2010 Razzie winners

It's now official. The winners of the worst that Hollywood offered in 2009 have been identified and given their Razzie honors they richly deserved.

The list of movies should not be a surprise to most. Some of the top money films of 2009 filled the lists and the only real shock is that people flocked to the films in the first place.

Starting things off is one of the films I really hated and a source of controversy

Worst Picture – Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Worst Director – Michael Bay, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

This beat out my pick of Land of the Lost. Still, I did mention

I reviewed it, and still am amazed that people paid money for this crap. Then again people bought pet rocks too."

Worst Actor – All Three Jonas Brothers, Jonas Brothers: The 3-D Concert Experience

Enough said there. Though I still think the hatch job Steve Martin did on Pink Panther 2 would have killed Peter Sellers if he wasn't dead already.

Worst Actress – Sandra Bullock, All About Steve

What were the odds of Bullock taking both a Razzie and an Oscar in the same year? I thought she would be a close runner up, but I admit I was again wrong.

Worst Supporting Actor – Billy Ray Cyrus, Hannah Montana: The Movie

Worst Supporting Actress – Sienna Miller, G.I. Joe

Worst Screen Couple – Sandra Bullock and Bradley Cooper, All About Steve

Worst Remake Rip-Off Sequel – Land of the Lost

Did you really think this bomb of a movie wouldn't win some Razzie? I picked GI Joe in part because I thought Land of the Lost would win the worst picture award. Neither was worth the time to see, or the film it was made with.

Worst Pictures of the Decade – Battlefield Earth

Definitely a bad movie. But there were so many more that deserved this title even more. Still of the horrendous choices J-lo has to feel a bit better that she missed this award.

Worst Actor of the Decade – Eddie Murphy

Honestly I disagree with this. Given his last several films belong on Pluto along with the film of the same name. But the man has talent. Even in his horrible films he plays multiple roles, and usually at least 1 or 2 are decently done. And his work in Dreamgirls really should have raised him up a notch on the competition.

I stand by picking Mike Meyers for destroying the legacy of Dr. Suess.

Worst Actress of the Decade – Paris Hilton

While I gave this to Mariah Carey, there is no question that even her acting does have more talent than Hilton - barely. But Hilton has a lot of money. You would think she would have paid to ensure she didn't win. Then again, maybe she paid to make sure she did, since this will be the only award she ever wins based on her "talent".

Well I didn't do so well this year overall. I missed quite a few film predictions, though several matched my previews, reviews, and special mentions. I don't feel bad though. When it comes to this low on the scale of entertainment, they are all mired in muck.

2010 Razzie Awards predictions

Every year I find that the Razzie Awards are more on the mark and widely agreed upon than anything the Oscar Awards ever comes up with. The Oscar's inevitably select some of the least seen, least enjoyable films and give them the biggest awards. But the Razzie's stick with what the public saw (or refused to see), and what we were going to the movies for - entertainment.

Given this year the Oscar's added Avatar to it's list of nominees (which may have more than a bit to do with the political statements of the film as much as anything else). But who saw the Hurt Locker, Crazy Heart, An Education, and/or A Serious Man? Besides critics and family of the various cast and crew.

Doesn't mean they aren't good films. It just means that the Oscar's don't really address what people see. But the Razzie's...

3 of the films up for Worst movie of 2010 are films I previewed/reviewed and hated. Each one was cited as a waste of your money, and an excursion into the depths of nausea that only Hollywood could create. It seems that I was spot on.

Worst Film of 2010 -

All About Steve
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra - I reviewed, hated it
Land of the Lost - I previewed, and saved myself the waste of life it would have required to see it
Old Dogs
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - I reviewed it, and still am amazed that people paid money for this crap. Then again people bought pet rocks too.

Prediction - winner will be Land of the Lost. Even though it would be quite funny to see Sandra Bullock win an Oscar (she is favored for another film) and a Razzie in the same year, I think she is going to be hit with the same thing that got Eddie Murphy. Hollywood has a problem with an actor/actress that does one film that is serious, and in the same year does a film that gets them paid.

Thus Will Ferrell will be picked, signalling the absolute end of his short-lived career as a movie star.

Worst Actor

Kevin, Joe and Nick Jonas -- Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience
Will Ferrell -- Land of the Lost
Steve Martin -- Pink Panther 2 - I recommeneded against this film
Eddie Murphy -- Imagine That
John Travolta -- Old Dogs

Prediction - Well, to be honest I avoided all of these films. Every indication was that they were awful and likely painful to see. But I have to believe that Steve Martin will win. Because not only is he insulting as Inspector Closeu - if you have seen any of the Peter Seller originals, he is abysmal from a revisioned new viewer point of view as well.

Worst Actress

Beyonce Knowles -- Obsessed
Sandra Bullock -- All About Steve
Miley Cyrus -- Hannah Montana: The Movie
Megan Fox -- Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Sarah Jessica Parker -- Did You Hear About The Morgans?

Prediction - In a crowd of horrible acting and worse films you go with what was the biggest let down. We know Beyonce can't act, and Parker gave up on the idea after cashing in with Sex in the City (movie or television show, take your pick). Cyrus is a kid, in a kid movie so there was no real acting expectation. That leaves Bullock and Fox. Fox was supposed to be sexy, an up-and-coming actress and important to the sequel. She wound up being none of the above.

Worst Remake, Rip-off (ie. revisioned), Sequel

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
Land of the Lost
Pink Panther 2
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Twilight Saga: New Moon

Prediction - wow this is a tough category. Every one of these films turned my stomach. In each one the best part of the film was the end credits rolling onscreen. How do you pick the worst of true wastes of far better ideas?

GI Joe. Because this was an action figure for decades (before they got shranks to 3 inches), a fun if moronic television cartoon for decades, and thus the stuff of positive memories and fantasy. All crushed and mangled after seeing this equivalent of a purse-snatching of the public's money.

Future prediction - When the sequel comes out, and you know it will, avoid that too. It won't get better, just worse.


As a bonus this year we also get to select the worst films in the last decade. Considering the decade and the rash of politics-instead-of-entertainment films the list choices could be huge. The Razzies picked the following.

Worst Picture of the Decade

Battlefield Earth
Freddy Got Fingered
Gigli
I Know Who Killed Me
Swept Away

Actually I would have had Lions for Lambs and Redacted in this list. Then again, no one saw those film. War, Inc. is also another great choice, and only a handful of critics saw it (the only audience likely).

Of the Razzie choices I picked Gigli. Not only because it was horrible, but because no one can pronounce the name right. But if I had my choice in the last decade I'd go with Capitalism by Michael Moore. Because the very subject this multi-millionaire rails against is the thing that provided his wealth, is the purpose of the film in a theater, and the freedom to be a hypocrit.

Worst Actor of the Decade

Ben Affleck
Eddie Murphy
Mike Myers
Rob Schneider
John Travolta

While Eddie Murphy will likely win - he does have more roles to pick on since he has played more roles in a single movie than most other actors play in a decade - I don't think he should. I'd go with Myers. Affleck occasionaly does something decent, and other than Gigli has not been gut-wrenchingly bad. Travolta, even in BattleField Earth, is interesting to watch. Schneider couldn't make a good film if James Camerron centered a film around him. Thus Myers is the only one that really was supposed to be interesting and completely failed. Plus who didn't hate how he killed Dr.Suess's beloved Cat in the Hat.

Worst Actress of the Decade

Mariah Carey
Paris Hilton
Lindsay Lohan
Jennifer Lopez
Madonna

Talk about a list of women whose main talent is their body. Seriously, Lopez is better known for her ass and who is getting to bump it than acting (and rightly so). Lohan is best known for being a drunken lush. Carey and Madonna at least can sing, though when was the last big hit for either?

Hilton is a special category. Her only claim to fame is she inherited so much money that everyone can get a peice of it (and her for that matter) and she will still be wealthy. The only redeeming quality of Hilton is her money.

But I guess the winner will be Carey. Not that any of the women on the list have more talent, or were in any degree better actresses. It's just that Carey broke an unspoken rule: If you have no ability, but look great, shut up and just walk sexy (in tight clothes) as much as possible. It's the only reason the movie Catwoman made any money (though Halle Berry does have acting skills).

List of 2009 movies - quality and money

Well it's that time of year again. The time when everybody creates a top 10 or best of list for 2009. And of course I will throw in my thoughts to the mix.

In terms of movies there isn't a lot to say. Most of the drivel from Hollywood is what we have been getting for quite some time now. Half thought out revisioned remakes of ideas done far better in the past. That goes for the revisioned comic books, movies, television shows and books that all hit the silver screen this year. But, against all odds there were a few movies that were actaully worth the money.

1. Watchmen - How could you not see this film? It was the rare exception of Hollywood taking a great story (from a comic graphic novel) and not revisioning it. The result was a beautiful and shocking twist on the concept of what is a superhero.

2. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince - the kids are almost all grown up. The film continues the saga of Potter and friends, and it's still an interesting fresh movie several films into the series. The acting continues to improve and the story is modeled well after the books.

3. Angels and Demons - How can you go wrong with Tom Hanks and Ron Howard in a movie based on a Dan Brown book? It wasn't the DaVinci Code, but it sure beat the flood of films this year.

4. Sherlock Holmes - Yes I know it's not out yet. But I'm willing to bet on the acting ability of Robert Downey Jr. In addition his choices of films has been among the best in the industry. movie trailers can lie (and often do) but I'm willing to go with the talent and say this will make the cut.

And those are my top movies of 2009. But if you were wondering, here are the movies that made the most money (which has nothing to do with the quality of the film):

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - a movie only matched in its stupidity by the amount of CGI onscereen at any time. This is proof that hype can overwhelm quality if you throw enough money at a marketing campaign. $402 million

Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince - Number 2 on my list, it brought in $301 million. Proof that quality can make money too.

Up - Parents love to take kids to animated films. This one happened to be worth the time as well. $293 million

The Hangover - the surprise hit of the year. I never saw it, it seemed to sophmopric to me. But it brought in $277 million so there must be something to it. Likely to produce a sequel of some sort next year.

Star Trek - This revisioned make-over of the classic original television series was lauded long before it hit a single screen. But after seeing the film I found it more stilted than Shatner doing poetry. If this is the future of sci-fi I feel really bad for the next generation. $257 million. Revisionist sequel guaranteed.

A couple of other notable film revenues for the year:

Twillight: New Moon - just a question, has anyone over the age of 25 seen this film? No one I know over 25 has. $256 million and another film sure to come.

X-men Origins: Wolverine - Destroyed a great idea and character for big money. The only thing good about this film is the payday it made for Hollywood. But a sequel will happen to continue the pain. $179 million

Fast and Furious - Even Vin Diesel can't save a bad idea. Though it did make enough to guarantee Deisel will continue to star in a few more films. $155 million

GI Joe Rise of Cobra - Hype wins again. An insulting film that makes you want to see Wolverine again. Only exceeded in stupidity and boredom levels by Transformers. Sequel will happen even though anyone above 6 will cringe. $150 million

Angels & Demons - It made a respectable $133 million. Not bad for a sequel, though more was expected.

Terminator Salvation - Not the best continuation of the series. Christian Bale made a good John Connor, but the rest of the film was lazy and as bleak as the future it redises in. But the story ain't over yet. $125 million

Watchmen - Number 1 on my list only made $107 million. Perhaps it was just too much for audiences to take in. Especially compared to the low-brow low-quality films that topped the money list.

Tyler Perry's Madea Goes To Jail - Love or hate Perry 2 things are true. He is the biggest boost to getting Black actors in movies since Sidney Poitier and he makes money. What will Madea do next? $90 million

Michael Jackson's This Is It - The last tribute to the King of Pop. $72 million and it really isn't even a film.

Land of the Lost - People went to see this? $49 million

Notorious - The worst thing about this film is it probably made enough money to spawn equally bad expoitive cash grabs. $36 million and I have to wonder how doing anything (including sleeping) wasn't better than the film.

Pink Panther 2, Old Dogs, Halloween 2 (revisioned remake), SAW VI, Fame (revisioned remake) - I'm just amazed that none of these films, though all bad, did better than Notorious. I really hope that doesn't mean a trend of dead rapper movies.

Well that's my list, what do you think? Did I miss anything?

Movie Review: GI Joe

The summer movies of 2009 have been a series of letdowns. Which is not to be confused with the amount of money that the films have generated. When all you have is the equivalent of sand instead of the water of entertainment, well many go and spend their money anyway. Add in the cost of going to a movie and the numbers look astounding.

GI Joe was a film that some hoped would defeat that trend. And having seen the film I can honestly say that such hopes are completely dashed. GI Joe is almost exactly what it seems. A waste of time and less entertaining than the Saturday Morning cartoon.

Let's start with the basics. The visual looks of the film are decent. Not great, not wonderful, just ok. Part of that is due to the constant use of massive amounts of CGI throughout the film. It just takes a bunch of the realisim the film was hoping to attain in live action, and throws it off a roof. Seperate of the CGI, well it's just not visually compelling.

The acting is another thing. If the visuals are just average, the acting takes the film to a new low. In thinking about the whole cast, I cannot name a single actor that sttod above the others. With the exception of Snake Eyes (Ray Park) and the 2 child actors portraying Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow (Leo Howard and Brandon Soo Hoo, respectively).

Snake Eyes stands out for one main reason. He never spoke in the whole film. All he had to do was move around. We didn't even get to see his face, not even his eyes, once in the film. Which made this the standout role in the film. Literally this was the best acting and character simply because that role had the least problems.

The worst acting would likely be Marlon Wayans, or Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Cobra Commander. Followed closely by every other character in the film. There isn't a single character you could care about, nor that you might believe. Not one had any spark that would make you root for or against them.

But if you were wondering about the plot - perhaps it provides a reason to still see the film - don't worry. It too is as bad as every other element in the film. Obviously the writers were lost between making a kid's film and something for adults.

Start with the fact that the film rewrote the entire team. GI Joe is supposed to be an all American military force. But to make the film sell overseas they have been changed to a secret NATO force. So already the film revisions its source material.

Considering the intelligence of all the military forces involved, I would be surprised if the Boy Scouts wouldn't be a better choice for defending the nation. Not a single writer was probably involved in the military, nor the director or producers or the Hollywood execs.

***Spoiler Alert***

Destro (Christopher Eccleston) is a multi-national arms dealer that sells 70% of all the arms and defenses used in the world. Which is just dumb to start with. But he sells NATO, and the GI Joe team, all their equipment. So why is any of their gear equal to the COBRA troops? Or how about having a failsafe that prevents their weapons from working against his guys? Or why not just hack into their systems to find out what they know and when? Besides the fact that he should know where their secret bases are since he could track each and every item they have?

Then there are the accelerator suits. Really useless. Which is why they are unused throughout 90% of the film. Other than the big scene in the trailer. Because if they used the suits they should mop up the COBRA guys in minutes. Not that COBRA had any equivalent outfits, which they should since DESTRO sold them.

I won't even get into the nanobot issue.

***SPOILER END***

So back to the plot. GI Joe is so secret that the whole outfit is exposed some 7 minutes into the film. They are so good that all of 4 people handle 90% of all the work.

The one thing the team seems really good at is creating massive destruction as they go about their jobs. What they do in France is a contruction workers paradise. The cost in money and lives is enough to make you wonder why any nation would want these guys protecting anything. So much for never failing at anything.

Oh, and the "love story" or whatever is going on with Ripcord (Wayans) and Scarlett (Rachel Nichols) fits better for kids in elementary school than anything else.

How dumb is the plot? Well unless you believe fire burns underwater, and that ice doesn't float in water, the plot is incredibly stupid. Even a 5 year old will see the plot holes and illogic.

I'd go into more detail but I don't want to spoil it more. If such a thing is possible.

I wouldn't take young kids to this film. As I mentioned earlier there is lots of collateral damage. You don't see the hordes that get killed, but it is obvious that they die. A lot.

Perhaps the one great thing is the fact that the battles between Storm Shadow (Byung-hun Lee) and Snake Eyes is interesting. Short but decent.

So would I advise anyone to see this film? No. There is a reason why the film was not shown to critics (except a couple of guaranteed extra positive reviews). I honestly can't understand why this film was marketed to anyone over the age of 5. And that might be an insult to 5 year olds.

Don't see this film. Watch the cartoon version instead and at least enjoy you money.

Cinemash – the waste of time

I think everyone loves a good parody. We all like to laugh, we all enjoy watching a funny take on classic ideas. Think of the Airplane and Scary Movie films. (well maybe just the first 2 of each anyway)

Right now, the dearth of ideas in Hollywood has spawned the rebirth of the parody. Instead of making new ideas, Hollywood is enjoying churning out near endless numbers of parody films filled with in-jokes of even the least popular films. Sadly few of these films are really worth watching.

We Are The Spartans, Date Movie, Scary Movie 4, and so on. The list is ever growing and just screams “We want your money, but can’t think of a better way to take it.”

There are many people that have realized that making a good parody is more than mashing a bunch of scenes from various films together and trying to making fun of them. They have realized that just saying this is a funny take on a serious film (if films like I Know What You Did Last Summer can be called serious) is not enough to make it funny. So they decided to make their own shorter versions of these parodies.

Thus Cinemash was created in collaboration between MEAN Magazine and Zune. But along the way they forgot – or purposefully excluded – people over the age of 15.

Here are the problems. First is the fact that if you do not use Microsoft’s Zune you will have trouble getting to see any of these parodies. Which excludes a lot of people of all ages.

Another issue is that Cinemash will be using real actors to make the parodies. Why is that a problem? Well some of the actors jumping to the forefront of this idea include: Will Arnett, Zooey Deschanel, Joseph Gordon-Leavitt, and Milo Ventimiglia.

I had to look up who each and every one of these actors are. Arnett is known for his roles in Semi-Pro, The Brothers Solomon, Hot Rod, Let’s Go To Prison, and the television show Arrested Development. Deschanel is famous for The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy [horrendous film – read the books], The New Guy, Failure To Launch, and the Sci-Fi Channel miniseries Tin Man. Leavitt claims Beethoven, 10 Things I Hate About You, Stop-Loss, the television show Roseanne, and the upcoming GI Joe Movie (which I have doubts about). Ventimiglia has television’s Gilmore Girls, the movie Rocky Balboa, and back to television with the current Heroes.

In effect a group of B actors that few over the age of about 25 would barely ever recognize anywhere.

So Cinemash is not showing much interest in anything of quality, just a way to draw money and attention. Which means that the acting, and the writing, of the parodies have to be spectacular to be worth the time.

But who would know. If you go to MEAN Magazine’s site (meanmag.net) you won’t find anything but a very unappealing teaser trailer. If you go to the site that they claim has current parodies (zune.net/cinemash) you will find that the page does not exist.

The outlook is so bleak you have to wonder why you should care. Especially since it seems whoever designed the website, and those in charge of the Cinemash idea, don’t apparently.

Perhaps I am too old to get it. I can accept that. But generally I would expect that a parody should be funny. Which means good writing and even better acting. Neither appears to be present in the teaser trailer. I expect that a quality product deserves a quality presentation, which this does not have.

I am sure that Microsoft and Mean Magazine will be hyping the hell out of this idea. Based on what I can find right now, I would suggest that you skip it. Anyone under the age of 25 might disagree, under 15 likely will. But if you are older, or have higher expectations, this is not worth the time. In my opinion.

The movies of 2009

With 2008 quickly coming to an end it's time to look forward to 2009 and the films we can expect to see. So far several of the biggest movies look to be no better than the fare presented to us in 2008. Hollywood seems to have forgone entertainment for quick easy bucks. But we can hope that at least this time they might gwet some of these retreads right.

What we do know for sure is that there will be at least 4 movies that are sequels, 4 that are based on comic books, graphic novels and/or cartoons. There will also be at least 2 movies based on video games. Originality seems to be dead.

Starting with cartoons and comic books we have Dragonball. Based on the original manga, this japanese sensation has taken the world by storm. Dragonball (in which I include Dragonball Z) is the most watched cartoon in the world, with an estimated 64 million fans across the world. That also puts it far above shows like Seinfeld, Friends, American Idol, Survivor and so many other television shows. So expect this to be completely screwed up, sadly. Even worse since Chow Yung Fat is in it.





All the better trailers got pulled. Sorry.

Next on the list will be Watchmen. I've discussed this previously. You will want to see this. From everything I can tell this is a near literal translation of the graphic novel, which means an experience that truly will be entertaining by definition.



Then there is GI Joe. A decent cartoon and previously done as an animated film before they became all the rage. This will be live action like Dragonball. The potential is there for a good film, though the characters and storyline are being changed. Instead of all Americans it will be international and include a bad guy that was a former American GI Joe. Thank Hollywood for that bit of tarnish.

Best I could find is a discussion of the cast if that helps. I hate presenting fan fiction instead of a trailer.



Then there are the sequels. Lots of them.

Wolverine is of course on top of the list. As one of the most popular X-Men ever, and as personafied by Hugh Jackman expectations are high. It looks like this group of writers actually read the source comic books and got it right.



Another talked about trailer is Fast and Furious. With the prior 2 movies being bombs, and with the assurance that Paul Walker cannot handle a film lead on his own, Vin Deisel is back. So is Michelle Rodriguez. Of course the fact that both have had problems being bankable may have more to do with this version. Does that mean it will be good?



Another sequel with lots of cars and following up a prior theme is Transformers 2. The first film was short on plot, full of holes, and stupid. But it made money. What can we expect from the first sequel (of undobtedly many more). This is possibly a fan made trailer. Can't be quite sure.



But I can be sure of this next trailer. Terminator 4: Salvation. With Christian Bale who is a very good actor. No more Governator though. Still it looks decent if not a bit gritty. This John Connor looks far better than the one in the 3rd film too. Should be quite the film, and a secure box office smash.



And more of a prequel than sequel is the new Star Trek movie. From what I have seen so far I am unimpressed. Maybe younger fans that have never seen the original might like it. Fans of Star Trek: Enterprise might like it. Fans of Voyager could like it. But not anyone else I think. Unless there is a lot more to the film than what the trailer hints at.



And then there are the video game movies. Honestly the video games today are more like movies than the movies. And of better quality. But occasionally we get something good. Here are the 2009 choices.

Halo

As best as I can tell this is what the movie may look like and contain. There are a slew of fakes out there but this seems authentic. And if it is real it starts kind of slow. But it definitely give the impression that if this is how the movie starts, it will just get really crazy and fast from there.



Then there is the Prince of Persia: Sands of Time. Another good game with an interesting trailer for the theaters.



And then there is the classic game Legend of Zelda. While the movie is focused on the original game in the setting it seems to also have deviated quite a bit too. But there have been numerous versions of the game in the last 20 years so a bit of mixing is to be expected. This will likely be very family friendly with at least one love story in it for the ladies. Will it be worthy of the title?



Continued in part 2