5 Worst Films of All Time?

The problem with composing a list of the five worst films of all time is that you will always find a person who disagrees with you. Every year a film is released that could be labeled, "The worst movie of all time." Therefore, while composing this list, I decided to focus on a certain types of films, that is films that set out to make an important statement, but are undermined either by their heavy handedness, self importance, or failure to relay the message they are trying to get across. For instance, Van Helsing is a genuinely awful film, yet it never pretends to be anything more than a film about the vampire hunter and his big breasted female companion trying to stop Dracula from taking over the world. Where as a movie like Patch Adams poses as a scathing critique of the medical establishment, when in reality it is just another film tailored to the wacked out comic stylings of Robin Williams. It's message is undermined by scenes of Robin Williams acting like a complete moron. With out further ado, here are the five films I selected.
Note: The Last Samurai is not on this list.

5. The Village - M. Night Shyamalan is one of the most over-rated directors working film today. His films are admired not so much for the story, but rather for their style. Fans of M. Night Shyamalan are under the false impression that anything he touches is automatically good, which explains why The Village has so many defenders. Yet, if this were not an M. Night Shyamalan film, people would see it for the mediocre film that it is. The Village often feels like an unofficial remake of the forgotten, little seen Roger Corman film Teenage Caveman. Both films sport similar premises, characters and endings. The Village has been interpreted as an allegory for post 9/11 America. In it, the elders (government) of the village have deceived their children into believing that they are in constant threat of attack from an outside force, if they wander out of the village. The elders use scare tactic to maintain the status quo, especially when some one questions their reasoning. The outside world is also part of this deception, as the elders have some how made arrangements with the park service not to allow airplanes to fly over the forest the village is located. This illusion they have created is threatened when one of the sons is stabbed by a knife, and his life is dependent upon the aid of outside medicines.
The problem with this allegory is that is entirely dependent on the twist ending. The entire film is built around the premise that the village takes place in the past and that the outside forces in the woods do exist, and are out to harm the villagers when the pact is broken. The elders seem right in their reasoning in not wanting people to leave the village. When their deception is revealed it's about as involving as watching a man water the lawn. It doesn't seem profound, because Shyamalan's twist ending is pretty damn obvious from the get go. The scenes with the creatures come off as being what they are revealed to be, men in bad costumes.
The characters in the film are not involving either. Lucius (Joaquin Phoenix) is more of a plot device then a character, he wanders into the forest, causes a few bad events to occur, falls in love and is conveniently stabbed, causing the deception of the elders to be exposed (to the audience any ways). Ivy Walker (Bryce Dallas Howard) the quintessential virginal heroine is almost too innocent, not only is her love for Lucius true, but she is blind and therefore oblivious to all the deception that is happening right in front of her nose. Is she supposed to represent the American people, who are blind our government's deception even though it happens ever day?
Or is it her innocence that allows her to survive in both the village and the real world unscathed? The film itself has too many slow sequences that involve characters talking; the first half has absolutely no tension what so ever. The creatures (before they are revealed to be fake) come across as more silly than menacing. The only good thing I can say about the film is that it is beautifully shot by Roger Deakins.



4. Fahrenheit 9/11 - I always find it ironic that Michael Moore is everything he claims to hate: a rich, white male who makes money off of the human suffering. In Bowling For Columbine he cashed in on the losses suffered by the families of the victims in the Columbine tragedy, and in Fahrenheit 9/11 he cashes in on the victims of 9/11 and the Iraq war, while putting on a compassionate front. Fahrenheit 9/11 is riddled with inconsistencies at one point Moore criticizes the Bush administration for allowing members of the bin Laden family to be flown out of the country days after 9/11, only to imply later in the film (He doesn't directly say it) that Osama bin Laden was not responsible for 9/11, that it was in essence a conspiracy between the Bush Administration and Saudi Arabia. He constantly tries to convince the audience of a Bush/Saudi Arabia conspiracy by showing us how they are connected. The Bush Administration is only a friendly basis with Saudi Arabia, therefore there must be an elaborate conspiracy brewing. Unfortunately, Moore fails to tell the audience that the last few presidents, including the Clinton Administration have had friendly relationships with Saudi Arabia, therefore if Bush is part of a conspiracy, then Clinton must be in on it as well. Fahrenheit 9/11 is propaganda at its worst. Rather than do a serious critique of the Bush Administration, Moore resorts to scape goating, character assassination, wild speculations, and over blown (and easy to disprove) conspiracy theories to vilify George W. Bush. He never seems interested in criticizing Bush's actions, rather Bush himself. At one point he criticizes Bush for going to war in Afghanistan, yet when Bush tries using diplomacy with the Taliban by meeting with one of its member, he criticizes Bush in welcoming the enemy and engaging in conspiracy. No matter what George W. Bush does, in the eyes of Michael Moore he is always wrong. It's hard to take Michael Moore seriously, because he seems to have no idea what he wants to say, just who he wants to attack.
There are many things wrong with Fahrenheit 9/11, but it would take me a long time to write all of them down. Fahrenheit 9/11 is either worst documentary ever made or one of the greatest propaganda pieces ever produced. You decide!

3. The Passion of the Christ - For awhile it seemed that this movie was above criticism. When it was released if any one had any sort of criticism for this movie they were accused of hating Christianity. What was even more annoying is how so many televangelists went on television saying how this film was the most accurate depiction of Jesus' crucifixion and death, and that it was more a documentary than an actual film. These are very bold claims, none of which are accurate. The Passion of the Christ can hardly be considered a documentary, or accurate considering how vague the bible is in its description of Jesus' crucifixion. The film is not the bible's representation of the final hours Jesus' life, it is Mel Gibsons interpretation of the bible and what he thinks the last hours were like. The flogging of Jesus by the Romans is never very descriptive, yet Mel Gibson some how lingers on it for more than fifteen minutes of screen time, showing every wound in close up, every drop of blood, every piece of flesh torn out. It is not so much a movie of personal faith as it is a long fetish film made by a man who has an odd fascination with violence.
The main problem with The Passion is its depiction of Jesus, he is never given much of personality, except of a wrongfully oppressed man getting beaten by a corrupt system. The film is completely devoid of any context, therefore for any one who has not read the bible, it is quite a mystery as to why Jesus is being crucified. The film never takes the time (with the exception of a brief flashback to the Sermon on the Mount) to show why the religious leaders and Rome considered Jesus a threat. All the audience is shown is that he is a loving, innocent man who is wrongfully put on trial.
Mel Gibson focuses so much time on the crucifixion, that the resurrection of Jesus is an almost after thought. In the bible it is an awe inspiring event filled with joy and hope, in The Passion it plays more like a build up to violence; Jesus arises out of his tomb, opens his eyes, slowly gets up and looks like he is ready to kick some ass. The fact is that the crucifixion has absolutely no meaning without the resurrection. If Jesus simply died on the cross, then would have just been another would be revolutionary who was chewed by the Roman machine. His resurrection gives the crucifixion a deeper meaning, this is something that completely gets lost in The Passion.
The other problem is how Gibson constantly literalizes evil by having CGI demons pop out of nowhere, shots of an androgynous Satan tempting Christ, and a laughable sequence with Satan and a midget.
It's amazing how in the hands of Mel Gibson that the story of a man who taught peace, love and acceptance becomes one of the goriest films ever made.


2. Persona - I am at a lost as to why so many film professors consider this film to be a great work of art! It is about as boring and pretentious as films come. Persona is supposedly about a nurse who is hired to take care of an actress, who has lost the capacity to speak. As the film progresses their personalities slowly merge, only to be torn apart by deception, or something along those lines. It's hard to get into the story because Ingmar Bergman constantly makes it a point to remind his audience that they are watching a film. Thus there are random shots of projectors, boom mikes, and even a reflection of Bergman directing shot thrown in for good measure. I have no idea what the film is trying to say and neither do most of the film's supporters for that matter. All I know is that if you ever have trouble sleeping, just pop this film into the VCR and you will be out in no time.

1. Patch Adams - The worst movie ever made, no ifs ands or buts about it. Nathan Rabin of The Onion perfectly summed up this film when he wrote, "But the film's fuzzy political content gets submerged under layers of sappy sentimentality, crowd-pleasing speeches, and some of the most shameless audience-manipulation techniques this side of Triumph of the Will." At first Patch Adams seems sincere in it's questioning of the medical establishments attitude towards it patients, but this theme becomes merely a device which allows for Robin Williams to perform some of his most annoying comedy antics to date. Slowly, the theme of the uncaring medical establishments fades into the story of a saintly, almost Christ-like rebel who's unconventional methods bring joy into the lives of some many people. I'm sure some where in the Universal vaults there is a deleted scene that shows Patch heal a young girl of her blindness, while a crippled boy throws down his crutches and walks over to hug him. It's these kind of moments of unearned sentiment that make you sick to your stomach. The main annoying thing about Patch Adams (other than Robin Williams chumming it up for the cameras) is how the director Tom Shadyac uses reaction shots of people laughing to show how funny Patch is. Every time Patch does something remotely funny, there is a close up of sickly patients laughing like it is the funniest thing on the planet, thus renewing a sense of purpose in their life. In one painful scene, Patch puts on a red clown nose, which causes a sick, young girl to laugh hysterically. Patch Adams is 115 minutes long, about 30 minutes of its running time consists of people laughing at Patch's supposedly hilarious antics. It's almost like the filmmakers needed to put in a laugh track, just to remind audiences that they are supposed to laugh at certain moments.
Here is a question for people who like this movie: If a man wearing red clown nose came into your room and said he was your doctor, would you trust him? I think not.
Well, this post took far longer than I expected and I don't think I have said nearly enough to back up my claims. But as far as I'm concerned these are five of the worst films ever made, I'm sure many people will disagree, but these are my selections.