2003 played host to some really bad films. Here are my thoughts on a selected few.


4. The Core
It may have been entertaining, but it was still really, really, lousy. The characters were cartoons, the effects were lame, and the plot made absolutely no sense, even if you turn a blind eye to all of the laughable science. It wasn't as horrible as Mission To Mars but that's not really a ringing endorsement. If you have a low tolerance for crap, avoid The Core.


3. Kill Bill - Vol. 1
The opening titles of this film say it all: "KILL BILL - QUENTIN TARANTINO'S 4th FILM". This movie is, at its core, a movie about Quentin Tarantino: about how cool he is, about how much he knows about movies (particularly Hong Kong movies), and about his strengths and flaws as a filmmaker. If you've seen Pulp Fiction, then you've seen Kill Bill. It's stylish, it's bloody, and it displays a thinly-veiled contempt for its characters. If you're a Tarantino fan, you'll probably like this movie. If not, then there isn't much here.

Like Pulp Fiction, the plot of Kill Bill is paper-thin, so Tarantino has to chop it up and show it to us out of order. This device is interesting when well-executed (see Citizen Kane and The Limey), but here it just seems lazy. Instead of worrying about the story, the director seems more concerned with showing the audience how many movies he's seen by borrowing wildly from all of this favorites. Some of these stylistic touches are neat at first, but after a while they start to seem a little desperate. We get it, Quentin - you’ve seen a lot of movies. How about spending some more time writing characters?

My big hope was that this film might actually have a well-formed character, on account of this being a revenge movie and everything, but Tarantino still can't write a character to save his life. As one review put it, The Bride is no more than the sum of her skills. In spite of the abuse that the director heaps upon her (with what seems to be a sense of glee), her character still isn't sympathetic. A revenge picture can't succeed if the audience doesn't care about the avenger - unsurprisingly, this one fails.

Then, of course, there's the violence. Tarantino can say all he likes about context and parody, but I simply can't divorce onscreen violence from the motive behind it, nor do I think we should try. Showing your main character murdering a mother in front of her child is not going to make the audience care about your character. If the audience doesn't care about your character, then your film is going to end up being hollow, which is my central problem with Kill Bill.

If pushing the boundaries of screen violence at the expense of storytelling is Tarantino's goal, then he should keep doing what he’s doing. On the other hand, if he wants to make a movie that lives up to the promise of his astonishing visual talent, then he might want to think about moving on. He's been making this kind of film for 11 years now. Isn't he getting bored? I know I am.


2. How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days
It was February 2003. The economy was in the dumps, tensions were running high over a possible U.S. invasion of Iraq, and America was ready for a light-hearted, life-affirming romantic comedy starring two of America's most attractive stars.

Sadly, How To Lose A Guy in 10 Days was not that movie. The two stars, Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey, are arguably attractive, so that can't be the issue. I think that the problem might be that they play two of the most unappealing characters in the history of cinema.

The film centers around Kate Hudson's character, Andie Anderson, a plucky journalist at a Cosmo-style women's magazine. She's tired of writing fluff pieces about dating and men. She wants to become a "real journalist" and start writing "serious" articles - you know, like about politics and world hunger and stuff? - but her no-nonsense boss won't let her. She somehow strikes a deal in which her no-nonsense boss will let her write her "serious" articles if she writes one last blockbuster fluff piece about dating and men.

The piece in question involves her making a guy fall in love with her and then behaving like a shrew in order to force him to break up with her. She has 10 days to complete this task, hence the title.

Now, this is obviously tricky material. If the writer isn't careful, the character could come off like the biggest jerk in the world - you know, since she's basically toying with another person's emotions for no reason other than to boost her own career.

The solution the writer came up with was to have the object of her fictitious affection be the second biggest jerk in the world. Mssr. McConaughey plays an advertising executive (Ben Barry) who makes one of the most bizarre business arrangements in history, in which he will win a particular advertising account if he can get a woman to fall in love with him in 10 days. Andie and Ben happen to be at the same party immediately after their plans are hatched. They see each other across a crowded room and - bam! - movie magic is born.

This may sound contrived and arbitrary, which it is. That's not the problem, however. The problem is that these characters are such nasty, shallow people that watching them turns your stomach. The movie is essentially a game of one-upsmanship in which the two main characters try to see who can be the bigger asshole, culminating in an excruciating scene in which Andie and Ben sing "You're So Vain" to each other in front of the other guests at a fancy dinner party. I won't go into details, because I don't have the strength to recount them.

Most romantic comedies have a wonderful tension throughout that makes the inevitable conclusion - boy kisses girl, girl kisses boy - a kind of sweet relief. The only relief in this movie is that it eventually ends. I hated the characters so much that I wanted them to get together at the end out of sheer spite - maybe they'll make each other as miserable as I was watching them.

In a normal year this may have qualified as the worst film on my list, but 2003 was not a normal year. Not by a long shot.


1. Bad Boys II
Author's Note: It is entirely possible that reading about my painful memories of Bad Boys II might make you laugh. You might even be tempted to see the film just to find out if it's really as bad as I say it is. In the interest of humanity I am compelled to warn you - and I cannot stress this enough - do not see this movie under any circumstances. Michael Bay is going to hell for making this movie, and I'm worried that I will join him if I induce someone to watch it. Please, please, please don't see Bad Boys II. I'm begging you. It's too late for me. Save yourself.

Author's Note 2: This review contains some spoilers. Trust me when I say that they don't matter. This review also contains some swearing. I normally try to keep the bad language to a minimum, as this is a family-oriented operation, but Bad Boys II has caused me such trauma that I simply can't help it. If you find this offensive, then you are in no way prepared for the onslaught of offensiveness that you will find in this movie. You're better off destroying this review and never thinking about this film again.

What is a bad movie? Motion pictures are notoriously complicated and dificult to produce. Any number of mistakes could be made which would turn an otherwise good film into one that's boring, poorly acted, sluggishly paced, or irrelevant. Even the best filmmakers can make mistakes like this, and there's no dishonor in it. I hesitate to call such films "bad" - they're merely unsuccessful.

We should reserve the term "bad" for another class of film. These films are harder to spot. They frequently have high production values. The often have impressive marketing campaigns. In many cases they are made with exceedingly high levels of craftsmanship. They're tough to identify based on their outward appearance, but when you see one, you know it.

Bad Boys II is just such a film. It's so bad that it makes you philosophical about bad movies. Michael Bay's obvious abilities as a craftsman cannot mask the arrogance, stupidity, and pure offensiveness of this movie. Just when you think that it can't offend you any more, it opens a door and introduces you to levels of offensiveness you never even knew existed.

"How could it possibly be that bad?" you ask. I wish I could answer that. The density of badness in this film is so impressive that I couldn't process it all as I watched. The best my feeble brain could do was spit out a steady stream of unanswered questions for later consideration. Many of these turned out to be something like "Dear God, why?" or "Would they let me leave if I chewed off my own arm?" After filtering these out I managed to capture and address a few of the more substantive ones:

"Haven't I seen this before?"
Yes, you have. Bad Boys II is a classic buddy action-comedy. It's so classic, in fact, that it's painful. Have you seen Lethal Weapon? 48 Hrs.? The Apple Dumpling Gang? If so, then there's nothing new for you here except previously unexplored realms of badness. As the movie unfolded I couldn't help but hear Danny Glover's voice echoing in my head: "I'm too old for this shit."

"Was that supposed to be a joke?"
When I labelled this film a "comedy", I was basing it on the presumed intent of the filmmakers, and even that is a bit sketchy. The jokes in this film are so stupid as to hardly be jokes. It's only Will Smith's grinning mug that cues the audience that what they've seen was supposed to be funny. Two rats hump - like people! Dog destroys swimming pool - twice! Martin Lawrence is scared - a lot! These are the jokes, folks. I can't even stand to go into more detail; this film is so aggressively unfunny that I'm trembling with anger as I write this.

"Dear God, when will it end?"
Bad Boys II is so excruciatingly bad that is seems interminable. Further investigation reveals that this is not an illusion - the film does not, in fact, end. Its running time measures a staggering 147 minutes. I'll happily sit in a theater for four hours if I'm watching, say, fighting elves, but how long can we possibly be expected to watch Will Smith's shit-eating grin or listen to Martin Lawrence's pathetic whine over and over again? The answer, apparently, is 147 minutes, and that's far too long. The stamina required to sit through the movie is second only to the stamina of the movie's editors, who had to watch the damned thing for two years.

Then, of course, there are the residual effects. Even though the film is onscreen for just shy of two and a half hours, it will haunt you in your dreams forever. I saw it over six months ago, and I'm still seething. Trust me, you do not need this in your life. Go do a crossword puzzle or something.

"What am I looking at?"
Michael Bay takes his characteristic hyperkinetic editing style to an entirely new level in Bad Boys II, and by "new level" I mean "new level of Hell". It's so difficult to see what's going on that it's almost art - almost. I'm all for breaking the rules and pushing the boundaries, but isn't it a problem if your twenty-minute car chase scene is so muddled that the audience doesn't even know who is doing the chasing? (Answer: yes.)

"Do they think we're stupid?"
The screenwriters apparently have a very low opinion of their audience, because they feel the need to explain what is going to happen at every opportunity.

Example: the "heroes" of the film are in a Mexican standoff with some drug dealers in the middle of a minefield surrounding a U.S. military installation on the island of Cuba. (Please don't ask. Please.)

The bad guy gets the upper hand on the good guys and orders them to drop their weapons. One of the good guys decides that she she will throw her gun onto a land mine at the feet of the bad guy, thereby blowing him up and saving the day. (If you're offended by the idea of showing a human being vaporized by a landmine, turn back now. You don't know what you're in for.) It's a touch and go situation, and it was apparently important that the audience be very clear about what is about to happen:

We see a shot of the hero. We see the land mine. We see the gun. We see the hero. We see the land mine. We see the gun. We see the hero. She speaks:

"I'll just toss this gun…onto the land mine!"

Which she then proceeds to do. Exactly as stated.

What's remarkable is that even with this dumbed-down writing, the plot still manages to be incomprehensible.

"What is going on?"
The plot in this film is so confusing that it's impossible for me to give you a synopsis. Will Smith and Martin Lawrence are cops. One of them is rich for some reason, and the other one is a whiner. There are lots of drug dealers. Stir vigorously and bake for 147 minutes at 400 degrees. Serve with a side order of Gabrielle Union in a bikini.

"What is Michael Bay's problem?"
Truthfully, everything that has come before is merely poor filmmaking. Where Bad Boys II shifts from being unsuccessful to irredeemable is in Michael Bay's contempt for his audience. He puts things on screen that are so offensive that you're offended that anyone would think that you wouldn’t be offended by them.

Examples: an innocent teenage boy picks up the daughter of Martin Lawrence's character (a cop) for a date, and Will Smith's character (another cop) threatens to shoot the boy in the head with his handgun. Drag this theat out for five minutes, show the boy being genuinely terrified, throw in some jokes about prison rape for good measure, and you have a typical Bad Boys II comedy scene. In another comedic gem, Martin Lawrence fondles a woman's enormous breasts. That the woman is dead on a slab in a morgue seemed to bother no one at the MPAA. This is acceptable, but fontal male nudity gets you an NC-17?

I fully support irreverent comedy, but Bay shows poorer taste than most 8th grade boys when he selects the targets of his humor. In addition to the aforementioned innocent teenagers and women, Bay also wipes his feet on homosexuals, impoverished Cubans, cops, white trash, and iguanas, and he plays it all for comedy. Even his attempt to ridicule those that deserve it seem crass and arrogant. How can one make fun of the KKK and still come off looking like a jerk? Somehow, Michael Bay finds a way.

If it were merely bad, watching Bad Boys II would simply be a waste of time and money. Instead, the film manages to be so offensive that watching it makes you feel like your soul is being sucked out of you with a long straw. Life is hard enough as it is without voluntarily surrendering a portion of your humanity. Don't do it. You deserve better.

That's all I can say about Bad Boys II. I'm confident that an entirely new field of academic scholarship could be formed around the topic of how bad this movie is, but I just don't have the energy to go any further. If you've read this far and still intend to see this film, then nothing I can say will stop you. Go forth into that good night, and godspeed.