RSS

Category Archives: Roger's Worst

50. Speed 2 : Cruise Control (1997)

 
Roger’s Rating :

Should be :

The director of Speed, who was really a cinematographer, decided to try his hand at writing and this was the result. Needless to say, it was his first and last screen writing credit.
I like Sandra Bullock and Willem Dafoe, but you can’t just throw them on a boat with a horrible plot and hope things work out. In this movie instead of hijacking a bus the bad guy has hijacked a cruise ship. The passengers on the boat weren’t the only one trapped; for 121 minutes we were trapped in this disaster too.
Roger was in a good mood when he saw this movie. He said in his review : “Movies like this embrace goofiness with an almost sensual pleasure. And so, on a warm summer evening, do I.” Is it possible that Roger fell asleep during this movie?
Roger gave it 3 stars but others didn’t like it as much. It has a 3.4 rating on IMDB and a 2% (that’s right – 2%) rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Out of the 50 reviews on RT there was only one that was positive – Roger’s.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on February 25, 2010 in Roger's Worst

 

Tags:

49. The Elephant Man (1980)


Roger’s Rating :

Should be :

Roger was not really fond of this great movie. He says in his two star review “I kept asking myself what the film was really trying to say about the human condition as reflected by John Merrick, and I kept drawing blanks. The film’s philosophy is this shallow: (1)Wow, the Elephant Man sure looked hideous, and (2) gosh, isn’t it wonderful how he kept on in spite of everything?”
I think Roger missed the point of the movie. The movie explores what it means to be human. At first even Dr. Treves thought John Merrick was probably an idiot. He is stunned when he finds out he had judged the book by its cover. 
I think the movie strongly makes the point that people shouldn’t be treated differently just because they look or sound different. Is this really a shallow point? Maybe it is simplistic and obvious, but it must be remembered that we have a history of judging people by how they looked and it lasted for over two hundred years in this country.
John Hurt’s makeup was made from casts of Merrick’s body, which had been preserved in the private museum of the Royal London Hospital. It was so convincing that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences was prompted to create a new category for Best Make-up for the Oscars because of this movie.
This very moving movie was nominated for eight Academy Awards including Best Picture. It has an 8.4 rating on IMDB and a 91% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
 
Comments Off on 49. The Elephant Man (1980)

Posted by on February 19, 2010 in Roger's Worst

 

Tags:

46. When Will I Be Loved (2004)


Roger’s Rating :

Should be :

If the title is talking about the movie then the answer is never, except by Roger who gave this travesty 4 stars in his review.
In his At The Movies review Roger said “Toback has always been good at scenes of sexual negotiations but this time he writes a masterpiece.” He adds “It is one of those movies that you hold your breath waiting for it to fall off the tight wire and it never does.” He goes on to say “Smart characters in a smart movie about sex and money. I loved it.”
In Roger’s written review he says “What is fascinating and ingenious about When Will I be Loved is that nothing need be anticipated, not even the possibility of a con. In scenes of flawless timing, logic and execution, Vera improvises in a fluid situation and perhaps even surprises herself at where she ends up.”
Roger seems to like the ideas being explored in this movie. He gave the really awful Indecent Proposal, which is a similarly themed movie, a thumbs up in 1993.
If this movie had been called Two Creeps and a Nut then I would have liked it better. Really good music and good acting by Neve Campbell are wasted in a misogynistic, warped, disaster of a film. It might be Roger’s worst 4 star review. Don’t watch it, buy the soundtrack.
It has a 4.7 rating on IMDB and a 33% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
 
1 Comment

Posted by on February 15, 2010 in Roger's Worst

 

Tags:

27. Reservoir Dogs (1992)


Roger’s Rating :

Should be :

Another great movie that Roger gave a thumbs down. It has an 8.4 (!!!) rating on IMDB. Roger says in his review “The movie feels like it’s going to be terrific, but Tarantino’s script doesn’t have much curiosity about these guys. He has an idea, and trusts the idea to drive the plot.”
I’m sorry, Roger, but the movie is terrific just as it is. It has a 95% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
A little gruesome (maybe more than a little) and not for all tastes, but a great movie that really needs to be seen.
Roger, this is one thumbs down you really need to take back.

At The Movies Review

 
2 Comments

Posted by on February 4, 2010 in Roger's Worst

 

24. Brazil (1985)


Roger’s Rating :

Should be :

T.V. Interviewer: What do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings?
Mr. Helpmann: Bad sportsmanship. A ruthless minority seems to have forgotten certain good old-fashioned virtues. They can’t stand seeing the other fellow win. If they played the game, they’d enjoy life more.

Brazil is about a totalitarian society where following bureaucratic code is more important than doing what is right. The totalitarian state exists to protect itself. The movie has a great look and some great dialogue. I thought it worked as comedy, science fiction and drama.
Roger says in his Two Star Review :
“The movie is very hard to follow. I have seen it twice, and am still not sure exactly who all the characters are, or how they fit.
Perhaps it is not supposed to be clear; perhaps the movie’s air of confusion is part of its paranoid vision. There are individual moments that create sharp images (shock troops drilling through a ceiling, De Niro wrestling with the almost obscene wiring and tubing inside a wall, the movie’s obsession with bizarre duct work), but there seems to be no sure hand at the controls.”
The movie may be more style than substance but it has tremendous style. It also is a really funny look at the totalitarianism that can be caused by bureaucracy. Perhaps, not the most lucid of plots, but it is still tremendously entertaining.
Giving a movie that has an 8.0 rating on IMDB and a 98% rating on Rotten Tomatoes a 2 star rating has got to be a pretty big mistake on Roger’s part.
 
6 Comments

Posted by on January 29, 2010 in Roger's Worst

 

Tags:

23. The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle(2000)


Roger’s Rating :

Should be :
1/2 Star

I love movies. There really aren’t many movies that I have seen in my life that I haven’t liked, but this was definitely one of them. And I wasn’t alone : this movie has a 4.1 rating on IMDB (that is really, really low) and a 43% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
Roger says in his review :
Comedy is such a fragile art form. “The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle” isn’t necessarily any more brilliant or witty or inventive than all the other recent retreads of classic cartoons and old sitcoms. But it feels like more fun. From time to time I’m reminded of George C. Scott’s Rule No. 3 for judging movie acting: “Is there a joy of performance? Can you tell that the actors are having fun?” This time, you can. There’s a word for this movie, and that word is: jolly.
Jolly? I really must have missed something, but I am never, ever going to watch this again to try to find it. I’ve suffered enough.
Bad dialogue, worst jokes, Robert De Niro’s worst performance (on IMDB it was ranked 73 out of the 74 movies he has made. Sam’s Song from 1969 was the only one rated lower.)…. the list goes on.
I’ll bet it’s the only movie on IMDB that doesn’t have a run time listed (believe me I checked several times). Could it be that no one ever made it all the way through the whole movie? And I liked this cartoon when I was young – it’s a crime what they did to it.
Roger, believe it or not, gave this disaster 3 stars. You can see his At The Movies Review (here)
 
Comments Off on 23. The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle(2000)

Posted by on January 28, 2010 in Roger's Worst

 

Tags:

20. Gladiator (2000)


Roger’s Rating :

Should be :

I remember how much I enjoyed this movie when I first saw at the theater. I had my mouth open during the first battle scene against the Germanic tribes. When Maximus said : “Unleash hell”, I could see, hear and almost feel the might of ancient Rome. I really thought it was a great movie, but Roger disagreed.
He said :
A foolish choice in art direction casts a pall over Ridley Scott’s Gladiator that no swordplay can cut through. The film looks muddy, fuzzy and indistinct. Its colors are mud tones at the drab end of the palette, and it seems to have been filmed on grim and overcast days. This darkness and a lack of detail in the long shots helps obscure shabby special effects (the Colosseum in Rome looks like a model from a computer game), and the characters bring no cheer: They’re bitter, vengeful, depressed. By the end of this long film, I would have traded any given gladiatorial victory for just one shot of blue skies.

He goes on to say : “But Gladiator lacks joy. It employs depression as a substitute for personality, and believes that if the characters are bitter and morose enough, we won’t notice how dull they are.”
I couldn’t disagree with Roger more on this review. Sure, Gladiator wasn’t a happy movie, but I found that refreshing. Dull is one of the last words that comes to mind when I think of this movie. I still get chills when I hear Maximus say : “My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions, loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.”
Roger also some issues with the looks of the this movie. He thought it looked “muddy, fuzzy and indistinct”. It did however win an Oscar for Visual Effects and was nominated for Best Cinematography. It also won Oscars for Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Costume Design and Best Sound. It was also nominated for Oscars for Best Actor in a Supporting Role, Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Director, Best Editing, Best Music, Original Score and Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen.
I don’t think this movie was as good as Spartacus or Ben-Hur but I’d have trouble to come up with another movie in this genre that I liked better.
And I’m probably not alone. Currently it has an 8.3 rating on IMDB and is ranked 102nd best movie of all time. It also has a 77% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Roger only gave this great escapist action flic 2 stars. You can watch his At The Movies Review (here). Guest critic Joyce Kulhawik is stunned by Roger’s negative review (as am I). Why are you such a Gladiator-hater Roger?

 
Comments Off on 20. Gladiator (2000)

Posted by on January 21, 2010 in Roger's Worst

 

Tags: