I didnt read the books. And the ending was somewhat confusing and didnt make sense to me until the movie was finally over and I had time to contemplate it.

Van Helsing is one of the worst movies I have ever seen, let alone the worst of 2004

Now, I have to lay out some things first - I am pretty good at avoiding bad movies, I can usually tell (there is no reason to see Gigli), I usually follow my movie instinct and it works out. Evidently my instinct was on vacation! What was Wolverine thinking! Hugh Jackman must of been paid a crapload to agree to be in this movie, wait! I can't call this piece of trash a movie - how about calling it 'the thing that stole 2 1/2 hours of my life that I can't have back!' Jackman's character was a weak imitation of wolverine - memory problems, snide remarks, tough with a soft side. But done so badly it was almost funny. This movie is full of totally unintentional laughs, the people in the theater were laughing at the degree of crappiness that this movie achieved. OK, usually action movies have very little plot, but this movie didn't even have story structure, they just did scenes, or dialog for no reason. A chase scene just thrown into the middle of the movie. Characters that would scream or leave for no reason. One sequence of dialog between jackman and Beckinsale was just pitiful. First jackman says they need to kill Beckinsale's brother, then Beckinsale says no, they can save him. Then 2 minutes later! Beckinsale says they can't help her brother, then their trying to save him, then they just forgot about him. Uhgggh! This movie was just thrown together from bits and pieces of every horror movie(which are usually bad to begin with) with no new ideas. Every character is a cliche, and a horribly done cliche, with no redeeming value. The reason this movie is the worst I've seen is because they didn't even try! Didn't try to make fun of themselves. Didn't try to bring anything new to the table. Didn't try to keep the story flow and make sense. Didn't try to make even slightly real or deep characters. Didn't try to do anything but throw some crap dialog and story together hoping the special effects would carry the movie. AND THEY DON'T. This movie is a complete and udder failure and waste of anyone's time! DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE!

Each to their own, but I thought Collateral was fantastic. I flip flopped when it came to Alexander, but caved and went to see it. Nowhere near as bad as the critics made it out, and probably worth the $8 to see Rosario Dawson naked (I don't think I blinked for the whole scene). Sideways was great, I'll be grabbing that one on DVD. As for turkeys, well Starsky & Hutch was lame beyond belief...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slam:
Each to their own, but I thought Collateral was fantastic. I flip flopped when it came to Alexander, but caved and went to see it. Nowhere near as bad as the critics made it out, and probably worth the $8 to see Rosario Dawson naked (I don't think I blinked for the whole scene). Sideways was great, I'll be grabbing that one on DVD. As for turkeys, well Starsky & Hutch was lame beyond belief...

---

I agree on Collateral being superb. As for sideways, I wasn't extremely impressed as I mentioned in the best of 2004 discussion. And I enjoyed Starsky and Hutch and found it to be quite funny so I'd have to disagree with you there as well.

ven helsing (I dont even care enough to spell it right) wayyyyyy sucked. That hits numero uno.

Van Helsing and that damned Riddick. As for the creator of this thread. I am sorry to doubt your knowledge of movies and good movies, but what exactly do you base your reviews on? Also, just what qualifies as a good movie??? You seem to have "eenie-meenie-miney-moed" what you picked for the years worst. I'm sorry but if you are anyone with a basic respect for film, you wouldn't diss Tarantino.

quote:

---

I'm sorry but if you are anyone with a basic respect for film, you wouldn't diss Tarantino.

---

Those types of comments aren't needed Nickel, this is a friendly forum in which just because people have conflicting ideas they do not say that one person is wrong and another is right. I personally am not a fan of Tarantino myself, but that doesn't mean that I don't have any "basic respect for film" as you put it.

Now I dislike Van Helsing just as much as the next guy, but The Chronicles of Riddick was mediocre, not bad. It was entertaining and is certainly not the worst of the year. That honor goes towards:

Welcome to Mooseport
White Chicks
AND
The Punisher

Mike, I'm sorry if you disagree but Tarantino is great. Insulting him is pretty much like insulting my pride. If you want to tell someone how to behave, please be my guest. However, if I want to prevoke this person to discuss my opinion, I feel the best way to go about it is by criticizing him enough to equal a rebute. I still stand that Riddick was a waste of time, not so much because it was bad on its own, but purely dissappointing in comparison with Pitch Black. With a cult fan base for PB, they should've really tried a little harder.

sky captain and the world tomorrow a real goddamn waste of money

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nickel-Z:
Mike, I'm sorry if you disagree but Tarantino is great. Insulting him is pretty much like insulting my pride. If you want to tell someone how to behave, please be my guest. However, if I want to prevoke this person to discuss my opinion, I feel the best way to go about it is by criticizing him enough to equal a rebute. I still stand that Riddick was a waste of time, not so much because it was bad on its own, but purely dissappointing in comparison with Pitch Black. With a cult fan base for PB, they should've really tried a little harder.

---

I love Tarantino as a director as well. As for Mike, you are being somewhat hipocritical. I have seen you dis my posts and many others to start arguments and discussions like Nickel is doing here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nickel-Z:
Van Helsing and that damned Riddick. As for the creator of this thread. I am sorry to doubt your knowledge of movies and good movies, but what exactly do you base your reviews on? Also, just what qualifies as a good movie??? You seem to have "eenie-meenie-miney-moed" what you picked for the years worst. I'm sorry but if you are anyone with a basic respect for film, you wouldn't diss Tarantino.

---

I think that the starter of this thread based his "reviews" on personal opinion and sensibilties, which is pretty much the same as everyone who has an honest opinion and isn't a sycophant.

Also, let's consider that someone who intentionally stays away from lousy movies might have better movies on their worst list than someone who runs out to see every crapfest which comes down the pike. Remember to attack the opinion, but psychological profiling of a poster based on empty air isn't very informative, and I'm not sure how baiting someone will cause them to respond rationally (although it's caused plenty of male-bonding/friendships in the past.)

I hope we're getting closer to the same page. This forum is a heckuva place!

I just checked the 30 films from 2004 which I've watched (mostly on DVD), and the worst are "Secret Window" and "The Ladykillers", but I don't really think those are THAT bad. On a grade scale, I'd give them both at least a C. However, I am SURE that there's over 100 movies worse than those which have come out this year, and I'm being conservative. I don't plan on watching those films EVER.

The Day After Tomorrow is quite possibly my pick.

I don't see a lot of movies in the theatres these days, but I'm sorry to say one I did see was The Notebook. It was our aged grandmother's pick and we spent much of time trying to stifle our laughter. Fortunately, when we sat down to dinner after, one of the first things she said was, "I don't know about you two, but I didn't think that was very good."

I'd also hate to see this bit wonderful big of verbiage from Metacritic's front page get past anybody:

quote:

---

Single-digit Metascores are rare, but both installments in the Baby Geniuses series have achieved that red badge of absolute failure.

---

Many of the actual reviews are pretty terrific as well.

Now Playing: "The Young Lords" Tyla Gang Home of the Hits (Sanctuary)

I can't believe no one has mentioned The Stepford Wives! That was by far the worst film I have seen in a long time.

I try to avoid most of the movies which get panned by the critics, thus I haven't seen Alexander, Van Helsing, Riddick, etc. I saw Troy on DVD and didn't think it was that bad, maybe because my expectations were low. I though the fight between Eric Bana and Brad Pitt was quite well done.

The worst film that I've seen this year has been Van Helsing.

I'm suprised by the nominations of the Ladykillers. Personally I found it enjoyable, albeit far from great. Dodgeball wasn't *that* bad either, Ben Stiller was amusing in it. Ho hum.

I'd like to add "The Grudge" to the list of crap of '04. I didn't like it. strange: yes, scary: no. The plot was just terrible and the acting even worse.

Without a doubt, the worst movie of the year is Alien vs. Predator!

The Stepford Wives was TERRIBLE!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike:
I'd like to add "The Grudge" to the list of crap of '04. I didn't like it. strange: yes, scary: no. The plot was just terrible and the acting even worse.

---

agreed. although an R rated shower scene with Sarah Michelle Gellar would have made it worth the trip. but nooo... apparently they don't do that in horror movies anymore.