A lot of movies are bad. This we know. But there are only a few that I out-and-out despise. Here...are their stories.
1. Bridget Jones's Diary
In this film, Ren?e Zellweger -- who reportedly gained 5,000 lbs for the role -- must choose between boring, charmless Colin Firth, and fun, charismatic Hugh Grant. Naturally she picks Colin Firth.
In my sarcastically favorite scene, Colin Firth, as Mark Darcy, ruins Bridget's dinner party by taking Hugh Grant out into the street and sucker-punching him twice. It didn't seem particularly called for. Afterwards, when Bridget asks Mark why he's acting like a maniac, he replies: "I see I've been laboring under a misapprehension!" Oh, no you didn't!
The fact that anyone finds Colin Firth attractive in the first place is a mystery to me. The fact that some fatty would latch onto him instead of Hugh Grant, even though he clearly has no redeeming qualities is infuriating. And the fact that the aforementioned scene is scored by The Weather Girls' It's Raining Men makes this film Truly Reprehensible.
2. Moulin Rouge!
I don't think I can count the horrors perpetrated by this movie on one hand. First and foremost, it has no single take longer than three seconds. If you think I'm exaggerating, play the Moulin Rouge! Cut Game: every time the camera cuts, yell "Cut!" I've tried, and it actually can't be done.
As if that wasn't enough, it's a musical. Not a musical with original numbers, mind you; its a musical that appropriates pop hits of the 70s and 80s, and changes their words to make them stupider.
Unfortunately I'm unable to watch this movie in its entirety. The last time I tried, I blacked out for a week, and then the murders started again. Pity, those young women were so innocent. Their blood is on Baz Luhrmann's hands.
3. Charlie's Angels
It should come as no surprise, based on this film's source material, that it is blatantly and horribly sexist. It did surprise me, however, that it managed to disguise itself as a "girl power" movie, and actually tricked a lot of women into applauding its ethics.
Let's toss aside, for a moment, the idiotic slow-motion explosions and Matrix-ripoff fight scenes. We can forget, for now, that the director insists you call him McG. What upsets me here is that three women, who apparently have enormous physical strength and superhuman intellects, can't get out of a situation without using their boobs. Girl power!
4. In & Out
You there! McG wants his coffee! Bring those script changes to McG, for he is your glorious master!
Oh, excuse me. I have a rich fantasy life. Anyway, you might or might not remember this film in which the usually-pretty-good Kevin Kline plays a high school English teacher whose former student wins an Oscar for portraying a gay soldier; said student names Kline in his acceptance speech as a gay role model. Since Kline's character is in fact engaged to Joan Cusack and is in fact not gay, this causes an uproar.
So why is this film reprehensible? Okay, I admit 1997 was a few years before we coined the term "metrosexual." But even then, I knew there was something wrong with this movie. You see, everyone assumes Kline's character is gay because he's slightly effeminate; for example, he dresses well and enjoys music that isn't classic rock. Throughout the movie, you should be thinking "these people must be completely retarded." Oh, until the end that is, when it turns out he is gay. Because you're either macho, or you like dicks.
I will not hear you speak against the unique vision of McG!
(Guh. At least he's, reportedly, off the next Superman movie.)
As someone who has seen Bridget Jones' Diary approximately 56 times, I don't care what you say, Colin Firth is hot. And why should the "fatty," as you so charmingly called her, pick the cheater? Serial killers might be interesting (I hear that Charles Manson was a great conversationalist), but that doesn't mean you want to bring them home for Thanksgiving.
I'm not saying she has to pick Hugh Grant -- even though he seems genuinely remourseful about cheating on her. I'm saying (and I should have been more clear about this in my post) that this movie suggests she has to make a choice between the two. Why does she so desperately need a man, that she has to choose between two undesireables?
And another thing about that movie: I challenge you to count the number of transition scenes in which Bridget walks on a busy sidewalk, smiling, while inspirational pop music plays on the soundtrack. I hate most movies where this happens once.
Yes! "You got served" didn't make the list!
I do have to disagree on Charles' Angels though. Not that it's not a bad movie, cause it is (as much as I like Lucy and Drew). The using of feminine charm does not automatically make it sexist. The fact that the women are allow to use their femininity to get what they want is part of the "girl power" sort of thing. As long as they are in control and purposly using it, then more power to them. Women have been taught for too long that using their charms to get what they want is Wrong. Hence keeping the women down. By all means use it I say. If we men are too weak or stupid to resist then that's our bad. Both genders have certain advantages over each other, we shouldn't say the use of any of them is bad.
Yeah, well, I don't know. I mean, first of all I have a problem with how easily guys are seduced in that movie. Personally, if I'm supposed to be guarding something, and some chick comes along and licks the steering wheel of my car, I'm going to think, "Is this woman trying to seduce me by licking a car? And, if so, should I shoot her?"
There's more, but...Forget it, Jack. It's Charlie's Angels.
You mean, Charlie's Angelstown.
Or, perhaps, McG-town?
That would be the most dramatic town ever.
>>That would be the most dramatic town ever.
Save possibly for Drama Town, Greece.
http://www.greekconference.com/searchresults.php?aid=719