My favorite Ebert & Roeper show is where they get their revenge and choose the worst films of the year, though it must be hard for Ebert to come up with 10 to put on his list because he seems to like everything, including the LONGEST YARD remake, which ended up on worst 10 Roeper's list.

I am proud to say that of the total of 18 films that ended up on E&R's lists, I didn't see any (two films were duplicated on their respective lists). Most seemed to be remakes (LY) films based on TV shows (i.e., BEWITCHED, DUKES OF HAZARD), sequels (DEUCE BIGELOW 2) and films based on comic books (FANTASTIC FOUR).

Both felt that DUKES OF HAZARD was the worst film, but Ebert switched his to second worst and substituted DEUCE BIGELOW 2 as his worst film of '05. That was the second worst on Roeper's list. No other duplication on the lists.

A tough year for Burt Reynolds, who popped up in both DUKES OF HAZARD & LONGEST YARD.

quote:

Mark f posted:

If that were true, would you have to post the exact same posts at multiple threads? Would you feel the need to RE-post your opinons everytime that somebody disagrees with you? You can't let two positive posts about something you disagree with go without "raining on the previous posters' parade." You've been going around here telling people that they have to engage your "opinions", and if they didn't, then YOU are apparently "right". This is certainly what I take from your posts where you take the "high ground". You don't think that YOU are the one stirring the pot around here? Well, the pot's boiling, but it might not turn out to be anything you care to eat.

ONE other thing: You don't read or comprehend others' posts. You constantly quote people and then argue the exact opposite of the quote you make, which obviously means that you don't read or pay attention to the other person.

Mark f:

You first point is taken about my posting the same concerns about King Kong on two different threads. But I will also point out that you also felt the need to respond on two different threads addressing similar points. For me, I thought it possible that perhaps not everyone saw my points for discussion on the other thread and for the sake of discussion, I think it's important that the same material be made available for a dicussion of the same movie on different threads just in case. But I can understand how you could interpret my insistance of posting the same specific critism as indicating my own need to throw my feelings around on this website. As very few people have responded specifically to my points of contention about King Kong, you have some evidence to support the idea that nobody cares about my feelings about this movie, my arguments are either very dumb or so good that nobody wants to waste their time responding or they can't respond because my points are so valid. But in either case, I'm pretty much spent on this movie, unless someone really wants to really discuss this movie on its technical merits.

I have to really take issue about my not agreeing with other people's posts. I read them. Just because I read them, doesn't mean I have to agree with them. By your way of arguing, someone to have read a post would have to also agree with it. To me that doesn't make much sense. I also have agreed with you on a number of points, as I did in my very last one when I commented that you corrected me on the sunset, instead of sunrise setting, in King Kong. It would be helpful if you weren't so black and white on this stuff.

Anyway, I loved your smiling, frowning faces in the last post. You have a nice sense of humor.

quote:

asc85 posted January 11, 2006:

Broken Flowers (79) - After considering the abominable "Coffee and Cigarettes" as the worst film of 2004, it is now obvious to me that I don't "get" Jim Jarmusch.

ChrisFromAstoria posted January 11, 2006:

I probably wouldn't put BROKEN FLOWERS on my worst list either, but I think this one was a real dud and a bad movie.

I can understand perhaps some of the problems with Broken Flowers, but dispite its flaws, overall this movie is emotional powerful in its reflective encounters with Bill Murray's less than likeable character and his former lovers. I was terribly bored the first fourth of this movie with the wasted time consumed between Bill's character and his neighbor who seems much more of an interesting character who has to persuade Bill's character to go on this venture in the first place. However, Jim Jarmusch doesn't successfully capture Sofia Coppola's seamlessly rich and captivating slice of life Lost In Translation (2003) experience, he does redeem himself with some great, though underdeveloped, performance interactions between Bill Murray and the other female characters (strangely enough mostly on the part of the actresses). The echoes of our own past emotional lives and broken relationships and the "what ifs" are well presented in this movie making it a much more relevant and intimately and personally connected movie than many of the movies that came out in 2005. However, such relating to the movie may be more clearly dependent on the age of the viewer and the viewer's own opportunity to have had similar broken relationships. Perhaps not among the best movie of the year, but clearly for me not nearly close to the worst movie of the year.

quote:

ChrisFromAstoria posted:

I am proud to say that of the total of 18 films that ended up on E&R's lists, I didn't see any (two films were duplicated on their respective lists). Most seemed to be remakes (LY) films based on TV shows (i.e., BEWITCHED, DUKES OF HAZARD), sequels (DEUCE BIGELOW 2) and films based on comic books (FANTASTIC FOUR).

I admit I have a fondness for Nicole Kidman thus making my opinion pretty bias and I even purchased the

...continuing on in regards to Bewitched I enjoyed this variation (finally) instead of a remake of the classic hokey but enjoyable television series. I found the updated plot outline clever and different. I find it difficult to feel that this movie was among the worst of the year - for at least at the minimum it wasn't a ripoff as many remakes are. The movie was cute, funny, and stylistically enjoyable as a romantic comedy. At least a six or seven out of ten stars (not anything below a five).

quote:

...continuing on in regards to Bewitched I enjoyed this variation (finally) instead of a remake of the classic hokey but enjoyable television series. I found the updated plot outline clever and different. I find it difficult to feel that this movie was among the worst of the year - for at least at the minimum it wasn't a ripoff as many remakes are. The movie was cute, funny, and stylistically enjoyable as a romantic comedy. At least a six or seven out of ten stars (not anything below a five).

I think it was ok for the most part, not excellent but not bad, but am i the only one who thought the ending left a lot of questions unanswered?

1. Kamen Rider Hibiki and the Seven War Oni
2. Borothers Grim

quote:

LordSmoogsbottomIII
Apprentice Guru Posted 12 February 2006 05:10 PM
quote:
...continuing on in regards to Bewitched I enjoyed this variation (finally) instead of a remake of the classic hokey but enjoyable television series. I found the updated plot outline clever and different. I find it difficult to feel that this movie was among the worst of the year - for at least at the minimum it wasn't a ripoff as many remakes are. The movie was cute, funny, and stylistically enjoyable as a romantic comedy. At least a six or seven out of ten stars (not anything below a five).

I think it was ok for the most part, not excellent but not bad, but am i the only one who thought the ending left a lot of questions unanswered?

I found the ending adequate - the typical happy ending. What questions were left unanswered? Maybe I could help out.