Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Bad Movies
January 17, 2010 1:39 PM   Subscribe

Vulture’s Critics’ Poll of the worst movies of 2009.
posted by vronsky (133 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 
Meh, a list of movie reviews making snarky comments about movies is actually more depressing than anything else. Very few of these comments actually say something interesting about these movies other than they were bad. THIS IS YOUR JOB PEOPLE DO IT RIGHT.

That said, The AV Club had a good list.
posted by The Devil Tesla at 1:46 PM on January 17, 2010 [3 favorites]


Note to Eric Kohn: Wolverine is not "the greatest action hero of comic book lore".
posted by Joe Beese at 1:52 PM on January 17, 2010 [2 favorites]


It's hard to set a threshold for "worst." There are billions of cameras recording all kinds of awful stuff, and there are films that bore, and films that actively make you feel awful. I can never tell where these critics say, "Okay, that's not a movie, that's just a reel of celluloid that just happens to display images onscreen."

That said, I'm a bit ashamed I liked a few of the movies on the list. The Men Who Stared At Goats may have been meandering and a bit low on a real point, but I was definitely entertained. I'd definitely watch it on Netflix.
posted by mccarty.tim at 2:08 PM on January 17, 2010


Since we're talking about lists:

10 Stories Behind Dr. Seuss Stories

they start building weapons to outdo each other: the “Tough-Tufted Prickly Snick-Berry Switch,” the “Triple-Sling Jigger,” the “Jigger-Rock Snatchem,” the “Kick-A-Poo Kid”, the “Eight-Nozzled Elephant-Toted Boom Blitz,” the “Utterly Sputter” and the “Bitsy Big-Boy Boomeroo.”
posted by netbros at 2:10 PM on January 17, 2010


At last, a thread that satisfies our "your favourite movie sucks" impulses.

Having said that, WTF? No Vicki Cristina Barcelona? What gives?!??

(oh, that was 2008)
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:13 PM on January 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


Pretty flawed understanding of what the term "worst" means from a lot of these. I mean, Sherlock Hoklmes might not be your cup of tea, or it might offend you by not being a classic take, but it has no place on any of these lists. I'm a bit suspicious of the Jennifers Body pile-on as well, TBH, but I'll reserve judgement for when I've actually seen the thing.

Nine, on the other hand, deserves everything it gets. Fuck that piece of shit.

Upside-Down world critic Armond White picks Angels and Demons amongst his other worst filsm. I'm confused - does this mean it's actually good?
posted by Artw at 2:16 PM on January 17, 2010


"Invictus: Eastwood seemed to forget that we are all already on bended knees when it comes to Nelson Mandela — there's not much point in making us belly down to the ground to lick his shoes."

/me gets off ground, rises sheepishly and brushes off belly...Silly and naive old me enjoying a film because it celebrates (and maybe idealizes) the end of apartheidt.
posted by lonelid at 2:19 PM on January 17, 2010


I don't care what anyone says: GI Joe is a lot of fun.
posted by brundlefly at 2:19 PM on January 17, 2010 [2 favorites]


Funny seeing Away We Go and (500) Days of Summer here multiple times - I didn't really care for either of them, but they didn't into the territory of actively being bad.

I honestly get the impression that some of these people don't watch movies very much.
posted by Artw at 2:20 PM on January 17, 2010


Meh, a list of movie reviews making snarky comments about movies is actually more depressing than anything else.

At least they get payed to depress us with snark. !
posted by nola at 2:20 PM on January 17, 2010


I was surprised at how few of these I had seen. I used to keep up with movies, good and bad. I went to see Bruno and walked out after 30 minutes because it was unrelentingly unfunny (though I like Cohen in small doses and think he is occasionally genius). I then walked into I love you Beth Cooper, which was playing in the next theater, and left after 20 minutes. I rented The Hangover because I like Zach Galifianakis, but it was insultingly bad. Bad enough to make me stop liking Zach Galifianakis. I like Zooey Deschanel on talk shows and she is amazingly cute, but everything she has ever been in has sucked so I knew enough to avoid her movie. The '00s may go down in my book as the worst movie decade I can remember.

best movie I saw last year? This Is It, the Michael Jackson documentary.
posted by vronsky at 2:21 PM on January 17, 2010


I liked this: I don't know from "worst," but one of the oddest parts of essentially watching movies for a living is the occasional moment when you find yourself sitting in front of A Very Serious Movie, covering your face with your hands in the hopes that none of the Very Serious Critics seated all around you will see that you are laughing in mockery at something they seem to be taking Very Seriously.
posted by Artw at 2:23 PM on January 17, 2010 [4 favorites]


I love the fact that so many people are dumping on The Lovely Bones. Hated the book and wondered why Peter Jackson decided to turn it into a film. For lulz, read Ebert's review.
posted by billysumday at 2:25 PM on January 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


(500) Days of Summer [...] didn't into the territory of actively being bad.

I beg to differ. It has a thoroughly dislikeable & unsympathetic male lead, and a female lead who is deliberately inscrutable. The result is a kind of creepy, obsessive stalkathon, played out through a pretentious cutup device that adds precisely zero to the unfolding or interpretation of the narrative.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:28 PM on January 17, 2010 [3 favorites]



billysumday : For lulz, read Ebert's review.

> I hope it's not faithful to the book; if it is, millions of Americans are scary

Millions of Americans are in fact scary. It's better not to think about it. DON't PIcK @ IT!!
posted by nola at 2:32 PM on January 17, 2010


Seems to be a pretty solid consensus on the badness of Transformers.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 2:38 PM on January 17, 2010 [4 favorites]


While I didn't think the book was terrible, it didn't really do much for me, and seemed a little too self regardingly poigniant. Mixing in a dose of What Dreams May Come and the fantasy scense from Heavenly creatures just sounds like a really terrible recipe.

Come to think of it What Dreams May Come is based on a Richard Matheson book, and he's generally decent, and more importantly it wouldn't have Robin Williams in it, possibly I should investigate it to see if it's any good.
posted by Artw at 2:39 PM on January 17, 2010


Wait, people didn't like Sherlock Holmes? Why do people suck so?
posted by kittyprecious at 2:40 PM on January 17, 2010 [3 favorites]


ArtW: I certainly saw worse films this year than 500 Days Of Summer, but none were more disappointing and frustrating. The movie genuinely had something interesting and important to say about post-college romantic relationships, and about "quirky" partners and how that quirkiness can be an attempt to defend yourself from hurt, and about the desperation of passionately loving someone without it ever being enough to convince them to stay.

But every time the movie got close to actually expressing those themes, it pulled away and gave us stupid hopeless schtick instead...wacky friends, "hilarious"ly depressed greeting cards, and a little girl spouting wise-beyond-her-years aphorisms.

There were great scenes in the movie, don't get me wrong: the "fantasy vs reality" split-screen at the party; the dance sequence (complete with Han Solo cameo), which perfectly captures the joy and fearlessness and optimism of the morning after you finally hook up with someone you're just CRAZY about; and the devastating final scene with Summer.

But the contrast between what the movie could have been and what it actually was made watching 500 Days Of Summer an aggravating and ultimately sad experience. The movie's themes, in the right hands, could have been a timeless message that a lot of people need to hear. Instead it was just Indie, Inc.

But, hey, it was the guy's first movie. Maybe he'll learn how to edit himself better on his next movie. Despite my comments above, I enjoyed 500 Days enough to see whatever he puts out next.
posted by Ian A.T. at 2:40 PM on January 17, 2010 [3 favorites]


Sure, lists and snarkiness are to be taken with a grain of salt, but whatever floats to the surface of a movie critic's brain when you ask about the worst is certainly worth noting, though there is no reason to take their advice.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 2:41 PM on January 17, 2010


I remember What Dreams May Come being alright, actually. Hell was probably the best part.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 2:41 PM on January 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


I really don't get that one. Possibly they wanted a proper period drama and him puffing on a pipe and that. The BBC puts out a decent one of those every couple of years so go check that out instead.
posted by Artw at 2:41 PM on January 17, 2010


Ebert, on the Lovely Bones - "Seems to me that heaven, by definition outside time and space, would have neither colors nor a lack of colors -- would be a state with no sensations. Nor would there be thinking there, let alone narration. In an eternity spent in the presence of infinite goodness, you don't go around thinking, "Man! Is this great!" You simply are. I have a lot of theologians on my side here."

And heaven, oh heaven, heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.
posted by kaibutsu at 2:42 PM on January 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


(Oh, and in the spirit of Vronsky's attempt to make this negative into a positive: I don't think Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs was the best movie I saw last year, but it was definitely the most delightful surprise and my pick for Overlooked Gem Of 2008. Often, "funny for kids and adults" just means a bunch of pointless pop culture references thrown into the movie, but Cloudy was genuinely funny thanks to a breakneck pace and endlessly inventive set-ups. I know I'll get creamed for saying this, but the movie feels like one of the better Simpsons episodes from the Brad Bird era.)
posted by Ian A.T. at 2:48 PM on January 17, 2010 [5 favorites]


Well, I can't speak for most of these, but -- I actually liked Jennifer's Body (though Megan Fox brings an acting style that could only have been formed by early experience acting against "people" who would be CGIed in later; she's easily the weakest link here, but the surrounding film is...yes, I'll say it!...good), and I loved Antichrist. I understand how, um, some aspects of the movie could make it hard to watch, but I honestly do not know how any critic could in good conscience declare it a worst-of. As Artw said of Jennifer's Body (and I certainly agree in that case), I think there's a pile-on effect happening that has more to do with wanting to be on the right side of arguments than with the quality of the film itself -- unfortunately, too many of these same critics fell for tripe like Von Trier's Dogville and NOW want to look good by kicking the vile misogynist, etc., but actually they...should have just given bad reviews to Dogville? I know I thought it was a pretentious piece of shit. Antichrist, though, is straight-up brilliant. Sorry they missed out.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:49 PM on January 17, 2010


A lot of these responses from critics seem to be them sniping at movies that others liked. Some of the films listed could hardly be described as worst of the year even if you didn't like them. Just having seen Bruno it blows my mind that a number of critics (who I don't have a negative opinion of previously) picked it as a worst of the year. Reinforces that sometimes you really have to see something yourself to decide if it's your cup of tea.

On the other hand, certain movies are universally reviled. Those are the ones that should really make this list.
posted by haveanicesummer at 2:52 PM on January 17, 2010


Dogville had an awesome happy ending!
posted by Artw at 2:53 PM on January 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


Admittedly, I could watch the last five minutes of Dogville on a loop for hours.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:54 PM on January 17, 2010


I thought The Lovely Bones (the book) was manipulative awfulness.
posted by angrycat at 2:55 PM on January 17, 2010


I don't care what anyone says: GI Joe is a lot of fun.

It was about the time that the "nanomites*" were being weaponized, which in movie terms was represented by their container being placed in a machine that made it hover and spin around making a science fiction noise instead of being built into a bomb or something, that we lost all respect for the movie. Why didn't they just have a witch doctor wave a stick at it and go "booga-booga, weaponize!"

* The only person who can say this properly is Jimmy "J. J." Walker.
posted by JHarris at 2:56 PM on January 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


These days its simpler just to make a list of movies that didn't suck.
posted by mannequito at 2:57 PM on January 17, 2010


In my mind Dogville is like an origin story for the most badass gangster crimelord ever, who probably only meets her end once finally topped by some invincible badass scripted by Garth Ennis.
posted by Artw at 2:58 PM on January 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


I loved Dogville, haven't seen Antichrist but I'm greatly looking forward to it. My take on Von Trier is he could never rightly be on a list like this because in the least his films (even if you hated them) would be a billion times more interesting than Bride Wars or whatever else.

Just because you don't like something doesn't make it the worst.
posted by haveanicesummer at 3:00 PM on January 17, 2010


Another thing, the list informs me that there was a movie released last year called Stan Helsing. It's an incredibly bad movie that, to get the joke, requires that you accept that it is referring to another incredibly bad movie! It's like making coffee, then taking that coffee and running it through the coffeemaker again with fresh grounds. Except instead of grounds, you use shit.
posted by JHarris at 3:01 PM on January 17, 2010 [2 favorites]


"Worst of" lists, much like reviews themselves, tend to take ambition into account. If all you're aiming to be is a middle of the road action comedy, you're not going to make the list unless you're hilariously, awfully bad. If you're aiming for Oscar contention, though, then you're much more likely to be a target.

Being tremendously successful and also bad is another good way to get on these lists. Interestingly, being tremendously unsuccessful because of being bad is a less sure way -- nobody wants to make the boring choice, and who has heard of those films anyway?
posted by jacquilynne at 3:01 PM on January 17, 2010


I'm glad a few of them shared my hatred for Public Enemies. Also, just watched Downloading Nancy last night (on accident), what a mess!
posted by Mister_A at 3:03 PM on January 17, 2010


JHarris: "It was about the time that the "nanomites*" were being weaponized, which in movie terms was represented by their container being placed in a machine that made it hover and spin around making a science fiction noise instead of being built into a bomb or something, that we lost all respect for the movie. Why didn't they just have a witch doctor wave a stick at it and go "booga-booga, weaponize!""

Seriously? I mean voodoo would have made just as much sense, but if you're looking for hard science in GI-freaking-Joe, I don't know what to tell you. It's a goofy, campy adventure flick. For Pete's sake, the guy who develops the magic nanomites is named Doctor Mindbender. MINDBENDER.
posted by brundlefly at 3:06 PM on January 17, 2010 [3 favorites]


I'll be the first to say it: I like this list! I like meta-lists, and I like seeing the movies that everyone hated. It's clear that most of the movies there deserve to be there, and although there are a few that I disagree with, I can understand why people didn't like them (I fucking loved Antichrist, and the Last House on the Left remake is exceptionally good -- much better than the craptastic Wes Craven original). And I will never get tired of people dumping on shitfests like GI Joe, Transformers 2, and Wolverine.
posted by Frobenius Twist at 3:21 PM on January 17, 2010


Nine, on the other hand, deserves everything it gets. Fuck that piece of shit.

Glad to hear this, because I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really didn't like Chicago.

Same auteur.
posted by philip-random at 3:25 PM on January 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


The only films I can think of that I saw last year were Public Enemies, The Hangover, Zombieland, and Sherlock Holmes. I am baffled at how a person could consider Sherlock Holmes a bad movie.

At least some people didn't like Public Enemies. Holy god, that film had "wasted" potential in six hundred point Courier New stamped across every frame.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:26 PM on January 17, 2010 [2 favorites]


I don't think I saw any of those movies last year. Or any movies, period. Stupid ironic distracting internet, giving me the ability to talk about shit movies while preventing me from watching shit movies.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 3:29 PM on January 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


Chicago is like some kind of work of stunning genius compared with Nine.
posted by Artw at 3:29 PM on January 17, 2010


I cannot wait to see what TEN movies the academy nominates for best picture.

I saw a number of films on those lists and yes, they were shit (except A Serious Man). However, by far the shitiest movie on the list and that I saw last year was Limits of Control. Unbearable. Rarely am I speechless about why a movie was shit but...

I am baffled at how a person could consider Sherlock Holmes a bad movie.

I didn't see it but I saw the trailer and thought, "That's not a Sherlock Holmes movie. It's an action movie with Sherlock Holmes in it." A friend who saw it, and loves Sherlock Holmes, confirmed that. He loathed it.

A Serious Man was probably my favorite American movie of last year. The biggest surprise for me was District 9. I expected it to be garbage and obvious (like the short it's based on) and I thought it was pretty excellent. The lead actor is my pick for best English speaking performance of the year.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 3:30 PM on January 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


Glad to hear this, because I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really didn't like Chicago.

Same auteur.
posted by philip-random


The worst thing about Chicago is that the stage version was so damn good. I really wanted to like the film.
posted by haveanicesummer at 3:31 PM on January 17, 2010


that film had "wasted" potential in six hundred point Courier New stamped across every frame.

That would certainly detract from the viewing experience.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:31 PM on January 17, 2010 [2 favorites]


Sherlock Holmes is basically "HOLMES AND WATSON, PUNCHING DETECTIVES", but if you can get over that it's enourmously good fun.
posted by Artw at 3:31 PM on January 17, 2010 [2 favorites]


I cannot wait to see what TEN movies the academy nominates for best picture.

I have a suspicion that I need to see The Hurt Locker, as it will be the one everybody will be rooting for.
posted by Artw at 3:34 PM on January 17, 2010


You Should See the Other Guy: "I didn't see it but I saw the trailer and thought, "That's not a Sherlock Holmes movie. It's an action movie with Sherlock Holmes in it." A friend who saw it, and loves Sherlock Holmes, confirmed that. He loathed it."

I sort of understand that objection, but at the same time, according to Guinness, Holmes is the "most portrayed movie character." There are plenty of films to choose from that are more faithful to the original tales. I think there's room for variation, and the current Sherlock Holmes holds its own as a fun period action flick with some really fun performances.
posted by brundlefly at 3:42 PM on January 17, 2010 [4 favorites]


There are plenty of films to choose from that are more faithful to the original tales.

Most films tend to portray Holmes as a weedy, effeminate weirdo and Watson as an incompetent bungler, so I'm going to go ahead and say that last year's film is no more inaccurate a depiction of the character than Basil Rathbone's execrable characterization.

Why we can't ever get a Sherlock Holmes movie that gives evidence of the writers and director having read the stories at any time, ever is beyond me, but pretending that Downey's Holmes is any less accurate than previous film versions is silly in the extreme.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:48 PM on January 17, 2010 [7 favorites]


Of course, more fun than actually having ten nominations will be the glaringly obvious nominations of "blockbuster" movies in order to suck in more viewers. Just because you fucked up by not nominating Dark Knight doesn't mean you have to debase yourself the next year and nominate popular, yet crap movies. I'd imagine it's a lock that Avatar gets a best picture nomination, even though, good lord, it's crap. On the other hand, it's popular crap, and remember how much publicity the Oscars got last time Cameron won something.
posted by Ghidorah at 3:49 PM on January 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


Avatar mad a fuck of a lot more sense than The Dark Knight.
posted by Artw at 3:51 PM on January 17, 2010


I think there's room for variation, and the current Sherlock Holmes holds its own as a fun period action flick with some really fun performances.

But then why make it a Sherlock Holmes movie? Why not just a period detective/action flick with newly named characters? The only reason is to rope in SH fans, who the movie has nothing to offer to.

Just because you fucked up by not nominating Dark Knight

Huh? You think DK deserved a best picture nomination?
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 3:52 PM on January 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


Pope Guilty, but weren't the Rathbone films based on Doyle stories? I thought this new one was not.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 3:53 PM on January 17, 2010


My pick for the best of last year was In The Loop. Mainly because of the Olympic-level Scottish swearing.

I'm glad a few of them shared my hatred for Public Enemies

What a disappointment that was. How did Mann make something so boring and so ugly?

And heaven, oh heaven, heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.
You see, the thing about heaven is that heaven is for people who like the sort of things that go on in heaven. Like, well, singing, talking to God, watering pot plants.
posted by the duck by the oboe at 3:54 PM on January 17, 2010


The Rathbone films used some plots from the stories, but their characterizations of Holmes and Watson bore little resemblance to the characters as Doyle wrote them.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:55 PM on January 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


The Rathbone films used some plots from the stories, but their characterizations of Holmes and Watson bore little resemblance to the characters as Doyle wrote them.

Fair enough--but I think it's difficult to do that kind of thing. Readers/watchers take different meanings from different things.

I mean, I love Altman's The Long Goodbye, and consider it a faithful adaptation of the Chandler book even though it varies widely on some points and despite (or perhaps because) of Gould's characterization. But dropping Marlowe into a completely unrelated story and calling it a Marlowe picture in order to capitalize on a built-in audience would seem wrong to me.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 3:59 PM on January 17, 2010


Mods, please ban Pope Guilty for speaking ill of Basil Rathbone.
posted by vronsky at 4:02 PM on January 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


Fair enough--but I think it's difficult to do that kind of thing. Readers/watchers take different meanings from different things.

Sure, but I think it's silly to claim that one divergent characterization is somehow more true than another.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:04 PM on January 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


the perverse irony at play is that best of lists tend to mostly be made up of movies I have heard of, been recomended, and possibly planned to see. Most "worst of" lists tend to bring to my attention movies that I would have otherwise never heard of. Add in a ridiculous plot device, and I'm way more likely to see a movie fromm a year end worst of list than from a best-of list.

Foe example, I had never heard of Tony Manero but based on this description, I now feel i must see it...

When he visits the theater one afternoon and discovers that “Saturday Night Fever” has been replaced by “Grease,” he goes berserk.

How can a movie about a serial killer obsessed with John Travolta's character from Sat. Night Fever set against the backdrop of Pinochet's Chile not be good? It's un-possible.

Also, there are plenty of movies on these lists that I saw with my own eyes and know were not terrible. A Single Man, Big Fan, Crank: High Voltage, Funny People.

Also, I was surprised not to see Inglorious Basterds on anyone's list. I liked it, but I would have guessed that would be an easy movie for critics to pile-on.
posted by billyfleetwood at 4:13 PM on January 17, 2010


Oh yeah. Crank 2, while not quite as good as the first, has no business being on any worst list.
posted by brundlefly at 4:19 PM on January 17, 2010


Crank 2 is the Police Acadamy 4 of the Crank series. If there is ever a Crank 3 it will be equal in quality to a Police Academy 8, if such a horror had been created.
posted by Artw at 4:28 PM on January 17, 2010 [4 favorites]


That said, for being a bunch of random crap that didn;t make it into the first film it's still rather enjoyable.
posted by Artw at 4:29 PM on January 17, 2010


Sure, but I think it's silly to claim that one divergent characterization is somehow more true than another.

I'm not claiming that. Were Downey in a Doyle story, I don't think as many people would have had a problem with the film.

Crank 2, while not quite as good as the first

I'm trying hard to imagine such a thing but I seem incapable.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 4:31 PM on January 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


I guess it's a lot more fun to "overturn conventional wisdom," but I'm getting tired of seeing these "WORST X of Y" lists that're just full of examples of things that really aren't that bad (and might even be objectively kind of good, relative the rest of the crop), but are just overrated or overhyped, according to the author.
posted by decoherence at 4:49 PM on January 17, 2010


These lists suggest that 2009 is The Year that Critics Embraced the Backlash. To tell us that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen or G.I. Joe: The Rise of COBRA or The Twilight Saga: New Moon suck is pointless, because of course they do -- the last good movie that employed a colon in the title was Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan. However, it seems these critics are out to reel in the big fish... The Lovely Bones is wildly uneven and suffers from having eighteen gazillion dollars spent making what should have been an austere, reflective film. Avatar exists only to provide spectacle, and it does a more than satisfactory job at that.

Some of the other choices are just odd. Away We Go and The Men Who Stare at Goats were quite passable -- not great, but if you thought these were the worst movies of the year, you need to see more movies.

I mean, come on! Nicolas Cage alone, that indefatigable bug-eyed signifier of shlock, did four movies last year: Astro Boy, The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans, G-Force, and Knowing. Any 'worst movies of the year' list that does not make room for at least one or two of these is clearly not one to take seriously.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 4:51 PM on January 17, 2010 [2 favorites]


richochet biscuit, did you see Bad Lietenant: Port of Call - New Orleans? Easily one of the best performances of the year.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 5:00 PM on January 17, 2010 [6 favorites]


And Away We Go was obnoxious like pretty much anything Sam Mendes does. The main male protag was completely unlikeable, kinda like the hero of 500 Days of Summer. If you're gonna make a romantic comedy, which I'd argue both of those films are trying to be--though neither is particularly romantic or comedic--you need well-rounded characters, not mopes. If you want your story to be believable, don't cast your Bellamy in your Grant role, as AWG did, or write your Grant character as a Bellamy, as 500 Days did.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 5:05 PM on January 17, 2010


brundlefly: Seriously? I mean voodoo would have made just as much sense, but if you're looking for hard science in GI-freaking-Joe, I don't know what to tell you. It's a goofy, campy adventure flick.

If I was really looking for scientific realism I would have, among other things, mentioned the impossibility of nano machines doing what they do in the movie, which is far more ludicrous if one expects strict accuracy. Among other things.

My voodoo analogy was not intended to make fun of the "weaponization" scene by comparing in terms of realism, but to be simply ludicrous. That scene either shows ignorance of what "weaponization" means, or, more likely, it expects audiences not to know.

The fact is I am sick to death of mindless, go-along-with-it, handwavy action movies just from their sheer ubiquity. I don't think I expect all movies to be high art, but one could make a decent, rollocking, popcorn action movie without being a blitheringly stupid cash-in. Speaking of cash-ins....

You Should See The Other Guy: But then why make it a Sherlock Holmes movie? Why not just a period detective/action flick with newly named characters? The only reason is to rope in SH fans, who the movie has nothing to offer to.

Agreed on all points. The only reason they called it that is that "Sherlock Holmes" has tremendous name recognition, and they felt they could mind that to make a buck. That is all. It's just a prompt. It is not an interpretation of anything. That is literally the only reason this movie is called "Sherlock Holmes," because inventing new characters wouldn't draw in as many people as not naming it that, and the film exists to maximize profits, not for any other reason. It helps a lot that the characters are in the public domain and so there are no rights-holders expecting a cut. They have to tie it to something audiences may already have heard of, however tenuously the connection may be, in order to get them to see it. That is how Van Helsing got its name too.
posted by JHarris at 5:11 PM on January 17, 2010


Crank 2 is the Police Acadamy 4 of the Crank series. If there is ever a Crank 3 it will be equal in quality to a Police Academy 8, if such a horror had been created.

You are assuming the relationship is Crank n = Police Academy 2n, instead of Police Academy n2
Crunk n | P.A. 2n | P.A. n2
   1         1         1
   2         4         4
   3         8         9
   4        16        16
   5        32        25
The difference between the formulas becomes important should the Crunk franchise ever make it to a fifth movie, although I think if it even made it to a fourth it would be bad enough to blast the landscape around the theater, making it forever unsuitable for life.
posted by JHarris at 5:21 PM on January 17, 2010 [11 favorites]


The fact is I am sick to death of mindless, go-along-with-it, handwavy action movies just from their sheer ubiquity.

I have found that whenever I see a movie that people have qualified with "You just have to turn your brain off," I invariable find that the two hours would have been better spent doing laundry or something.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 5:24 PM on January 17, 2010 [3 favorites]


I remember What Dreams May Come being alright, actually. Hell was probably the best part.

Yeah that part, the Painted World effect, seamed likely to become the crowning moment for those of us that worked on it. Imagine how we felt when we saw the completed movie. That happens a lot, once again the last film project another set of developers will dedicate themselves to.
posted by StickyCarpet at 5:39 PM on January 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


not great, but if you thought these were the worst movies of the year, you need to see more movies.

Let me get this straight. If a mediocre film is the worst I've seen all year, I need to see more movies? I actually need to see some genuine crap? Why is this?
posted by philip-random at 5:43 PM on January 17, 2010


Calibration.
posted by Artw at 5:59 PM on January 17, 2010 [5 favorites]


Let me get this straight. If a mediocre film is the worst I've seen all year, I need to see more movies? I actually need to see some genuine crap? Why is this?

"The worst movie of the year" and "the worst movie I've seen all year" are two very different things for most people, but should have some commonality for professional movie reviewers. If they are seeing only a few flicks, they will be obliged to put some merely indifferent movies on the list. (And as I say, I found things like Away We Go merely indifferent.)

Let us say that you have seen ten movies in your entire life and that by purest chance, they are the ten highest-rated movies on IMDB. This means The Empire Strikes Back might be the worst movie philip-random has ever seen in his life, but if philip-random the movie critic tells me The Empire Strikes Back is the worst movie EVAR, I am not inclined to take his views that seriously.

Or on preview, what artw said.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 5:59 PM on January 17, 2010


I had to smile when I read one particular criticism. Personally, I liked Avatar, but I must admit the first thing I thought of when I saw the floating mountains was old Yes album covers by Roger Dean. I was trying to thing how physically something like that could even work. I was buying most of the sci-fi hand waving up until that point. Oh, and I didn't see a lot of these movies, which is apparently a good thing for me, but the Transformers one was just godawful. Seriously, it was just dumb as a box of rocks and boring as hell. I fell asleep. Literally.
posted by lordrunningclam at 6:26 PM on January 17, 2010


Whoa whoa whoa. You guys need to seriously back the fuck off of Crank 2. Crank 2 wasn't designed to win awards, silly critics. Crank 2 was meant to be a balls-to-the-wall all-out nonsensical action caper, and it accomplished it so much better than Transformers 2 or GI Joe or any of that other crap.
posted by graventy at 6:29 PM on January 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


One of these days I'm gonna watch Crank and Crank 2 straight through without pausing.

Worst movie I saw all year? Highlander: The Source.
posted by adamdschneider at 6:32 PM on January 17, 2010


kittyprecious: "Wait, people didn't like Sherlock Holmes? Why do people suck so?"

I wasn't a fan of Sherlock Holmes because it was so relentlessly obvious. Oh look some evil villain is dead surely he's won't crib from goddamn Romeo and Juliet and fake it somehow. Oh look more goofy action scenes. Oh look every single answer is CHEMISTRY. I hate that. I hate when the answer to "ohhh magic" is fucking chemistry. That's lame.

Also lame? Setting up a goddamn sequel with the last 20 minutes of the first movie.
posted by graventy at 6:34 PM on January 17, 2010 [2 favorites]


(Why did I type Crunk up there instead of Crank? I hope that isn't something Freudian, although I barely know what Crunk means.)
posted by JHarris at 6:35 PM on January 17, 2010


richochet biscuit, did you see Bad Lietenant: Port of Call - New Orleans? Easily one of the best performances of the year.

You Should See the Other Guy, did you not see the colon in the title?
posted by ricochet biscuit at 6:43 PM on January 17, 2010


Dana Stevens, Slate
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. Oh wait, I never got to see it, so I guess I don't know. Better ask the three fanboy bloggers who were given press screenings.


Ohh, you poor Slate critic you. Can Slate not afford to send you to movies post-release? You saw Transformers 2 and I'm pretty sure they didn't screen that drek. I don't understand the fanboy slight against a movie you can probably review in your sleep without even seeing it. I can, and I don't get paid for it: it sucked.
posted by graventy at 6:47 PM on January 17, 2010 [2 favorites]


What Dreams May Come has a much more "real" alternate ending on the dvd.
The art direction and visuals are astounding. I'd love to see what was originally planned.
StickyCarpet where were you in production?

Anybody can make a bad movie. It takes true skill to make the bottom 10 of IMDB's worst 100. (and JCVD)
posted by Pecantree at 6:53 PM on January 17, 2010


JHarris, you win the internet. And you owe me a keyboard. Can we make that post famous somehow?
posted by zardoz at 6:53 PM on January 17, 2010


Crank 2Crank 2 was meant to be a balls-to-the-wall all-out nonsensical action caper

" (Insert action movie with terrible script/direction/writing) wasn't designed to win awards, silly critics. (Insert action movie with terrible script/direction/writing) was meant to be a balls-to-the-wall all-out nonsensical action caper."

This is the critic-proofing defense of a film that can't compare itself to one that is well-acted, well-directed, or well-written. Or all three, namely all three. This argument is saying, "Well, our movie isn't like those movies over there, it's in a critic-proof room because we don't want those awards and stuff." It's a version of sticking your fingers in your ear and saying lalalalalala.

Sorry, doesn't work.
posted by zardoz at 7:01 PM on January 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


Not every movie is a Kubrick movie. Not every movie should be a Kubrick movie.
posted by Artw at 7:13 PM on January 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


This Pauline Kael quote sums up my feelings about movies lately -- "One’s moviegoing tastes and habits change — I still like in movies what I always liked but now, for example, I really want documentaries. After all the years of stale stupid acted-out stories, with less and less for me in them, I am desperate to know something, desperate for facts, for information, for faces of non-actors and for knowledge of how people live — for revelations, not for the little bits of show-business detail worked up for us by show-business minds who got them from the same movies we’re tired of."

I trust your opinion enough that I am going to rent 500 days of Summer, Artw. If it is awful, at least I can stare at Zooey for a couple of hours :)

(speaking of zooey -- this could be her little sister -- cute!)
posted by vronsky at 7:33 PM on January 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


I wouldn't on my recommendation, TBH. I didn't think it was all that good or anything. I just didn't think it deserved to be in a "worst" list.
posted by Artw at 7:42 PM on January 17, 2010


This argument is saying, "Well, our movie isn't like those movies over there, it's in a critic-proof room because we don't want those awards and stuff." It's a version of sticking your fingers in your ear and saying lalalalalala.

All I have to add to that is Twisp and Catsby.
posted by JHarris at 7:52 PM on January 17, 2010


now, for example, I really want documentaries

Recently, I decided to embark on a project of ploughing my way through the most universally-acclaimed movies of all time, and headed off to rottentomatoes to look up everything with a 100% rating.

OK, not the best methodology, as it turned out (due to the way they aggregate their scoring) but I was surprised to see just how many documentaries there were with extremely high acclaim, compared with movies.

That seems to say something about something, and I'm not quite sure what, but it might include peoples' desire for facts, information, and real-life stories, as you were just saying.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:52 PM on January 17, 2010


Or that movies with fewer reviews are more likely to get perfect high scores.
posted by Artw at 7:53 PM on January 17, 2010


Oh good, you guys mean Nine, and not 9.
posted by Evilspork at 7:56 PM on January 17, 2010


Heh.

Yes, that happens a lot.
posted by Artw at 7:57 PM on January 17, 2010


Or that movies with fewer reviews are more likely to get perfect high scores.

Their methodology is actually to count positive v negative reviews.

Thus, a movie could theoretically have a 100% tomatometer rating, with no review better than 6/10.

You'd expect that scenario to average out at 60%, but that's not how it works.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:13 PM on January 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


That seems to say something about something, and I'm not quite sure what

My guess is that it mostly says something about how only the best of the best documentaries get distribution deals that would even get them a chance of professional reviews.

Well, the best of the best, and everything Michael Moore makes.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:23 PM on January 17, 2010


JHarris: "All I have to add to that is Twisp and Catsby."

Gah, PA'd! I'm sorry, that was a poor defense.

Crank 2 was probably the most enjoyable action flick I saw all year. I watched the entire Statham oeuvre in a couple of days (well, the Transporters and Cranks). The Transporter flicks are James Bond only fun instead of all dark and serious. The Cranks are as close as we'll get to a Grand Theft Auto movie.

They're fun movies, and while I don't expect them to ever be nominated for an Oscar, even in a 10-nom year, I hope Star Trek isn't either.
posted by graventy at 8:27 PM on January 17, 2010


They are, basicallly what would happen if a bunch of mates sat around playing GTA, smoking dope and discussing how to make the Best Movie Ever. I'd bet money on that being how they came into being, as well.

But the second one is still basically just offcuts from the first, and having a plot of some kind and a sense of urgency to it really did hlep Crank 1, whereas Crank 2 is just a meandering mess.

I know, I know, I'm picky that way.
posted by Artw at 8:31 PM on January 17, 2010


The worst "it's not for critics" ever has to be the jerk-critic who gets eaten in The Girl In The Water. Yeah, sure, M. Night, that's what people deserve for not liking your crappy movies. Glad your career is in the crapper.
posted by Artw at 8:37 PM on January 17, 2010


My opinions on movies are not necessarily informed by a deep knowledge of the craft -- I watch very few each year. I was trying to remember recently how long it's been since I last rented a DVD; I think it's been 3 years. However I did torrent a few things recently and I'm in a sharing mood so:

I really expected to like 500 Days of Summer -- I had the impression it would be quirky and charming -- but found it utterly tedious except for the aforementioned dance number and expectation/reality split screen.

I didn't expect to like GI Joe, and it lived up to my expectation. The thing is, it could have been a perfectly serviceable summer technothriller, with just as many explosions, without being utterly stupid -- they just didn't bother. Whoever decided that Snake Eyes' costume should include rubber lips should be put in a hole with Joel Schumacher and left to rot. I realize it's silly to talk about 'respect for the source material' when discussing GI Joe, and maybe it's just nostalgia talking, but I think Larry Hama's take on the comics was pretty sophisticated compared to the movie.

The thing both have in common is Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who remains utterly cute and towards whom I bear no animus. Joe, if you're ever in Toronto, call me.

Terminator Salvation was also pretty bad. Again that's arguably in the 'to be expected' pile but I was surprised by how dull it was.
posted by sevenyearlurk at 8:37 PM on January 17, 2010 [2 favorites]


To tell us that . . . The Twilight Saga: New Moon sucks is pointless, because of course they do

I don't know. It really, really sucked. Mr. WanKenobi thought that it was the third worst movie he ever saw in the theater, behind only Deuces Wild and Master of Disguise, if that gives you any idea of precisely how hard it sucked.

(I actually thought it was quite good if you viewed it as a comedy. I mean, even the middle aged ladies in the row behind us cracked up at the glittering reveal of angsty vampire chest. Comedy gold!)

Also, Away We Go had one of the most contrived and unearned-feeling endings of an movie I'd seen in years.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:27 PM on January 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


(OTOH I liked Holmes, though it seemed that Downey was actually channeling House in his portrayal, right down to the facial tics. I know that they're essentially the same character and all, but it was unsettling.)
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:29 PM on January 17, 2010


PhoBWanKenobi: "It really, really sucked. Mr. WanKenobi thought that it was the third worst movie he ever saw in the theater, behind [...] Master of Disguise"

Jesus, did he lose a bet? That movie is 80 minutes of strained, awful jokes.
posted by graventy at 9:37 PM on January 17, 2010 [2 favorites]



That seems to say something about something, and I'm not quite sure what, but it might include peoples' desire for facts, information, and real-life stories, as you were just saying.


..and there are those of us who find a lot of narrative fiction exhausting cause we've watched and broken down a lot of movies, A Lot, and can usually map the rest of the movie from the first 15 minutes. Documentaries have the freedom to be utterly unexpected cause life doesn't have to follow 4 act structure.

not that their aren't hamfisted blunt-object documentaries, dear god no, just that I keep finding myself bored with fiction these days not that the act of filming something isn't its own kind of fiction, and indeed many documantaries are made with a clear bias in mind but not always, of course I need to shut off my brain ..
posted by The Whelk at 9:45 PM on January 17, 2010 [2 favorites]


Or, put another way, most movies loose my interest in the same way that any article or opinion essay will loose my interest if I read any variant of "I'm just a simple Hyper-chicken from a backwoods asteroid"
posted by The Whelk at 9:52 PM on January 17, 2010


Were Downey in a Doyle story, I don't think as many people would have had a problem with the film.

I'm completely with you on that.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:22 PM on January 17, 2010


Think Transformers 2 was bad, try the book.
posted by gottabefunky at 10:55 PM on January 17, 2010


Is Alan Dean Foster still trying to make his novelisations make more sense than the actual films?
posted by Artw at 11:30 PM on January 17, 2010


Crank 2 ruled, you fools.
posted by stinkycheese at 6:15 AM on January 18, 2010


Example #342 for Why Criticism is Dead in the Modern Era:
N.B.: If anyone puts down Knowing, they are INCORRECT. That movie was AWESOME.
Really? This is what passes for criticism on the internet? Maybe we should be paying for newspaper so we can read professional writers.
posted by clvrmnky at 6:23 AM on January 18, 2010


N.B.: If anyone puts down Knowing, they are INCORRECT. That movie was AWESOME.

Knowing is a nifty set-up that requires world-class experts in a field onscreen to be dimmer than the average audience member with a high-school education in the same field.

Hey, while we are on the topic... ten years ago, shortly after Memento came out, I read an interview with Christopher Nolan. The interviewer thought that the script for Memento -- adapted from a short story Nolan's brother had written -- was a pretty dazzling piece of work and asked essentially if this new director and his brother had any more like that in the drawer. Nolan described two movies they had planned, one of which dealt with a time capsule being opened after decades and our protagonist discovering that someone had written down the dates of every major disaster that occurred while the thing was sealed up, as well as several more still to come. I thought, "Cool," and had been curious to see if this thing would ever get made. A decade later, here is a movie more or less exactly fitting that description... with no mention whatsoever of the Nolans.

Is it possible they sold the script and were so taken aback with the end result that they quietly had their names removed from the movie?
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:18 AM on January 18, 2010


Were Downey in a Doyle story, I don't think as many people would have had a problem with the film.

I read that as weredowney, and imagined a Doyle story in which Holmes investigates the legend of a dark actor on the moor.
posted by jjwiseman at 8:39 AM on January 18, 2010 [1 favorite]


I just came back to say yes, Artw, you do need to see Hurt Locker. Never seen a better deconstruction of the "renegade soldier who lives by his own rules" trope. Pretty much flawless.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 8:41 AM on January 18, 2010


Is it possible they sold the script and were so taken aback with the end result that they quietly had their names removed from the movie?

Highly unlikely. We would have heard about their script being sold when it sold. More likely is that the writers came up with on their own or perhaps read the same interview you did and wrote based on that premise.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 8:45 AM on January 18, 2010


Grah! Any director you might possibly like sucks!
posted by Artw at 9:07 AM on January 18, 2010


In the year 2010 everyone wears a jumpsuit and shoes. The clothes may look odd, but they are sensible.

Hmm... a bald blogger who jumps out of bed to type angru things on the internet and who has a commitment to wearing ugly, unfashionable clothes because they are "sensible". They also have a very tiny apartment. I'm getting a real picture here.
posted by Artw at 9:09 AM on January 18, 2010


wrong thread, ignore.

Though possibly it IS the year 2010 and it is an acurrate portrayal of the poster of that directors peice.

posted by Artw at 9:10 AM on January 18, 2010


Grah! Any director you might possibly like sucks!

And I'm like, well, yeah, Ridley Scott IS pretty fucking overrated, having made two great films at the start of his career and mostly a bunch of bullshit since and then I read

He’s made one entertaining film, Gladiator, and a host of second rate films masquerading as masterpieces.

Ohhhhhhhhh man, this is comedy GOLD. I keep waiting to learn that Big Hollywood is all an elaborate parody but I know that day will never ever come.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:38 AM on January 18, 2010


Well, number 1 is Alfred Hitchcock. Who has aparently never made a great film.
posted by Artw at 9:43 AM on January 18, 2010


You Should See the Other Guy: "Crank 2, while not quite as good as the first

I'm trying hard to imagine such a thing but I seem incapable.
"

I'm generally not a fan of that MTV-style filmmaking, with fast cuts and goofy hand-held angles, but Crank was so unexpectedly batshit that it completely won me over. I think Crank is a joy to watch. Crank 2 was just a string of unconnected weirdness, but it was a fun string of unconnected weirdness.

JHarris: "My voodoo analogy was not intended to make fun of the "weaponization" scene by comparing in terms of realism, but to be simply ludicrous. That scene either shows ignorance of what "weaponization" means, or, more likely, it expects audiences not to know."

I guess I'm not following. You're not making fun of the scene in terms of realism but you're holding a standard of realism to the term "weaponization." In terms of the movie, it was equal to just "turning it on." Considering the tone of the film (an over the top, campy Saturday morning cartoon) I thought it worked just fine. It's a deeply silly movie, and is enjoyable as that.

I'm not saying you should "turn your brain" off. If I turned my brain off while watching GI Joe, I wouldn't be able to enjoy its campy, playful tone. There are a lot of different ways to enjoy a lot of different films, without giving every film license to be as shitty as it wants. If that were the case, you'd see me here defending Transformers 2.

That movie was a steaming turd.
posted by brundlefly at 9:44 AM on January 18, 2010


Ha! Artw, that link is pretty hilariously awful. "He’s made one entertaining film, Gladiator..." Amazing.
posted by brundlefly at 9:46 AM on January 18, 2010


Come to think of it, Crank 2 also makes more sense than The Dark Knight.
posted by Artw at 9:48 AM on January 18, 2010


I wanted to like Crank 2 because I sincerely loved the insanity of Crank. Crank 2 just didn't have the magic though. Felt like Crank fanfic or something.
posted by haveanicesummer at 12:52 PM on January 18, 2010


I wasn't saying Dark Knight deserved an Oscar, but there was a pretty solid backlash last year when the most popular movie of the decade failed to receive a best picture nomination. If I remember correctly, there were a lot of angry blog posts, critics writing columns about the snub, and so on. It was significant enough to cause the change to ten films this year, which means that 6 to 7 nominations will be for films that actually have a chance at winning, and 3 or 4 will be to appease popular films that have no business being nominated for best picture.

And Artw, we've gone over DK before, but of course Avatar makes more sense than DK, as every single moment of Avatar is so telegraphed that the only way the plot could be more obvious is if a guy was standing to the side of the screen holding cue cards telling you what would be the result, 20 minutes later of what just happened in the film. And people would probably go nuts over what an interesting use of 3D it was, and rave about it even more.
posted by Ghidorah at 2:34 PM on January 18, 2010 [1 favorite]


I don't think Dark Knight is why the Oscars are expanding to ten BP nominees, though a category big enough to include Avatar (and perhaps such other unacknowledged gems as Friday the 13th 3D and Bride Wars) does help to dispel accusations of elitism. A Best Picture nomination is good for business, and business right now is terrible. If Hollywood can get ten movies bigger sales, they're gonna do it. It's downright crass, but you can't blame them. It certainly isn't that there were so many great films released in 2009 that they had no choice but to expand the category.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:43 PM on January 18, 2010


It makes me so happy that some of the reviewers also thought A Serious Man was so god damned over rated. It's a little sweet vindication from the tastes of the herd.
posted by tkchrist at 4:43 PM on January 18, 2010


The Short A Serious Man: "Look! Look! We're defeating your expectations by failing to resolve ambiguity! Look! Uncertainty!"
posted by Artw at 5:04 PM on January 18, 2010


"Look! Look! We're defeating your expectations by failing to resolve ambiguity! Look! Uncertainty!"

If it was ambiguous. But it really wasn't. They go about the entire film with this glass-half-empty perspective, one curse befalls the poor bastard after another. Jeebus. The poor schmuck could not catch a break. The Coens were clearly trying to paint this guys life as shit.

Then in the end is it a glimmer of hope? Oh. Nope. Cancer. Tornado.

That's not ambiguity. I mean did they really expect us to think, after everything they did to the guy, to suddenly think "Eh. The kid'll be fine. And I'm sure the doctor called him to tell him it was nothing."

No. The inference, based on all the others, was anything but uncertain. Cancer. Tornado.
posted by tkchrist at 6:22 PM on January 19, 2010


I had to google that title because somehow I hadn't even heard of that film. The Coen's last film, Burn After Reading, was shockingly dreadful though. I personally think they are overrated except for Raising Arizona and Blood Simple. But mostly Raising Arizona. I'm not saying they don't have their moments and that they aren't clever. Lebowski had some nice scenes, as did No Country, and I love Jeff Bridges, but their films rarely rise above the level of pastiche.
posted by vronsky at 7:21 PM on January 19, 2010


You're all wrong. I'm Serious.

I quite liked Serious Man, from beginning to end, a weird (of course) tale about a bunch of people (one guy in particular) who think they've got serious problems, and make themselves miserable as a result ...

And then some genuinely serious shit does unleash. Final few shots of the film: utterly brilliant.
posted by philip-random at 8:46 PM on January 19, 2010


I dunno, I'm not sure either of those make it better for me. "Look! We're failing to resolve this, only kind of we are, wink wink, like in No Country for Old Men!"
posted by Artw at 9:45 AM on January 20, 2010


you know it would be goddam nice if typing The making of the Shining into the metafilter search box (which I did) brought up the older posts so I don't waste a fucking half hour on something that has been posted previously.
posted by vronsky at 1:34 PM on January 20, 2010


You're all wrong. I'm Serious.

I wish you'd knock that annoying "Your wrong" shit off. I'M serious.
posted by tkchrist at 6:07 PM on January 20, 2010


Sorry, had to vent there.

Anyway, speaking of Jeff Bridges, fans should seek out a movie from the early 80s with him and John Heard called Cutter's Way and there is an even earlier film called The American Success Company with Bianca Jagger that is amazing as well (hard to find though - vhs copies on amazon are 60 bucks!)
posted by vronsky at 7:14 PM on January 20, 2010


Also for some super early Jeff Bridges... In Search of America...where, "A college dropout convinces his family to re-examine its goals and gets them to leave it all for a cross-country odyssey in a 1928 Greyhound bus"...
posted by infinite intimation at 12:13 PM on January 24, 2010


« Older WE ARE VR. When the show VR Troopers was canceled...  |  "Title Magazine is a bimonthly... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments