wayneklein
05-11-2008, 10:46 AM
http://entertainment.msn.com/movies/movie-guide-summer/worst-blockbusters?GT1=7701&
By Sean Nelson
Special to MSN Movies
Summer is here, and with it blockbuster season at the movies. Big events this year include the return of Indiana Jones and "X-Files" agents Mulder and Scully, Hulk and Batman sequels, a film version of the '60s TV series "Get Smart," plus vehicles for funnymen Mike Myers, Will Smith, Eddie Murphy and Will Ferrell, and a rash of other big budget extravaganzas.
Odds are good that many of these pictures will prove popular with moviegoers, who, as we all know, will see just about anything a good ad campaign tells them to. Odds are even better that many, if not most, of these films will suck, hard.
There are plenty of reasons movies conceived to be big moneymakers don't age well -- the cheap thrills, special effects and so-called "high concepts" associated with blockbusters tend to wear thin on repeated viewings, and once the marketing wears off all that's left is a dim memory of being pandered to for a couple of hours in a room full of strangers. You can't even really blame the filmmakers, except in some cases (see below). After all, the more people you have to please, the less you're able to say.
In fairness, not all blockbusters are bad; take a stroll down the top 20 moneymakers of all time and you're likely to find several titles that qualify as legitimate classics. But as studios feel the pressure to put up bigger and bigger numbers, the bigger hits start feeling like bigger disappointments as years (and DVDs) go by. Here's a list of some of the box office's worst successes, with a couple of lifetime achievement awards included to dishonor two repeat offenders.
"Star Wars" Episodes I, II, III (1999, 2002, 2005)
This tale has been told many times, but it bears repeating. When George Lucas reopened the Pandora's box of his "Star Wars" series to make three "prequels" for a new generation of consumers, he ruined everything. Even the original trilogy now feels like some kind of weird suppressed memory. Looking back, weren't they kind of chintzy and awful, too? They certainly are now with all the digital changes Lucas has added. But, by contrast with the new trio, Episodes IV, V and VI are "The Godfather" I and II and "Citizen Kane"! Forget Jar Jar Binks -- "The Phantom Menace," "Attack of the Clones" and "Revenge of the Sith" were all born dead, victims of lazy and cynical writing, filmmakers more interested in technological breakthroughs than in captivating viewers and, ultimately, a lack of vision. Lucas knew people would come see anything that said "Star Wars" on it, so he killed the goose to see where the gold came from. Even the force can't save him now.
"E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial" (1982)
Not so fast, Spielberg. You may be respectable now with your "Schindler's List" and your "Saving Private Ryan," and you may have hit a few home runs with movies about dinosaurs and sharks and the like, but let us never forget that you once made the most preposterously sentimental and manipulative film ever, and you put a puppet with a glowing finger in the middle of it. When I was 9 years old, I cried at the sight of Elliott being forced to say goodbye to his one and only true friend, the little Reese's Pieces-loving (nice marketing, there, by the way) potato head, because I, too, was a child of divorce, and I knew how it felt to feel alone. Looking back now, I feel cheated out of those tears and incredulous that the whole world once lined up to see such a cheap looking toy tear a little boy's heart out.
"Home Alone," "Home Alone 2" (1990, 1992)
Speaking of little boys, here's a movie that no one could have seen coming. (Well, two movies, actually, but they're identical.) An adorable little towhead gets accidentally ditched by his family, then spends 100 minutes playing in an empty house and sadistically pummeling two hapless burglars using techniques devised by Bugs Bunny. If it sounds like it was created by a machine, it was.
His name is John Hughes, and he's been in hiding ever since, living in a prison made out of shame and million-dollar bills.
"Titanic" (1997)
What can I say but "worst movie ever"? I'll allow that the sinking boat was pretty cool looking. But did I really need to wait 12 hours to see it happen? If you are one of those unfortunate young people bamboozled by the stock characters, the corny melodrama and the desperate romantic window dressing of this disaster (of an) epic, don't worry: You're not alone. You just have terrible taste.
"The Passion of the Christ" (2004)
Even if you're a devout religious believer, you can at least acknowledge that Mel Gibson's magnum opus is basically torture: three hours (or was it nine?) of a gentle hippie getting the ever-loving stuffing beaten, whipped and, ultimately, nailed out of him by confused Romans and demonic Jews -- all because he claimed to be the son of a deity. Sure, some people believe the events depicted here literally happened, and a lot of those people bought tickets to watch it re-enacted (enough to make it one of the most profitable films of all time), but that doesn't make it cinema. It makes it fetish pornography.
"The Da Vinci Code" (2006)
More god-awful moviemaking swaddled in the sheep's clothing of quasi-religious nuttiness. You bought the best-selling novel in an airport, now see the movie (on TBS). Tom Hanks, sporting his worst haircut to date (which is saying something), stars in a movie that combines a ludicrous premise, even more ludicrous internal logic and no suspense whatsoever, and still manages to be almost three hours long. "National Treasure" was more plausible (and more entertaining). Seriously, I know people are stupid, but are they really this stupid?
"I Am Legend" (2007)
I have no problem with the goofy sci-fi premise. In fact, I love it. The last man on Earth waits for the evil zombies to come and have it out with him and his trusty dog. Will Smith makes a lousy, shallow hero, but I knew going in that he was the star, so no fair complaining about that. The design of abandoned New York is impressive, but familiar from other bad blockbusters -- Smith's fortress world is basically modeled on the fantasies of a 13-year-old boy. But, again, I'd seen the trailer, so I knew what I was getting myself into. Here's what I do have a problem with: digital zombies. You spend the whole movie dreading the arrival of these flesh eating monsters, and when they finally show up they look like blips from a video game. And a crappy old one like "Doom" or whatever. Not scary. Not threatening. Just lame. I Am Leaving.
"Spider-Man" "Spider-Man 2," "Spider-Man 3" (2002, 2004, 2007)
Onetime cult horror director Sam Raimi seemed like a left-field choice for this big-budget enterprise, but he managed to do exactly what the studio and the comics publisher must have wanted him to do: drain away all his signature style and attitude, and turn in a product that even penniless people in Guam would make an effort to buy. It's not the cast (Tobey Maguire was a good choice). It's not the stories (well, the stories could have used some work). It's not the way everything is aimed at little kids (instead of, say, big kids, too). No, it's the effects. Again. The age of digital has done the movies a lot of favors. But it has made special effects movies look cheap and two-dimensional. And Spidey deserved better than this.
Special Award for Roland Emmerich: "Independence Day" (1996); "Godzilla" (1998); "The Patriot" (2000); "The Day After Tomorrow" (2004); and "10,000 B.C." (2008)
Every Roland Emmerich movie has one breathtakingly memorable shot: Be it the White House being blown up by a hostile space ship, New York flooded by icy ocean waters, or a prehistoric hunter face-to-face with a roaring saber-toothed tiger. All are semi-indelible images from one of the premier blockbuster filmmakers of his time. Unfortunately, these films share one common flaw: all the other shots. Emmerich films are worse than just dumb (blockbusters are allowed to be dumb) -- they're half-cooked. It's as if every character, every line, every special effect understands that they're just filler designed to surround the big money shot that will form the climax not of the movie, but of the trailer. If he just made previews, he'd be a genius. But he makes feature length movies. More's the pity.
Special Award for Michael Bay: "Bad Boys" (1995); "The Rock" (1996); "Armageddon" (1998); "Pearl Harbor" (2001); "The Island" (2005); and "Transformers" (2007)
Who is the worst filmmaker of all time? If you're tempted to answer Michael Bay, you can certainly be forgiven, as his movies are uniformly atrocious crimes against cinema. But I think it's too soon, and maybe a little too kind, to award Bay such an accolade, because I like to imagine -- beyond reason -- that one day he will be forgotten, and that his collected works, which represent the shallowest tendencies of blockbuster filmmaking, will be forgotten along with him, like so many wasted afternoons.
The views above are Sean Nelson's ... so don't get angry at all of us. Some of us want to beat him up, too, including his editor. Either way, write to us at heymsn@microsoft.com and give us your worst blockbusters, and ways to punish Sean.
Have to disagree with the writer on some points while on others he is dead on. While criticizing the digital effects of "Spider-man" movies is akin to attacking a 50's science fiction flick like "War of the Worlds" or "The Day the Earth Stood Still"--you do the best with the tools at hand and create a world where the audience can suspend their disbelief long enough to enter that world and accept it. The rest is up to solid storytelling.
As to Raimi draining the films of his style clearly he missed the classic operating room sequence in "Spidey-2" and some sequences in 1 and 3 that had Sam's characteristic style all over key scenes. Seems to me that Raimi did drain some scenes of his characteristic style so that it wouldn't detract or distract from the story at hand.
As for "Transformers" is it a great movie? Nah but it's greatly entertaining which is all one can ask of some cultural debris from another decade.
I would agree about the creatures from "I Am Legend"--the basic flaw of the film was showing them too much and with too great a detail. SOmetimes things are better left in shadow and to the imagination....
As for "Home Alone" I hate all of the movies that Chris Columbus has directed (I tolerate the "Harry Potter" flicks for my kids). He has no style, no flair and would have made a great episode TV director during the doldrums of the mid-60's ("Mod Squad" would have been right up his alley) but "Home Alone" has a generic approach to the direction which works given the type of film it is (it always felt like a cable TV movie that anticipated the stuff we see on Nick and Disney like "Halloween Town")
By Sean Nelson
Special to MSN Movies
Summer is here, and with it blockbuster season at the movies. Big events this year include the return of Indiana Jones and "X-Files" agents Mulder and Scully, Hulk and Batman sequels, a film version of the '60s TV series "Get Smart," plus vehicles for funnymen Mike Myers, Will Smith, Eddie Murphy and Will Ferrell, and a rash of other big budget extravaganzas.
Odds are good that many of these pictures will prove popular with moviegoers, who, as we all know, will see just about anything a good ad campaign tells them to. Odds are even better that many, if not most, of these films will suck, hard.
There are plenty of reasons movies conceived to be big moneymakers don't age well -- the cheap thrills, special effects and so-called "high concepts" associated with blockbusters tend to wear thin on repeated viewings, and once the marketing wears off all that's left is a dim memory of being pandered to for a couple of hours in a room full of strangers. You can't even really blame the filmmakers, except in some cases (see below). After all, the more people you have to please, the less you're able to say.
In fairness, not all blockbusters are bad; take a stroll down the top 20 moneymakers of all time and you're likely to find several titles that qualify as legitimate classics. But as studios feel the pressure to put up bigger and bigger numbers, the bigger hits start feeling like bigger disappointments as years (and DVDs) go by. Here's a list of some of the box office's worst successes, with a couple of lifetime achievement awards included to dishonor two repeat offenders.
"Star Wars" Episodes I, II, III (1999, 2002, 2005)
This tale has been told many times, but it bears repeating. When George Lucas reopened the Pandora's box of his "Star Wars" series to make three "prequels" for a new generation of consumers, he ruined everything. Even the original trilogy now feels like some kind of weird suppressed memory. Looking back, weren't they kind of chintzy and awful, too? They certainly are now with all the digital changes Lucas has added. But, by contrast with the new trio, Episodes IV, V and VI are "The Godfather" I and II and "Citizen Kane"! Forget Jar Jar Binks -- "The Phantom Menace," "Attack of the Clones" and "Revenge of the Sith" were all born dead, victims of lazy and cynical writing, filmmakers more interested in technological breakthroughs than in captivating viewers and, ultimately, a lack of vision. Lucas knew people would come see anything that said "Star Wars" on it, so he killed the goose to see where the gold came from. Even the force can't save him now.
"E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial" (1982)
Not so fast, Spielberg. You may be respectable now with your "Schindler's List" and your "Saving Private Ryan," and you may have hit a few home runs with movies about dinosaurs and sharks and the like, but let us never forget that you once made the most preposterously sentimental and manipulative film ever, and you put a puppet with a glowing finger in the middle of it. When I was 9 years old, I cried at the sight of Elliott being forced to say goodbye to his one and only true friend, the little Reese's Pieces-loving (nice marketing, there, by the way) potato head, because I, too, was a child of divorce, and I knew how it felt to feel alone. Looking back now, I feel cheated out of those tears and incredulous that the whole world once lined up to see such a cheap looking toy tear a little boy's heart out.
"Home Alone," "Home Alone 2" (1990, 1992)
Speaking of little boys, here's a movie that no one could have seen coming. (Well, two movies, actually, but they're identical.) An adorable little towhead gets accidentally ditched by his family, then spends 100 minutes playing in an empty house and sadistically pummeling two hapless burglars using techniques devised by Bugs Bunny. If it sounds like it was created by a machine, it was.
His name is John Hughes, and he's been in hiding ever since, living in a prison made out of shame and million-dollar bills.
"Titanic" (1997)
What can I say but "worst movie ever"? I'll allow that the sinking boat was pretty cool looking. But did I really need to wait 12 hours to see it happen? If you are one of those unfortunate young people bamboozled by the stock characters, the corny melodrama and the desperate romantic window dressing of this disaster (of an) epic, don't worry: You're not alone. You just have terrible taste.
"The Passion of the Christ" (2004)
Even if you're a devout religious believer, you can at least acknowledge that Mel Gibson's magnum opus is basically torture: three hours (or was it nine?) of a gentle hippie getting the ever-loving stuffing beaten, whipped and, ultimately, nailed out of him by confused Romans and demonic Jews -- all because he claimed to be the son of a deity. Sure, some people believe the events depicted here literally happened, and a lot of those people bought tickets to watch it re-enacted (enough to make it one of the most profitable films of all time), but that doesn't make it cinema. It makes it fetish pornography.
"The Da Vinci Code" (2006)
More god-awful moviemaking swaddled in the sheep's clothing of quasi-religious nuttiness. You bought the best-selling novel in an airport, now see the movie (on TBS). Tom Hanks, sporting his worst haircut to date (which is saying something), stars in a movie that combines a ludicrous premise, even more ludicrous internal logic and no suspense whatsoever, and still manages to be almost three hours long. "National Treasure" was more plausible (and more entertaining). Seriously, I know people are stupid, but are they really this stupid?
"I Am Legend" (2007)
I have no problem with the goofy sci-fi premise. In fact, I love it. The last man on Earth waits for the evil zombies to come and have it out with him and his trusty dog. Will Smith makes a lousy, shallow hero, but I knew going in that he was the star, so no fair complaining about that. The design of abandoned New York is impressive, but familiar from other bad blockbusters -- Smith's fortress world is basically modeled on the fantasies of a 13-year-old boy. But, again, I'd seen the trailer, so I knew what I was getting myself into. Here's what I do have a problem with: digital zombies. You spend the whole movie dreading the arrival of these flesh eating monsters, and when they finally show up they look like blips from a video game. And a crappy old one like "Doom" or whatever. Not scary. Not threatening. Just lame. I Am Leaving.
"Spider-Man" "Spider-Man 2," "Spider-Man 3" (2002, 2004, 2007)
Onetime cult horror director Sam Raimi seemed like a left-field choice for this big-budget enterprise, but he managed to do exactly what the studio and the comics publisher must have wanted him to do: drain away all his signature style and attitude, and turn in a product that even penniless people in Guam would make an effort to buy. It's not the cast (Tobey Maguire was a good choice). It's not the stories (well, the stories could have used some work). It's not the way everything is aimed at little kids (instead of, say, big kids, too). No, it's the effects. Again. The age of digital has done the movies a lot of favors. But it has made special effects movies look cheap and two-dimensional. And Spidey deserved better than this.
Special Award for Roland Emmerich: "Independence Day" (1996); "Godzilla" (1998); "The Patriot" (2000); "The Day After Tomorrow" (2004); and "10,000 B.C." (2008)
Every Roland Emmerich movie has one breathtakingly memorable shot: Be it the White House being blown up by a hostile space ship, New York flooded by icy ocean waters, or a prehistoric hunter face-to-face with a roaring saber-toothed tiger. All are semi-indelible images from one of the premier blockbuster filmmakers of his time. Unfortunately, these films share one common flaw: all the other shots. Emmerich films are worse than just dumb (blockbusters are allowed to be dumb) -- they're half-cooked. It's as if every character, every line, every special effect understands that they're just filler designed to surround the big money shot that will form the climax not of the movie, but of the trailer. If he just made previews, he'd be a genius. But he makes feature length movies. More's the pity.
Special Award for Michael Bay: "Bad Boys" (1995); "The Rock" (1996); "Armageddon" (1998); "Pearl Harbor" (2001); "The Island" (2005); and "Transformers" (2007)
Who is the worst filmmaker of all time? If you're tempted to answer Michael Bay, you can certainly be forgiven, as his movies are uniformly atrocious crimes against cinema. But I think it's too soon, and maybe a little too kind, to award Bay such an accolade, because I like to imagine -- beyond reason -- that one day he will be forgotten, and that his collected works, which represent the shallowest tendencies of blockbuster filmmaking, will be forgotten along with him, like so many wasted afternoons.
The views above are Sean Nelson's ... so don't get angry at all of us. Some of us want to beat him up, too, including his editor. Either way, write to us at heymsn@microsoft.com and give us your worst blockbusters, and ways to punish Sean.
Have to disagree with the writer on some points while on others he is dead on. While criticizing the digital effects of "Spider-man" movies is akin to attacking a 50's science fiction flick like "War of the Worlds" or "The Day the Earth Stood Still"--you do the best with the tools at hand and create a world where the audience can suspend their disbelief long enough to enter that world and accept it. The rest is up to solid storytelling.
As to Raimi draining the films of his style clearly he missed the classic operating room sequence in "Spidey-2" and some sequences in 1 and 3 that had Sam's characteristic style all over key scenes. Seems to me that Raimi did drain some scenes of his characteristic style so that it wouldn't detract or distract from the story at hand.
As for "Transformers" is it a great movie? Nah but it's greatly entertaining which is all one can ask of some cultural debris from another decade.
I would agree about the creatures from "I Am Legend"--the basic flaw of the film was showing them too much and with too great a detail. SOmetimes things are better left in shadow and to the imagination....
As for "Home Alone" I hate all of the movies that Chris Columbus has directed (I tolerate the "Harry Potter" flicks for my kids). He has no style, no flair and would have made a great episode TV director during the doldrums of the mid-60's ("Mod Squad" would have been right up his alley) but "Home Alone" has a generic approach to the direction which works given the type of film it is (it always felt like a cable TV movie that anticipated the stuff we see on Nick and Disney like "Halloween Town")