The Big Picture: MovieBob's Worst of 2013

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Alarien:

Duffeknol:

Alarien:

-snip-

And now I'll underappreciate you working really hard on that long post by just lazily linking you here:

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-trek/

Pretty much my opinion on all of the TNG movies. They're lazy, insulting and DUMB.

Unfortunately, it's really hard to listen to much of those videos without wanting to pull out my own tongue and eat it. However, the one complaint I heard about First Contact was that it was dumbed down and lacked a complicated plot. Hmm. The Borg show up. Let's kill the Borg. Is that really an problem? Data gets tempted, Picard gets to be Ahab. Alice Krige out-acts most of the people who've ever acted in a Trek show or movie. I fail to see the problem here.

Left 4 Dead is one of my top games in the last 10 years. It's plot, I believe Yahtzee states "Here are some zombies."

I agree with a lot of the comments on the other movies, and even some of the ones about First Contact, but overall, sometimes we just need to look for enjoyment in entertainment. If it's not entertaining, then what's the point?

I spend half my reading time on H.P. Lovecraft lately. Extremely strong English writing. Very thought provoking. The rest of the time I've been reading "simple and fun," which, lately, has been Glen Cook's The Black Company series or Illona Andrews' Kate Daniels books. If I spent all my time reading Lovecraft, I'd probably end up stabbing myself in the spleen.

I think we actually see more eye to eye than we both might think. I really enjoy the Star Trek reboot because of the fact that they're fun, and they can be dumb all they want. They're fun action adventure films. But that's the exact reason why I don't like the TNG films, because TNG shouldn't be dumb. If you're going to have a TNG movie, make it like TNG. If you're going to do a reboot, you can do whatever you want. Which is what JJ did.

I mostly agree with this list, although I would have taken You're Next (which took two years to find a release for a reason) from your "Best of" list and swapped it with Star Trek Into Darkness on this one. But ho hum, subjectivity etc.

I'm surprised World War Z didn't make the list. Arguably it was one of the 'obvious' travesties, but given the source material, it is far and away the biggest disappointment of the year. There have been bad superman films before, and will be again, it's not a big deal. But WWZ had the opportunity to do something interesting with zombies and breath some life into the genre, and they just didn't.

Oh wow, I completely forgot that Die Hard 5 (no, I'm not calling it that other name) came out this year. I love the original trilogy, but I find it so hard to care about anything that happens in that movie. It's so hard to believe that the same McClane that had a major injury running on glass barefoot is the same McClane that gets thrown through a window from an out of control helicopter with hardly a scratch on him.

Called it (not here).
Well, that is Moviebob's Worst after all. What can you do.
I will say that I am genuinely still surprised at how much people can hate such an awesome movie like Man of Steel, and just not get that there are great reasons to love it. Kind of like Nostalgia Critic said, but whatever I guess.

I shouldn't be though. Bob's reaction to Man of Steel ever since the trailers was more like "I hope this doesn't suck", so I just knew he would not like it at all.

"There is a lot to hate in man of steel when superman drinks a beer and no one cares." he says.
Sigh...

Interesting list. I only have two points to discuss:

* Star Trek - Into Darkness: I really don't know how to feel about this one. There are times in the movie where I feel like it is actual Star Trek (like the opening sequence) and there are times where I feel like it's a poorly-hidden remake of Wrath of Khan where Abrams expects a pass because he's winking at the audience the whole time. I should hate it more. But after watching it a second time with my expectations in check, I decided that it's still entertaining enough not to warrant a bad rating. But I can't say I have much enthusiasm for further sequels.

* Man of Steel: Despite the fact that Bob has talked about Man of Steel at length, I was still surprised that it was #1. And yet... I'm not that surprised, as Bob's attitude mirrors mine. I have come to realize that MoS was, in fact, the movie that I was most looking forward to this year (I was cautiously optimistic about Pacific Rim, which turned out to be a fun film, but I wasn't expecting much either), and it turned out the most disappointing. Having watched it again a few weeks ago, it's only gotten worse for me, to the point where I really don't care if there's a sequel or if Ben Affleck is Batman. Just dump the whole thing - the well has been poisoned.

There are infinitely worse films this year... but none have been so divisive and so disappointing.

How did Man of Steel go so wrong?

You already told us: David Goyer.

RE Carrie: "I wish this movie were more bland and took fewer chances" is actually something a lot of people say, though not in those words. It's usually directed at "art" movies and other films that put on airs or are otherwise considered pretentious. I wouldn't put the original Carrie in that group, but the statement itself was just wrong.

Bob, I honestly dont understand why you continue to support zack snyder and then complain when his movies are grim gritty mindless fight fests. Your romance with the Watchmen astounds me considering it has literally the exact same tone as Man of Steel. It was bland and lifeless like everything else Zack does.

I loved Man of Steel, I loved Star Trek: Into Darkness. Chances are I'd probably enjoy most of the movies on this list since it's becoming rapidly apparent that Bob's opinions are the polar opposite of my own. In other words, if he says something is good, it's usually trash and the things he hates are usually fun.

I've been watching a lot of Mark Kermode's reviews lately. Now there's a film critic.

this list is missing "Pacific Rim" with its dialogs for 3 year olds. Man I didn't like that movie so much just because of dialogs.

longjones:
this list is missing "Pacific Rim" with its dialogs for 3 year olds. Man I didn't like that movie so much just because of dialogs.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. (Seriously though, go make your own Top 10 list if you feel that strongly about it.)

OT: Can't really say much since I didn't see most of the movies on this list. Surprised Now You See Me wasn't on it, but then again, I actually liked that movie, so.

100% agree with MoS. Great mindless action film but terrible Superman film. For the amount of damage done by the Kryptonians, Superman really didn't save anyone. Lois, those guys on the oil rig, the one soldier, and Elliot Stabler. The big criticism of Superman Returns was that it lacked action so what do they do? They Nolan up Superman by muting all color, make him an even bigger mute, and throw in a shit load of explosions. At least the previous Superman gave a damn about people. The new Superman snaps necks (you're telling me he could cover Zod's eyes or knock him into orbit like he did the last 10 minutes???) and destroys government property. This Superman glides over a truck filled with gas and lets it smash yet another building.

I only watched the movie once and have no desire to see MoS2 aka Nolan and Snyder ruin the Justice League.

The only good news is at least it's not The Amazing Spider Man....

I guess I'm the only one that genuinely liked Man of Steel? Huh. Whatever, opinions are like ass holes. Everyone's got one.

I am so frigging tired of people saying The Purge has such an original and fresh premise. It does not. The moment I saw the trailers, I thought Hunger Games. Then Sitting through the movie, I kept thinking Hunger Games. Almost every plot point and backstory point that movie has is ripped straight out of THG and given an "adult" make over.

longjones:
this list is missing "Pacific Rim" with its dialogs for 3 year olds. Man I didn't like that movie so much just because of dialogs.

Which blockbuster have you watched that actually had non offensively retarded dialogue? I'm pretty sure the last one I watched was Alien, and that's only because the dialogue consists of idle chit chat in the first half of the movie and screaming in the second half. I mean, ok, Terminator 2 had some pretty good moments but overall it was cheesy as fuck (still awesome, but not what anyone would call class A writing). After 3 decades, maybe we should stop expecting that out of that kind of a movie.

For me, Man of Steel wasn't a bad movie. I actually kinda enjoyed it. It was just too much spectacle and not enough substance. Marvel's comic book movies have this nice lull at the beginning before all of the mind-blowing action happens. Man of Steel had none of that. Pretty much the whole movie was "Crash! Explosion! Eruption! Building collapse! Light-speed punch through 5 buildings!" Not to mention how at certain points in the film he didn't use a power until there was that callback to when he first got the ability as a child. What is this, Metroid: Other M? If all the character-building scenes were moved to the start of the film instead of being randomly dispersed throughout, then it would not have been so bad. Sometimes less really is more, which many movies often forget. Take Zero Dark Thirty. In that movie very little action actually takes place, so when it does happen, the impact is so much greater.

I've long since come to the opinion that Bob's hatred for Man of Steel (and to an extent his hatred for The Amazing Spider-Man film[s], discounting his disturbing love for the mediocre at best Sam Raimi) revolves largely around the fact that it didn't mesh with his vision of what a superhero movie should be.

A vision that is, to be honest, somewhat mired in the history of comics.

The Marvel series have been largely upbeat, colorful films, with vibrant palettes and "witty" dialogue.

Now, from the perspective of DC... they tried that. When they handed the reins of the Batman franchise over to Joel Schumacher, and the horrid disaster that ensued. Now, when they went for the gritty realism route, with the inherently depressing Nolan trilogy, they had fantastic success, managing to rescue a franchise that seemed somewhat doomed at that point.

Part of that is that Schumacher went totally over the top, echoing more of the Batman TV show than anything else, but it's important to note that despite Bob's rosy-tinted glasses view of the golden age of comics, there were extended periods of the run of Batman where it was vastly closer to the TV show than it was to the far darker Batman of today.

I mean really: That iconic giant penny in the Batcave? A souvenir of his battles with The Penny Plunderer. Who committed penny-based crimes. Seriously.

Marvel has had it easy in some ways. Yes, the films are all very evocative of the comic book origins of the material, but to be fair Marvel always specialized in more human characters than DC, which gave the film teams significantly more to work with.

I agree that Man of Steel wasn't in line with the classic image of Superman as some sort of sans peur et sans reproche avatar of all that is good in the world. But that didn't bother me nearly as much as it apparently bothered Bob; in part because I tend to view a more modern take of classic characters as a positive thing, within limits.

The sticking point for a lot of people who disliked the portrayal of Superman in Man of Steel was how he dealt with Zod. Bear in mind that the comics had him reaching the same basic solution for something like twenty years as canon before rewriting it for the umpteenth time.

I think I'm the only one who liked the new Star Trek movie. The only part that I thought was a let down was having Khan be the villain. We know that he's going to be defeated so it didn't hold any real suspense for me. Other than that I thought it was pretty fun. I promise not to tell anyone outside of the escapist though, since you guys clearly don't want another one made.

ClockworkPenguin:
I'm surprised World War Z didn't make the list. Arguably it was one of the 'obvious' travesties, but given the source material, it is far and away the biggest disappointment of the year. There have been bad superman films before, and will be again, it's not a big deal. But WWZ had the opportunity to do something interesting with zombies and breath some life into the genre, and they just didn't.

YES

In terms of lost potential World War Z beats out Man of Steel by a mile.

Honestly, the Star Trek movie franchise was never as good as the trekkies like to pretend. It had two good movies, one you can call good if you're into that sort of thing, one half-decent movie and six movies that ranged from utter shit to barely competent.

JUMBO PALACE:
I guess I'm the only one that genuinely liked Man of Steel? Huh. Whatever, opinions are like ass holes. Everyone's got one.

Nah, you're not alone. I liked it, felt it was a good starting point for him developing his no kill rule and all sorts of other stuff. But I can understand why others don't like it.

A really good list actually. I loved the old superman movies, even the goofy ones, but Superman Returns kind of killed all that for me, and Man of Steel just made me angry. Johnathan Kent was terrible, and Zod was absolutely stupid.

RJ Dalton:
Honestly, the Star Trek movie franchise was never as good as the trekkies like to pretend. It had two good movies, one you can call good if you're into that sort of thing, one half-decent movie and six movies that ranged from utter shit to barely competent.

I don't think trek movies have particularly good reputation among tekkies. The Voyage Home and The Wrath of Khan are the only films that seem to get regularly praised and the rest of the movies are much more divisive.

I personally thought the new Trek movie was ok. Nothing spectacular but not horrible either. Then again, I didn't have that high expectations, since J.J. Abrams is J.J. Abrams.

EDIT: Actually, The Undiscovered Country also gets praised pretty regularly, so there's three trek films that seem to get love consistently.

Whelp, I called it and I was right.

I AM SECRETLY A CLAIRVOYANT! X3

Haha, this list was so predictable, and the entire lead up to the actual movie list was a bit statement saying, "yes, Man of Steel is on this list". I have to appreciate that he didn't go with the objectively bad list that everyone else is doing. I just... he puts so much time into disliking Man of Steel, it borders on ridiculous, but then it is his time. Good list though, it's was not very likely that anyone was going to agree with everything.

I mostly agree with this list, with the exceptions of ST: Into Darkness (which I do rather enjoy as a fun film), Man of Steel (because its nice to see Superman actually have action) and ...... "that sitting around the table one with Streep" (because I've never even heard of it so can't make a judgement).

Personally I'd of replaced those three with Kick Ass 2, The Wolverine and The Hangover part 23,452. But thats down to taste and how bored I was in the cinema at the time.

MovieBob:
...it's not just about being a bad movie, it's about also being disappointing, or if otherwise good resources were wasted, or if the film is intellectually offensive one some level...

Oh you mean like Pacific Rim?

*rimshot*

Finding "American Hustle" on this list surprised me. I saw it recently and really enjoyed it.

But, as Bob said, a major criterion for his selection is a the disappointment gap between his expectation of a film and its actual execution.

Which is why no one was surprised to find "Man of Steel" at the top. Honestly, I really, really want to know what Bob was expecting.

I had no real expectation from the movie when I saw and and genuinely liked it. There were a few quirks that bugged me. But honestly, I liked the perspective the film took of a man in search of his identity, place and destiny.

I think everyone is getting the wrong impression when Bob says that he'd like to go back to the Prime Timeline of Star Trek. He's not asking for more bad movies with huge mid-direction, bad directors, bad writers and convoluted plots. He's asking for a Star Trek movie based in the universe where Star Trek actually existed. Think about it. The original time line has all the classic, timeless stories and all the diverse characters that didn't overly rely on Kirk, Spock, the Enterprise ect. Star Trek was able to be something more than just about the original series, where as now that's all it wants to be by pandering to things that even the most general audience would assume should be in Star Trek even though they're wrong.

I understand that the TNG movies are pretty bad and that Nemesis did what even Star Trek 5 couldn't do (i.e. Kill the franchise), but the people who were in charge of the films are no longer associated with Star Trek. Rick Berman's taint on the franchise will ensure that he will never come back, Stuart Baird has quit directing all together after making Nemesis and even the cast all agree that Nemesis was just a really bad departure. Ron D. Moore refuses to even comment on the film (See "Tapestry" and see how the clone Picard plot is completely wrong).

And here's probably the most important thing about wanting to go back to the Prime Timeline. We can still take Star Trek into new, unfamiliar territory. When most assume that we want to go back, we just want to go back to what's familiar and recognizable when in fact it's the exact opposite. JJ's Star Trek is taking such great pains to be familiar that it recycles various stories, styles and even 60's style of behavior right down to the misogynistic view of women. Even under the watchful eye of Rick Berman, Star Trek as a franchise got way better. Characters got to act like people in a drama and not a lecture on how awesome humanity is, women got to have a bigger and more important presence and the series even got less serialized, with stories spanning whole seasons.

If the Prime Timeline could recover from Star Trek 5, it can recover from Nemesis.

Both man of steel and lone ranger i thought were good. Not oscar winners but not bad. For lone ranger i saw it as more of an metaphysical film

Mikeyfell:
Hold the phone...
Who thinks Movie 43 sucks? No seriously who. Point me at 'em I'll show um what what for!

Along similar lines, in what universe was Walter Mitty bad? I really quite enjoyed that movie. Not one of my favourites of the year, but I walked out of that movie with the biggest grin on my face. Just a really sweet movie with a positive message.

Could not agree more with you on Man of Steel. This year felt like an completely awful year to be a fan of that character. If anyone told me that becoming invested in Superman would feel like utter shit I would have avoided him.

MOS and ST:ID were not that bad, yes they were disjointed but I have seen much worse done.MOS only really needed to be made into 2 films.

 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
Register for a free account here