WORST MOVIE of 2004!

[UdoKier]

Poll question: WORST MOVIE of 2004!

WORST MOVIE of 2004!

[GOPBasher]

1. Van Helsing sucked, IMO.

[xray s]

2. Ocean's 12

sucked

[KitchenWitch]

3. Hey - I liked "The Village"

[vi5]

6. I did too......

I've liked all of that guys movies.

[flvegan]

4. One Night in Paris (Hilton)

The camera angles sucked, there was NO wardrobe and who the HELL wrote the lines for that?

[dr.strangelove]

49. Are you kidding

The dialog was great. KIDDING!!

[Hobarticus]

5. I tried, I really tried, to forget "The Alamo"...n/t

[Bouncy Ball]

7. YAY!!!!! I DIDN'T SEE ANY OF THOSE MOVIES!!

Yay me!

[theorist]

9. I haven't seen any of 'em either!

And from what I've heard about it "Napoleon Dynamite" should be up there, too.

[Bouncy Ball]

10. HEY!!! THEM'S fightin' words!!

Napoleon Dynamite was AWESOME. I bought the DVD and have seen it SEVEN times. It is hilarious.

[theorist]

13. Cage match?

:P

[mattclearing]

15. I was shocked to find out that yes, ND was a great movie.

It looked awful in the ads. I was so pleasantly surprised.

[ET Awful]

8. I can proudly say I haven't seen a single movie on that list :)

Although the Village is in my Netflix Queue out of curiosity :)

[KitchenWitch]

25. If you like plot twists

You will love The Village...very disturbing!

[ET Awful]

28. Mmmmmmmm plot twists!

I do indeed like plot twists. I like those movies that make you say :wtf: and watch them again before you figure out what the hell they were about :)

[UdoKier]

31. Problem is, everybody knew the "twist" on the Village before going in.

And the rest of the film wasn't enough to sustain it.

[KitchenWitch]

36. I did not know the plot twist going in

and found the movie very entertaining!

[Kire]

11. Troy's not on there.

that was pretty much universally panned

[ET Awful]

30. Not by me, I kind of liked it . . . and I really don't like Brad Pitt .

I just kind of liked the movie.

[stlchic]

38. Well, it was okay to see Eric Bana

but Brad Pitt was rather unremarkable - no surprise there.

What really gets me about it is that sure as anything there are now a bunch of idiot high school students that think they don't have to read "The Iliad", and think it's a few battle scenes and shallow love stories. This "inspired by" thing in movies is kind of a pet peeve of mine ever since I talked to a couple of high school students who didn't think it was really necessary to read "The Scarlet Letter" because they had just seen the Demi Moore movie.

[NYYFan]

47. I disagree, Troy was good

Alexander was hands down the only crappy historical epic of 2004.

[dhinojosa]

12. Team America: World Police Sucked

I am a southpark fan too, but that movie just sucked

[UdoKier]

14. I didn't see that.

I know it would have pissed me off. South Park often does too, but I can change the channel and it doesn't cost me anything.

[jonnyblitz]

16. Spiderman 2. n/t

[Senator Lamb]

51. r u serious?

how can you spider-man 2 was the worst? if anything it was among the best

[jonnyblitz]

53. it was the subject matter for me.

i dont care about special effects if the story doesnt interest me.I assume that is why everybody loved this. I know I am going against the grain of conventional wisdom.

[terrya]

17. "The Sweetest Thing"

I think this was from 2004...it's unimaginably hideous to watch.

Clearly, the worst of 2004.

[SaveElmer]

18. Alamo should NOT be on that list

It was a well made movie, pretty faithful (for Hollywood anyway) to the actual history, had good battle scenes, and Billy Bob Thorton played Davy Crockett as a historical figure not the caricature created by Disney. Thorton was great in the movie btw.!!!

[UdoKier]

33. I have actually not seen the Alamo.

But I've heard nothing good about it. I grew up in Texas, propagandized that I was supposed to sympathize with THIS group of "good" white invaders over THAT group of slightly swarthier "bad" white invaders as they fought over land that rightly belonged to the natives. Learning a bit more about history sorta soured me on the "heroism" of the Alamo fighters.

[SaveElmer]

42. It's more complicated than good and bad

Mexico invited the settlers there and then reneged on certain promises, and constitutional guarantees. The settlers did have a legitimate beef with Santa Ana and the Mexicans. Now that did not justify a war with Mexico, and many later prominent Americans said so at the time including U.S. Grant and Abraham Lincoln.

However, that does not take away from the quality of the movie. Santa Ana was portayed as sadistic, which he was, the Mexicans were portrayed sympathetically, and the Americans were not lionized in the movie. Travis was shown as a self pretentious fop who abandonded his family, Bowie as a hard headed turd, Sam Houston as a drunkard, and Davy Crockett as a man out of his element. Mexican troops were portrayed fairly accurately, as were the Mexican officers who attempted to dissuade Santa Ana from attacking the Alamo.

All in all a good piece of historical movie making with complex characters on both sides.

[UdoKier]

43. I'll check it out on video.

It may be interesting for the character studies, but my take on the history is : a bunch of white people fighting over land neither side had any legitimate right to.

[SaveElmer]

45. Check it out!

You can argue the history but that doesn't make the movie bad. The description you provide for the take over of Texas could be applied to the whole country.

[last_texas_dem]

19. The Stepford Wives

That remake sucked mightily!

Also Napoleon Dynamite: most overhyped movie of the year. Pretty bad IMHO.

I also saw a pretty lame horror movie at the year's end called The Darkness.

Of those on the list that I saw, I'd give it to The Grudge by default. I thought The Village was very good, and The Alamo wasn't all bad either.

[terrya]

20. The ending to "The Stepford Wives" was the thing that sucked.

The movie itself isn't that bad, but the ending is horrible.

[last_texas_dem]

22. Yeah, actually you're right

Looking back on the movie as a whole... I think the ending really tainted my overall perception of it, though.

[barb162]

24. I thought Bette Midler was hilarious in an otherwise mediocree movie

especially when she started imitating the rat

[Dedalus]

21. I saw none of those either...

...but I heard "Catwoman" was the worst movie of all time. And I'm pretty sure "The Sweetest Thing" was 2003.

And "Spider-Man 2" was awesome (IF you like superhero movies)! If you dislike the genre as a whole, then it's unfair for you to rip on a given example based on your bias. I do disagree, however, with those who say "SM2" was the BEST superhero movie ever. I would rank it thus:

1. "Batman" (the first Keaton one)
2. "X-Men 2"
3. "Superman" (the first Reeve one)
4. "Spider-Man 2"

[Dedalus]

23. Reply to myself...

...Are we observing some sort of Natural Law whereby superhero movies from the DC universe get worse with each progressive sequel, while superhero movies based on the Marvel universe improve film by film?

[slestak]

26. Resident Evil: Apocalypse

A 90-minute punch in the crotch.

[ET Awful]

32. I didn't have a problem with it, I thought it was great mindless

entertainment. Pure action movie, nothing more, nothing less.

[Catchawave]

27. Why is Polar Express on your list ?

When there are so many more who deserve that spot :boring: <----the movies, not you !

[UdoKier]

29. More as a disappointment than an awful film.

The story and visual world are nice, but the much vaunted character animation is awful. Everybody looks plastic and fake, eyes dead. CG characters work well when they are cartoonish, as in "The Incredibles" and "Shrek", but trying to make them photorealistic leaves a result that is more creepy than anything else. It would have been more appealing (and cheaper) to put live actors into the CG environments. It ruined what could have been a very nice holiday movie, IMO.

[zbdent]

34. "Winning hearts and minds in the Middle East" by George W. Bush

oh, wait, fuck. That's not a movie. That's the damn liberal media.

[UdoKier]

35. Just added "The Passion"

I can't believe I forgot it.

I guess this screws the validity of the poll, but it really deserves a spot for completely failing to convey the beauty of Christ to the world.

Also added "Troy" since it was suggested and nobody had picked "The Terminal" (yet another agonizingly treacly Tom Hanks film).

[SKKY]

37. Dodgeball! Got that movie sucked...

...no it didn't suck. It suckity suck sucked.

[WMliberal]

39. Passion. This is the one People's Choice I want the film to win.

w00t!

[UdoKier]

40. Remarkable how "Alexander" is faring.

I remember a few weeks ago when DUers were defending it BECAUSE it had a bisexual subplot hidden in there.

But bi or not, apparently it was a lame movie.

Funny about Stone, his movies can be so unbelievably good, or so unbelievably bad. No in-between with him...

[Dukkha]

41. The Day After Tomorrow

eom

[Ekirh]

44. Have to go with Troy....

When I went to see it... I was actually looking foward to watching it.. turned out to be a huge dissappointment...

I think even Peter O'Toole himself said he regretted being in this film.

[gottalickbush]

46. Too many to name them all

[dr.strangelove]

48. WTF!! Clearly it was Superbabies and National Lampoon's Gold Diggers

Superbabies - Baby Geniuses 2, is rated 1.4 at IMDB - worst of all time, not just 2004.
Superbabies got a 7 rating at Metacritic. However, that was only the second worst of the . The crapfest that was National Lampoon's Gold Diggers got a 3 rating at Metacritic.
National Lampoon's Gold Diggers rated a 3.3 at IMDB. Second worst behind Superbabies.

These things were both huge piles of crap. I watched both last weak as they were rated so low.

[UdoKier]

50. Even worse than "Supergirl"?

Not even lovely Helen Slater could make that watchable.

[dr.strangelove]

54. Helen Slater made it very watchable

Plus, as a comic book guy, I can't put Supergirl in the worst ever group. It was by no means good, but it was not in that worst group for me. Superbabies displaced Battlefield Earth for the worst ever in my book.

[semillama]

52. Based on how much I enjoyed the experience of the movie

and on other things such as cinematography and set design, and just my gut reaction, I had to give Passion the biggest thumb down. Lousy acting, horrible cinematography, so-so costumes and sets, and it just wasn't a good movie experience. It was just plain BAD.

I note that more people voted for Alexander, but I can't see how that's a worse movie than Alexander. I mean, sure you probably expected more of it, but you can't deny that the cinematography was way better, not to mention sets and costume. Acting was probably better too.

[mcscajun]

55. I feel SO good! I didn't see ANY of those!

Wooo-hoo!

[last_texas_dem]

56. I forgot Garfield!

Listing my worst list above, I forgot to remember to list this turkey! The others I listed (Stepford Wives, Napoleon Dynamite, and Darkness) come close, but this one takes the cake.

(And yes, I actually did see it... the first half of this year I worked at a movie theatre so I saw a lot of movies I wouldn't have otherwise since I was able to see them for free. Mind you, it still wasn't quite worth the free admission, but anyway...)

[last_texas_dem]

57. I forgot Garfield!

Listing my worst list above, I forgot to remember to list this turkey! The others I listed (Stepford Wives, Napoleon Dynamite, and Darkness) come close, but this one takes the cake.

(And yes, I actually did see it... the first half of this year I worked at a movie theatre so I saw a lot of movies I wouldn't have otherwise since I was able to see them for free. Mind you, it still wasn't quite worth the free admission, but anyway...)

[last_texas_dem]

58. Sorry 'bout the double post; not sure how that happened. nt