The Worst Movie of 2007
The most wretched movie I saw this year was the dismal comic horror film Hatchet, but it’s not going to be my pick for the Worst Movie of 2007. The thing is, besides some unreliable fanboy buzz, I had no reason to expect Hatchet would be anything other than what it was which was shit. I have no one to blame but myself for that one and frankly the less said about it the better.
Another awful movie was Smokin’ Aces. Though it was easily the most annoying movie I saw this year, I again had no real reason to expect otherwise. My only excuse was that it was February and there weren’t a lot of choices and I snuck into it after paying to see The Departed for a 2nd time.
With the very popular 300, my expectations were higher but not much. It probably deserves some kind of special prize for the most shouting and flexing to amount to nothing, but it’s not my pick either.
Transformers would probably be another worthy candidate except I didn’t actually see it. I’d sooner wear porcupine underwear inside out than waste my time with a Michael Bay movie. In fact, I’m guessing there are lots of movies worse than the worst that I saw in 2007. I try to avoid the bad ones and I’ve been pretty lucky this year. Alvin and the Chipmunks, Norbit, Wild Hogs and I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry would probably all make a good Worst Of list. A lot of people saw all four of those movies, but I managed to miss them all. Life is too short.
I suppose my pick for the Worst Movie of 2007 should really be called The Most Disappointing Movie of 2007, but Worst has a nicer ring to it and more dramatic flair. So what is it? Here’s a clue: it was also the highest grossing film of 2007. See the loser after the jump…
I liked the first two Spider-Man movies. The 2nd one is actually one of the better superhero movies period so I had every reason to hope that #3 would be good. Unfortunately, combining at least 3 different plots that each could have been the center of their own movie, Spider-Man 3 is a perfect example of subtraction by addition. For some reason, the filmmakers or the studio or whoever decided that the third installment of the franchise had to tie up the loose ends left over from the first two movies and also introduce three new super villains. The sad part is that despite all the different plots and characters, there is really nothing new here. The result is a boring, haphazard mess that somehow managed to make 336 kajillion dollars plus millions more in merchandising and tie-ins.
This is a movie that seemingly had everything going for it, but aside from some nifty special effects and one interesting new character (The Sandman), it managed to deliver nothing. Spider-Man 3 is definitely not the worst movie of 2007, but it’s certainly the most disappointing and it makes me wonder if maybe I was wrong about the first two.
Filed under: Miscellaneous
Related Posts: - Defacing an American Classic?
- Living in Cinema 2007 Readers Top 10
- I Hate the Razzies
- Trailer: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
- Cronenberg - Salon Interview
Well, I didn’t even see Spiderman 3, I just wasn’t interested after the first two. 300 was a huge disappointment for me, as was Shrek The Third and Becoming Jane , I hated Evan Almighty, and everything else that was supposedly awful I gave a miss, there were just too many good films this year to even bother seeing the bad to average films.
Yeah, Spiderman 3 could easily be my choice for worst of 2007 or at the very least most disappointing, as you point out. Of course, I saw this potential coming with the three supervillains and two love interests (actually three if you count the pointless Russian girl character from the 2nd and 3rd films).
You know a movie has lost the entire audience when A) a 5 year old noisely proclaims he’s bored during the big death scene and the entire audience laughs in unison and B) five minutes later, the same 5 year old is running up and down the aisles as the movie is ending and no one, NO ONE CARED. Wow.
Good choice Craig. Although honestly, Transformers…way worse.
It probably would’ve been more fun to dismantle Transformers, but then I’d have had to see it. Not going to happen.
“there were just too many good films this year to even bother seeing the bad to average films.” You said it, Nick. Not to mention all the great films that are already on DVD.
“there were just too many good films this year to even bother seeing the bad to average films.”
Except for that long period between May and August where it seemed like other than Ratatouille, we’d be picking edible bits from the chum of three-quels all year long.
Transformers was awful, but it seemed to give its audience what they wanted. Spiderman 3 is contemptious of audience. Raimi seems to be screaming, “You want Venom? Here is he God dammit! Let’s get this over with as soon as possible!”
I’m not sure how you can fuck a movie up that badly after getting it right just a few years ago, but Raimi sure did. Let’s go one step further, how do you make a movie that bad when you have A Simple Plan under your belt?
Michael Bay does what Michael Bay does. But Raimi is capable of (and has done) more.
All too true, joel. All I remember seeing from May through August was Away From Her, 1408 (serviceable little haunted hotel room story), A Mighty Heart, Live Free or Die Hard, Ratatouille, La Vie En Rose and Once and then in August The Bourne Ultimatum. I’m sure I saw a few other films but it was a very dead summer.
I didn’t even see Spider-Man 3, despite seeing and liking the first two. I could smell the stink off the trailer and the reviews and opinions of friends only confirmed my suspicions. Likewise, I ditched the Pirates franchise after the bloatathon of Pirates 2 the previous year and I had zero interest in seeing a 170-minute version (whaa?) of the Bruckheimer silliness. Didn’t see Shrek the Third, either, nor a bunch of other overhyped movies in the summer.
I didn’t see Norbit, Wild Hogs (I remember seeing Zodiac twice and shaking my head at the enormous crowd for Wild Hogs next door), Transformers, Alivin and the Chipmunks or I Now Pronounce You… or Smokin’ Aces.
300 was pretty awful. I went in expecting mindless junk. It wasn’t even fun mindless junk, though. It was sleep-inducing garbage. So boring, so never-ending.
I’m not much of a La Vie En Rose fan, I must say. The film gave both I and my friends a headache. My best friend said to me afterwards, “Never have I been so frustrated by what ought to have been a really good film.” The editing of the film irritated all of us to no end.
I’d say La Vie En Rose was the most disappointing film of the year for me. I might say Lust, Caution as well but I didn’t go in with big expectations. (I’m not much of an Ang Lee fan, honestly, though I love Eat Drink Man Woman and Sense and Sensibility.)
Nevertheless, this has been a much, much better year for adverting disappointments. 2006 seemed stuffed with them, from Michael Mann’s disappointingly inert and startlingly uninvolving Miami Vice (what happened?) to Alejandro Gonzalez Inarittu’s Babel to maybe even M. Night Shyamalan’s Lady in the Water (okay, I figured it’d be bad but not *that* bad!). (Speaking of which, I find it interesting that in the thread about 2008 films nobody has mentioned Shyamalan’s next film, The Happening. How the mighty of five years have fallen.)
So, I guess the worst would be 300, though.
I have to disagree here, Spider-Man 3 is clearly a tremendously flawed movie and it asks its audience to accept some incredibly stupid contrivances along the way (mostly in that exposition-by-newscaster transition to the climactic scene) but it’s partially redeemed by a lot of really good stuff, too. The Sandman creation scene is a gem. The ‘dark Peter Parker’ montage sequence was one of the funniest things I saw in theaters all year. And the underlying themes of guilt and redemption give the movie greater heft than any of the other threequels all summer (yes, it was demolished by that parody commercial about ‘All new forgiveness powers’, but still).
For me, Raimi did a better job with this movie than Bay, Verbinski, and their ilk.
I saw neither Spiderman 3 nor Transformers. So what am I doing commenting? I DID see Evan Almighty and it was awful - maybe not the worst - but awful. Mind you, I saw it on an airplane. It was either that or stab the crying baby in the neck. I should have thought my decision through a little better.
Heh, Jeff…you say po-TAY-to, I say po-TAH-to. I H-A-T-E-D the whole Dark Parker sequence even though I had an interesting argument with a friend who tried to convince me it was great. It was simply ridiculous. In a movie that’s asking me to buy a turn to the dark side, going all Bandwagon was simply idiotic. And don’t get me started on the omelet dance number.
I’ll grant you that the Sandman creation sequence was excellent (and one of my favorite movie moments of 2007) but his “insertion” into the over-arching Spidey backstory and the script’s uneven inclusion of the character killed my enjoyment of him.
Can you say awkward narrative?
Sure, I thought 300 and Transformers were lesser films in many respects but Raimi was coming off Spider-man 2, one of the strongest superhero movies ever. There was simply no reason Sony had to run this film right off the rails, over the cliff, and into the ground. And then shot it about 20 times to make sure it was dead.
So biggest disappointment of 2007, worst film of the year, least re-watchable movie of the series? Spider-man 3, I crown you king of dreck.
I have no problem with an awkward narrative if the movie compensates with other, more important areas.
“Disappointing”, sure, I wouldn’t disagree. “Worst” is just incorrect though. It was in focus and you could hear all of the dialogue, which puts it above plenty of other movies from last year.
I’ll just remind you of the qualification I made that Spider-Man 3 is not THE worst movie of the year, but it was MY worst movie of the year because the gulf between what it should’ve been and what it was is the biggest.
The Sandman stuff was excellent…and would’ve made a fine movie all by itself.
I have no doubt that Verbinski and Bay shit the bed, but Raimi shit MY bed so his film gets the prize.
300, Hatchet and Smokin’ Aces were all technically worse in every way than Spider-Man. Spider-Man was at least sporadically entertaining and interesting…but it could’ve been soooo much better.
Having to watch Evan Almighty on a plane might make me cry too…(though I can’t say for sure, not having seen it)
300 is the only summer popcorn movie I watched – on DVD. And it was easily the worse film experience of last year for me. The only thing in its favor was the laugh out loud unintentional humor on offer. This experience pained me all more because the director’s next project is The Watchmen (I want it to be great). I didn’t get myself along to the same films Craig happily missed. Of the films of greater quality I saw the biggest disappointment was Michael Clayton. The appeal of this work completely escapes me as I found the writing and direction wincingly bad. I also experience zero Clooney man-crush. The only other disappointment, though I half expected it, was Death Proof. I know that smart and discerning people greatly admired both these films, and disliked some of the films I found outstanding like Lust, Caution. This is the beauty of art. Although film buff tastes generally overlap our differences keep discussion from simply being mutually self-congratulatory.
My expectations of Clayton were irrationally high and I was a bit disappointed. I still liked it, but it was a let down.
The biggest diffrences between critical reception and my own responses belong to Enchanted and Juno.
The worst true indie/arthouse/foreigh for me was either Day Night Day Night or Flanders.
Ned Flanders?
One day I’m going to sit down and write my defense of Michael Clayton for everybody. The symbolism alone–while arguably being borderline outre at times–alone makes the film something beyond the “smart Grisham movie” it’s made out to be by many online. For instance, Arthur Edens searching for the garden of his name, pursuing a “heavenly kingdom” opposed to the Hollywoodized big bad corporations, carrying loaves of bread, martyred for the sake of the lost soul, Clayton. It’s a much better “Christ allegory” than Superman Returns, at least.
Whoa, I better stop there because I’m afraid I sound irrational. It’s not a perfect film–and the second time you see it, the “4 Days Earlier” bit or however long a gap of time it is really hurts the momentum of the film and makes it far more predictable. As my dad himself said after seeing it, “Well, we know at the start that they’re trying to kill Clooney so obviously Wilkinson’s a goner.” It’s true, I wish Gilroy had just started at the beginning but more and more films wanting to be taken seriously go this route and it’s become tired.
Admittedly, Clayton for me falls more into The Fugitive spot of the year than the Schindler’s List spot, but it’s a good effort. I think Gilroy succeeded in making it both a take on paranoid ’70s films as well as a moral parable. That’s a dangerous tightrope to walk but it worked for me.
Craig, I completely agree with your opinion of both Day Night Day Night and Flanders. I didn’t quite loathe them but they were also very disappointing in their own right, at least for me. Day Night Day Night actually felt like exploitation, not drama, a problem I had with the slightly similar Maria Full of Grace a few years back.
I’d like to hear more of your thoughts on Clayton, Alexander. In my circle I liked it better than anyone, though as I said I wasn’t in love with it. Email me if you don’t want to air them out in public.
I thought the screenplay was very literate and I loved the closing credits (much better than the climax of the film which felt too pat and familiar).
“Day Night Day Night actually felt like exploitation” EXACTLY. It was an interesting exercise in building tension, but if you’re going to make your movie about something as loaded as terrorism, that’s not enough.
(Ned) Flanders was the kind of foreign film that makes people hate foreign films. Bunch of stoic rural Frenchman being miserable and uncommunicative… throw in a war in the middle east and a rape or two…no thanks.
Alexander, for me symbolism (no matter how cleverly interwoven) is secondary to the basics working in an engaging, plausible, inventive, and sufficiently original way. I’ve outlined my complaints about the film too many times to Craig, so I’ll offer them to you via e-mail or over a Noir City film festival related coffee. But I’m interested in hearing more about what you saw as strengths.
Thanks, Craig–maybe I’ll email you with my thoughts regarding Clayton sooner than later. I should think a little bit more about it, since right now they’re a little inchoate but I’ve felt the need to defend the film lately. One shot I liked, just for starters, was the one in which Clayton gets out of his car and walks up the hill. The way the shot is framed, and the way Clooney walks away from the camera, it briefly looks like he’s stepping out of the film. I thought this was an effective way of illustrating how Clayton is departing the world of the busy soul-selling milieu of his job, and while being tantalizingly close to stepping on the fourth wall, inviting the audience to join Clayton and his friend/mentor figure, Edens.
Well, that’s probably enough of a defense for now, anyway. :-) But, yeah, I’ll probably send you some more thoughts on it sooner than later, since I think the film deserves a little more love than I’ve seen it receive.
sartre’s dead-on right, though, that the differences we have is what invites most of the best discussions about the films themselves.
Craig, your description of Flanders is all too accurate. Jeffrey M. Anderson rightly pounded that film. His http://www.rottentomatoes.com blurb still makes me laugh with regards to Flanders.
Clayton: I’m in general agreement. This is an intelligent but mainstream thriller I could watch with my Mother and both of us would be entertained and engaged. It was good and maybe in a lesser year, a Top 10 selection, but this year it’s just good. I’m not trying to knock your opinion Alexander. I bet there was far more going on in this film than the plot, it just didn’t grab me in any meaningful way.
Day Night Day Night: I wanted to kill myself watching this movie in a theater. It just drove me nuts. There were little moments of brilliance here and there but the movie was overwhelmed by its need to be simplistically unpolitical. I could respect what they were trying to do, but the execution was abysmal. Still, it was generally more intelligent than Spider-man 3.
300 was idiotic and simple, but it was a fairly faithful adaption of Frank Miller’s idiotic and simple graphic novel. Being a Miller fan, I’ve never understood the appeal of the book and I don’t get the appeal of the movie.
sartre: There’s no way the Watchmen HBO mini-series I’ve concocted in my head could ever, ever be matched by the forthcoming film version. I think the graphic novel as written is unfilmmable in any meaningful way but I thought the same thing about V for Vendetta and that one turned out OK. At least I didn’t hate it, considering my love for the source material.
If Watchmen doesn’t completely offend the very nature of geek-being, I’ll be so impressed I might enjoy it. I just can’t see how Hollywood won’t screw this one up.
I agree Joel – a big budget HBO mini-series is exactly the right format. I don’t know whether you’re familiar with this wonderful interview with Alan Moore ->
http://www.enginecomics.co.uk/interviews/jan05/alanmoore.htm
It offers fascinating insights into his artistic process.
Oh yeah, that’s an older interview but very good. One of the few that actually gets more into his process than just comparing him to a crazy old cranky guy.
I look forward to it Alexander.
I like to think that a good movie could be made out of The Watchmen, but it won’t be good for the same reasons that the graphic novel was good. I’m going to try and approach it as something distinct from the source material and see how it goes down.
Does that make any sense?
Also, that Anderson review of Flanders about summed it up. And you know, I usually have patience for that kind of thing.
As for Day Night…just the sound of her chomping down on that goddamn candied apple irritated me. The whole movie was like that.
Yeah, it makes sense Craig. I’m just utterly unconvinced they’ll make a movie out of it I will be satisfied with because I’m so in love with the source material. Course, I had very low expectations of V for Vendetta and as I said, I didn’t put my eyes out watching it or anything. But it was also material that would be far easier to adapt than Watchmen, and I say that accounting for the deep, rich complexity of it.
I want it to be good. I expect to be disappointed. If everyone else on the face of the planet loves it, I would not be surprised. At least I’m honest and reasonable about my psychosis.
Day Night: Sitting in the bathroom. Waiting. With guys in ski masks. Again. Christ, talk about boring.
Spiderman 3 was truly disappointing, though I did love for a while at least the Sandman parts. It shoulda been Thomas Hayden Church’s movie. That one though, was less troubling to me than the obscenely bad narrative mess of Pirates 3. Both suffered from story/budget bloat. The pain of Pirates, though, was lessened for me by the fact that the sound equipment failed in the last few minutes and the theater offered not just a refund, but an extra pass. I actually made money through my pain on that one, so I’ll give you Spidey 3 as most disappointing movie I saw.
I DID actually see Transformers, though I loathe Michael Bay as well. I’ll say it was the most restrained camerawork of any Michael Bay movie I’ve seen–a few shots in the film did last longer than a nanosecond–, though he’s still not exactly Bergman. I’ll never be a fan of him, and I learned also not a fan of Transformers. They’re just stupid. Giant clunky robots. From space. That turn into cars. With really awful giant clunky robot voices and even worse giant clunky robot dialogue. Save me, Optimus Prime, from ever getting dragged to a sequel.
Now on to the weightier discussion:
The only problem I had with Michael Clayton–and I liked it a lot–was the one I had with The Constant Gardener. I guess I’m cynical enough now that the big relevations in them that Big Corporations Do Bad Things That Hurt Ordinary People has little to no dramatic heft anymore. That said, in Michael Clayton, it’s really more about the character’s journey to that realization and what it means to him. That helps enormously, because what people do with that knowledge, the loss of that sweet corporate-drone innocence, is the always-subjective meat of it, well-played here by Clooney.
Good to see you again, Jennybee. We are of like minds on Spider-Man I think. I thought Sandman’s transformation was terrific, both in terms of special effects and emotional heft…that part where he’s struggling to pull all his elements together was great stuff. I wasn’t too keen on making him the guy who killed Peter’s uncle and the fact that they turned him into a sideshow/afterthought in favor of Venom was a huge mistake and the beginning of the end for my interest in the movie. Oh well. I’m sure the bean counters at Sony are deeply disappointed I wasn’t a fan.
As for Transformers, well, the 13-year-old boy that still lives inside of me is drawn to the idea of big robots wrecking stuff, but luckily the 38-year-old is the one who buys the movie tickets. Had Spielberg directed it, or anyone that doesn’t irritate me, I probably would’ve been all over it.
The thing I liked about Clooney in Clayton was that he was totally spent. It was very much Clooney’s dark side. He was stripped of much of the natural charm and smoothness he usually relies on. He was kind of raw.
But yeah, the “Big Corporations Bad” thing doesn’t quite have the same dramatic impact on me it did when this was new information to me.
I liked Michael Clayton, and I didn’t see it as a “Big Corporations Bad” film - this is old news and I really don’t think the people who made the film were so naive as to think they were presenting any new concept. In my opinion, and I concur with jennybee, the film is really a character study. For me the film was about how the characters reacted and changed, and that’s where the dramatic impact lies.
…and it’s written all over his face in that final awesome last shot.
I did love that lost shot. There’s just so much happening in the back of that cab with nary a word said.
Er, *last* shot. Me no type good.
Yes, those moments in the cab, with the credits flashing across the screen, are very intense.
And I really did like the scene where Clayton talks to his son in the car. There was so much emotion there, but it wasn’t overblown. The performance was very subtle, and it’s in that scene where we really see Clayton’s reaction to what his job and his life is all about.
Craig, it’s curious you mention Clooney playing a darker character. As I watched the movie, I thought of the early Dr Doug Ross from ER, the show that made him a star (sure, I know some of you cite Facts of Life as Clooney’s big break, but I’m going with Must-See® TV). Originally Ross was a shallow, selfish bastard and Clooney did an excellent job of capturing that and infusing it with enough charm, guilt, and self-loathing to make it all believable yet not repulsive. He’s working that same angle in Clayton.
Of course, eventually NBC wised up and gave Clooney the star vehicle episode where he saved the kid in the sewer and went on to become an action star in movies such as From Dusk ‘Til Dawn (some of you may cite Batman and Robin or the Peacemaker as Clooney’s break into movies, but we will ignore or mock you).
Anyway, it was nice to see Clooney shed some of the persona and play a seedier character.
I wish I shared your experience of character arcs.
Clooney seemed to be running on the same spot for me throughout much of the film - bruised, depressed, confused, self-involved, always a step or two behind the plot and therefore largely passive with regards its forward momentum. Then inexplicitly - we’ve given no focused explanation for the sudden insight - the big lug (no evidence of being a fixer was much on offer) puts it all together only to “trick” the villain into self incrimination (the film uses a lazy stock device).
We’re offered no explanation for the magnitude of the villain’s evil doing other than she was a career focused woman with an imbalanced lifestyle who battled with fundamental insecurities/paranoia. How does this constitute motivation? And why would a person at the top of her discipline behave so recklessly and impulsively? The absence of such traits is what sees people advance so highly. She didn’t need to put herself on the line for the company.
Then we have the bi-polar inflicted lawyer. As a psychologist I’ve never seen any example of someone so manically delusional able to somehow retain the ability to constructively organize and act on his thoughts as he did. I know that movies are rarely concerned with reality when it comes to mental illness but for me he constituted another implausible character.
I did think Clooney did all that was asked of him – my problem is with the script and direction (the pacing felt clunky to me).
But this sourpuss did admire one thing about the film, the sustained shot of Clooney in the back of the car. But by then I was lost.
I’m not expecting people to share my take, simply explaining it.
One forgets what a jerk Dr. Ross could be.
Jeez, one forgets when NBC was king of the hill, too…
sartre, I mostly concure with your comments. The plot device you mention, the under-written supporting characters, and Clooney’s sudden shift at the end felt forced to me. I think Gilroy did a nice job and wrote a good potboiler, but it was that weak third act that annoyed me. The final shot is excellent and elevates the movie a few notches, as do the exceptional acting talent on display (script aside), but it’s not enough for me to really get excited about Michael Clayton.
But I’m a Clooney apologist so you can take that as you will.
I thought Clooney did a fine and courageous job. And the othe actors also did as much as one could hope with the script. But I’m surprised Tilda Swinton’s performance has received awards attention. To me, her character was the most poorly written, the closest to broad caricature.
I haven’t been sure what to make of Swinton myself. People rave about her performance, but I lean toward caricature as well. It was one of two things I remember not liking about the movie that much…the other as I’ve said being the final confrontation.