The 45 Worst Films of the Decade (so far)
Submitted by 1922 on Tue, 01/10/2006 - 12:02
Tags:
- House of the Dead (2003, Jürgen Prochnow)
- Scary Movie 2 (2001, Marlon Wayans)
- Garfield- The Movie (2004, Jennifer Love Hewitt)
- The Matrix Revolutions (2004, Keanu Reeves)
- Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed (2004, Matthew Lillard)
- Joe Dirt (2001, David Spade)
- My Name Is Modesty (2003, who cares?)
- Scary Movie (2000, Marlon Wayans)
- Scooby-Doo (2001, Sarah Michelle Gellar)
- The Matrix Reloaded (2004, Keanu Reeves)
- Analyze That (2002, Robert De Niro)
- Pluto Nash (2002, Eddie Murphy)
- Run for the Money (2002, Christian Slater)
- The Time Machine (2002, Guy Pearce)
- The Mummy Returns (2001, Brendan Fraser)
- House of Wax (2005; Paris Hilton)
- American Psycho (2000, Christian Bale)
- Collateral Damage (2002, Arnold Schwarzenegger)
- Men In Black 2 (2003, Will Smith)
- Cursed (2004, Joshua Jackson)
- The Passion of the Christ (2004, Jim Caviezel)
- Showtime (2002, Eddie Murphy)
- Signs (2002, Mel Gibson)
- Eight Legged Freaks (2002, David Arquette)
- Planet of the Apes (2000, Mark Wahlberg)
- Corelli's Mandolin (2001, Nicolas Cage)
- Mission: Impossible 2 (2000, Tom Cruise)
- Evolution (2001, Seann William Scott)
- Lucky Numbers (2001, John Travolta)
- Snow Dogs (2002, Cuba Gooding Jr.)
- Spy Kids 2 (2002, Antonio Banderas)
- Tomb Raider 2: The Cradle of Life (2003, Angelina Jolie)
- Bless the Child (2001, Kim Basinger)
- Hitch (2005, Will Smith)
- The Fast and the Furious (2002, Vin Diesel)
- 40 Days and 40 Nights (2002, Josh Hartnett)
- Die Another Day (2002, Pierce Brosnan)
- The Fourth Angel (2001, Jeremy Irons)
- Shallow Hal (2001, Jack Black)
- The Art of War (2001, Wesley Snipes)
- What Lies Beneath (2001, Harrison Ford)
- Wrong Turn (2003, Eliza Dushku)
- The Hulk (2003, Eric Bana)
- Hannibal (2001, Anthony Hopkins)
- Le pacte des loups (2001, Vincent Cassel)
Author Comments:
Comments welcome.
Cloned From:
Garfield- The Movie I agree. The preview itself was enough to make you go blind... or wish that it did.
It really had nothing of the cartoon's charm. And the cat was so awfully animated. Plus, I saw it in German, and the synchronisation is BAD.
Joe Dirt is one of my all time favourites. so i disagree with its placement on this list, but hey. bit harsh on Shallow Ha, c'mon?
Bah, I hate Joe Dirt, which may also be due to the fact that it isn't my type of comedy.
Shallow Hal is also bad. It could have been much more than it finally was.
We've talked about The Hulk before... except JL Hewitt's portrayal of the veterinarian which is completely off-base the rest is so close to the comic strip, it can never be that bad and frankly Shallow Hal is the *ahhum* Farrely brothers' best movie ever and quite a clever twist on all the "beauty canon" comedy crap we've been forcefed throughout the 90's... Donc, très clairement, ça fait beaucoup de désaccords en peu de temps, et c'est amusant et étonnant en même temps... à bientôt...
Ben, je n'aime pas vraiment les Farrelly. L'idée originale de Shallow Hal est peut-être pas mal, mais il y avait quand même beaucoup plus de potentiel.
Well... I actually like American Psycho, interesting, brutal and quotable as it is.×)
Nah, American Psycho sucks, even though I think Christian Bale is a decent actor. But I also hate 1941, as you know.
Well a regular bunch of fellow Listologists like it (QC = 3.0/4.0, AJDaGreat = like 'em, jim = good, hinterland = 9/10, Cosgroove = A-). Although that doesn't have to mean anything. ;)
I think it means something: I am the only one here around who doesn't like it, or: I have no taste. :)
For pete's sake, your handle is "Jay BamBaLam"? After all these months, this is the very first time I've noticed it's not Jay LaBamBam. Maybe I do have lysdexia.
Even after I first noticed it was "BamBaLam" (several weeks after I first read it), I still say "LaBamBam" in my head.
It's really a difficult, but cool name. He could have chosen an easier ID like "1922" (which I also chose because I was fed up with people messing up my real name which isn't monosyllabic in fact). Don't you agree, lurekpog? :)
LOL you guys, that made me really laugh.
Signs!! I agree that movie was awful and that director is sooo overrated!
Agreed on that. And then Mel Gibson... eeeh!
Very good list here. Of course none of the terrible movies released this decade even approach "classic" bad movies like Plan 9. XD
I would take out the Matrix movies and Le Pacte Des Loups.
Passion of the Christ. When that came out, I was adamant against seeing it. You simply couldn't pay me enough.
Actually I never liked the Matrix movies very much. And Passion of the Christ is IMO just ridiculous.
I like a few of these on here, but I'm glad you've included The Matrix series. Overrated tripe. :-)
You say that you "like a few of these on here". For example?
What Lies Beneath, Eight Legged Freaks, American Psycho and House Of Wax are all OK. (I'd give them between 5 and 7 out of 10 probably).
Just spotted Wrong Turn - one of my least favourite movies of all-time, good spot.
House of Wax? Really? Ui. ;)
Where are the risks? These are all generally panned films by critics for simply being what they are, moronic comedies or schlock films.
I would put Sideways, Ghost World, and Memento on a list like this. Let's see some choices that are polemic.
As opposed to honest?
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Not sure what you are replying to. But those are, honestly, three films I hated.
What would be the purpose of such a list, if I included films I really enjoyed, like Sideways or Memento (and I haven't seen Ghost World)? It would be unfair and pointless to put up an artistically superior film like Sideways among crappy flicks such as House of the Dead and House of Wax (just to name some examples I have recently seen).
If you want a polemic list, why don't you make one on your own?
I wasn't saying to put those films on of course. I'm saying that surely there must be some critical darlings, some indie faves that you think are overrated (or just plain terrible). Just wondering what those are.
Well, IMO, overrated, but not bad films are for example Gosford Park, The Pianist and Hable Con Ella.
A critical darling I don't like at all is Pulp Fiction, but that again is not from the 00s.
I don't like The Pianist or Pulp Fiction either. I am scared I will not like Talk to Her as well.
Always good to find someone who agrees. :)
If you're interested, you can rate movies here. I don't know though when I can update it, as the list keeps growing and I have no time to put everything up. But feel free to post your ratings nevertheless.
I think if I rated those films, there would be some angry people.
Of course you don't have to. But be sure that that list is certainly not the place where people will doubt your ratings. In fact, I "defend" all judgments, including any by myself. No matter which ratings you give, I remain neutral and objective.
Don't get a wrong impression about me or any other Listologist. Listology is, as far as I can judge, a place where everyone's opinion is appreciated and respected. I esteem your input of unusual and therefore interesting views on films. If you are looking for a place where you get insulted for your honest opinion, then I think there are other places on the Net (I won't mention any specific websites now) to go to, which are full of arrogant idiots. Listology is, fortunately, different. And I think anyone else here will agree with me on that.
Be sure that your comments are always welcome.
Well, I appreciate it. But certain of my honest opinions other people consider "baiting." Which is too bad. For instance, I'd rate Rashoman a 2.0/4.0. It's not bad, but it's not even in my top ten favorite Kurosawa, much less a great film.
I don't know about you, but I think that for a film to become a critical darling, there tends to be something worth liking about it. I think this applies to most if not all films. You may think the positives that the critics harp on are outweighed by the film's flaws, but then you have a film towards which you have mixed feelings, even if the good outweighs the bad. Compare that to a movie like House of the Dead, which I haven't seen but am assuming it has absolutely nothing good about it.
Sure, plenty of people take your viewpoint and call critically acclaimed films among the worst ever in order to be controversial and interesting. I remember hearing (on Listology) about a professional movie critic (I forget who) last year who called Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind the worst film of the year. And if you want to bait people with such picks, feel free. But critical darlings are very, very rarely as truly abysmal as the films that are actually on this list. And isn't that the purpose of this, for the films that go below and beyond?
That said, I think 1922's list actually does put on some well-reviewed and acclaimed picks, like American Psycho, Passion of the Christ, Signs, Hitch, etc.
There are a lot of points you make here that I personally consider misconceptions about film, so I want to try to go into them one by one.
I think that for a film to become a critical darling, there tends to be something worth liking about it
I do not contend this point. What I do contend is whether liking a film makes it a good film. I believe there are several negative reasons that people like a film when it is actually quite terrible IMO. Perhaps the most egregiously awful reason that a film becomes a critical darling when it actually is truly terrible is that it strokes our ego. The self-congratulatory pat on the back that is the Oscars sickens me year after year. I think that Mr. Show with Bob and David said it best in their sketch of an awards show that simply gave every single actor who played a mentally handicapped person an award for the very brave choice they made.
Another reason films are sometimes loved while I despise them is that they play up or emphasize insidious stereotypes (not just racial ones though I use that as the main example). Have you heard the term "Magic Negro?" It concerns a film with a black (or other minority) character, often with special insight or even powers, who sacrifices himself or plays no other role in the film other than to raise up a white character. The Legend of Bagger Vance is a good example of this. I consider that type of film much worse than The House of the Dead which is probably cheesy, poorly shot, and poorly edited but not racist (or if it is, not taken seriously enough to have any influence).
Sure, plenty of people take your viewpoint and call critically acclaimed films among the worst ever in order to be controversial and interesting.
I do not dislike the films I dislike to be controversial. I dislike them because I dislike them. However, I do dislike well-liked films that I hate more than poorly received films that I hate for a couple very important reasons. First, I don't think a film can be truly terrible unless it is very well praised. Why? Because I think tricksters are worse than fools. What I mean with this metaphor is that someone malicious and insidious is worse than someone who is clearly ignorant, and I think this holds true for film as well. Often, popular films are popular because they reinforce American apathy and ignorance. While Amelie did not make my list, I consider it to be a fairly petty and inhumane film that reinforces revenge and manipulation as quirky and cute. While other people were laughing, I was cringing. Do I consider Amelie, which had a somewhat interesting visual style and some knowledge of filmmaking, to be a worse film than Thirteen Ghosts? Most assuredly. The latter is terrible but laughable, what makes wildly accepted films all the more terrifying is that they are both bad and accepted. To me, that seems to far outweigh just being bad.
That said, I think 1922's list actually does put on some well-reviewed and acclaimed picks, like American Psycho, Passion of the Christ, Signs, Hitch, etc.
I didn't see The Passion of the Christ, but I'm sure this is a good pick. American Psycho I would have mentioned it as the exception though I wondered if it was on the list simply for its commodification of violence (though I believe both the book and the film are commenting on that commodification).
Thanks for the thoughts. Obviously some (many?) people just want to start shit when they don't like certain popular films, but I'd like to think that I don't like them for more reasons than just "they're popular." And whoever called Eternal Sunshine the worst film of last year is crazy. I haven't seen too many films from the 2000's, but it's in my top 20. Michel Gondry's visual style is unique and engaging. It's one of those critical darlings where I thought the praise was well-earned.
Your viewpoints are interesting, but I would disagree with much of what you said. I think when judging the worst films of the decade, a critic should take into account filmmaking quality rather than just the values it [presumably] imposes upon society. I think there are many worse sins a movie can commit than to simply use old stereotypes. Insidious? Nah, these conceptions are just ingrained in our mind, so using them demonstrates a lack of creativity, not a conscious (or unconscious) desire to keep the minorities down. After all, if these stereotypes weren't ever-present in our minds, you wouldn't view Bagger Vance as representing all black people, but simply see him as a character.
Besides, do you really see only ignorance, no insidiousness, in making a film as terrible as House of the Dead? The creators of this film knew they could cash in by making a spinoff of the popular video game and hence made a film of absolutely no artistic quality in an attempt to reap the benefits. That, my friend, doesn't just reinforce American apathy and ignorance, that is American apathy and ignorance.
Films that I think are filmically uninteresting, morally poor, and critically lauded:
Sideways
Igby Goes Down
Memento
I didn't think these films were well shot, well written, or well edited. I honestly contend that a lot of the films on my worst of lists are just as bad (even judged only through the merits of story and filmmaking) as something like House of the Dead yet have the added negative quality of being lauded for exactly that which I find to be of poor quality in it. If House of the Dead was praised all around for its quality story and interesting, well-developed characters, wouldn't that make you furious? Well, everyday for me is like that. I really do think these films are terrible, and I am more upset, rather than less that they are praised. If they were all hated, they might not be as low on my worst films list, but they would still be on it. I honestly think the story in say American Beauty is one of the worst scripts I've ever seen committed to the screen. Worse than so many crappy films I've seen, including The Garbage Pail Kids Movie.
Insidious? Nah, these conceptions are just ingrained in our mind, so using them demonstrates a lack of creativity, not a conscious (or unconscious) desire to keep the minorities down.
You sort of described what insidious means. It's subconscious cruelty. That's terrifyingly awful. I'm not going to accept one form of laziness while sneering at another. I would contend that the filmmaking and script of the majority of the films on this list are the result of similar laziness. And laziness and ignorance with power will always be worse than laziness and ignorance without power. At least with crappy movies that don't seem to affect anyone I can laugh at them sometimes. Crappy movies that are loved just make me frightened.
I tend to think of insidiousness as at least partially intentional. If we've already seen the "Magic Negro" (as you put it) used in other movies, then to reuse this character does not represent cruelty towards African-Americans, it simply means one filmmaker is reusing an old idea. Now perhaps the first time the "Magic Negro" character was used in a film, it was based on a literary tradition, and the first book to use the character was based on people's views of African-Americans at the time, and if we keep dating that back, we see the racism created during the time when black people were kept as slaves and thought to be sub-human. That is cruelty. The watered-down version in Bagger Vance is not cruelty, it's just unoriginal. I don't contend that the laziness behind making a film with a "Magic Negro" character is to be simply ignored. I haven't seen Bagger Vance, but let's just say for the sake of argument that aside from the "Magic Negro," the rest of the film was fairly interesting. 1922's list is clearly reserved for those films that don't just have a little laziness behind them, but are so lazy as to be absolutely abysmal. I agree that both are examples of laziness and ignorance, but it is the prevalence of ignorance in a particular film that is the issue here, not that they are different forms of laziness.
Aside from that, I would once again argue that one should rate the damn movie rather than the critical/popular reception to it. If you want to fear for society for liking movies you hate, go ahead. But then you should be putting 2000s-era America in the Worst Societies of All-Time list, not putting the movie in the Worst Movies list.
I'm afraid I cannot comment on your paragraph that starts "I didn't think..." because from what it sounds like, anything I'd say about those movies would upset you.
I'm not going to get upset if you disagree with me. In general, I like to talk more about movies I like than movies I don't even though sometimes I feel like that's not true.
I personally think the geneology of the "magic negro" comes from the holy fool literary device. In medieval theatre, there is usually a fool who can say things to the royal characters that cannot be said by others of the same class because it would be improper. The fool, then eventually the American version of lower class (a black person or maybe a sweetly retarded person or a child), has taken on this same role.
I'd like to think I rate both the "damn movie" and its effect. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. And I don't think anyone can rate a film purely on aesthetic value even if they claim to. We all have our own values, and they will always interfere with those judgements. I think it's important not to treat a film like it is in a vacuum. I recognize that by doing that I open myself up to the views of the Christian right by recognizing that films do influence people. But I don't have a certain set of values I think people should have, I just think that for a film to be really great it has to be rigorous even if I disagree with its judgements (for instance, I personally don't agree with the themes of Safe, but it's an incredible film and very well thought out). And I think a lot of well-rated films are just as lazy and poorly done as some of these films. And when you combine moral apathy and laziness with a podium to speak upon you get disaster. I gotta go now. Thanks for the conversation!