MightyHyphy
New member
how has only one person mentioned elf, it has no redeaming qualities, we should show it to those happy bastarRAB at the samaritans and see who they ring
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The worst film of 2003 so far is?
- Thread starter nagina_005
- Start date
Rob Schneider is the worst thing to happen to film comedy since that Pauly Shore pillock
Lay off Rob, he has been let down badly by all scripts since Deuce Bigalow, I hope a good one comes round soon
I saw Dude , Wheres My Car last night and wish I'dborrowed BadCoverVersions razor - utterly unfunny, cant tell you when it was made though
By the way Belleville Rendezvous is on BBC this Christmas, just shows how bad it was, going to TV so quickly - avoid it
Lay off Rob, he has been let down badly by all scripts since Deuce Bigalow, I hope a good one comes round soon
I saw Dude , Wheres My Car last night and wish I'dborrowed BadCoverVersions razor - utterly unfunny, cant tell you when it was made though
By the way Belleville Rendezvous is on BBC this Christmas, just shows how bad it was, going to TV so quickly - avoid it
tbh a pure cg scene wasnt the only way the scene could ahve been done and it certainly wasnt the best. The key to good cg is to use it when its called for and when its upto the job and at times in the matrix sequels they used it at the wrong time which is sad because they had implemented the cg almost perfectly in the first movie and if they had got it right in the sequels we would have had two movies that were much more involving and hence alot better than they were
I dont think your see me saying I didnt want any CG in the films. Yes they needed some CG but they went overboard with it. As I keep saying the original got the level perfect and hence i'm as big a fan of the first as anyone. As for my Superman comment, I wasnt saying the superman sfx were any good becuase they certainly arent my point was that the final battle where they were flying all over the place looked about as believable as the superman ones and just left me thinking what a farce the fight scene was. Admittedly making people look like they are flying is very difficult to pull off but you have to ask when thats the case why did they bother. A big fight scene using wires to produce a big 'kung-fu' style battle like we saw in the original would have been alot more entertaining.
You say "The fact that these films have generated so much discussion marks them as a success for me". Thats not saying you viewed the films as a success as you claim. You clearly state that the thing that makes them a success in your eyes is the amount of discussion the movies have generated which is why I brought up Gigli as an example. The one area Gigli did succeed was the amount of discussion it produced and if thats used as a mark of success for the matrix films then by the same reckoning it can be seen as a mark of success for Gigli. BUT quite simply the level of discussion isnt a mark of being successful and neither is the box office takings of a movie. The only people who consider a high box office figure as the mark of a movie being successful are the film studios who are only really bothered about making money. Quite simply bad movies can do huge openings also and some of the most highly regarded movies have done fairly poorly at the box office (Shawshank Redemption being the most obvious one)
Unless your a Film Studio exec the only thing that matters in your view of a movie is the movie itself. No matter how much discussion there is about the movie there is or how much it takes at the box office a movie is only a success IF the movie itself is good.
I do find it strange how anyone who who doesnt agree that the matrix sequels were good gets labelled a Matrix basher. If I was just going around wildly critising the movie without stating my point then yes I would be a matrix basher but as it is I simply stated my opionion on the worst film i've seen this year and stated why I found the movie bad.
As for the special Effects I will give you that in both sequels there were aspects where the special effects were as good as maybe even better than the original. For example the car chase in reloaded and the attack on the dock in revolutions (although while this was visually pleasing I did personally feel it lacked any passion, could have just been that by this stage I was starting to lose any kind of care I had for the charachters and couldnt have cared less what happened to them but its probally more down to the fact the majority of this scene involved charachters we had barely been introduced to and you cant care about charachters you dont really know.) but the really bad CG in key scenes in both movies detracted from anything that was done well.
As for me being "totally screwed" I dont think I am. As I explained in the first post its probally alot down to my expectations. Like most people I went into Gigli expecting to see the most worst movie ever and while I cam out of the cinema thinking I had just watched the worst movie ever I did feel I had got a little more enjoyment than I had been expecting.
Revolutions on the other hand I went in expecting a fair bit of. The expectations werent as high as those for reloaded but with the original being one of the greatest movies of the last 5/6 years I was execting a good end to the trilogy. However I came out of the cinema feeling cheated and couldnt really find anything good to take away from the film.
Now both movies are very differnt leaving only The direction, the acting and the stories as areas to use to really decide whats worst and each of these was just as bad in each so the only deciding factor i could draw upon was "which movie did I feel more entertained by upon leaving the cinema" and quite simply that was Gigli as it exceeded expectations
I dont think your see me saying I didnt want any CG in the films. Yes they needed some CG but they went overboard with it. As I keep saying the original got the level perfect and hence i'm as big a fan of the first as anyone. As for my Superman comment, I wasnt saying the superman sfx were any good becuase they certainly arent my point was that the final battle where they were flying all over the place looked about as believable as the superman ones and just left me thinking what a farce the fight scene was. Admittedly making people look like they are flying is very difficult to pull off but you have to ask when thats the case why did they bother. A big fight scene using wires to produce a big 'kung-fu' style battle like we saw in the original would have been alot more entertaining.
You say "The fact that these films have generated so much discussion marks them as a success for me". Thats not saying you viewed the films as a success as you claim. You clearly state that the thing that makes them a success in your eyes is the amount of discussion the movies have generated which is why I brought up Gigli as an example. The one area Gigli did succeed was the amount of discussion it produced and if thats used as a mark of success for the matrix films then by the same reckoning it can be seen as a mark of success for Gigli. BUT quite simply the level of discussion isnt a mark of being successful and neither is the box office takings of a movie. The only people who consider a high box office figure as the mark of a movie being successful are the film studios who are only really bothered about making money. Quite simply bad movies can do huge openings also and some of the most highly regarded movies have done fairly poorly at the box office (Shawshank Redemption being the most obvious one)
Unless your a Film Studio exec the only thing that matters in your view of a movie is the movie itself. No matter how much discussion there is about the movie there is or how much it takes at the box office a movie is only a success IF the movie itself is good.
I do find it strange how anyone who who doesnt agree that the matrix sequels were good gets labelled a Matrix basher. If I was just going around wildly critising the movie without stating my point then yes I would be a matrix basher but as it is I simply stated my opionion on the worst film i've seen this year and stated why I found the movie bad.
As for the special Effects I will give you that in both sequels there were aspects where the special effects were as good as maybe even better than the original. For example the car chase in reloaded and the attack on the dock in revolutions (although while this was visually pleasing I did personally feel it lacked any passion, could have just been that by this stage I was starting to lose any kind of care I had for the charachters and couldnt have cared less what happened to them but its probally more down to the fact the majority of this scene involved charachters we had barely been introduced to and you cant care about charachters you dont really know.) but the really bad CG in key scenes in both movies detracted from anything that was done well.
As for me being "totally screwed" I dont think I am. As I explained in the first post its probally alot down to my expectations. Like most people I went into Gigli expecting to see the most worst movie ever and while I cam out of the cinema thinking I had just watched the worst movie ever I did feel I had got a little more enjoyment than I had been expecting.
Revolutions on the other hand I went in expecting a fair bit of. The expectations werent as high as those for reloaded but with the original being one of the greatest movies of the last 5/6 years I was execting a good end to the trilogy. However I came out of the cinema feeling cheated and couldnt really find anything good to take away from the film.
Now both movies are very differnt leaving only The direction, the acting and the stories as areas to use to really decide whats worst and each of these was just as bad in each so the only deciding factor i could draw upon was "which movie did I feel more entertained by upon leaving the cinema" and quite simply that was Gigli as it exceeded expectations
ella_bella95
New member
Very disappointing film. It wasn't boring, just annoying. As if Richard Curtis had a great idea for a film, forgot what it was, but made it anyway.
im such a grumpy bastard
New member
i think matrix 2 was good... wort film of 2003 ( tht ive seen ) is S.W.A.T it was a real dissapointment
compared 2 how it was rated
compared 2 how it was rated
sweetshygirl27
New member
It was very boring, but I dont like romcoms anyway.
someone said cg looks bad in the burly brawl and it shouldnt coz the matrix is so real that people get fooled
there is a good explanation in movie for this
neo and smith are exceptions so when they do things like fighting the matrix maynot be able to interprete them correctly so the unreal looking effects!
there is a good explanation in movie for this
neo and smith are exceptions so when they do things like fighting the matrix maynot be able to interprete them correctly so the unreal looking effects!
Funnily enough, most of the reviews on the site you quoted actually liked the film. So did Empire Magazine. So did the viewers of Film 2003. So did most people, really. Except you.
This is not a bad film. Slow, perhaps, but still very funny and full of the kind of charm its critics lack.
This film was on BBC2 on Christmas Day and will be on BBC4 on Sunday 28th December 2003, so make up your own mind. The film was only released this year in cinemas (through Metro Tartan) and is on television so quickly as BBC Bristol and BBC Worldwide part funded it
This is not a bad film. Slow, perhaps, but still very funny and full of the kind of charm its critics lack.
This film was on BBC2 on Christmas Day and will be on BBC4 on Sunday 28th December 2003, so make up your own mind. The film was only released this year in cinemas (through Metro Tartan) and is on television so quickly as BBC Bristol and BBC Worldwide part funded it
In addition to my defence of Belleville Rendez-vous, I forgot to post my worst films of 2003.
Well, I have sat though 90 of the buggers in the cinema (God Bless the UGC Unlimited Card) and the worst films of 2003 must be:
S Club Seeing Double - rubbish of the first order, even for its target audience. Columbia Tristar have a habit of releasing crap, and this is no exception;
Maid In Manhattan - another triumph of cinematic rubbish from Columbia Tristar. Made a whole load of cash, but it was an hour and a half of my life I can never have back;
Analyse That - the sequel which should never have been made (this time from Warner Brothers, in danger of taking Columbia Tristar's title for releasing rubbish);
The Jungle Book 2 - a story free zone and cash in on the first film. And no, the kiRAB weren't paying attention either;
Bulletproof Monk - crap special effects, virtually no storyline and something the actors should have steered clear of;
Hope Springs - Colin Firth and Minnie Driver should know better;
The Matrix Revolutions - more cash in crap from Warner Brothers.
The best film of the year - City of God. Yes, LOTR:TROTK was very good, but for acting and drama this was pure class.
And I am sorry to repeat it, but BellevilleRendez-vous, when compared to the above list of rubbish, was good and entertaining.
Well, I have sat though 90 of the buggers in the cinema (God Bless the UGC Unlimited Card) and the worst films of 2003 must be:
S Club Seeing Double - rubbish of the first order, even for its target audience. Columbia Tristar have a habit of releasing crap, and this is no exception;
Maid In Manhattan - another triumph of cinematic rubbish from Columbia Tristar. Made a whole load of cash, but it was an hour and a half of my life I can never have back;
Analyse That - the sequel which should never have been made (this time from Warner Brothers, in danger of taking Columbia Tristar's title for releasing rubbish);
The Jungle Book 2 - a story free zone and cash in on the first film. And no, the kiRAB weren't paying attention either;
Bulletproof Monk - crap special effects, virtually no storyline and something the actors should have steered clear of;
Hope Springs - Colin Firth and Minnie Driver should know better;
The Matrix Revolutions - more cash in crap from Warner Brothers.
The best film of the year - City of God. Yes, LOTR:TROTK was very good, but for acting and drama this was pure class.
And I am sorry to repeat it, but BellevilleRendez-vous, when compared to the above list of rubbish, was good and entertaining.
spastic_jedi
New member
Scream 3, could only last 20 minutes of watching it, appalling bad in every sense.
♥Ebonique♥
New member
Sadly, this was released in cinemas in 2002 not 2003
You may know that Etre et Avoir (a film which is very far from crap) was shown on BBC4 not long after its cinema release. Because of the way the BBC contracts to show some films, a few of them escape the cycle of 'cinema release-pay per view-DVD & Video Release-Showing on Pay TV-Showing on terrestrial television' and they are not all rubbish.