For the past few years, when I've discussed movies they've all been ones I at least liked, if not loved. Let's flip that around today, and talk about films I actively despise. So I've thought about it, and I'm going to present my least favorite movies ever. Movies that I, to paraphrase a famous Roger Ebert quote, "HATED, HATED, HATED." Sometimes so much that I couldn't finish them. (Although, I'm being fair--I'm not cheating and including films I only saw a few minutes of. To be on this list I had to see a fair chunk of it-- at least a third to a half of it.) As you'll see, there is a mix on my list. Some of these choices practically no one enjoyed, others are considered mediocre, and some are even regarded as being very good or excellent by most viewers. In other words, the average reader will surely disagree with some of my picks, perhaps strongly. But I'm not being click bait-y here--these are my honest opinions. And I'll explain why I hated each one. So even if you disagree, you'll know why I feel the way I do. Anyway, let's get to it. These aren't in any particular order. For each one I'll include their release date, and their ratings on both the Internet Movie Data Base (IMDB), and Rotten Tomatoes (RT) (Both critics' ratings and general audiences', in that order), as well as some info about their cast and/or crew. IMDB rates movies on a scale of 1-10, and RT rates them as a percentage, and for both the higher the better. And some SPOILERS included.
1) Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966). IMDB raring of 1.6, RT rating of 0%/20%. The story behind this movie is pretty interesting. Fertilizer/insurance seller Harold P. Warren met Academy Award winning screenwriter Stirling Silliphant, and bet him that anyone could make a movie. So he did, on an estimated budget of $19,000, which even in the mid 1960's was miniscule. The resulting film was barely released, and achieved little to no critical attention. Decades later it was popularized by Mystery Science Theater 3000, and enjoyed a cult revival, as a so-bad-it's-good movie. Alas, in my opinion, it doesn't qualify as this. It's not stupid fun like "Plan 9 From Outer Space" (1959), "Battlefield Earth" (2000), "Troll 2" (1990), "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" (1977), etc. It's mostly just ploddingly dull. A family drives around in the country and ends up at a house run by a sinister cult leader, who has a bizarre henchman and a harem of women. And nothing much of anything happens. No action, no gore, no sleaze. Inept acting, writing, directing, camera work, etc. There are a few laughs had at how terrible it is, but not enough. It's only 70 minutes long, but it seems much longer. Reportedly, the only "profit" for the movie was the young actress who played the little girl (Jackey Neyman-Jones) got a free bike, and her family received 50 free pounds of dog food!
2) Meet the Spartans (2008). IMDB rating of 2.8, RT ratings of 2%/25%. Grossed $84,600,000 on a budget of $30,000,000. Writer/Directors Aaron Seltzer and Jason Frieberg are the creators behind a slew of "parody" movies--"Date Movie" (2006), "Epic Movie" (2007), "Disaster Movie" (2008), "Vampires Suck" (2010), etc. Most of which, inexplicably, made large profits at the box office. Most critics savage all of these, as well as many moviegoers. I had only heard universally bad things about these movies, but I decided to give this one a chance when it was on cable television. (I didn't directly pay for it, fortunately.) The critics were spot on. This was a miserable experience to sit through. As many have noted, classic parodies like those made by Mel Brooks, The Zucker Brothers, and the British comedy team of Simon Pegg/Edgar Wright/Nick Frost satirize a movie, or genre type with intelligence and humor. Meet the Spartans, though, and by all accounts their other offerings, just reference other movies. No sly takes on the story, they just have characters and sets that recreate the original movie(s), but they don't make a joke, or attempt to comment on it. Instead, they just say some profanity, or do something disgusting, or fart or something. That's all this movie was. Incredibly lazy--the lowest hanging "comedic" fruit. At one point, a character looking like mentally distressed Britney Spears is kicked into a well, while she's wearing a t-shirt that reads "Little Miss Sunshine." That's the extent of the joke, it acknowledges that this movie exists. That's the type of "cleverness" in this pile of refuse. Its creators truly are a cancer to the film industry. When something's quality is even beneath Kevin Sorbo and Carmen Electra's self-respect and "talent," you know it's bad.
3) Jumping Jack Flash (1986). IMDB of 5.9, RT ratings of 27%/58%. Grossed 29.8 million on an 18 million budget. When my family first got a VCR in 1986 it was almost magic to me. I could watch any movie I wanted, whenever I wanted. No more having to go to the theaters, or having to watch edited versions on TV when they chose to schedule it. So I loved renting movies. But, there was a catch--they cost a bit of money, usually $2-$3 or so. Which sounds cheap, but when you're in high school, making $3 am hour, it's more significant. My point is, no matter how terrible a rented movie was, I almost always gritted my teeth and finished it. Not this one. I should mention, I'm not a fan of Whoopi Goldberg in general. I find her incredibly annoying in nearly everything she does. With one exception--1990's "Ghost" was a good performance. (She was annoying in that, but her character was supposed to be, so it worked.) But JJF was too much. I forget the plot, mercifully, but I clearly recall my rage at trying to endure this. I think I made it about halfway through before realizing no amount of money was worth this.
4) The Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977). IMDB score of 3.8, RT's of 10%/13%. Grossed 30.7 million on a 14 million dollar budget. I'm a huge horror fan, clearly, and "The Exorcist" as I've covered before (see my March 5, 2022 post), is one of my very favorite films. So I reacted to seeing the sequel with interest. Linda Blair and Max von Sydow were back, and joining them this time were quality actors like James Earl Jones, Richard Burton, and Louise Fletcher. Director John Boorman has made some good films as well, such as 1981's "Excaliber" and 1972's "Deliverance." But this one was really putrid. Again, I'm hazy on the plot details, something about a mind reading machine, another demon possessing Regan, and bees in Africa. But I do remember it wasn't scary, wasn't interesting, and didn't add anything worthwhile to the original story or characters. Much the opposite. I've loathed many sequels in my life, but this is the worst one. It's making me angry all over again, just thinking about it
5) Revenge of the Dead (AKA Zeder) (1983). 6.1 rating on IMDB, No RT score for critics, 75% for general audiences. It reportedly grossed about $208,000 (converted from Italian currency) on an unstated budget. Okay, this one is obscure. Probably only other obsessive zombie fans such as myself have even heard of this one, much less seen it. The writer/director Pupi Avati is fairly well regarded in the independent horror circuit. His "The House With Laughing Windows" (1976) was a weirdly fun outing for me. But, this one was a zombie movie which forgot to add the zombies. Almost literally, as I recall. (It has been decades since I saw it.) In it, there's something about a mysterious place called the K-Zone, which restores the dead to life, and people investigating that. Anyway, I just recall being incredibly bored, waiting for anything to happen. I think that there was one or maybe two zombies at points, who didn't do much of anything. The movie wasn't scary, not entertainingly bad, not funny, and not compelling in any way. I don't know why living dead fans often rate this one fairly highly. One small crumb of a compliment--one of the movie's posters was undeniably awesome. It features several zombies literally breaking up through the street and sewers. The exact kind of cool walking corpse action that is sadly missing from the film itself.
6) J'Accuse (1919). IMDB rating of 7.7, RT scores of 67%/90%. Reportedly grossed 3,500,000 on a 500,000 budget (French currency). As you can tell from the date, this was a silent movie, and in black and white. The basic plot is about dead soldiers returning from the grave to prevent further warfare. Sounds potentially interesting, right? It's not. It was interminable. I can barely remember anything happening, other than boring talking. No interesting characters, or cool action scenes, or scary moments, anything. Plus, unlike a lot of pre-1950's or so movies, which were often short, like 70-90 minutes, this one was incredibly long--the version I saw was 166 minutes. I only watched it the whole way through out of foolish determination not to let the movie win. And I know some readers might be thinking, of course you found it boring. It was a silent movie, a vastly different type of cinema, and you're too much of a philistine to appreciate it. But, you would be wrong. I've seen several other silent movies, and liked them, such as "The Battleship Potempkin" (1925), "Haxan" (1922), and "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" (1920). So, all in all, potentially compelling idea but horrifically terrible execution.
7) Movie 43 (2013). IMDB rating of 4.3, RT scores of 4%/24%. Grossed $32,400,000 on a $6,000,000 budget. The story behind this is more interesting than the project itself. Charles P. Wessler and Peter Farrelly wheedled, conned, and used all of their industry pull and influence to trick stars into appearing in this movie. For years. And for this. It's a series of short vignettes of "comedy." There are two different main wrap around stories, and I saw the version where kids are excited by a forbidden website which shows extreme videos. My overall impression about this is what a colossal waste of time and talent. Because here is some of the cast list--Elizabeth Banks, Halle Berry, Gerard Butler, Anna Faris, Richard Gere, Terrance Howard, Hugh Jackman, Justin Long, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Chloe Grace Moretz, Chris Pratt, Liev Schreiber, Emma Stone, Jason Sudeikis, Uma Thurman, Naomi Watts, Kate Winslet. Several big names also directed segments, like James Gunn and Bob Odenkirk. And the critics were accurate--rather like with "Meet the Spartans," the short vignettes are tedious, obvious, lazy, one-note, and gross-for-gross's-sake crap (often literally!). I'm not a Farrelly brothers fan in general, but this is still the worst thing they've been involved with that I've seen. And it leaves me wondering--imagine if these guys had used all their power and influence to convince movie stars to appear in a good movie, instead of this!
8) Head (1968). 6.4 on IMDB, RT scores of 71%/78%. Budget of $750,000, gross of $16,000. What a disappointment. Growing up, I really liked The Monkees. Their music, and their television show. (I know, "The Pre-Fab Four" didn't write or even perform, much of their music, but still.) So hearing that this movie was a more adult, edgier project by them, not limited by 1960's/70's TV rules sounded intriguing. And what we got was this. It was the perfect negative stereotype of the arthouse movie--weird for weird's sake. Like the previous film, this one is a series of short sketches, without anything really connecting them. And it's.....nothing. Not funny, not interesting, not dramatic, not incisive, with no engaging comments on society, nothing. It's just random refuse, a complete waste of celluloid. I tried to sit though it twice, and once made it through an hour, before I had to admit defeat and give up.
9) Unbreakable (2000). 7.3 score on IMDB, RT scores of 70%/77%. Grossed $248,000,000 on a $75,000,000 budget. Yeah, I'm going here--fight me! For the record, I'm not a big M.Night Shyamalan fan. "The Sixth Sense" (1999) was good, the first half or so of "Signs" (2002) was okay, and "The Visit" (2015) was sort of fun in a so-bad-it's-good way, but otherwise, ugh! But Unbreakable was terrible. Such a dumb plot--a guy doesn't notice that he never got sick or hurt until a train accident in his 40's?! But he's only affected by water? And clearly Samuel L. Jackson's character was set up as an antagonist, only nothing comes from it. The film just ends with no resolution. I realize that they finally did a sequel much later, but I refuse to watch it to see how they explain everything. Like a lot of Shyamalan's movies, this one had a decent set up, but a very lackluster execution and conclusion. I found this film to be incredibly dull. Even the characters themselves seemed listless and disinterested. The time I saw this was at a friend's house, on home video. Out of kindness I soft-pedaled how much I hated this at the time. But I'll be more direct now.
10) Eyes Wide Shut (1999). 7.5 on IMDB, RT scores of 76%/74%. Grossed $162,000,000 on a $65,000,000 budget. I'm normally a Stanley Kubrick fan. He's had some duds, but I really like or even love "Spartacus" (1960), "Dr. Strangelove" (1964), "A Clockwork Orange" (1971), "The Shining" (1980), and "Full Metal Jacket" (1987). Leading up to his movie, I heard that Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise took a year or more out of their busy schedules, just to be part of this magnum opus. And the result was this...thing. Cruise plays a guy who is slowly involved in some conspiracy involving a sex club for the rich, while his marriage to Kidman's character is struggling. Only, again, nothing really happens. People seem to be following Cruise, threatening violence or murder, or something, only they ultimately don't really do anything. In what was supposed to be a huge, revelatory scene Kidman's character breaks down and tell her husband a long story about being sexually attracted to some random guy one time. Which somehow stresses their marriage even though, again, nothing really happened. She didn't have sex with the man, or even kiss him. She just thought about it, briefly. Ohh, so terrible! This movie even makes giant sex orgies boring, somehow. To paraphrase Bart Simpson once more, "You know what's more interesting than nothing? Something!" And yet many viewers disagree with me, and loved Eyes Wide Shut. Did we see the same movie?!
11) My Dinner With Andre (1981) 7.7 IMDB, RT scores of 92%/85%. $475,000 budget, and disputed grosses--either 1.7 or 5.2 million dollars. This one had a potentially interesting idea. It's a movie where 95% or more of it is the conversation between two guys at a restaurant. But this movie is abysmal. Because if your movie is just talking, the conversation should be....something compelling. Interesting, dramatic, thought-provoking, funny. Engage me in some way. But it didn't. The guy doing most of the talking, Andre Gregory, goes on and on about nothing much in particular. Tedious tales about some theater troupe in Poland, interminable accounts of his family's problems, stuff like that. For 111 minutes. It was so dull and unmemorable that I can't recall most of it. (Which, really, is fortunate for me.) Somehow the man speaking is both annoying and forgettable. And I like Wallace Shawn, but he's wasted here--mostly he just encourages the boring guy to keep speaking. Plus, take another look at those ratings--people love this movie! How? I'm halfway convinced that people are lying about their true opinions of the film as a prank. There are only two amusing things related to this movie, and these are jokes about it from other projects. In a "Simpsons" episode nerdy Martin Prince is playing a "My Dinner With Andre" video game, with buttons for "Tell me more," and "Bon mot," instead of a joystick or firing buttons, etc. And in "Waiting for Guffman" Christopher Guest's delightfully quirky character is selling action figures for the characters in "My Dinner With Andre." (Get it, because there's no action in it!) So like some of the other picks in this list, a germ of a possibly good idea was ruined with woeful execution. Sometimes being creative and different aren't enough, you still need to entertain the audience in some way. My only emotional reaction to this was frustration about wasting my time and attention on it.
So there we are, my least favorite movies ever. Feel free to disagree, or even criticize my criticisms. Opinions are necessarily subjective, after all. But for me these movies were the most miserable viewing experiences I can recall, and don't ever want to repeat.
No comments:
Post a Comment