THE WORST OF 2004 DESERVE SOME NOTICE TOO

Tomorrow at 8:30 AM (Eastern; 5:30 for those poor saps in LA), the Academy Award nominations will be announced, and the countdown to Oscar night (a/k/a Feb. 27) will be in full force. The Golden Globes have already happened. And all the other nominations to honor the "best" in film for 2004 have been set – IFP Spirit Awards, DGA, WGA, SAG. Finally today, the last remaining holdout other than Oscar made itself known, although unlike all the others, quality is not its strong suit.

This is the 25th year for Razzie, a/k/a The Golden Raspberry Award, dishonoring the worst achievements in film. The Razzies aren't exactly a high-tech affair, and basically anyone can be a voting member if you pay your dues, but for the 25th year in a row, Razzie founder John Wilson will give gold spray-painted golf ball sized "RAZZberry" to anyone who will actually accept his/her award. (I'm pretty sure that Tom Green is the only "winner" to ever attend the annual ceremony and take home his prize a few years ago for Freddy Got Fingered.)

This year's Razzies will be handed out the day before the Oscars, as usual, so it's only right that the nominations be announced the day before those other noms. And so it is that the 25th Annual Golden Raspberry Award Nomination are now available for cheering and jeering, and while I'm plenty surprised (and disappointed) at some of the omissions, I'm not that shocked that this year appears to be a battle royale between Alexander and Catwoman. I haven't seen Catwoman, but I am curious. In fact, I haven't seen many of this year's nominees, but considering some of the movies I did see from 2004, I have trouble believing that even multiple nominee White Chicks is really as bad as what I consider the worst of the year.

I figured this was as good a time as any to unveil my Bottom SIX of 2004: six because I don't have 10 that deserve to be trashed so severely, but I do have more than five. Surprisingly to many of you out there, Vincent Gallo's The Brown Bunny is not on this list, but please don't treat its omission as any kind of endorsement. No matter how great a year 2004 was for film, there are still plenty of terrible movies that didn't make my list, and plenty more that I simply didn't see.

The worst six films of 2004: Clicking will give you comments!

1. Alexander
   
2. Phantom of the Opera
   
3. The Day After Tomorrow
   
4. The Stepford Wives
   
5. Van Helsing
   
6. Blade: Trinity
   

The worst of the worst ... in detail!

1. Alexander: Until I see Catwoman, this film gets my vote, and I'm having trouble believing it won't even after I see Halle Berry prance around in skintight leather. An absolutely atrocious mess of a movie that I still have trouble believing was directed by as great a director as Oliver Stone. There's no one thing wrong with this movie; it's just a giant mess that's overdone, overlong and lacking in every single component of filmmaking. Even the special effects and gigantic battle sequences ultimately bored the crap out of me. An agonizingly, painful experience, much worse than I thought it could be.
   
   

2. Phantom of the Opera: The only reason Phantom isn't the worst movie of the year is because I expect much, much, MUCH more out of Stone than I do from superhack Joel Schumacher. With that said, as I wrote a little over a week ago, even my lowest-of-the-low expectations for Phantom were horrifically shattered by Schumacher's travesty of cinema. At least Alexander was technically proficient if not exciting. There are basic picture-sound syncing flaws in Phantom that would make a first-year film student cringe, much less should be allowed in a $60-Million major motion picture.
   
   

3. The Day After Tomorrow: This movie was so bad … I can't tell you how many times I wanted to smack my head into the seat in front of me in order to fall mercifully into unconsciousness. It wasn't just the ludicrous situation – and I don't say that as an attack on the science; I call it ludicrous that a father would travel by foot through way sub-zero temperatures basically just to die with his son because end-of-the-movie notwithstanding, he had no plan to save him or get them back. I'm not even going to fault the gigantic ship that somehow managed to travel all the way down fifth avenue, a street which at no point actually intersects any water and is, in fact, the virtual center of the entire island. No, I might have even been able to live with it as it managed to stop perfectly in front of the main New York Public Library building. And I swear, I don't have anything against the lovely Emmy Rossum, who has the misfortune of starring in this film as well as Phantom. But the wolves! I really truly can't overlook the wolves. If you saw the movie, you know what I'm talking about. If you didn't, you're better off. The wolves in The Day After Tomorrow absolutely win the award for the most contrived plot device of 2005, and the only reason this isn't the worst film of the year is because even Phantom directed by Schumacher should have been better than a summer disaster movie.
   
   

4. The Stepford Wives: What a cast! What source material! What a budget! What a mess! I'm not sure who really deserves the lion's share of the blame for this debacle: it could go either way between screenwriter Paul Rudnick and director Frank Oz. I actually give them credit for not trying to reinvent the story and not simply remake the very good 1975 thriller, but in the process they flew by clever satire, completely loss the essence of the original story, and managed to release a movie that should be presented as a test case against focus groups. (Spoiler to follow, but if I were you, I'd read it anyway and skip the movie!) It was widely reported that the ending of The Stepford Wives was reshot at least once. Did nobody pay attention to the rest of the movie when deciding on what might work for a new ending? A woman with an easily destroyed chip controlling her brain can not dispense money out of her mouth like an ATM!!! I don't mind fantasy. I don't mind a movie creating its own reality. But if they're robots, they're robots, and if they're just some big mind control experiment, that's something else. While that enormous inconsistency was my final straw, the rest of the movie is no better because it's just not funny, even though it really wants to be.
   
   

5. Van Helsing: Writer-director Stephen Sommers works very hard. Unfortunately, his hard work makes awful movies, and while he's well on his way to becoming the fantasy-action-adventure version of Michael Bay, that's certainly not a positive characteristic in my book. Poor Hugh Jackman has tons of charisma and was perfectly cast, but his role was so underwritten and, like the rest of the story and characters, subservient to the visual stylings and special effects, he had nothing to work with and looks lost throughout. The underlying story was actually quite clever and interesting, bringing all the great gothic horror characters into one world, but this script was nowhere near ready to go into production, and the results are on the screen. What could have been one of the best fantasy-action movies of the summer with a surer hand at the helm turned into another lazy example of Hollywood throwing a lot of money on the screen and hoping for that big opening weekend to pay for it.
   
   

6. Blade: Trinity: Everything I just said about Van Helsing could be attributed to Blade: Trinity as well. Writer and first-time-director David S. Goyer starts with a fantastic premise and then thoroughly ruins it through poor execution and an utter lack of how to direct a movie as opposed to a music video or commercial. I bitched about Blade: Trinity back in December, and that's way more attention than this movie deserves.

Who knows? Maybe once I sit down, bite on that strap of leather, pry my eyelids open with toothpicks and tie myself to the couch all to watch the major Razzie nominees I have yet to see (and, oh, you better believe I will … well, at least watch them; maybe not the other stuff), this list will change a bit. And maybe those other four "Worst Picture" nominees will turn my "bottom six" into a "bottom 10." Only time, and torture, will tell, but I guarantee you that staying away from any of the above can only be good for your health.

Comments

[andrew s]

the wolves were my favorite part of the day after tomorrow! with the ship floating up in front of the library close behind in second. the only parts of the movie that weren't hilarious were the actual jokes. it's a disaster movie! what did you want from the film, more ice? TIRED! how many other times this year did you see hungry wolves in a ship in front of the library? NONE.

of course, if you're not hip to the occasional genius of michael bay, we're probably not going to see eye to eye on this one.

[dave]

Sorry, but I would love to hear how 2004 was "a great year for film." I am frankly sick of it. When dross like Before Sunset, Kinsey, and the ultimately forgettable Sideways are heiled as brilliance, I can't help but think we are in the throws of dismal cinematic back-patting. You may have hated The Brown Bunny, but it had balls, and showed that crudity gave way to credibility while phoney garbage was lauded to heaven's gate, both in the blogosphere and by the critics so detested by bloggers. Where was the love for Los Angeles Plays Itself and S-21: Khmer Rouge? Why is The Aviator "not a great Scorsese film" even if it is, straight up, great? 2004 was a joke for movies.

If anything 2004 was great because we were treated to fantastic retrospectivces - Widescreen at Walter Reade, film noir and Welles at Film Forum, and the reopening of MOMA, whose "art" is still underwhelming, but whose fantastic, beautiful theaters are back after years of, well, seemingly nothing. Thank god for a million free movies at $75 a year.

[Aaron]

Andrew: You're right, I am most definitely not "hip to the occasional genius of Michael Bay." Putting "genius" anywhere near his name is absurd. Personally, I don't want to laugh at a movie because the storytelling is so lazy and absurd that it becomes ridiculous, and therefore elements like the wolves are unintentionally funnier than thatn what the filmmakers are actually trying to accomplish. Explaining it away as just a disaster movie is unfortunately the mentality that allows a movie to be made as a piece of crap instead of finding a way to make it interesting which is possible.

Dave: I'm not going to disagree with anything you said except for describing Before Sunset as "dross" or Sideways as "forgettable." (I wasn't a huge fan of Kinsey in fact.) I have forgotten very little about Sideways, and I consider Before Sunset and incredibly accomplished and meaningful piece of filmmaking, even more so because it is so talking. This was a great year for film, however, if only because there were a greater number of very good-to-excellent movies than in most years.

And I'm not sure why you're confused as to my Scorsese comment; it's pretty straightforward. Does The Aviator match-up to Taxi Driver, Raging Bull or GoodFellas? Or even to Mean Streets or Last Temptation of Christ? Not to me. Those are "great Scorsese films." Does it, however, compare favorably to other films through the years (and this year) that people would consider "great films"? Does it hold up against other Oscar winners? (Not that they're all great.) Absolutely.

But you're right that places like the Walter Reade and Film Forum and the reopening of MoMA are great things for film as well. And you haven't yet heard my love for Los Angeles Plays Itself because I only saw it last week. (But love it, I did!) In fact, when I do a little month-end recap in about a week, I may be reconfiguring my Top 10 list a bit because both Los Angeles Plays Itself and A Very Long Engagement absolutely blew me away.