is much more realistic and in the present as part of the action presentation. Somebody telling somebody else one's history based on the amount needed to keep the movie going was good for me and keep me in the present not the past. Timing, pacing, movie budget are all important considerations here.


"Barry Lyndon, a movie that was filmed thirty-years prior to this occasion, was filmed in the interiors of the Powerscourt House. It is recognized for its distinct, vivid lighting, and photography. All the lighting was natural, and illuminated the movie. This was thirty years ago in a prominent mansion, which requested that, in order for the interiors to be used, please provide us (the owners) with a wealthy check.

The Da Vinci Code was filmed with a budget over one hundred and twenty-five million dollars, as opposed to a ten million budget for Barry Lyndon. "

Tab Uno - money was not the primary factor in the lighting issue. It was a museum and historical preservation issue. Your comments don't address directly the problem about lighting here.


"Tom Hanks’ subdued performance was necessary in The Road to Perdition, where he appeared to be a complex, troubled single-father. In a movie that he portrays a University professor, his performance should not seem dull, and un-inspiring. The performance should be jovial and charismatic. He possessed no restraint, just hesitation to appear natural; it is visible that he was not the character, but that he was an actor. Similar to what happened in Mission Impossible Three with Tom Cruise. "

Tab Uno - How many symbology professors do you know that are jovial and charismatic. I would rather have a toned down professor in this movie that would displace our attention onto the character rather than on the mystery itself, except when the character's life was threatened. I wouldn't want a Robin Williams as in Patch Adams for instance. This is a mystery thriller again, not a drama about people. In fact the low-key nature of Tom Hanks was in great contrast to Paul Bettany's Silas. In fact, it was the other cast members that provided the charismatic backdrop to Tom Hank's everyman's actions. I could relate to Tom Hank's character more just because of his less than larger than life character (somebody who wasn't over the top), more normal and plain. I focused on his actions not his character for this story. His actions demonstrated his keen intellectual character and ability to solve puzzle. Even the final scene was significant in terms of character development - it said more than all his actions to that point.

"He (Tom Hanks) portrays an insipid character that has no emotions, or humanistic values. "

While watching this movie Tom Hanks expressed fear, awe, puzzlement, sadness, surprise. I experienced his struggle with religion and the importance of his quest. I felt his enthusiasm regarding what he was embarking on. This is film not stage production theater. Subtlety is more important than flash and exaggeration. I hope I don't have to begin to review all the scenes with Tom Hanks and his subsequent emotions and how he accomplishes each but if I must, let me know - I'll review the movie on DVD and give you some examples.

"The director failed in attracting emotional power out of Bettany, or providing the audience with a reason for despising Molina and Reno."

Tab Uno - I felt deeply for Silas and his pain and bewilderment and suffering. Tom Hanks was wise to avoid labeling and stereotyping Molina and Reno into evil roles and the need for the audience to despise them. That's not what the movie was about.

Crank.


Awful.


Someone make Statham stop.


Please.

I guess this is as good a place as any to list my "Worst 10" of the year. If there's ever an "official" thread, I can always copy it onto that.

Please note that most of these films were well-acclaimed...I don't need to see crap like Basic Instinct 2.

1. A Prairie Home Companion
2. Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story
3. Brick
4. Little Children
5. Three Times
6. Keeping Up With the Steins
7. Friends With Money
8. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
9. Apocalypto
10. Duck Season