There cannot be a worse release from a major studio this or any year than Alexander. I cringed through it last night. It made me want to run home and rent Swept Away.
Posts: 2 | Location: los angeles, california | Registered: 18 November 2004
but, i can't think of any that i really disliked, or found to be the worst...
oh, but i went looking through the other responses and found this one from Mister E.
quote:Originally posted by Edward Nygma: Whatever, the worst film I saw this year was Garfield, I can't believe I went to see it! What was I thinking? I even managed to drag 3 of my best friends to go and see it!! Maybe it was because I used to love Garfield as a kid...
I don't think its the worst, but i didn't like it too much...and i went to see it for the same reason...i still have a Garfield comic book that my 3rd grade teacher gave me...
o-<-</ thats me, skateboarding!
Posts: 158 | Location: under my (bed) blanket | Registered: 16 November 2004
To be fair, Bill Murray was good as Garfield but the rest of the film was terrible, the dog should have been done in CGI too I think, and the acting (shudder)... I dunno, I think it's definitely the worst film I've gone to see at the cinema but then, I usually go and see good films so...
"Garfield" had one sole purpose, to appeal to children who like cats. Just like Hillary Duff with little girls, she is in the movie, therefore they must see the movie, children have no rational rating system as far as movies and will watch pretty much anything. I think that it succeeded in its purpose, so I am unable to condemn the movie. My vote stays with "White Chicks" It just might be the worst movie...EVER.
Posts: 3776 | Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha | Registered: 18 October 2004
ohh, but i thought white chicks was a funny movie..lol, i like the part where the black guy takes the one on a date and the vanessa carlton song comes on..he starts to sing it, and he's getting all into it..that part was funny, seeing such a big guy singing that kinda song..hah
o-<-</ thats me, skateboarding!
Posts: 158 | Location: under my (bed) blanket | Registered: 16 November 2004
Trust me Elijah, you missed nothing. Save, a terrible movie, I don't want to disagree with you Heather, but I just have to on this issue. I think that I laughed once the entire movie, and that was a chuckle, the rest of the time I was sitting in the theater wishing that the film was over.
Posts: 3776 | Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha | Registered: 18 October 2004
Alexander is officially the worst movie (I have seen) of 2004. The film tried so hard to be good. It wanted to be an epic. It failed in every respect. The writing was atrocious, the score left a lot to be desired and the acting...wow...where do I start? Farrell was completely out of his range here and everyone else was just trying to hard. There were so many scenes that were typical "epic" scenes, with Alexander riding up and down the lines giving some "motivational" speech trying to rally the troops. It came off as just plain silly. The music would swell in the background, Farrell would begin yelling, and I would yawn. It never worked. Stone has let me down.
--
Yea, well you see this one? This was my dream, my wish....and it didn't come true. So I'm taking it back, I'm taking them all back. -Face
I suspected that but originally was looking forward to the movie. Now, Im probably not going to see it. I can now see the movie as a high wanna-be epic blockbuster, though it seems that it will not make that much money.
Posts: 635 | Location: California | Registered: 24 August 2004
quote:Originally posted by JackietheBlade: Alexander is officially the worst movie (I have seen) of 2004. The film tried so hard to be good. It wanted to be an epic. It failed in every respect. The writing was atrocious, the score left a lot to be desired and the acting...wow...where do I start? Farrell was completely out of his range here and everyone else was just trying to hard. There were so many scenes that were typical "epic" scenes, with Alexander riding up and down the lines giving some "motivational" speech trying to rally the troops. It came off as just plain silly. The music would swell in the background, Farrell would begin yelling, and I would yawn. It never worked. Stone has let me down.
So it wasnt even better than the terribly weak "Troy"...Damn! I was looking forward to this one too!!!
Recently, there have been so many bad "epic like" films it seems. As Troy, King Arthur, and Alexander, all hollywood trash, each costing above 100 million and relatively making less than what they costed. Why must some movies be so bad? With that much money, cant you just make a moderately good movie?
Posts: 635 | Location: California | Registered: 24 August 2004
It is easy to just throw money into action scenes and special effects. The things that makes movies great are the things which cannot be purchased such as: acting, plot, and creativity.
Posts: 3776 | Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha | Registered: 18 October 2004
Well, with money, a good director can be hired, good actors can be hired and I'm sure a creative mind can be hired. I know many movies that had a very low budget and were very good but it makes it so much easier if you have money to purchase all the secret ingredients to a good film. Not to mention, even though special effects dont play the largest role in a movie, one has to admit that they can spice the movie up or make it better in some way.
Posts: 635 | Location: California | Registered: 24 August 2004
Seems like "Alexander" had a couple good actors with Anthony Hopkins, Christopher Plummer, and Angelina Jolie. Oliver Stone has had a very productive career. And I am almost certain that the movie had good effects (granted I haven't actually seen it) so they put money in a couple of the right pockets. It just didn't turn out.
Posts: 3776 | Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha | Registered: 18 October 2004
Yes Eccentro, it was worse than Troy...much worse in my opinion. I was at least some what interested in what was happening on the screen in Troy. Alexander...not so much. At lease I cared about some of the characters in Troy, like Peter O'Toole's Priam. Alexander...not so much. The film was at least an hour too long. I really should have taken a nap. My father-in-law said it was the second worst movie he had ever seen, right next to Gods and Generals.
--
Yea, well you see this one? This was my dream, my wish....and it didn't come true. So I'm taking it back, I'm taking them all back. -Face
Harry Potter 3 Dodgeball Anchorman The Polar Express- I recently decided that this movie wasnt very good. Hidalgo 13 going on 30 Sideways What the bleep do we know
I saw many very mediocre/ bad movies but I dont think that those are fit for this discussion.
Posts: 635 | Location: California | Registered: 24 August 2004
I knew people would be. Well, I just didnt enjoy the movie. I understand that it might've been better than the first two, but I didnt like the first two so how good could it be? I just didnt like the directing and the way it was done, I understand many people think otherwise but I cant really justify why I didnt like it, I just didnt.
Posts: 635 | Location: California | Registered: 24 August 2004
quote:Originally posted by E.M.: I knew people would be. Well, I just didnt enjoy the movie. I understand that it might've been better than the first two, but I didnt like the first two so how good could it be? I just didnt like the directing and the way it was done, I understand many people think otherwise but I cant really justify why I didnt like it, I just didnt.
understood. Quick question: did you read the books?? And if not was the ending WAAAY too confusing for you to follow because I really like the HP books (read all 5) and had a slight feeling that the rushed feeling of HP 3's denounment (ten point vocab word) could confuse those of you who have not read the books...
