Tom, I'm with you on 300. But, I didnt hate BUTTON- I think of it as fluff but thought that the effects were surprisingly good. I am however not a huge fan of the other mega-hit from its screenwriter FOREST GUMP.

I don't think I ever figured that out. I just think it has a lot of funny bits. And Malkovich is actually kind of justified in playing himself for a change (!!!!)

Thank GOD, I thought I was the only one who didn't like BORING JOHN MALKOVICH. I've thought about starting a support group somewhere. What the hell was that supposed to be about anyway?

Oh yeah, Eternal Sunshine is really nice. It has nothing to do with my Kate Winslet fascination - the whole film is really wonderful. And I've never been much of a Jim Carey fan, but he was great in that.

I agree 100% Tom

I much preferred ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND to BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, which just meant absolutely nothing to me: I've seldom been so bored by a film.

Phillip: thank you for that information. Liked both of the above mentioned movies, so will definitely have to put myself back on the waiting list at the library.

Ive never heard of this film, now Im very curious

I liked Synechdoche, NY quite a lot. I'm a fan of Kaufman's writing; if you liked Being John Malkovich or Adaptation, you might just like this one. He's taking some of his ideas and developing them to the furthest extent. The passage of time works in an interesting way; there are a lot of good actors in the mix....I'd recommend it.

Cesar and Mawgojzeta--

"Bad" is a surprisingly large umbrella, I think. It can encompass no-budget howlers like Wood's PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE and high budget monstrosities like TROY and 300 and THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON.

I can't agree that bad movies are the ones that just disappear. I can think of great films that have just plain vanished, like Bill Forsyth's HOUSEKEEPING. Meanwhile really vile and terrible films like the aforementioned 300 and TROY and CHICAGO go soldiering on.

I like what you say about a movie "having something going for it." I'm a big believer in "So Bad It's Good." I'd say there are lots of merely "bad" films like PLAN NINE and SHOWGIRLS having things going for them (unintentional hilarity and in PLAN NINE's case a specific warning about governmental suppression of inconvenient information) that other films don't have. In other words, I can have a real affection for PLAN NINE and SHOWGIRLS that I can never have for obscenities like 300 and BENJAMIN BUTTON and TROY.

Joy wrote: "This is not really the worst movie I've ever seen but it surely is the oddest - Synecdoche, New York starring Phillip Seymour Hoffman (I usually like him, by the way.) Can someone explain this movi..."

I got that movie from the library last week, but did not have time to watch it before it had to go back. I would love to know people's opinion of it. Oddest... hmmm; that can be a bad thing or a good thing.

It is a most unusual film. It seems to be a film that explores how artists can be cpndumed by their work. As you noticed, there is a kind of a two-way portal operating in this film. There is his actual life, which is well established in the beginning, but receedes further and further into the shadows of his "reality" as the film proceeded. Then there is the life of his work, the world of his art, which is rather vague in the beginning but consumes everything, even the notion of his death, by the end of the movie. (forgive the gtoss generalization of the plot for the purpose of this discussion).

Given this sort of general overview, the burning house seemed yet another way that the artist (PS Hoffmann) "dramatized" the world that the Samantha Morton character occupied in his consciousnes. It's not as if her house was really on fire, but in the way he viewed her, as a kind of ongoing traumatic experience.

At least that's how I read it...

slither was the worst movie ever........ it didnt make sense one bit

This is not really the worst movie I've ever seen but it surely is the oddest - Synecdoche, New York starring Phillip Seymour Hoffman (I usually like him, by the way.) Can someone explain this movie to me? For instance what was up with the house that was on fire?

Cesar: glad to see someone bring up Ed Wood. I actually love watching his movies. Clearly not for the reasons he wished from an audience, but still.

Tom, I think you have more an understanding of what a bad movie is than most people. A lot of the movies people consider to be bad are movies that pissed them off, or they thought were just so terrible that they find themselves talking about to others of how they bad were. Movies that people hated, yet they inspired this passion that people can't stop telling their friends about this movie, even though they're saying it sucked.

I don't believe in the whole "so bad it's good thing."
A movie can have something going for it or not.
People talk about Ed Wood making bad movies. Well his movies are still around and people still talk about them and occasionally even screen them.
Most filmmakers will never have the kind of remembrance in the history of cinema that Ed Wood enjoys.
He must have done something right.

A lot of people make a lot of movies every year. A good portion of them are simply forgettable. Movies that don't make any kind of real impression. Movies that people don't even talk about how bad they were because they they are quickly forgotten.
Those are the bad movies.

That's Kimber Dawson, I think. Yeah, the whole little girl singer genre is something perplexing....I guess it really works if you're 15...

It was really well acted, Tom, with the possible exception of the adoptive father to be. But maybe he did a great job of being a schlub. I guess I just didn't like that character. And Jennifer Garner was kind of perfect as the yuppie wannabe a mom. Ellen Page and Michael Cera had very believable relationship tensions in all their scenes. And that guy who plays Juno's dad (who usually plays roles where he's a jerk) really surprised me with his humanity.

There were things I liked about JUNO, there were things I didn't like. I liked the incredibly high quality of the acting for one thing -- this is one of the best acted films of the decade.

I could have done without those goddamned songs, though. I remember wanting to strangle the woman who was singing them.

Juno is a modern fairy tale where a young girl has to wrestle with her existential demons in order to land her prince, and if viewed in this way it can be a satisfying film experience.

I don't understand the claim of "no plot whatsoever"...it has a typical plot line and development:

(SPOILERS):

Girl gets pregnant (beginning - problem)

Girl explores her options (middle - development) - the options are abortion (which she excludes from options), and then decides on having baby and putting it up for adoption. The typical plot twist at the one hour occurs when the expectant adoptive father jumps ship (further development), but all ends well when Juno surrenders baby to single adoptive mother and gets her guy (resolution...end of story).

Because everyone gets what they want in the end, this further underlines the fairy tale aspect. In addition, the opening title sequence with it's painted on digital film style, looks like the film is jumping off the pages of a storybook for kids. Indeed, the main character calls herself a "cautionary whale"...

I was curious about Juno, since everyone loved it so much.

still not convinced I should rent it.

JUNO
no plot what so ever!It seems like everyone liked it except for me

Matt wrote: "never watched ER either however I am a huge fan of linda cardellini from back in her freaks and geeks days. Worst movie ever goes to...

BATTLEFIELD EARTH."

Yes! So bad it was not even fun to make fun of it.

oh, i don't watch television, so i am out of the loop on countless things. forgive me.

i kind of like slither...it had some good nasty fun in it.

His name is Adam Baldwin.

Phillip- Yes, I don't understand the following. As in people that loved Firefly, then Serenity, then anything any everything that anyone in either is in. (And most of those folks also were totally into Buffy and Angel) Nathan Fillion was the lead role dude, he was also in Slither from what I remember. The only person I knew from Serenity was the big guy who played the bodyguard in the 80's movie My Bodyguard.

jenn,

not sure i understand your question...you wrote:

"what is it about the following?"

???

the following? do you mean nathan fillion's following/fans? was he in serenity? i didn't recognize many, if any, of the actors in that film. at this point, i've successfully wiped my memory clean of that movie.

Phillip-

What is it about the following? I just don't get it. And I'm sorry but Nathan Fillion- not a good actor. Everytime I've seen him in a movie I think "Wow, he's acting". Know what I mean?

Sherry wrote: "Eyes Wide Shut. I don't really remember much about it except my thought throughout the entire movie. 'this sucks!'"

That movie bored me to tears

jenn,

agreed on serenity. what a major disappointment.

This is just to say, I hear you on the MIAMI VICE. But I kinda put it in the so bad its good category (and you have to admit the cinematography was pretty darn impressive). How can you wrong with any film in which Colin Feral is channeling his inner Allman and delivering such gems as, "I am a fiend for Mojitios?"

I loved Eyes Wide Shut, and as Phillip said there is so much more you see and learn upon viewing the film again (and again!).

More movies I thought reeked- so much new "horror" that it'd be easier to name the stuff I thought was good than to try and remember all the bad stuff, Miami Vice (!) and Serenity all come to mind. I know of so many people that followed Firefly and in turn loved Serenity, all I can say is that I don't understand those people.

i think eyes wide shut is a really underappreciated film. lots of folks hated it. i think there's really something there. i've watched it several times, and the more i look, the more there is to see. i highly recommend the bfi film study essay on the film, gives great insights into the narrative that are easy to overlook. the film is about not paying attention...as the title so deftly states.

i think the ending is perfect. this isn't kubrick making clockwork orange, or the shining, where there has to be a resolution. there is no resolution to this story, if the couple is going to stay together. they have to just get on with it, which is what kidman says they have to do in the final line of dialogue.

kubrick tried to change the form in cinema, and he largely succeeded. his films can really confound you, especially on the first viewing. i think there's a lot going on in EWS that you miss the first time. i recommend watching it again (and again); there's a lot to discover there.

I don't think the ending could have been anything other than deliberate, but that doesn't mean that it works as well as a small number of other possibilities (such as ending the movie shortly earlier).

I like EYES WIDE SHUT a good deal, even if I've often felt that the characters display a naivete bordering on gullibility at times. Maybe I just have a more sensitive Bullshit Detector than Dr. Bill, but there's an element to the story that I can't really believe any late 20th Century New York doctor would take at face value. Yeah, yeah, suspension of disbelieft and all that.

I always thought the "underwhelming" quality to the ending was deliberate. It felt to me like Kubrick was pointing out to us all how silly it is to tie ourselves into such knots over nothing.

I thought 'Diary of the Dead' was utterly terrible! As a BIG fan of horror,esp. zombie & apocolyptic, I thought it was a very poor attempt at post-BWP filming.

I personally find EYES WIDE SHUT to be one of those films I can watch again and again. Tom Cruise ventures out of his comfort zone (aka simply being himself) and Sidney Pollack excellent as always.

The Rob Schnieder comment is well taken. I was once on the Peter Pan from NYC to Poughkeepsie and subjected to DUECE BIGELOW. That was a really awful film, right up there with NAPOLEON DYNAMITE, what a dreadful piece of too-clever-by-half-wannabe-indie muck that was.

I think Mike's comments on "Eye Wide Shut" is right on.....

The tension kept building and building
and the ending so underwhelming.
In the original novel, the action takes place in Vienna.

An interesting film to watch during our current troubled economy.
I kept wondering if the participants were AIG employees?

Thats kind of fatalistic...In fact, I think that's literally the definition of being fatalistic!

That's too bad, because there are lots of good movies which don't move in a linear path, which means that you probably wouldn't like them simply because the ending isn't so much of an ending, per se. An ending exists because nothing can go on forever, but I don't think it should retroactively color the rest of the film unless its really bad, or in the case of horror, where it demystifies or cleans up what happened earlier.

And in the case of EWS, I think the ending itself was the not-so-good part--the rest was really interesting.

I'm a big ending person. I'll watch movies, even if they suck, all the way to the end just to see if it ever gets better. If the ending is good, then the pain of watching the not-so-good rest of it was worth it. If the ending is bad...forget the whole thing!

Ah, I just watched that for the first time recently. The ending was unfantastic, but otherwise I thought it was quite good.

Eyes Wide Shut. I don't really remember much about it except my thought throughout the entire movie. 'this sucks!'

Eugenia,

Pootie Tang is far from the worst movie ever made. Its actually got some very good parts in it, utterly ridiculous though it may be. I guarantee its better than any comedies with Rob Schnieder, Larry the Cable Guy, almost all Mike Myers, and actually most other Chris Rock movies (Down to Earth is up there as worst movie). Probably better than most John Malkovich movies too--that guy sucks most of the time!

matt,

you lucky dog!
i think charles s dutton is a great actor.

It would be a good thing if Hollywood learned something from the theater folks, maybe some movies would be better then again some stuff would suck no matter who was in it. LOL.

PS Im going to see Charles S. Dutton as Willie Lowman at Yale Rep this month (APR).

never watched ER either however I am a huge fan of linda cardellini from back in her freaks and geeks days. Worst movie ever goes to...

BATTLEFIELD EARTH.

She's definitely been on ER for the past few years. she's one of the major actors on the show, so, even if she hasn't done much in the way of movies lately, she's kept very busy.

I remember when I used to work at a video store in the 90's.

I overheard two 20-something girls dismissing the Shakespeare movie "Much Ado about Nothing" because
Denzel Washington was playing the role of an Italian Duke.

I had to roll my eyes in frustration. I was going to say that is the beauty of Shakespeare....it allows you to suspend belief and enjoy the acting...

But I figured they were two idiots anyway, and said nothing.

matt,

i also heard that, but i've never seen ER, so i just don't know.

eugenia,

yeah, the colorblind casting occurs a lot more in theater than it does in film, especially hollywood entries. i've seen countless shakespeare plays with black actors or other race actors playing "white" roles, and like you, it never "got in the way". they were all great actors and brought great things to the roles.

I believe the Indian actress from BECKHAM did land a recurring role on ER. Maybe she will do more big screen work once that program finally goes the way of the dinosaur ;p