We've been a bit dormant on the blog front lately, so I feel like we should apologize to our regular readers, both of whom have likely been reduced to reading old Love Is... strips for their daily infotainment.
What better way to revive the blog than with some good ol' roundtable snarkiness?
This is the time of year when every publication under the sun spits out a "Year's Best" list. In the spirit of contrarianness, how about a Year's Worst? And since it's Movie Monday, let's start with the cinema.
Nominations, please?
I thought long and hard about my vote. I didn't see The Da Vinci Code, but I'm pretty confident in its general level of suckery. Then again, the people who liked the book seemed to loathe the movie, and those people are buffoons, so maybe it was actually the year's best film. There was End of the Spear, which from what I understand was both boring and racist. And Larry the Cable Guy, which ... well, do I really have to explain it?
But I figured it was best to vote for a movie I actually saw, so I'm going with The Devil Wears Prada. Mainly because other people -- even people I normally respect and have intercourse with (hi, honey!) -- thought this movie was good. But it was not good. It was, in fact, very annoyingly bad. Except for Meryl Streep, whose goodness actually made the film worse, because I realized I'd rather be watching a different, better movie in which Meryl Streep wasn't surrounded by people I wanted to punch in the throat.
12.04.2006
The Year's Worst: Movies
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I've pretty much liked all the movies I've seen in the theater this year, so here's one that came out in April that I recently saw on DVD: Friends With Money.
Despite a great cast -- Jennifer Aniston, Joan Cusack, Katherine Keener, Frances McDormand -- this is a terrible movie that's neither a comedy or a drama or a romance, although it wants to be all three.
Jennifer Aniston stars as a slacker maid who likes to get high and has a bunch of rich friends who are various stages of unraveling romantically, emotionally, professionally, whatever. The gist of it seems to be that its okay to not have money. Or its okay to be a maid. Or its okay to be a maid who gets high and looks like Rachel from Friends and dates tiny little sweatsuit-wearing fitness trainer tools who have giant Scott Caan shaped-heads.
There's not a single likeable character in this movie. Not even Joan Cusack and Katherine Keener, who could be likable playing Courtney Love.
I won't get into all the typical, rich people vaguely screwing over their rich spouses in a disaffected kinf of way bullshit that ensues. You've seen it all before, and much more entertainingly on Melrose and The OC and Thirtysomething and a million other bullshit prime time soaps.
All of that was crap, but it was the ending that really made it into the worst movie of the year. After all this supposed class/romantic tension, it ends when Rachel/Jennifer falls into the arms of some creepy slacker (again, with a gigantic, outsized head) who, it turns out, is independently wealthy. So you get it? It's okay that she gets high and dates tiny little midgets with huge Scott Caan shaped heads. Because it all led her to another slacker who gets high and "has problems" and doesn't know what to do except go grocery shopping really late at night. Because he's rich! So all is well.
Recently I saw Marie Antoinette, and was extremely disappointed. I'm not a huge Kirsten Dunst fan- merely for the fact that, I think she can't act. However, I like Sophia Coppola- Lost in Translation was an amazing movie, perhaps because Kirsten Dunst wasn't in it? If anyone recalls Kirsten Dunst was also in The Virign Suicides- written and directed by Sophia Coppola which was terrible too. Anyway long story short, Marie Antoinette had beautiful costumes and scenery, but was too long and Kirsten Dunst, yet again, failed miserbly!
Post a Comment