December 19, 2009

The Worst Movies of 2009- 6-10

Before we discuss the movies of 2009 that we loved, let's go ahead and get the painful task of discussing the ones that we loathed out of the way.

These are the movies that infuriated us, made us shake our heads and roll our eyes, underwhelmed us, and just failed in general at whatever it was that they were trying to do.

We say poop on these movies. Poop on them all!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1290135/
So SYFY decided to remake Children of the Corn, eh? I guess my first question is: could they ever hope to do it justice?

The 1984 original was hardly perfect, I'll give you that much, but this "Remake" was so atrociously bad that it made the 1984 version seem flawless. Perfect, even.

The main characters were annoying and ridiculous, Malachai and Isaac were nowhere near as creepy or menacing as they were in the original, and the whole thing maintained a level of tension equal to that of your average Lifetime movie (I know I use that comparison a lot, but it's such a perfect one.)

I remember the original creeping me out as a kid. I remember caring about whether or not the main characters lived or died. I also remember wanting to karate kick my TV every 10 minutes as I watched this one.

Christ was this ever a bad, bad movie.

http://thehorrorclub.blogspot.com/2010/02/do-not-want-sorority-row-dvd-review.html
This remake of The House on Sorority Row baffles the ever-living shit out of me; we finally get Hollywood to give us a good old-fashioned, R-Rated Slasher flick in Theaters, and this is the crap that they give us?

They hardly show any violence on camera, the kills are largely uninspired and uneventful, and the nudity is sparse... so what's the point of this being an R-Rated Slasher flick again?

The movie looked good, it was pretty and sharp, but the story was more than familiar, complete with the obligatory crappy twist that sucked. They just put no real effort into this one at all, and it really shows.

Above and beyond all things that made this movie suck, was Audrina Patridge. Why is such a "dead behind the eyes" human replicant like her getting movie roles? She's not an actor... she's not even at Lindsay Lohan's level of no-talent (and that speaks volumes), and yet she gets film work?

I guess that "ooh, shiny!" sums up both movies like this, and Celebutards like her.

http://thehorrorclub.blogspot.com/2010/02/do-not-want-stepfather-2009.html
The second they decided to remake The Stepfather, a movie in which someone would try to recreate the creepy magic that Terry O'Quinn gave us in the original, the whole thing was doomed.

Why not remake LOST, and cast Channing Tatum as John Locke? You can't, that's why!

This remake is devoid of everything that made the original so damned good; you know, things like scares, atmosphere, and a hauntingly disturbing performance by O'Quinn.

This movie is brought to us by the makers of last year's Prom Night remake, and it's clear that they obviously have no clue how to make a Horror movie, and they really need to stop trying. I'm sure that they're nice guys, but no more Horror movies from them. Please.

At least it's always nice to see Amber Heard on screen...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1144884/
I decided after watching this movie, that the Final Destination films are like the game Mousetrap; the ball rolls down the thing, the thing raises up and flips a switch, the switch triggers a lever, the lever hits a plate, the plate does something else which triggers 12 other things to happen, and then you get a pipe through your fucking head.

That's pretty much the blueprint for every kill that happens in every one of these movies, which is fun for a while, but once you discover that that's all there is to these movies, they get to be boring and repetitive pretty quick.

Why not just make a quick, 20 minute long reel of the kills, and call it a day?

Thankfully, this is the FINAL installment in this series. We hope.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1259571/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4
New Moon was a better film than the first one, I'll give it that much, but that's still not saying very much.

Never fear though, because all of the tings that made Twilight such a shitty story are still ever-present in New Moon: the shallow representation of what 12-year-olds think love is; the blank stares; the horrible acting; the vacant stares; the deep Emo longing for things that aren't really deep at all; the forlorn look in everyone's eyes as they stare...

The message that these movies (and books) preach to bewildered girls of all ages is mind-numbing. No wonder they take to the Myspace's and Facebook's of the world en masse, crying about how lonely they are, or wondering why they can't have the true romance that Twilight illustrates

Allow me to enlighten them as to why they can't be Bella, and have different true loves to flounder between... BECAUSE IT'S ALL A LIE!

A juvenile, sad, unrealistic lie. Plus, a really shitty story.

1 comment :

  1. I think Audrina gets the roles because she's hot, which during this parade of non-acting in contemporary cinema, is as good a reason as any. At least she's easy on the eyes, unlike Lohan and the like. I was watching the original Mimic film the other day though, and was so impressed by the combination of beauty, charm, intelligence and grace on display by Mira Sorvino... you just don't find that with many actresses nowadays -- besides Mira I can maybe think of Sarah Michelle Gellar and Katheryn Winnick off the top of my head, and neither of them are getting the roles they deserve.

    ReplyDelete