The Big Picture: Worst Movies of 2012
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
I'm so glad you brought up After Earth. I don't think any movie trailer has pissed me off due to how bad it is than this one.
wow this is the first time I've really disagreed with moviebob. I thought the Lorax was pretty good for what it was supposed to be. I heard alot of people saying the watch was really funny, and how could any really be surprised at what the expendables 2 did? It was a giant dumb action movie, people like those what's the problem with that lol?
Kind of surprised that Bob could narrow it down to just 10 bad films. Seems like there was a flood of bad films this year. Too many times that movies came out in 2012 that didn't even seem worth a Netflix rental.
I'd like to say that 2013 will be better, but when studios can make up for the US box office with the box office from other nations there just doesn't seem to be any incentive to make better movies.
I'd like to say that 2013 will be better, but when studios can make up for the US box office with the box office from other nations there just doesn't seem to be any incentive to make better movies.
As much as a worst of list is just an opinion. In this case it's an opinion that is untrustworthy.
Amazing Spider-man - Ok, I can see why it was on the list. Maybe not so High but sure on the list since you clearly didn't like it.
Lorax - A child's movie? Really? You're going to even bother with a child's movie? It doesn't deserve to be on any list unless it's a best of or worst of children's movies.
Les Mis - It's a movie based on a musical which is about a very long book about the social political structure of France post Revolution? If you're not into musicals you're going to hate it. If you're not into the book you're going to hate it. It has faults but even with those problems why put it so high up? Unless your just grasping for controversy.
I can give a pass for all three of those movies being on the list. However, to imply that Twilight was "Better" than all of those movies, by not being on the list at all, is offensive, and shows that the list isn't even a list of your own opinion of what's good or bad this year. Twilight's only redeeming quality was a "what if" action scene, and that really doesn't make it better than Les Mis or ASM. It's rather a list of things you have a personal grudge against, and "best" or "worst" isn't even given as consideration. Only that you have a personal grudge, or want to make some "statement".
Amazing Spider-man - Ok, I can see why it was on the list. Maybe not so High but sure on the list since you clearly didn't like it.
Lorax - A child's movie? Really? You're going to even bother with a child's movie? It doesn't deserve to be on any list unless it's a best of or worst of children's movies.
Les Mis - It's a movie based on a musical which is about a very long book about the social political structure of France post Revolution? If you're not into musicals you're going to hate it. If you're not into the book you're going to hate it. It has faults but even with those problems why put it so high up? Unless your just grasping for controversy.
I can give a pass for all three of those movies being on the list. However, to imply that Twilight was "Better" than all of those movies, by not being on the list at all, is offensive, and shows that the list isn't even a list of your own opinion of what's good or bad this year. Twilight's only redeeming quality was a "what if" action scene, and that really doesn't make it better than Les Mis or ASM. It's rather a list of things you have a personal grudge against, and "best" or "worst" isn't even given as consideration. Only that you have a personal grudge, or want to make some "statement".
...You have no damn clue just how wrong you are do you. Action movies are great when they're JUST action, as in loose story with a lot of awesome stuff going on. While films like Terminator, Rocky and Rambo may have been more in depth, films like Universal Soldier, Kick Boxer, The Punisher (Dolph's) etc are just as good with very basic stories and LOTS of action. The Expendables 1 and 2 were all suppose to be like an all out no bars held action roller coaster, and they were awesome because of that. Now, too many action films are becoming Dram/Action, where in which the character has to have all these problems and a complex life and such. They take the action out of the action, and it's so annoying. We need more films like The Expendables 2 because it's a fun movie, you can sit down, relax and enjoy some nice visual media without having to follow a complex plot.Aiddon said:
Movie Bob's top 10 was extremely interesting because there were 5 films I saw him put up that were actually not that bad, just average decent flicks. And then when he talked about American Reunion (That was a terrible film) and was all like, "You guys just tricked yourselves into liking the previous films" I felt like he was just pissed off at the depiction of high school students in the previous films because he was never like that. Seriously Bob, American Pie was a decent film series until after The Wedding, not a great comedy series, but a decent comedy you can watch on the weekend. The Lorax being on the list seemed uncalled for because it is after all a kids movie, and 30+ year old men are not expected to like a kids movie, I understand his listed reasons, but the film wasn't trying to target adult film critics.
I don't know what his deal was with the Amazing Spider-Man film, most people seem to find the character quite faithfull towards his comic book counter-part. I also don't get his beef with the "peter's parents" side plot, it's clear that the film is using it to give Peter a reason to go and look for Dr Connor, and it's even possible that Sony will use the plot more in the next movie as the ending of the film somewhat suggested so.
I dunno whats happened to MB to make him become really anal about films, but I'm really not finding what he's saying about most films to be entirely correct. Oh well, guess in the end it really is just matter of opinion.
I personally liked Les Miserable, but the key word is 'liked' and I will say I was squirming in my seat from the length of it, which isn't because I can't sit for 3 hours, it just didn't keep my attention as well as it could've... to be fair the theater had horrible seats.
That being said, I had a good friend of mine who graduated from a music collage there with me, and he had problems with the singers who where acting more than singing, which wouldn't bother me so that got a free pass... though Crow sing-talking was annoying at times, I still didn't mind him as much as I should have because I liked the character.
But the one thing that really got to me was the HUGE leaps of time in the story. We just met the little girl, Cosette, long enough to get a feel for her, then suddenly, BOOM she's 16... well now she's a whole other person! I no longer have any connection to her.
That and Jean Valjean suddenly being the mayor out of nowhere, that just struck me as odd in retrospect, didn't bug me at the time but after a day of thinking about the movie, I realized how odd that was. Also, NO explaining of the revolution, and some parts just lost me as to why people where being treated poorly or favored, or why people where angry. Granted, that just makes me ignorant and uneducated, but still, just a little information would've been nice.
The music is what made me stick around for the whole movie, and the visuals where impressive at times, but also some confusing editing at other times, like "Master of the house" was fantastic, but it had so much stuff going on and no chance to appreciate it, I was pretty confused at times as to what was happening.
...I swear I still like this movie, but my point is, this stuff gets a free pass with the mainstream audience, like me, because we don't really know better and this only all sank in after I had a day to really take in the movie, I'd never be able to critically look at a movie and write a review for it in under 3 hours.
That's why you're in the big boy chair and we just get to soak you in, Movie Bob. So yeah, dissapointed it's on the list, but I can understand why.
That being said, I had a good friend of mine who graduated from a music collage there with me, and he had problems with the singers who where acting more than singing, which wouldn't bother me so that got a free pass... though Crow sing-talking was annoying at times, I still didn't mind him as much as I should have because I liked the character.
But the one thing that really got to me was the HUGE leaps of time in the story. We just met the little girl, Cosette, long enough to get a feel for her, then suddenly, BOOM she's 16... well now she's a whole other person! I no longer have any connection to her.
That and Jean Valjean suddenly being the mayor out of nowhere, that just struck me as odd in retrospect, didn't bug me at the time but after a day of thinking about the movie, I realized how odd that was. Also, NO explaining of the revolution, and some parts just lost me as to why people where being treated poorly or favored, or why people where angry. Granted, that just makes me ignorant and uneducated, but still, just a little information would've been nice.
The music is what made me stick around for the whole movie, and the visuals where impressive at times, but also some confusing editing at other times, like "Master of the house" was fantastic, but it had so much stuff going on and no chance to appreciate it, I was pretty confused at times as to what was happening.
...I swear I still like this movie, but my point is, this stuff gets a free pass with the mainstream audience, like me, because we don't really know better and this only all sank in after I had a day to really take in the movie, I'd never be able to critically look at a movie and write a review for it in under 3 hours.
That's why you're in the big boy chair and we just get to soak you in, Movie Bob. So yeah, dissapointed it's on the list, but I can understand why.
Shit, why is everyone so upset about "After Earth?" I like Will Smith; in fact, who doesn't? And the trailer looked interesting to me, with a possibly cool concept if it's done thoughtfully. Where is the hatred coming from? Just because M. Night is making it? Remember, folks, that once upon a time he knew how to make a good movie. I'm just confused about the negativity here.
Truly "good" superhero scripts are actually quite rare, as you suggest. The best ones are usually the ones that try and keep it pretty simple (e.g. Superman II, Avengers, Blade, etc.) and is part of why I think they keep going back to origin stories . The problem here is that, to me, ASM's script is every bit as bad as those others you listed. In terms of script alone, I actually wouldn't put FF on that list, as that movie's problems stemmed from a lot of other sources, but ASM shares the same horrible characterization and poor internal logic as those other two.Lovely Mixture said:
I mean this is the first Spider-Man I have ever seen where I actively disliked the character. And the end scene, with the "Those are the best kind" (promises you can't keep) just made him come across as the biggest fucking douche to have ever existed. On top of that, most of the scenarios presented in the film were so amazingly contrived if not purely ridiculous (e.g. what was the web in the sewer really supposed to accomplish? The writers couldn't even figure it out apparently because they had to use another device, the legion of geckos, to move the scene along).
As for what I need out of my superhero movie script, I actually don't ask for all that much. I want it to justice to the character(s) and the feel. Then just maintain some internal logic and make the characters respond to situations like a plausible human that had 2 brain cells firing at the same time might. Finally keep the pacing reasonable (this is one category where ASM actually worked).
Again,I didn't think the movie was horrible. It was an easy film to turn your brain off and watch the pretty special effects and Emma Stones (better as a redhead, though) and just let it go. But in terms of story and dialog, it was really bad.
And seriously, what was up with the fish? They spent like 15 minutes setting up some sort of inside joke that seemingly went nowhere. But thankfully all the characters got so say "Branzino" a few times.
No, don't take his word for it.ZZoMBiE13 said:
See, this is actually a really handy list for judging how a given critic's personal tastes stack up against your own. You thought that DKR was terrible, Bob loved it enough to put it in his top 10 best films. Now Bob says he hates Les Mis, and you're going to take his opinion as a recommendation for what you will enjoy? Just take it as a comment from one other person.
I personally loved Les Mis, and think that anyone who is not moved by the film has no soul. But that's just my perspective.
Yeah, there are things about the movie itself that are problematic for me, and I'm not surprised by Bob wanting to pick up on that: but he finds fault with the story itself! A new low for Bob in my opinion.saintdane05 said:
For what it's worth, my wife sobbed throughout. She wasn't a fan of the material, but now, literally cannot talk about it as she gets vaklempt.
My quibbles: yes, too many close ups. I can deal with that better than the choice to have the actors emote their songs rather than belt them out stage style. I can understand why. One can view the broadway style on youtube. For instance,
so, this had to be different.
But this was an unusual, powerful experience. Russel Crowe surprised me. I thought, all things given, he was very good. The visuals, when they weren't just close ups, were stunning.
I think this is the kind of movie that should be supported and that everyone should go just to experience this very powerful movie, and tell the biz, through ticket sales, that we want more like this. (The awesome but ludicrous Miss Saigon next?)
A thousand times this. It's Bob's list, but I think he threw it on there more for shock value than anything else. He called it worse than Battleship for fuck's sake. I'd be interested in a longer hand opinion that involved something other than "Russel Crowe's singing sucks" to show me why it needs to be number 3. So does his acting but that didn't make the movie worse than a lot of the sludge that came out last year, including a completely unneeded waste of celluloid piece like the American Pie sequel.Littaly said:
For the record I did see it. It wasn't perfect but it was a damn fine combination of acting and performance. Russel Crowe was the worst of it. it ran a little long but the book was a freaking door stopper so that's OK.