I don’t generally do a “worst of” list, as it seems to me pretty glaringly obvious that movies like THE PERFECT MAN and CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN 2 need no further kicking. I had to sit through them, but you didn’t.
Suffice it to say that it’s always best to avoid movies in which one of the following is a lead: Martin Lawrence, Hilary Duff, Eugene Levy, Queen Latifah, Jamie Kennedy, Jennifer Aniston, Winnie the Pooh, anyone named Wayans (It doesn’t matter that individually, some of these names have done decent stuff in the past – movies that STAR them nowadays all suck). To this fairly well-known list, 2005 brought another worthy addition — Tyler Perry, whose gospel/drag comedy pantos have a rabid following onstage, but I’ll be damned if I can understand why. Black audiences seem to have a soft spot for men dressing up as fat old women (see also Martin Lawrence). Anyway, the trailer for Perry’s new movie is out, and it looks exactly the same as DIARY OF A MAD BLACK WOMAN, which ranks as one of my least pleasant cinematic experiences of the year.
I do like to note the most overrated movies of the year, though. These are some.
GROSSLY OVERRATED
Good Night, and Good Luck. Sometimes conservatives are right – critics will praise a movie purely because it agrees with their politics (see also The Contender). I could not bear the fucking smooth jazz that permeates this film, so it already had a strike against it. But I also don’t really see the drama. The movie never really implies that Edward R. Murrow is any danger of losing his job for criticizing McCarthy; demoted, perhaps, but not fired. And this idea that it’s oh so relevant today — look, it’s true that many major TV reporters have no balls, but do you honestly believe that if, say, Brian Williams were to criticize George W. Bush, his job would be in any danger whatsoever? The Dixie Chicks lost some airplay because of what they said, but they still made the cover of major magazines, and they still make a living singing. McCarthy made sure that lefty screenwriters COULD NEVER WORK AGAIN. Not the same thing.
Also I’m not a big David Strathairn fan.
Hustle and Flow. I’ll be the first to say the songs deserve Oscar nominations, but I really didn’t need to see a movie that’s all about the recording of those songs. Give me 8 MILE any day.
Crash. This movie bothers me more and more when I hear that people like offpat and my mom are watching it in England thinking it’s an honest representation of Los Angeles. To quote Dave White, “Were you on the fence about racism before you saw it?”
The 40-Year Old Virgin. And not just for the obvious close-to-home reasons. The more I think about it, the more I thoroughly dislike the fact that it celebrates abstinence before marriage.
MILDLY OVERRATED
Batman Begins. So close, and yet…Christopher Nolan cannot direct fight sequences, and Katie Holmes’ character is so wrong. Other than that, bravo, but those niggling things keep me from loving it.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The story’s just too familiar, and feels like it’s very consciously hitting all the beats. The kids couldn’t have gone into ONE room where nothing bad happened, just to throw us off a bit?
Kung-Fu Hustle. The kid with the runny nose, and the bit with kids pissing on another kid, are just so unpleasant that they keep me from loving the film the way I should.
High Tension (French-language, unrated version). “The twist” is a cheat that doesn’t really work unless you accept the whole movie as a lie. Other than that, it was cool.
Brokeback Mountain/Capote. Both well-made films, yet unlike a lot of reviewers, I didn’t make an emotional connection to either.
The Aristocrats. Funny as hell, yes. But as a film? The sound is worse than my car radio, and the cinematography would be shameful in a home movie, let alone a feature. Shoulda been a Comedy Central “Secret Stash” original, or maybe a Showtime special.
Sarah Silverman: Jesus is Magic. Don’t know quite what went wrong for me here; maybe too many reviewers spoiled the best jokes (but what can you do when you have to write 800 words about a concert film?). I like Sarah Silverman’s stuff normally, but here, most of the songs fell flat, and the comedy after a while was just repetitive to me. Yeah, yeah, nigger, chink, using racist words is so fuckin’ edgy, we get it. Move along.
Highly rated movies I haven’t seen yet: The Constant Gardener, Munich, Murderball, Cache, The Squid and the Whale.
You really need to get over that jazz thing. I can barely think of a stupider reason to dislike a movie than that it has a perfectly good jazz soundtrack.
And 40 year old virgin is arguably the best comedy of the year. It’s an overhyped movie because you personally disagree with the message? And they weren’t consistant about how he keeps his toys? The fact that it was fucking hilarious certainly must have been clouding everyone else’s minds when they saw it.
It’s not that easy to just “get over” music that’s fucking horrible and enervating (not that that was my only criticism…)
For similar reasons, I have never seen “The Bodyguard,” and I hope I never will.
as for “arguably the best comedy of the year” — any movie is ARGUABLY the best comedy of the year. Wedding Crashers is overrated too, just less so.
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, which you rightly pointed out that I neglected > both those comedies. And I do happen to think that disagreeing with a movie’s message is a great reason to give it a negative review, especially if it feels like a stealth conservative message cloaked in a candy-coated shell of raunch to make it go down easier.
Like Southpark?
I don’t get that vibe from South Park so much, especially not the movie, which was pretty savage on religion and the military. It feels more contrarian than anything else.
What I’m curious about, Max, is are you just standing up for jazz, or do you really like Good Night and Good Luck on the merits? It strikes me as being full of the kind of “bullshit” you generally take umbrage at.
Because I’ve seen a lot of conservative messages fairly blatently candy coated with rauch there, but that doesn’t mean the jokes aren’t funny.
Sure I’m standing up for jazz. Just like last year when you claimed Sideways was overhyped, when its only crime seemed to be having a very playful jazz soundtrack that’s on my regular rotation.
What do you hate about it? The lack of an angsty, melodramatic lyrics?
I never made the Sideways/jazz connection. Just thought it was an amiable low-key comedy that was fun but by no means one of the year’s best, and that the wine/personality metaphor was overplayed.
In Good Night and Good Luck, it sounds like elevator music, and at times it’s all you hear on the soundtrack. Then we actually get close ups of the singer and the band in the studio, though they have no connection to the plot itself. And the lyrics seem plenty sad, if not angsty.
Are you a fan of the Kenny G school of jazz? Because that’s what it is – it’s not like I’m insulting Miles Davis here. I can’t tell if you’ve seen the movie or not, though. Sounds like no.
Hit me back with your review of the movie itself when you do see it.
I didn’t see the movie, but my mom told me she wanted the soundtrack for christmas, so I did the 30 second samples from all the tracks and that was most certainly not kenny g music. I guess that’s a genre subtlety though. Sort of like how the insane clown posse sounds exactally like marilyn manson, huh?
If you’re saying that all jazz sounds like kenny g to you, just realize that that is personal problem on your part, not an actual fault of the movie itself.
Are you paying attention at all? I just said the opposite of that.
Even many jazz fans I know make a distinction between “smooth jazz” (i.e. “The Wave” station out here, which you may remember) and just plain jazz. It sounded like the former to me. The 30-second samples may not reflect what’s in the movie itself, as I’m sure you know.
As for whether or not it’s an actual fault of the movie — like I said, get back to me when you’ve seen it. Overly conspicuous soundtracks bug me generally, and when it’s music I hate, more so.
(rent Ladyhawke for a totally different example. Even if you LIKE the weird cheesy synth music, it’s totally wrong for the movie)
ICP is rap, and Manson isn’t, so not really the same genre there. If you were to make an analogy between, say, ICP and Linkin Park (very different to fans, but similar to those who dislike that style), I could see that, and even conceptualize how a critic who hates that kind of music might consider a movie full of it to be overrated, especially if it were overemphasized to the point of overwhelming the non-music-related story (as I said, I never complained about the Sideways soundtrack), maybe even featuring close-ups of Chester Bennington for no reason at all. In fact, critics do complain about soundtracks like that all the time.
But again, that’s far from the only problem with Clooney’s movie.
Coem to think of it, I really wish some critics would just admit they don’t like rap at all. It’s embarassing to see some of them fall all over themselves to try to be “down,” when it’s clear they know nothing of what they speak.
I’m pretty sure you hate regular jazz just as much as smooth jazz, so a claim at distinction seems dubious. I remember a birthday party of yours where you had the Metropolis anime on tv, but refused to unmute it because of the soundtrack, which struck me as very odd.
My consern is that lately you’re letting your prejudice against jazz consciously or unconsciously taint your appraisal of the quality of the actual movie, even if it’s appropriate to the atmosphere the movie is trying to create.
Obviously it’s a matter of taste. I’m simply looking out for your integrity as a professional film critic. Honest.
I quite frequently play anime on my TV with the sound turned down at parties…but I remember rating that movie quite highly in my actual review of it, so obviously my musical prejudices don’t destroy my appreciation for an otherwise outstanding film. You can check the reviews section of this site and I think it’ll be there.
In this case, I noted that I hate smooth jazz, you noted that you don’t and therefore that aspect of the movie is not likely to bother you as it did me. The point of a review isn’t that you agree every time — it’s that you get a sense of whether or not you yourself will like or dislike something based on what is written. I think that was achieved here. You can’t convince me that it isn’t on my overrated list; only that it isn’t on yours.
But again, I suspect my other complaints on the subject, which you didn’t comment on, are likely to be shared by you. We’ll find out if you watch it. I’d bet money, however, that you won’t agree with most critics that it’s one of the top five films of the year.
And maybe some day we’ll have a real-time conversation on that new-fangled invention known as a telephone, eh? Like reg’lar folk do?
High Tension (French-language, unrated version). “The twist” is a cheat that doesn’t really work unless you accept the whole movie as a lie. Other than that, it was cool.
Well, I loved Haute Tension, and yes, the director (Aja) stated in the commentaries that it all, was in fact, a lie.
Has to be one of the best horror films I’ve seen in the last 10 years. Great sound score, direction, acting and tension.
This film will eventually become a classic.
So Bonds, you don’t feel cheated that everything you’ve emotionally invested in turns out to be utter bullshit?
I do, and I think others do to. Like Boxing Helena — people argued before it came out about how controversial it would be, and what it said about feminism. Then you see the movie and it turns out to all be a dream. That’s a cop-out.
The only time that something like that has notably been pulled off is The Usual Suspects, and that’s because it was a mystery rather than any kind of emotional payoff. Even though it was a lie, you get to see how the pieces of that lie came together.
But in High Tension, we see things that could not possibly have happened, even from a deranged perspective. And the movie essentially mocks us for daring to care about the lead.
Nah, I didn’t feel cheated by the twist. It’s pretty much given away at the beginning of the film. Plus there are clues all throughout the film when you watch it twice (this is a film that has to be viewed for a 2nd time to see just how obvious the twist is; subtle and effective).
Now I understand how many might be pissed off at first when the twist is revealed (my girlfriend was like WTF!?), but it still doesn’t take away from the viewing experience because then the movie goes into overdrive for the last 10 minutes and literally SHOWS you the good and evil personas
fighting back and forth. The circular cement saw scene has to be one of the most visceral shots in horror history (slasher that is).
The film leaves a lot to ponder about after viewing and that’s a good thing. The lead is still sympathetic because De France makes us care about Marie, even after we know of the grizzly deeds that she has committed.
The sound design in the film is 2nd to none. The photography is gorgeous. The acting is first rate and the director acheives a nightmare setting of creating tension. If the movie was straight forward, you’d have the opposite arguement that their was no motivation for the killer. Who is he? Why is he doing this? What’s the connection? See? The twist answers these questions, even if we don’t like that all is not as it appears.
Wonderful horror film, the likes which Hollywood can’t seem to make now and days. I look forward to Aja’s Hills remake. I know you’ve seen it, and it sucks that the film will be heavily cut due to the MPAA giving it an NC-17. Might have to wait for the DVD.
Aw, now LYT ruined Boxing Helena for me. Sheesh.
Buuut yeah. I wish they’d pulled of Batman better. Didn’t see too many of the other ones, though.
PS, it would really bother you that much to have a movie with a conservative message? It seems a bit uncharacteristic, not to mention that you disliked it for many other reasons before. I give you a fisheye. No big, tho.
the constant gardenerer is a reallly good film part romance and part thrilller i reallly enjoyed it.
im wasted got home now
DNS – the other reasons to dislike it still hold.
Conservative messages in and of themselves aren’t the problem – virtually every action movie has one, and movies in general feature the kind of cut and dried, good and evil dynamics that conservatives tend to believe to be true in teh real world also.
But a movie that appears to be selling raunch, then seems to have an anti-casual sex agenda rubs me the wrong way. Call that a failing on my part if you wish.
But again, that doesn’t make the film overrated. It’s a comedy that was very funny, and that’s how it was rated. This is sort of like my previous beef with your use of “best films” instead of “my favorite films.”
I don’t see how you don’t notice this is in south park. They’ve done two different episodes about the evils of stem cells.
So it was objectively very funny because you say it is, rather than being overrated because I say it is? If we go by popular opinion, Martin Lawrence and Adam Sandler movies are consistently funny. If we go by critical mass opinion, Woody Allen movies are consistently funny, even HOLLYWOOD ENDING. And it’s not unheard of for a movie to be funny yet not well made.
“This is sort of like my previous beef with your use of “best films” instead of “my favorite films.”
That’s a beef, then, that you must have with every working professional reviewer out there. It’s how the game is played. We sign our names to these things so as not to have to write “in my opinion” after every sentence — because reviews are editorials rather than news, it’s a freakin’ GIVEN that they’re not objective. Note that the Oscars are not given for “Favorite Picture of a couple hundred industry people who might not even have seen the other ones,” but for “Best Picture.”
The only way to objectively rate a movie that I can see would be on technical merits, in which case George Lucas and Steven Spielberg would alwyas win, and RUSSIAN ARK would have topped every list a couple of years ago for its epic tracking shot, despite being boring as all hell. The point, as I mentioned before, is not that you agree with everything a critic says, because you never will. It’s that you can assess how valid their points are to you based on what you know of them, and surely that is the case here.
“I don’t see how you don’t notice this is in south park.”
I do, and I said so, but it doesn’t come across the same way. Saying “The rainforest sucks!”, for example, strikes me as something they’re saying mainly because it’s the exact opposite of what you might expect them to say. Same thing with making Christopher Reeve a vampire. It plays about as “agenda-based” as Sarah Silverman’s “racism.” It’s also pretty above-board and conspicuous, plus they go after EVERYTHING.
LYT–Well, that makes more sense on the general. I thought it would be odd for you to get infuriated over a movie being ‘conservative’…
As for the specific, dunno. Never saw it. We have pretty different perspectives on the issue as well, due to my having a daughter and a few things with Julie. Der shrug.
If I knew anyone who said that martin lawrence or adam sandler movies were consistantly funny, I would tell them they’re morons too.
My point is that you’re not claiming this film wasn’t funny or that it was poorly made. You’re saying you disagree with it morally, so therefore it’s not a good movie. That makes you as full of shit at Ted Baehr.
They hammered in striving for objectively when viewing movies in critical studies classes at usc. I guess no so much in production.
No, I had a whole host of other objections that were enumerated in other posts. You know this.
I did claim it was poorly made. I found the main character unbelievable, a collection of jokes that aren’t consistent. I don’t buy him at all. I thought the muscial number was lame, and that musical numbers in general are more and more of a comedy crutch nowadays. I found the constant cross-promotion of other Universal products annoying. I had other issues, personal and not. But we’ve gone over all of this, and all you ever do is pick out the one thing you think you can beat me over the head over, while ignoring everything else I say, possibly willfully.
How has that critical studies degree served you since graduation? Show me an actual, employed critic with whom you never disagree or who you consider to be completely objective in every analysis, and we’ll talk. Better yet, start a website with your own “objective” reviews just so you can show the rest of us how it’s done.
The only critic I know to claim to have absolute objective standards is Rev. Thomas Carder at CAPalert.
I’m completely objective.