The Big Picture: Worst Movies of 2012

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Noelveiga:
Oh, hi all, I didn't see you there.

I was just here, adding to the chorus reminding Bob that Amazing Spider-Man is actually pretty good and that he unapologetically praised trailers of the upcoming Superman reboot for the same reasons he panned ASM both before and after it released (namely making a reboot of a 5 year old franchise turning a bright, colourful superhero into a derivative, Batman Begins-infused "gritty" movie), despite ASM being strongly adapted from Ultimate Spider-Man books that predate Batman Begins by half a decade.

Have a nice year, everyone.

You know, I don't much care that Bob disliked the film, I disagree with him on many other counts, too. I mostly dislike that he doesn't seem to acknowledge how much he is in the minority there or how many of us quietly and respectfully have been disagreeing with him. I mean, hearing him you'd think ASM was universally panned in the way Battleship was, which it wasn't, or that the viewers and critics that liked it are lowest-common-denominator idiots that can't articulate why they liked it, which we aren't.

I happen to think ASM is well acted, that Garfield works really well as an updated Peter without harming Maguire's portrayal of the Silver Age-like version. I also felt that framing his angst as less the result of bullying and more of a missing father figure thing is a closer match for the character's core themes that also helps avoid the jarring disconnect of the Spidey and Peter storylines in all of the Raimi movies. And man, Emma Stone's Gwen is such a great character for a superhero movie, never descending into being the damsel in distress (she actually saves *herself* and a bunch of other people the one time she's in danger) and remaining clever and resourceful without having to be depicted as a tough gal action hero.

On the other hand, the only defence of The Expendables 2 I've heard from anybody has been "it's all the cool action heroes together, what's not to like?", so... maybe I haven't been listening hard enough?

That what grates me about Bob's opinion too, its that he treats it like fact rather than an opinion. If he wants to dislike it then thats fine but every time he goes into a rant all I ever get the impression is that he is butthurt that he never got Raimi's fourth movie or that Spidey will spend another 5 years outside of the Marvel Stuidos movies.

canadamus_prime:
I haven't seen any of those movies. Probably for the best.

Either have I. Although to be honest, this list hasn't changed my opinions in any real shape or form as I never had much interest in seeing them in the first place.

immortalfrieza:
What a (non)surprise, ASM is on this list. Show of hands, how many here expected Bob to throw it on here as yet another jab to this movie?

MacNille:
Oh, who would have guess, That Spiderman would be on the list. It ain't like you have BITCH about it for a whole fucking year.

Are you suggesting that he shouldn't put a film he believes to be terrible in his top ten worst movies list, simply because he has repeatedly mentioned it before?

Jabbawocky:

That what grates me about Bob's opinion too, its that he treats it like fact rather than an opinion. If he wants to dislike it then thats fine but every time he goes into a rant all I ever get the impression is that he is butthurt that he never got Raimi's fourth movie or that Spidey will spend another 5 years outside of the Marvel Stuidos movies.

Honestly, a lot of us comic nerds have a soft spot for Spidey. To see his films only go in a worse direction than would have gone if Marvel was allowed to make them is more than a little frustrating.

What's even worse is that ASM has an amazing cast, that's completely misused by it's shitty director and terrible script.

trty00:
If he really didn't like the movie, he's allowed to bitch about it as much as he wants. I really liked The Dark Knight Rises, and I was disappointed that he didn't like it, but I'm not going to get my tits in a twist because he's vocal about it.

The Amazing Spider Man could've been the second coming of a chocolate dipped cocaine-dusted Jesus and MovieBob's review of the movie would have told us that the chocolate would make us fat, the cocaine would make us impotent and paranoid, and that where was Jesus whenever a priest molested a child. And the same can be said of his stance on Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy, and presumably the same stance will be taken if Man Of Steel doesn't measure up to what MovieBob wants to see in a Superman movie regardless of whether it is decent or even good film in it's own right.

I'm tired of him jamming his opinion down my throat that now that 'The Avengers' has arrived, every single movie now has drop everything, stop whatever the fuck they were doing and reverentially treat it as some sort of mythic Urtext handed down from up above from some higher divine power.

immortalfrieza:
What a (non)surprise, ASM is on this list. Show of hands, how many here expected Bob to throw it on here as yet another jab to this movie?

Exactly, it's like Bob can't mention superhero movies or bad movies in general without whining about ASM anymore, he complains about it every opportunity he can find when it's even slightly justifiable, far more than he has ever complained about FAR worse movies. It's almost like Bob knows ASM is good but he's in massive denial of that fact and is trying incredibly hard to convince everyone else and himself that's it's bad despite knowing full well it's not.

The worst part is how his criticisms of ASM are not just wrong in the opinionated sense, but factually as well. He complains about how far from the comics the movie, characters, plot, tone etc. are, when in fact the opposite is true, ASM is probably the movie closest to the comics (it's sort of a mix between Amazing Spider-Man and Ultimate Spider-Man in terms of that) to be made yet. The characters act similar to their comics counterparts, the humor that Spidey is known for is pretty frequent, while that was almost nonexistant in the Raimi movies, the villain actually acts like the Lizard instead of being some guy who isn't even remotely like the comic version like the Raimi villains were, and the female lead actually DOES something instead of being whiny for no reason and just being there for the villain to kidnap like they usually are in Superhero movies. As for the cast, most all of them look and act like the characters they are playing effectively.

That, and not to mention that without ASM we wouldn't have gotten one of the best Spider-Man video games ever made, that alone justifies the movie's existance.

Couple of points, Bob is not the only critic to hate this movie.

Second, it uses some of the comic storylines, changes them around a bit and then doesn't stick the landing.

Third, just because it uses some elements from comics, doesn't make it a good film.

Fourth, the ASM video game is garbage, it's a worse version of Arkham City and it doesn't even get webslinging right. Something perfected in the best Spiderman game ever: Spiderman 2.

Baresark:
And Russell Crowe CAN sing Broadway style which is why he did do a good job as the Javert with that deep voice of his.

No. He pretty much can't. And I think you and I differ on what constitutes a deep voice. Michael Dorn has a deep voice. Russell Crowe has a gruff voice, which works fine when you're playing a battle-hardened tough guy, but not so well when you're trying to fill up a theater with a bold, round tone.

You know, like this guy.

I'm tougher on him in this role than most, because I'm kind of a "Javert snob" since he's my favorite character in the musical, but you put him next to Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway and it only makes it stand out how outclassed he was in the vocal department.

Anyway, this clearly is a movie for fans of the musical, and putting it on the list is a bit harsh. I thought some of the decisions they made for the film were interesting, like using Lamarque's funeral procession as the set piece for When Tomorrow Comes. But even that is probably just a comparison to other renditions of the musical, and while I appreciate the effort to emphasize the historical context of the uprisings, I'm also looking at a crowd that attended and/or purchased the DVD of an event where the actors just stand at microphones in costume and sing the songs to thunderous applause.

TheSchaef:

Baresark:
And Russell Crowe CAN sing Broadway style which is why he did do a good job as the Javert with that deep voice of his.

No. He pretty much can't. And I think you and I differ on what constitutes a deep voice. Michael Dorn has a deep voice. Russell Crowe has a gruff voice, which works fine when you're playing a battle-hardened tough guy, but not so well when you're trying to fill up a theater with a bold, round tone.

You know, like this guy.

I'm tougher on him in this role than most, because I'm kind of a "Javert snob" since he's my favorite character in the musical, but you put him next to Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway and it only makes it stand out how outclassed he was in the vocal department.

Anyway, this clearly is a movie for fans of the musical, and putting it on the list is a bit harsh. I thought some of the decisions they made for the film were interesting, like using Lamarque's funeral procession as the set piece for When Tomorrow Comes. But even that is probably just a comparison to other renditions of the musical, and while I appreciate the effort to emphasize the historical context of the uprisings, I'm also looking at a crowd that attended and/or purchased the DVD of an event where the actors just stand at microphones in costume and sing the songs to thunderous applause.

Haha, I think you're playing dirty when putting him next to Philip Quast. But, I can see you're point. You are right, it is more gruff than deep. I liked Crowe's performance so much I think because the way it is framed it's very personal. The upside to the movie production is that the actors played the production as actors and not necessarily great singers, though there were some great singers in there.

I'm also willing to bet that it's an actor who chose Lamarque's funeral procession. The actors sing the parts how they feel the scene should go and it was scored afterwards to the music fit the singing. An interesting way of doing things, no doubt about that.

TheSchaef:

Baresark:
And Russell Crowe CAN sing Broadway style which is why he did do a good job as the Javert with that deep voice of his.

No. He pretty much can't. And I think you and I differ on what constitutes a deep voice. Michael Dorn has a deep voice. Russell Crowe has a gruff voice, which works fine when you're playing a battle-hardened tough guy, but not so well when you're trying to fill up a theater with a bold, round tone.

You know, like this guy.

I'm tougher on him in this role than most, because I'm kind of a "Javert snob" since he's my favorite character in the musical, but you put him next to Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway and it only makes it stand out how outclassed he was in the vocal department.

Anyway, this clearly is a movie for fans of the musical, and putting it on the list is a bit harsh. I thought some of the decisions they made for the film were interesting, like using Lamarque's funeral procession as the set piece for When Tomorrow Comes. But even that is probably just a comparison to other renditions of the musical, and while I appreciate the effort to emphasize the historical context of the uprisings, I'm also looking at a crowd that attended and/or purchased the DVD of an event where the actors just stand at microphones in costume and sing the songs to thunderous applause.

I'm only replying to this comment because I don't want to dig through the thread to find Baresark's, but people actually think Russell Crowe did well?

He was so easily the worst part of the movie and wasn't suited in any way at all for the role. He can't sing and he totally missed the mark on making Javert what he was supposed to be. I said it before, but it just *really* annoys me that any time there's a broadway show turned movie, some moron has the bright idea to cast some random guy who cannot sing in one of the major parts.

Do they really thing the ladies are going to go to Les Miserables because Russell Crowe in it?

It's just so upsetting because everyone else did so amazingly well (well, minus Amanda Seyfried, but that's just a personal dislike of her voice). The director did have that weird love for zooming in and doing nothing else on peoples faces as they sang, but I'm fine with that. I'm even find with not having Eponine sing in the epilogue even though that's one of my favorite parts or Hugh Jackman not hitting all the notes in Bring Him Home, it's just, ugh, Russell Crowe was just completely wrong for that part.

Baresark:
I liked Crowe's performance so much I think because the way it is framed it's very personal.

I could probably see that if they played it like the recent Phantom adaptation, where they cast a bunch of classically-trained singers, and then deliberately cast the Phantom without that training to create an unrefined, edgy feel to him. But everybody was talking about, dude, check it out, Russell Crowe can, like, sing and stuff. And all I could think was that he seemed to spend the entire film in his "head voice", and never got under anything to give it real depth. I am dissapoint.

I'm also willing to bet that it's an actor who chose Lamarque's funeral procession.

And I'm willing to bet that hiring dozens of actors to line the streets and constructing the giant black carriage to serve as the hearse, means that this scene was planned well in advance of any opportunity the actors had to embellish their lines.

Personally thought Dark Knight Rises was just as bad as ASM.

Lvl 64 Klutz:
Though thankfully most of your reviews tend to signify otherwise, that closing comment of yours makes it a little hard to believe you go into movies with an open mind.

Nobody can go into a Shyamalan movie with an open mind anymore. It's not possible.

My least favorite movie of the year would have to be Brave. Thanks Pixar, for making me pay money to watch a feminist fairytale, with... uhm... some kind of weird obsession with bears that made no contextual sense. Go away.

idodo35:
wait wait wait
the bad guy for ASM 2 is going to be electro? just electro?
WHAT IN THE HELL?! are they trying to make these movies suck? why the heck do they insist of using those b list villians? its not like spidy doesnt have good villians he does!
doc ock, green goblin,the sinister freaking six! how hard would it be to use them instead of freaking electro and the lizard?! (and yes i am fully aware that electro is a reacuring member of the sinister 6) this is just frustrating...

While I understand your point, I do not necessarily agree. I think in a way using these B list villains is a good thing. For those of us who are into the comics it gives our favorite lesser known villains a chance to shine (Lizard is my personal favorite spiderman villain, although I feel like they dropped the ball on him in every way possible with this movie. They got the look, internal conflict, and personality completely wrong). I personally don't like Electro and would rather they use another villain, but if some people like him thats fine I guess. For people who aren't into the comics, using obscure villains gives them something unexpected. Everyone knows Doc Oc and I think most people know Venom as well. While using them may draw people in because they are so iconic, not using them gives something completely new to people who aren't too into the comic.

That said using the Sinister Six would be interesting, but possibly hard to manage (might run into the problem spiderman 3 had with villain balancing).

I'm glad Bob disliked Les Miserables, because I also couldn't stand how they did nothing to fix the horrible story. No one gets any real character development, and nothing seems to have much stage time before the kleptomaniacs come back to make everyone laugh. It's all right for a musical, but I don't think it works as a film.

The only one I have a problem with on this list is Battleship. I genuinely enjoyed that movie and though it was deeply flawed with its poorly revised script and its pathlogically unlikeable protagonist, the resulting story was inspirational and badass. Whoever makes the Michael Bay comparison has forgotten just how offensively terrible the Transformers films were. ASM deserves first place and Expendables deserves at least third (though to be honest maybe it doesn't even deserve to be considered a movie). If anyone even remembers ASM in 10 years, it will probably be counted as one of the worst films in the history of mankind. I'm saying this as someone who doesn't even like Spiderman in general, ASM is really an awful piece of shit.

Tumedus:

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.

Tumedus:

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.

Bad internal logic I can agree on (then again I sort of expect it from Superhero movies, that still doesn't make it acceptable as we're discussing), horrible characterization I can't.

Tumedus:

I mean this is the first Spider-Man I have ever seen where I actively disliked the character.

This has been a common complaint that I've never understood. It goes into what you say later:

Tumedus:

I want it to do justice to the character(s) and the feel.

Because this is where I think the movie shined best. It did justice to Peter Parker as Spider-Man, Peter Parker IS an asshole in the comics and almost every animated adaptation he has been in. But he's a loveable asshole, he beats criminals and cracks jokes at them. He deals with tragedy the way any smart teenager does, through humor and not violence.

Tumedus:

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.

I don't think much of this line other than him trying to comfort Gwen who is in mourning. We don't really know if this means he's going to break his promise to Captain Stacy or if he's going try to find a way to adhere to his promise while still being Spider-Man.

Tumedus:

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).

Ok I guess I can agree with that. But other than that scene, what other scenarios can you point out? (I don't say that rhetorically BTW)

Tumedus:

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.

Can you refresh my memory on this?

Legion:

Are you suggesting that he shouldn't put a film he believes to be terrible in his top ten worst movies list, simply because he has repeatedly mentioned it before?

They're suggesting that Bob is much too blinded by his hatred of the movie to think objectively. I personally don't give him credibility because he thought Spider-Man 3 was a decent movie.

Excellent. Having seen none of those movies, I guess I have spared myself some pain, even if I have disagreed with Bob a time or two.

As someone who's a massive fan of the musical, I guess I'm supposed to be deeply offended that MovieBob didn't like the film adaptation which I haven't even seen yet. Wow, I'm not. I could easily see why someone might dislike it, and even in the stage version, no one liked the boring romance story.

And fuck me, are people still moaning about moviebob moaning about spiderman? Why yes they are. Worst case of "miss miss, he doesn't like what I like!" I've ever seen.

Gotta go with The Hunger Games as the worst film of the year for me, god that film was a shit heap.

mikespoff:

ZZoMBiE13:
If I were making this list, Dark Knight Rises would have landed in the top 3 somewhere. I haven't seen the new Les Mis though, so I'll take your word for it Bob.

No, don't take his word for it.

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.

I feel that, for me, the new Les Mis will never get a fair shake because I really like the older version with Liam Neeson. I wasn't actually planning on skipping it entirely though. Just trying to be brief in my remarks. Eventually it'll hit DVD or the various on demand services and I'll give it as fair a shake as I'm capable of giving it, I promise you. :)

Winthrop:

idodo35:
wait wait wait
the bad guy for ASM 2 is going to be electro? just electro?
WHAT IN THE HELL?! are they trying to make these movies suck? why the heck do they insist of using those b list villians? its not like spidy doesnt have good villians he does!
doc ock, green goblin,the sinister freaking six! how hard would it be to use them instead of freaking electro and the lizard?! (and yes i am fully aware that electro is a reacuring member of the sinister 6) this is just frustrating...

While I understand your point, I do not necessarily agree. I think in a way using these B list villains is a good thing. For those of us who are into the comics it gives our favorite lesser known villains a chance to shine (Lizard is my personal favorite spiderman villain, although I feel like they dropped the ball on him in every way possible with this movie. They got the look, internal conflict, and personality completely wrong). I personally don't like Electro and would rather they use another villain, but if some people like him thats fine I guess. For people who aren't into the comics, using obscure villains gives them something unexpected. Everyone knows Doc Oc and I think most people know Venom as well. While using them may draw people in because they are so iconic, not using them gives something completely new to people who aren't too into the comic.

That said using the Sinister Six would be interesting, but possibly hard to manage (might run into the problem spiderman 3 had with villain balancing).

i kinda agree with you on this
in the hands of a talented team electro, lizard and even the less known villians can be awsome! BUT seeing how the last one was directed by monkeys i doubt they will pull off electro well.. also i dont really find him that interesting in general like many others he is usually just a means to carry out one of the smarter more compident villians...
if they wanted to go for unexpected i think they shouldve gone for craven the hunter the guy would be awsome and i think most not comic readers dont know him...
also i guess you have a point about pulling off the sinister 6 being hard and as we have astableeshed this franchise is now being run by monkeys... so i guess you have a point.
but seriously? electro? just electro? that just seems like a wierd choise to me...

Lovely Mixture:

Because this is where I think the movie shined best. It did justice to Peter Parker as Spider-Man, Peter Parker IS an asshole in the comics and almost every animated adaptation he has been in. But he's a loveable asshole, he beats criminals and cracks jokes at them. He deals with tragedy the way any smart teenager does, through humor and not violence.

There is a pretty big gap between cracking wise and being an asshole. And that is part of the problem. And I think that difference can be best exemplified by the example scene at the end we are talking about...

Lovely Mixture:

I don't think much of this line other than him trying to comfort Gwen who is in mourning. We don't really know if this means he's going to break his promise to Captain Stacy or if he's going try to find a way to adhere to his promise while still being Spider-Man.

Yes, we do know that means he is going to break the promise. That is the whole point of the scene and anyone with even remote familiarity with the Stacy character knows where this is leading.

But the problem is that there many superior ways to have handled that scene, and the ones leading up to it, differently. Captain Stacy could have given him a warning instead of making him promise. He could have had him promise something slightly different (e.g. "protect her, even if you have to keep away from her to do it"). But most importantly, they needed to change how Peter reacted.

Its one thing to honor the promise, its another to, because of the promise, completely avoid your grieving girlfriend in the wake of her tragedy. Okay, okay, teenagers aren't great at handling those situations, but then rather than somehow guiltily realizing he can't keep the promise, the line I quoted is the absolute worst possible response. Not only does he say it with a level of glee completely inappropriate for the situation, but the wording itself has him reveling in the fact that he lied. Apparently lying to a dying man knowing full well that he wouldn't manage the promise is the "best kind" of promise to make. Again, Hundreds of dialog choices that wouldn't have come across that way.

That is why the writing is bad. Because instead of presenting that scene as a tortured Peter coming to terms with the fact that he simply cannot stay away from Gwen, they present it as "you know what? Fuck that Stacy guy and his promise, Mofo is dead anyway". And that, of course, isn't the only scene that works to make Peter much less likable, it just happens to be the most egregious example.

Lovely Mixture:

Ok I guess I can agree with that. But other than that scene, what other scenarios can you point out? (I don't say that rhetorically BTW)

The bridge scene is probably a good place to start. We see everyone fleeing so all the cars he saves apart from the Oscorp guy (getting trapped against the side also contrived) and the kid are seemingly empty. So why save the cars and string them along the bridge? If they aren't empty, why does he take off after saving the kid. And the whole car being set on fire, also contrived.

Which leads us to the crane scnee. It's one thing to take a subtle jab at the implausiblity of the web slingers transport mechanism, but to make a wholly implausible dramatic climax scene revolve around it? How big were those cranes supposed to be anyway? And does New York have a crane every square mile, just in case? And they must be getting some serious overtime to have all those people working that late? And how exactly did all those workers manage to get to the cranes that fast? Why didn't webhead try their approach to New York travel? And this entire scene is all undermined by the fact that it takes Cptn Stacy a whole 5 minute longer to get to the tower from the same starting location.

The video that spawned this conversation handled Basketball scene and Ben's death pretty well, but pointing out that the robber guy trips, and the gun he doesn't have in his hand, therefore in his pocket somewhere, conveniently falls out and slides so that he must use it agains Ben in a struggle.

Peter's characterization in high school and his position in the social ranks doesn't really make sense.

How he got into Oscorp and how he managed to get around. After the big deal they made about his name, when the real guy shows up no one gets suspicious? And I get that Peter is supposed to be a chemistry genius but how exactly does that allow you to perfectly mimic the code on a complex key entry pad after glancing at it from around the corner?

I could go on, but this is probably already getting tedious.

Lovely Mixture:

Can you refresh my memory on this?

When Gwen asks Peter over for dinner, they make a big deal out of the fact that they are having Branzino, repeatedly.

I just have to accept that Bob is never going to shut the hell up about why Amazing Spider-man is "an abomination", don't I...

It's got a very commendable 73% on Rotten Tomatoes. It made a lot of money at the box office. Many people loved it.

Do I think it's perfect? No. Do I prefer the originals? Marginally.

But the original Spider-man was just as much of an "abomination" as the new Spider-man, with the awful Goblin costume and hammy acting, the gratuitous celebrity cameos (Macy Gray, everyone!), the alteration of comic lore (Gwen's not his first girlfriend? He has organic webshooters?), and other issues. Did have Bruce Campbell, though, and he counts for a lot.

But, yeah... ASM was about as good and bad as the original. Some things were MUCH better (Emma Stone trumps Kristen Dunst), others were worse (who can replace J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jamison?), and others were just about on par. Was it brilliant? No. Awful? No. It was just mediocre.

And, let's be fair, Bob is doing the same thing with Superman with the Man of Steel; taking a colorful hero and giving him the Batman Begins treatment with a more somber tone, rebooting the established universe after a few mere years, and trying to modernize a timeless icon for a new generation with loads of dark shots and low contrast, moody colors.

But I get the feeling we haven't heard the end of Bob's unrivaled hate for Amazing Spider-man. I fully expect to keep hearing about it as more and more news of Amazing Spider-man 2 soldiers on towards release.

With Spider-man, it's probably so scattered because they were in a rush to get it out. Not only into cinemas but to ensure Sony hold on to the rights for a bit longer.

TKretts3:
The reason I find it hard to take Bob seriously as a critic, or even just as a person, is when he does something like say that Les Miserables and The Amazing Spiderman were worse thanmovies The Expendables and American Reunion. Having seen Les Miserables on New Year's Eve I can say with no doubt that it's position, and it's participation on the list, is flat out wrong. And as for Spiderman it really does just seem like he has some personal grudge against it.

In Defense of Bob: Being a critic means that your here to hear his opinion and insights. You really can't be a "bad" critic other than to have an opinion nobody agrees with, or perhaps more accuratly having an opinion that nobody agrees with that you can't convey in a fairly entertaining fashion. For the most part I agree with Bob, if not his reasoning, more than I disagree with him in an overall sense, it usually being a few of his points, usually politically motivated, that I wind up disagreeing with.

Overall Bob would be a terrible reviewer, most people would, which is why you generally don't see many, and everyone once thought of or claiming to be a reviewer has been re-branding themself as a critic. To his credit, I don't think Bob ever made any pretensions of any degree of neutral analysis.

Not in Defense Of Bob: I think his politics have largely come out in his list selections more so than they do in some of his videos. If you follow Bob a lot, you can pretty much guess why some of these are placed where they are on the list.

The movies at the top tend to be those that are just genuinely awful beyond defense on their own merits, Branded for example is a stinker no matter what you think of the point, that said te fact that it's a slam on Corperate America it's important to understand it's also a slam on a lot of things Bob agrees with in value probably just increased his vitriol. When it comes to Les Miserabes, that one seems to mostly get praise because of the people in it and how much pull they have in Hollywood right now. The thing is with famous, well known, works is that your pretty much competing with every other version of the same work done, including ones where there have been casts that nailed every role on every account. Not only is Ruseel Crowe's performance generally terrible by all accounts (not just Bob's) people can watch this and totally miss the meaning of the film, Bob who is good with understanding meaning usually could not figure out WHY there was a shift in focus, someone else in these responses pointed it out, but the point is that the work should speak for itself and make that point without someone needing to tell the average viewer, never mind a professional critic why it sucks.

A lot of the movies on this list however are generally average and happen to be ones that just got Bob's goat for one reason or another. Bob prides himself on his tortured past as an outcast, even having called movies about social rejects "Bob The Movie" or whatever in the past. As a result you can see why movies that pretty much glorify the values of those on the opposite side from him get his goat. For example you can see why he'd like the "Toby Maguire" version of Spider Man, better than the most recent one, because of the simple level of social adjustment, this despite the fact that I think the "new" Spider Man is a heck of a lot closer to the comics than the Toby Macguire version, ranging from Peter's Genius rather than just having web shooters, to the fact that he wasn't ever quite that much of a loser. Sure beating up Flash was pushing it, but consider that in the comics this is a guy who probably could have boinked Flash's girlfriend any time he wanted (she later became "The Black Cat" and "what if" the two of them seriously got together has been a popular alternate universe concept). The biggest problem I have with Spider Man movies (both) is the idiot directors keep having to find excuses for Spidey to take his mask off around people, largely so they can show the actor, I can understand the reasons for this, but it doesn't fit the character who has generally had one of the more enduring secret identities in comics... some like "Battleship" are not just totally counter to his point of view. "Battleship" was honestly a very average movie, they tried to rip off "Top Gun" a bit too much, and made the protaganist into a bit too much of a douche, even leading you to believe he might have started an interstellar war (which he didn't, you find out later the aliens were bad anyway). That said "Battleship" could be considered US military wank material, and if your generally anti-military, well your not going to appreciate this movie anywhere near as much as someone whose really into the military and war machines. The "Expendables" franchise features exactly the kind of guys that probably picked on Bob as a kid, guys who generally look like they could do the kind of thing they pull off in the movies, as opposed to say some pretty boy actor playing a wimp who doees these things anyway which is a bit closer to the whole outcast fantasy (a Peter Parker type). It also tends to echo an era that was pretty much anti-thetical to what people like Bob politically stand for, being both more nationalistic, less politically correct, and thinking of society's negative elements as being something to push back as opposed to embrace (and ask questions like "who says they're negative!"). Like "Battleship" it can be said that "The Expendables" is pretty much a pretty average movie, to be honest I think it's biggest problem was that it had too many stars, all of whom needed to get time to "do their thing", with a couple of them (like Couture) largely acting as scene dressing because there were just so many big name, vintage, dudes. It's hard to write a movie under those circumstances... and it's actually pretty amazing how well they pulled it off considering the egos involved. I find it kind of odd that Bob would suggest Rodriguez direct, but then again I suppose his sensibilities are more in Bob's direction, especially if he's involved with the script, truthfully though I think his brand of "over the top" style is wrong for what they are setting out to do here, it's a differant kind of "over the top".

That said a few of Bob's selections would definatly be on my own list "The Lorax" for example struck me as being truely awful. I'm not a big enviromentalist to begin with (surprise, surprise), but this movie didn't inspire any feeling in me, in either direction, except "wow, this needs to end". Not to mention that when it was released I seem to remember some of the promotions using "the Lorax" struck me as being exactly the kinds of things this story was supposed to be anti-thetical to. I half suspect this was the problem, the movie simply couldn't go full tilt into the message it was supposed to promote without angering the sponsors.

Of course maybe it's not Bob's politics and personal agenda, so much as there just weren't that many truely terrible movies released to theaters this year, so mediocre ones hit the list. I'd personally have ranked some things like "Woman In Black" on this list... which I kind of suspect is going to be part of Daniel Radcliffe's career suicide (to be honest as an adult he's creepier than the ghosts). As much as I personally liked it as a series fan, I also have to say that the "Silent Hill" movie was objectively pretty bad. Also speaking for myself I'd have to give "The Hobbit" a space on this list, though mostly for reasons of technical inepitude, it was a good movie ruined by the 3D, where it seems they pretty much wrote the entire movie around how many differant ways they could contrieve to have the dwarves be dangling off of things, I have expect this trilogy is going to be at least 50% filler, with story elements changed and modified simply so they can create situations to showcase 3D FX. I kind of expect that when the 3d fad fades, people are going to look back at this in 2D and go "WTF kind of cinematography is that" turning what could otherwise be another classic series of movies, into an oddity.

As someone who likes the musical I have to say that I really liked Les Mis, but mostly because I thought it was interesting. Bob is right: it's not a story that translates well to film. And the many sustained close-ups during singing was an odd choice. And Russell Crowe is not as strong a singer as the rest of them. And if you haven't seen the musical, this is not going to make you into a fan.

But at the same time, I really thought some of those choices were interesting. It's not a perfect adaptation, but it is an interesting experiment in adaptation. The close-ups are odd. They take away from the theatricality of the production, shutting out the expansive sets. But they do place the focus on the character's emotions. The entire choice of letting these actors act/sing through their songs, sacrificing a perfect performance for the sake of choking on tears, is really interesting. It's not as nice to listen to, but it presents the characters in a new light. And yes, Russell Crowe's voice is not as strong as the others. He sings and speaks with a strange affectation and cannot hit the powerful notes the others do. Bit of a waste for such a compelling character with a show-stopper song like Stars. But, I found his affectations interesting. His Javert seems to have an almost reserved quality. Instead of the blustering totalitarian Javert is usually depicted as, he had an almost quiet, reserved intensity. And it came through with his singing. Also, he was a lot better than I expected (I expected him to be a complete disaster rather than simply a weak link).

So yeah, I liked it. Mostly because it puts an interesting spin on the presentation of the characters. But if you really want to understand why Les Mis is such a cultural force, go see the musical. It is much more powerful and moving.

In terms of Superhero movies this year, Spider-man > The Dark Knight Rises > The Avengers.

I really enjoyed ASM. It captured the feel of Spider-man as a character, and Garfield was a great Peter Parker, much more likeable than the old dude. Stone and Garfield had amazing chemistry, and the visual were great because we got to see loads of the classic poses Spidey is pulling mid air like in the comic books. It was funny and kept me gripped the whole way through. Much better than the older films.

Meanwhile, the Avengers was pretty much Transformers but with superheroes instead of Transformers. A fun watch the first time but the characters are just carboard cut outs, the plot is absolute bollocks, and the film is generally just an action movie.

Whereas ASM is an amazing action movie with better comedy elements and also far more interesting characters and character development.

I liked the amazing spider-man. Maybe that makes me a bad person I dunno. I enjoyed it though, the only thing that made me cringe was the romantic scenes.

His list was pretty much as expected, though I was both surprised The Glums got on there and expected it there as well. Not seen it myself, but scoring a musical down so much for having a bad, occasionally incoherent story is like complaining about New York because the traffic was bad. Both are to be expected, but they arn't the reason you go.

Trishbot:
I just have to accept that Bob is never going to shut the hell up about why Amazing Spider-man is "an abomination"

Don't worry Micheal Bay has his fourth Transformers movie coming out in the summer of 2014 so that should be the stinker of choice for people to bash. Transformers 4 should be bad enough that Bob will not ever mention The Amazing Spiderman after that.

No sam raimi check, no toby mcguyre check, no kiersten duntz or wth ever her name is. TAS is a good movie, better than any of the previous.

Was it a great movie? no. But stop acting like raimis spider flicks were great, especially after s3, but there were face palming moments aplenty in s1 and 2, spiderman running all over new york ripping his mask off in front of everyone and anyone i guess because toby felt we had to see his dull expressionless face.

what i really liked about tas they had a good gwen stacy, they had a good dad for her, and i pray they redo the death of gwen stacy especially after the whole setup of the dying dad warning peter off, green goblin gwen stacy brooklyn bridge, a devastated spiderman, make it happen for movie 2.

Oh and for the record i would have put TDKR on the top worst of the year, see honest trailers tdkr for all my problems with nolans final bat film. who seemed to just piss all over the character of batman for his 3rd film, and i loved tdk, bb was good, the last one wholly and completely missed the character of batman.

Abandon4093:

RTR:
I never sawz ASM because I believed how stupid it would be. This video more or less confirms my fears.

In all fairness you could do a review for any film like that and make it seem like the worst film to have ever been concieved.

It's actually not though. It's much better than any of the other Spiderman movies. (with the possible exception of the second one, if that's not just my nostalgia goggles acting up.)

dude that movie's terrible i dunno what the eff is wrong with you

i am just waiting for marvel films to get that toy back

The Tall Nerd:

Abandon4093:

RTR:
I never sawz ASM because I believed how stupid it would be. This video more or less confirms my fears.

In all fairness you could do a review for any film like that and make it seem like the worst film to have ever been concieved.

It's actually not though. It's much better than any of the other Spiderman movies. (with the possible exception of the second one, if that's not just my nostalgia goggles acting up.)

dude that movie's terrible i dunno what the eff is wrong with you

i am just waiting for marvel films to get that toy back

Convincing argument.

I can't believe I didn't see it before.

Of-course, the film is terrible. Why? I dunno, but some guy who doesn't understand the importance of capital letters or punctuation told me so... on the internet no less. So it must be true.

Thank you for opening my eyes.

The Tall Nerd:

endtherapture:
In terms of Superhero movies this year, Spider-man > The Dark Knight Rises > The Avengers.

I really enjoyed ASM. It captured the feel of Spider-man as a character, and Garfield was a great Peter Parker, much more likeable than the old dude. Stone and Garfield had amazing chemistry, and the visual were great because we got to see loads of the classic poses Spidey is pulling mid air like in the comic books. It was funny and kept me gripped the whole way through. Much better than the older films.

Meanwhile, the Avengers was pretty much Transformers but with superheroes instead of Transformers. A fun watch the first time but the characters are just carboard cut outs, the plot is absolute bollocks, and the film is generally just an action movie.

Whereas ASM is an amazing action movie with better comedy elements and also far more interesting characters and character development.

son
dont worry i will get you some comic books, and we will teach that super hero movies dont have to be twilight, lets get you some comic books, you arent right in the head at the moment

That's pretty insulting if I'm honest.

The film is simply better, because it's character driven. The Avengers was CGI action porn, ASM had some great scenes and the action scenes were much better too because there was actual emotional impact and not just explosions everywhere.

endtherapture:

The Tall Nerd:

endtherapture:
In terms of Superhero movies this year, Spider-man > The Dark Knight Rises > The Avengers.

I really enjoyed ASM. It captured the feel of Spider-man as a character, and Garfield was a great Peter Parker, much more likeable than the old dude. Stone and Garfield had amazing chemistry, and the visual were great because we got to see loads of the classic poses Spidey is pulling mid air like in the comic books. It was funny and kept me gripped the whole way through. Much better than the older films.

Meanwhile, the Avengers was pretty much Transformers but with superheroes instead of Transformers. A fun watch the first time but the characters are just carboard cut outs, the plot is absolute bollocks, and the film is generally just an action movie.

Whereas ASM is an amazing action movie with better comedy elements and also far more interesting characters and character development.

son
dont worry i will get you some comic books, and we will teach that super hero movies dont have to be twilight, lets get you some comic books, you arent right in the head at the moment

That's pretty insulting if I'm honest.

The film is simply better, because it's character driven. The Avengers was CGI action porn, ASM had some great scenes and the action scenes were much better too because there was actual emotional impact and not just explosions everywhere.

oh i was trying to be funny sorry if i came of rude

but how is the avengers cgi action porn, each chracter in that movie had more character in them than that whole movie

emo isnt a character by the way, that was the word spiderman i have every seen, you know what miles for next spiderman movie

go for it

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here