General Discussion

Forums » General Discussion » 5 Worst Movies of 2012
Forum Tools

5 Worst Movies of 2012

Topic started by rem25 on Jan. 29, 2013. Last post by mike20 3 months, 3 weeks ago.
Post by rem25 (628 posts) See mini bio

I debated whether or not to do a list like this. On one hand, it feels like a slap in the face to everyone involved making these films. On the other hand, not every movie can be destined for greatness. There are bad films out there, whether they're intentional or not. Even the best films of all time can change rankings from time to time. I did not see every movie that came out, so there are likely to be films that you thought were worse than what is on my list. There are spoilers in some of these so you have been warned. Feel free to debate me in the comments below. In any case, here are my top (bottom?) 5 worst movies of 2012.

5. Bully

I'll probably catch some flack for this, but hear me out first. On the outside, this documentary has everything going for it. The topic of bullying has become a source of national debate and studies. Children have committed suicide because of bullying or have taken matters into their own hands and have hurt or killed people as a result. The subject matter is not the issue here; the presentation of the documentary and the surrounding controversy is.

Lee Hirsch's documentary ends up giving a one-sided look at bullying. We see the children, how they're treated, and even see several scenes where bullying takes place, which calls into mind the authenticity of the acts being filmed. We hear their family's reactions to the bullying and how little most of them realize what is happening. All the children involved seem to come from low socio-economic backgrounds. While this gives the viewer a more sympathetic look, I think it is also damning at the same time. Bullying occurs across all walks of life and I think it's sad that only one section of the country was used. While not all documentaries have to throw statistics around to make a point, I think it would've done this film a great service to provide something to have the audience attach to. Unfortunately, the only stats thrown up late in the film come across as meaningless and have no lasting impact. The biggest issue I have is that nothing comes of this film. These children we've watched over a school year don't seem to be tolerating the abuse better than before. Parents get outraged at school board meetings and vigils are held for those who have killed themselves as a result of bullying, but no viable solution is offered for what can be done about bullying. We're told to visit a website as the credits roll for more information. Wouldn't the whole point of the documentary be to find some type of solution for the problem or at least explain why it happens?

This film also suffered because of the pointless controversy surrounding it involving the Weinstein Company, the distributors of the film. Bully was given an R-rating due to its use of the word fuck six times. Harvey Weinstein went public about this since the MPAA refused to budge to reduce the rating to PG-13 so school groups and children could see this film. Weinstein tried to garner public sympathy though he was told by removing half of the fucks out would allow the lower rating. He eventually caved and the PG-13 rating was given.

4. Dr. Seuss' The Lorax

There's a problem with adapting children's books to feature-length films. Often characters are fleshed out more than they are in the book, often to the detriment of the story. Characters are added to bring out conflict or relationships that never existed in the original material. In other words, leave the source material alone and go with what you have. This same issue plagues Dr. Seuss' The Lorax. Even at 86 minutes, this film is still too long for its own good. The musical numbers in the film are unnecessary and come out of nowhere. The additional characters and subplot add absolutely nothing to the overall story. I think had they stuck with the original material, this could have actually been a decent film. Unfortunately, it panders to the lowest common denominator and it's core message brings nothing new to the table. Environmentalist stories have been told over the years and have been much, much better (see Princess Mononoke as a prime example).

The studio brings out an all-star cast to breathe some life into this otherwise dead film. All of the voice acting seems dialed in and no one really seems to give it much thought. Taylor Swift's casting seems especially odd considering she was not used for any of the musical numbers. She doesn't strike me as the type to transition from music to film, though I suppose her name brings in the more kids that want to hear her. Even Ed Helms and Danny DeVito, who are generally pretty funny actors, bring very little comedic relief to the film. The only thing I will give the film credit for is that it does look pretty. The CGI is very bright and colorful, exactly what a Dr. Seuss film should be filled with. Other than that, there isn't much to keep one's interest.

3. Get the Gringo

Recent times have not been kind to Mel Gibson. His Hollywood career has taken a steep dive since Passion of the Christ and his personal life hasn't helped things much either. His last big role was in Signs, and that was 10 years ago. It's not surprising to see his latest film end up as one of the worst films of the year. Get the Gringo has Gibson playing the titular character who ends up in jail in Mexico though his crime was committed in the US. While there, he comes across a boy who has a special place in the prison. He has a rare blood type that matches that of Javi, the prison's "boss", who requires a liver transplant. The gringo decides he must protect the boy and his mother at all costs.

As if that didn't sound stupid enough, Gibson is the only white person in the prison. I get they were probably going for an alliteration here or something, but could they not really give Gibson's character an actual name? Maybe that's a minor point, but his character has no motivation to help out this boy and his mother. His life actually would be better off if he didn't. We learn his ripped off a crime boss back in America and that this person wants the Gringo dead. After several mishaps and an attempted assassination on the Gringo by US law enforcement officials, where Gibson miraculously develops uncanny reflexes and amazing accuracy despite being 20 years older than his pursuers, the prison is closed down in a mass effort by Mexican authorities. Gibson is able to not only escape prison, but travel back to the US where he somehow convinces a secretary & CEO of a company to believe he is Clint Eastwood by sounding gruff and putting a rag over the phone to set up a meeting with the CEO and the crime boss.

The cherry on top of this steaming crap sundae is that this film was only released as VOD. It was shown in foreign countries before making its way to the US. I think it's time for Mel Gibson to either hang up his acting and directing career, or he needs to take a while off and seriously contemplate how to come back and become the A-list celebrity he was in the 80s and 90s. He also should never write or co-write a script again, as the dialog in this film is pretty awful.

2. Casa de mi Padre

Ahhh Will Ferrell, sometimes you can be a comic genius, and others you can give us total shit. We'll label this under the total shit category. Casa de mi Padre is Ferrell's latest film and it is mostly in Spanish. One might assume that Ferrell would not really talk much Spanish and use this as a basis of the comedy, but that is not the case. That may have made it a better film though. He plays Armando Alvarez, the son of a ranch hand who is due to inherit his father's land. His younger brother Raul shows up to the ranch with his fiancée Sonia. Raul appears to be a successful businessman who will help clear his father's debts. Everything is not as it seems though, as Raul seems to have become involved with a powerful drug lord. Armando must find a way to not only save his brother, but his father's ranch too.

First off, this film is supposed to be a parody of Mexican soap operas, a subject I have zero knowledge on. Even in spite of this, the film comes off as far too contrived for its own good. We learn Armando killed his mother as a boy accidentally when they were ambushed by thieves near a private spring. This scene comes into play later on when Armando goes off in search of Sonia. She tries to kill herself in that same spring after everyone at her & Raul's wedding, including Armando's father, are massacred by the drug lord's henchmen. This leads to a tame sex scene where we are treated to intertwining shots of Armando and Sonia's bare asses. This is pretty standard Will Ferrell humor, but we've seen it so many times it's lost its charm. Oh, did I mention Armando has a thing for Sonia and wants her when it's clear Raul only has her to be a trophy wife? Yeah, it seems like a standard soap opera affair, but it's just not funny, even ironically.

There are several scenes with a white cougar puppet. They don't even try to hide the fact that it's fact, it's just out there for everyone to see. The cougar can also talk and comes to Will Ferrell's in an almost hallucinogenic state. Probably one of the worst scenes in the film is where they stop in the middle of a scene where Armando is going to fight the cougar. Literally, the film stops rolling and a letter comes up from the assistant director about how great this scene was going to be and that people died filming it, etc. I just can't see how anyone can find it funny. Again, even trying to be this ironically bad just comes across as bad, period. That is the kind of humor small children would probably enjoy, but anyone with half a brain is going to scratch their heads and wonder what the hell they're trying to go for.

One of the final scenes involves a shoot-out at the drug lord's mansion. Raul ends up being shot and Armando rides in on a white horse to save the day, killing everyone with deadly accuracy not shown anywhere else in the film. He is able to not only save Sonia, but kill the drug lord and ride off into the sunset.

Everything about this film is just terrible start to finish. I was honestly expecting a lot better from the people who brought us Anchorman. I can only hope this type of humor does not make its way into Anchorman 2, or we might be in for an unfortunate sequel after such a long wait.

1. The Devil Inside

God, where do I even begin with this "film"? Actually, one might question if there is a God after viewing this pile of trash that came into theaters the first weekend of 2012. Had the Mayan's been right, I think the fact this film made over $100 million at the box office would've been one of the first signs. There are many reasons this film is not only the worst one of 2012, but probably the worst one to come out in years. This is very disappointing considering the film started out with an interesting premise and that it might do something different with the horror and exorcism genres.

The film begins with a 911 call from 1989 where a woman states she has killed three people and hangs up. We then see news and police footage of the crime scene and what was reported. A woman was arrested for murdering two priests and a nun as an exorcism was being performed on her. We cut to the present where a young woman, Isabella, is in Rome to do a documentary on exorcisms. We discover it was her mother who committed the murders. Isabella's father told her about what her mother did and then died three days later. After meeting up with a couple of young men training for the priesthood and more specifically, exorcisms, she convinces them to investigate her mother being held in a psychiatric hospital in Vatican City to determine if she's crazy or if she really is possessed.

As I said before, The Devil Inside actually starts off with an interesting premise. What if people who seem possessed really suffer from a mental disorder and just need help to fix it or bring it under control? Unfortunately, the film quickly forgets its own rules and drops into chaos. There is a scene where it's suggested that a person can be a victim of multiple possessions and as a result, the demon can transfer bits of itself into other people, possessing several people at once. The problem with this is one scene involves one of the priests being possessed and he goes to perform a baptism in a Catholic church. The possessed priest not only wears the holy shawl, but also submerges his hands in holy water without showing any effects. How could the demon possibly stand to be in a church, let alone touching holy objects which should cause it mass amounts of pain? We were shown an exorcism in an earlier scene where the shawl was put on the head of the possessed woman and she screams out in pain as the demon in her cannot take it.

Late in the film, Isabella is possessed and is taken to a hospital. She kills a nurse and as the cameraman, Mike, runs into the room to film what's going on, blood gets on the camera lens. After zooming in and out of focus, the blood has magically disappeared off the lens. I know this is a low-budget film and all, but that is just pure laziness there. It's not even a subtle thing either; you can only be paying half attention to the screen to notice such a glaring mistake.

The worst offense of this film is its "ending." After Isabella is taken from the hospital by Ben and Mike, she transfers one of the demons into Mike. He then drives the car into oncoming traffic and the car flips several times as the film comes in and out of black. The car stops and we don't see anyone moving and the camera cuts to black. Instead of either leaving something to the imagination or telling the audience that all passengers in the car died, we are told to go to a website for more information on the investigation. What. The. Fuck. Like I said, this has got to be one of the worst endings to a film ever. It never truly ends. I really have to wonder what was going through the head of the director to think that this would be an interesting, new way to end a film. I could see this working if you were actually given information on what happened to the characters. Instead, you're treated to many pages of text that provide little insight to the events that just happened. Oh, and the end credits sequence lasts 10 minutes. It is the slowest credit scroll I have seen in my life. This movie was already pushing it's luck at 83 minutes and if you take out the 10 minutes for the credits and probably another 5 - 10 for scenes of the characters walking or driving to the various locations, this film is barely pushing an hour-long. I would have no problem with that if there was some substance to it, but unfortunately, there is none to be found.

Post by Ghost_of_GhostDad (825 posts) See mini bio

Get the Gringo was legitimately one of my favorite movies of last year and reminded me of why I liked Mel Gibson before the whole crazy thing. I think you went in expecting Braveheart and were pissed you got Payback instead. Both great movies in entirely different ways.

Casa De Mi Padre worked if you were familiar with basic tropes of Mexican Soap Operas and had at the very least a rudimentary understanding of Spanish. I am not saying the movie was great but it was far from the worst movie of 2012 in a year that saw the release of another Resident Evil movie, This Means War, The Tooth Fairy 2, That's My Boy, Here Comes the Boom, and The Raven.

If Direct to Video is on the table then hands down the worst movie of 2012 is Foodfight!. Don't let the 2009 date fool you this movie has been in production hell since 2002 and was quietly shat on to video by a European distributor. I watched with a group of people on Sycnhtube after the trailer surfaced in a forum thread on Something Awful about the worst movie ever made. I can't even do it justice so here is the trailer and if you dare the full movie -

Post by mercurialau (19 posts) See mini bio

I find the way they chose to end The Devil Inside hilarious. They clearly have very little respect for their audience, or maybe just their wallets.

Post by Little_Socrates (159 posts) See mini bio

Yeeeah, it's hard to justify calling any of these other than The Devil Inside any of the "worst movies of the year." If this were a "What's wrong with you people?" Worst Hit Movies of the Year list (see: Todd in the Shadows' regular Worst Year-End Hit Pop Singles lists) I can definitely justify The Lorax and Bully for extreme mismanagement of good ideas. Haven't seen Casa or Gringo, but my brother actually really liked Casa de mi Padre.

But, as pointed out, this is a year where Here Comes The Boom came out, let alone The Oogieloves in the Big Balloon Adventure, Taken 2, A Thousand Words, and the new Underworld movie, which is somehow worse than the new Resident Evil movie.

Post by rem25 (628 posts) See mini bio

@Ghost_of_GhostDad said:

Get the Gringo was legitimately one of my favorite movies of last year and reminded me of why I liked Mel Gibson before the whole crazy thing. I think you went in expecting Braveheart and were pissed you got Payback instead. Both great movies in entirely different ways.

Casa De Mi Padre worked if you were familiar with basic tropes of Mexican Soap Operas and had at the very least a rudimentary understanding of Spanish. I am not saying the movie was great but it was far from the worst movie of 2012 in a year that saw the release of another Resident Evil movie, This Means War, The Tooth Fairy 2, That's My Boy, Here Comes the Boom, and The Raven.

I actually had zero expectations going into Get the Gringo. I still feel like his character is just too unbelievable. The reason I bring up VOD with it is that you have an A-list actor who hasn't had a good leading role since Signs. It's just a really bad sign that they realize the movie was not marketable at all and just released it on VOD.

I understand there were lots of other movies that were given poor reviews. However, as I said in my opening paragraph, this is my personal worst of list based on what I've seen. It would be absurd of me to say any of these movies listed (or others) were worse than what's on my list when I haven't seen them for myself.

Thanks for the comment though!

@Little_Socrates: Basically see my above statement. I'm not going to judge movies based on a trailer or just reading about it. That would be silly.

Post by Little_Socrates (159 posts) See mini bio

@rem25: Right, but my point is that it begs the question, "Why make this list?" Like, the worst movie I saw this year was Underworld, which was legitimately bad; numbers two and three would be Bourne Legacy and The Expendables 2, which are totally competent. If I had to write a longer list than that, I'd probably have to start writing about movies I actually liked. Maybe The Hunger Games?

It just seems unnecessary, is all.

Post by rem25 (628 posts) See mini bio

@Little_Socrates: I made the list because it was something I was planning on doing. I'm going to do a top 10 best of 2012. I haven't seen every movie that came out in 2012, but that doesn't negate that it's my personal top 10. I just think your comments are somewhat moot. No one forced me to do this. I'm sorry if you felt like you wasted your time reading it or something, but I think your comment about this being unnecessary is a bit unnecessary.

Post by VioletEyedDragon (1,819 posts) See mini bio

I think you explained everything really well. Totally agree about THE LORAX and THE DEVIL INSIDE. I gotta say I liked CASA DE MI PADRE, though; it was like a GRINDHOUSE purposefully bad kind of movie. The tiger puppet was pretty funny.

@Little_Socrates said:

@rem25: Right, but my point is that it begs the question, "Why make this list?" Like, the worst movie I saw this year was Underworld, which was legitimately bad; numbers two and three would be Bourne Legacy and The Expendables 2, which are totally competent. If I had to write a longer list than that, I'd probably have to start writing about movies I actually liked. Maybe The Hunger Games?

It just seems unnecessary, is all.

how many movies did you see last year? I'm guessing you didn't see enough to justify making this list, but obviously @rem25: did.

I think by identifying bad movies and what makes them bad it 1) generates discussion and 2) talks about problems that filmmakers tend to take with story-telling. I mean, if no one points out why a movie sucked, then so many people will just say blanket statements like "I hate found footage films" instead of saying that "THE DEVIL INSIDE is one of the worst in the genre; it's $100 million gross is not proof of anything." I hope I am explaining myself.

Post by dbz_universe (34 posts) See mini bio

I actually enjoyed Get That Gringo. tho Devil inside me was just horrible IMO

Post by Little_Socrates (159 posts) See mini bio

@VioletEyedDragon: I saw something like twenty or thirty movies, I just liked the vast majority of them. The worst-regarded movie I saw was probably Underworld, there were just a lot of great movies in 2012. I totally agree that pointing out how terrible The Devil Inside is can absolutely be necessary. But by saying it's just one spot worse than Casa de mi Padre kind of makes that less valuable, yeah? It's like if someone saw fifty terrible movies and also Argo, and then said that Argo was the best movie they saw all year, one spot ahead of Total Recall because at least that wasn't incompetent garbage. It diminishes the statement. It's why my podcast doesn't do a "Worst Games of the Year" show despite playing something approaching a hundred games; at worst, we're only playing four or five bad games, even if one of them is truly awful.

@rem25: Absolutely, but I planned on writing several Best Games of 2012 write-ups over on Giant Bomb and didn't because people didn't show an interest. My point is mainly that at least two out of five of these aren't even really bad movies, even if they're problematic, mediocre, or stupid. One of these movies seems to be on there because you don't appreciate the message or the controversy surrounding the film rather than the actual filmmaking or storytelling on hand. That's relevant, and I think it'd make for a quality review or write-up, but to damn the movie as one of the worst of the year seems...well, not even really foolhardy, but just unnecessary.

To talk about why Bully doesn't work is useful. To write about why The Devil Inside is one of the worst films ever is also useful. To put them both on a list declaring them of even nearly equal stature distracts from those points and makes me question, "Why?" It's only a day later that I happened to float back in that I can really see the value in the commentary. I'm being critical not because I don't value your opinion, as you have valuable ones. And qualifying it as "My least favorite films I saw this year" helps the reader to displace the film experiences they had as well as the qualitative competency issues, and you should do so in the original post (not with "I didn't see everything," but with "These are just my least favorites.") But, instead of engaging with the material immediately, I just questioned its rankings immediately due to your desire to pass damning judgment on these films.

Post by Tylea002 (464 posts) See mini bio

@Little_Socrates: You're probably putting too much blame on rem here. Sure, there's a large argument to be had about the dilution and warping of what definitive terms mean in the internet age of film criticism, and the value of the difference between the film experience and the film making - and hey, that's a discussion I'd love to have because I'm a big nerd and love talking about film theory in that way. But in the context of this blog, it's pretty clearly an opinion piece - these are the movies rem finds the worst, and the reasons why. Those reasons don't need to be objective, because they're personal to him, and he backs up every opinion he has with how he came to that conclusion.

Post by Little_Socrates (159 posts) See mini bio

@Tylea002: At some level, my philosophy is "you gotta tear them down to build them back up." rem's a good writer, so I'm asking hard questions. We post things in a forum because we want responses. My response is to provide criticism, and today I suppose it's to provide context for said criticism. I'm also still trying to gauge the number of responses and people in the Screened forums, as the kind of criticisms I wrote yesterday fit better in a chorus of fifty than in a chorus of ten.

Post by Ghost_of_GhostDad (825 posts) See mini bio

I didn't mean to belittle your opinions I was just trying to start a debate and admit that I liked 40% of the movies on you list. I didn't see Bully or The Devil Inside but I totally agree with your opinion about The Lorax. The mass marketing and product tie-ins alone were enough to make me sick and went completely against everything I loved about the Dr. Seuss original. The only positive thing I can say about the movie was that Danny Devito was a great casting decision.

Post by rem25 (628 posts) See mini bio

@Little_Socrates: I did want to generate discussion, but I also thought it would be interesting to put it out there in the forums as more people are likely to see too. This is just a personal list for me and it didn't matter to me if people read it. I'm trying to write more this year to make myself a better critic, and I figured I would let the comments speak for themselves if I got any. Since you brought up the number of movies seen this year, I saw 50 movies that were released in 2012. Most of the movies I saw were truly just okay. There were several I really liked and making my top 10 list was harder than I thought it would be. I thought about doing the 10 worst movies I saw, but I thought 5 was a better number as if I chose 10, it would verge into movies I thought were just fine.

The movies I listed here received two stars or under in my book. There were a few other 2 star movies so I had to choose from too. I actually did say you might think there were worst movies out there than were on my list, and that's fine. I didn't see every critically panned movie, so I can't just speculate. People have talked on the Pupcast how terrible Battleship, A Thousand Words, and Atlas Shrugged: Part 2 are, but I haven't seen them and can't say if they're as bad to me.

@Ghost_of_GhostDad: I don't think you were belittling my opinions. I may have been a tad sensitive on the matter and my initial instinct is to act defensive. I haven't put something out like this before, so I honestly didn't know what to expect. Thanks for your comments though!

@VioletEyedDragon: Thanks for the comment! I think you liked Casa de mi Padre for the same reason I hated it.

@dbz_universe & thanks for your comments as well!

Post by VioletEyedDragon (1,819 posts) See mini bio

@Little_Socrates said:

@VioletEyedDragon: I saw something like twenty or thirty movies, I just liked the vast majority of them. The worst-regarded movie I saw was probably Underworld, there were just a lot of great movies in 2012. I totally agree that pointing out how terrible The Devil Inside is can absolutely be necessary. But by saying it's just one spot worse than Casa de mi Padre kind of makes that less valuable, yeah? It's like if someone saw fifty terrible movies and also Argo, and then said that Argo was the best movie they saw all year, one spot ahead of Total Recall because at least that wasn't incompetent garbage. It diminishes the statement. It's why my podcast doesn't do a "Worst Games of the Year" show despite playing something approaching a hundred games; at worst, we're only playing four or five bad games, even if one of them is truly awful.

I see what you mean. THE DEVIL INSIDE is at a far worse level than the other films (other than maybe THE LORAX). by putting on a list with these other films it makes it seem better lol

Post by Little_Socrates (159 posts) See mini bio

@rem25: In regards to being a better critic, let me say this; how you say something is just as important as what you say. IGN has a massive problem with everyone taking its Top ___ lists seriously because it uses qualitative language rather than personal language. It's without identity, which is problematic because it causes people to not understand why, for example, Lost is above Firefly and TNG on the list of "Top 50 Sci-Fi TV Shows." Rolling Stone tends to run into the same problem, whether they're saying six of the ten best albums of all time are Beatles albums, or saying Kurt Cobain is better than David Gilmour, and so on.

The words "best" and "worst" are generally going to draw ire and responses similar to mine and Ghostdad's. I like that ire when I feel qualified to respond to it, and I get defensive either way. That's not a bad trait. But the words "least favorite" or "favorite" are much more personable, subjective, and definitive of the individual, and someone who doesn't have a strong opinion is more likely to take in your personal perspective rather than general perspective.

Also, I'd like to agree that The Lorax's marketing was egregiously terrible. The only movie that was marketed worse was The Grey, which should've been released as a year-end survival awards-season film rather than Liam Neeson Bottle-Backhands Wolves.

Post by VioletEyedDragon (1,819 posts) See mini bio

@Little_Socrates said:

@rem25: In regards to being a better critic, let me say this; how you say something is just as important as what you say. IGN has a massive problem with everyone taking its Top ___ lists seriously because it uses qualitative language rather than personal language. It's without identity, which is problematic because it causes people to not understand why, for example, Lost is above Firefly and TNG on the list of "Top 50 Sci-Fi TV Shows." Rolling Stone tends to run into the same problem, whether they're saying six of the ten best albums of all time are Beatles albums, or saying Kurt Cobain is better than David Gilmour, and so on.

The words "best" and "worst" are generally going to draw ire and responses similar to mine and Ghostdad's. I like that ire when I feel qualified to respond to it, and I get defensive either way. That's not a bad trait. But the words "least favorite" or "favorite" are much more personable, subjective, and definitive of the individual, and someone who doesn't have a strong opinion is more likely to take in your personal perspective rather than general perspective.

Also, I'd like to agree that The Lorax's marketing was egregiously terrible. The only movie that was marketed worse was The Grey, which should've been released as a year-end survival awards-season film rather than Liam Neeson Bottle-Backhands Wolves.

I completely disagree. your "favorite" and "least favorite" movies are just what you enjoyed more or less, something less interesting than what you consider was the "best" or "worse" due to a wide range of categories like artistic quality, positive messages, negative messages, entertainment value, originality, and universality. I think "best" and "worst" lists are far superior to "favorite" and "least favorite" lists.

Post by Little_Socrates (159 posts) See mini bio

@VioletEyedDragon said:

@Little_Socrates said:

@rem25: In regards to being a better critic, let me say this; how you say something is just as important as what you say. IGN has a massive problem with everyone taking its Top ___ lists seriously because it uses qualitative language rather than personal language. It's without identity, which is problematic because it causes people to not understand why, for example, Lost is above Firefly and TNG on the list of "Top 50 Sci-Fi TV Shows." Rolling Stone tends to run into the same problem, whether they're saying six of the ten best albums of all time are Beatles albums, or saying Kurt Cobain is better than David Gilmour, and so on.

The words "best" and "worst" are generally going to draw ire and responses similar to mine and Ghostdad's. I like that ire when I feel qualified to respond to it, and I get defensive either way. That's not a bad trait. But the words "least favorite" or "favorite" are much more personable, subjective, and definitive of the individual, and someone who doesn't have a strong opinion is more likely to take in your personal perspective rather than general perspective.

Also, I'd like to agree that The Lorax's marketing was egregiously terrible. The only movie that was marketed worse was The Grey, which should've been released as a year-end survival awards-season film rather than Liam Neeson Bottle-Backhands Wolves.

I completely disagree. your "favorite" and "least favorite" movies are just what you enjoyed more or less, something less interesting than what you consider was the "best" or "worse" due to a wide range of categories like artistic quality, positive messages, negative messages, entertainment value, originality, and universality. I think "best" and "worst" lists are far superior to "favorite" and "least favorite" lists.

I definitely prefer "best" and "worst" lists. They're more intensely felt and more grounded in actual quality, as you said. I'm simply saying that "best" and "worst" lists actually do have to contend with ire and standoffish responses, while "favorite" and "least favorite" are more personable and subjective. I'm saying that the wording defines how people read the text and how they respond to it, and intensifies the feelings of agreement/disagreement.

Post by VioletEyedDragon (1,819 posts) See mini bio

@Little_Socrates said:

@VioletEyedDragon said:

@Little_Socrates said:

@rem25: In regards to being a better critic, let me say this; how you say something is just as important as what you say. IGN has a massive problem with everyone taking its Top ___ lists seriously because it uses qualitative language rather than personal language. It's without identity, which is problematic because it causes people to not understand why, for example, Lost is above Firefly and TNG on the list of "Top 50 Sci-Fi TV Shows." Rolling Stone tends to run into the same problem, whether they're saying six of the ten best albums of all time are Beatles albums, or saying Kurt Cobain is better than David Gilmour, and so on.

The words "best" and "worst" are generally going to draw ire and responses similar to mine and Ghostdad's. I like that ire when I feel qualified to respond to it, and I get defensive either way. That's not a bad trait. But the words "least favorite" or "favorite" are much more personable, subjective, and definitive of the individual, and someone who doesn't have a strong opinion is more likely to take in your personal perspective rather than general perspective.

Also, I'd like to agree that The Lorax's marketing was egregiously terrible. The only movie that was marketed worse was The Grey, which should've been released as a year-end survival awards-season film rather than Liam Neeson Bottle-Backhands Wolves.

I completely disagree. your "favorite" and "least favorite" movies are just what you enjoyed more or less, something less interesting than what you consider was the "best" or "worse" due to a wide range of categories like artistic quality, positive messages, negative messages, entertainment value, originality, and universality. I think "best" and "worst" lists are far superior to "favorite" and "least favorite" lists.

I definitely prefer "best" and "worst" lists. They're more intensely felt and more grounded in actual quality, as you said. I'm simply saying that "best" and "worst" lists actually do have to contend with ire and standoffish responses, while "favorite" and "least favorite" are more personable and subjective. I'm saying that the wording defines how people read the text and how they respond to it, and intensifies the feelings of agreement/disagreement.

yeah that is true.

Post by mike20 (731 posts) See mini bio
Online Now

Pick 5 random movies from Asylum, and call them the worst of 2012.

Mandatory Network

Submissions can take several hours to be approved.

Save ChangesCancel