|
Compiled by: Jack Foley
AS WITH any year at the movies, for any good film, there were
plenty of rotten ones... and the stinkers this year were as ripe
as ever (and I didn't even have to see them all!).
Having delivered a pre-Christmas turkey with last year's Gigli,
Ben Affleck served up another this time around, with Surviving
Christmas.
While some British efforts were truly appalling - although we'll
come to those in a moment.
And for every good Summer blockbuster, such as The
Bourne Supremacy and Troy, there
were very many bad ones, with Thunderbirds
and Van Helsing among the pick
of the big budget flops.
But which, if any, of these made it into our annual list of turkies?
Let's start at the bottom...
10) The Butterfly Effect (15)
Why? It is all deeply unpleasant stuff, told in such an uninvolving
fashion that it ends being distasteful and unsatisfying. Kutcher
doesn’t possess the talent to convince on any level that
he is capable of intelligent thinking, while you can almost see
him trying to remember his lines (under his breath), at one point,
which lessens the impact of his character.
Review l Buy
it
9) Van Helsing (12A)
Why? Hollywood's thirst for action and special effects proves
almost as insatiable as Dracula’s lust for blood in Van
Helsing, the first big-budget extravaganza of the 2004 Summer
season. Sadly, it makes for a viewing experience every
bit as cold as the fanged one’s heart in this excruciatingly
painful take on the vampire legend.
Review l Buy
it
8) Resident Evil: Apocalypse
Why? Resident Evil, the original, provided conclusive proof
that computer game franchises very rarely (if ever) translate
to film. Its sequel, subtitled Apocalypse, merely serves to underline
that sentiment, as well as achieving a new benchmark in stupidity
for this sort of thing in the process.
Review l Buy
it
7) Suzie Gold (15)
Why? The ensuing ‘comedy’ leaves no cliché
unturned, and ends up being more offensive to Jewish customs than
The Passion of The Christ,
given that virtually every single character on show conforms to
some form of ridiculous stereotype.
Review l Buy
it
|
 |
6) Catwoman (PG)
Why? Without wanting to sound catty, it’s easy to see
why the claws are out for Catwoman, the latest super-hero to hit
the Big Screen. The film, which has comically been dubbed ‘the
Showgirls of super-heroes’ by one US critic, is a cringe-inducing
exercise in movie-making that appears to go out of its way to
humiliate the talents of a former Oscar-winning actress.
Review l Buy
it
5) Taxi (12A)
Why? While the set-up sounds as though it could be fun, and
the film follows pretty much the same format as Besson's sleeker
original, it consistently raises groans instead of laughter and
feels hopelessly mis-cast to boot. Fallon, especially, makes for
an excruciatingly annoying lead character, consistently proving
himself to be as inept a comedian as he is a cop. Review
l Buy it
4) Thunderbirds (PG)
Why? This is, at the end of the day, a children’s film
which almost has a duty to appeal to the adults, given that it
should be rekindling fond childhood memories, as well as inspiring
the youth. Its failure to do so renders it distinctly less FAB
than it clearly thinks it is, forcing viewers to pine for a return
of the puppets. Review l Buy
it
3) Churchill: The Hollywood Years (15)
Why? In real life, Churchill made his two-fingered V for victory
salute something of an iconic image, yet the only two-fingered
salute audiences will want to give this film is something that
means quite the opposite. It deserves to sink without trace at
the box office.
Review l Buy it
2) The Calcium Kid (15)
Why? Orlando Bloom may be well on the way to Hollywood super-stardom,
thanks to impressive turns in the Lord
of the Rings trilogy and Pirates
of the Caribbean, but he suffers a heavy blow in his latest
- a particularly wretched boxing comedy, that is likely to leave
viewers feeling punch-drunk and sick.
Review l Buy
it
1) The Principles of Lust (18)
Why? An orgy, late on, feels voyeuristic and borderline pornographic,
but pales into insignificance by comparison with her depiction
of the world of bare-knuckle brawlers. There is no justification
for showing such scenes, and no intention other than to shock,
and the film fails to recover from it, ending up as a reprehensible
work.
Review l Buy
it
|
