The nominees are:

Elf

The Haunted Mansion

The Hulk

2 Fast, 2 Furious

Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star

The Matrix: Reloaded

The Matrix; Revolutions

The Core

Bulletproof Monk

Malibu's Most Wanted

Kangaroo Jack

National Security

Biker Boyz

Dreamcatcher

Dumb And Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd

From Justin To Kelly

The League Of Exraordinary Gentlemen

How To Deal

Johnny English

Gigli

Marci X

Shaolin Soccer

Scary Movie 3

I really think any one of these cinematic abortions would be a stong contender for worst film of the year. Place your votes now!!!

The Italian Job

Dreamcatcher, by far.

And I happen to think Shaolin Soccer is a great movie, but I've only seen the chinese version.

JimmyNothing said:

It just wasn't as bad as any of the films on this list. Ed Norton's performance kept it out of the running. Sorry.

Hulk??? no way!



that was a great movie, and of the Marvel movies that've come out in the last few years, it's probably the best film of the bunch.



so, it's not what most people are looking for in a Hulk movie. i can understand that. but most people don't realize what the Hulk is actually about. i think the movie did a great job of getting the core psychological concept across, with just enough big action scenes to keep it moving. this is exactly the kind of Hulk movie i was hoping for, one that delves into the psychology and didn't need to be just the "HULK SMASH" version of the character.

JediMaster said:

If it had been called by another name I wouldn't have been so harsh. But when comparing it to the original...

From the ones on your list I would have to say Johnny English was terrible

some of those movies made good summer Matinee films...bored at 1 or 2 o clock...they were perfect.

JimmyNothing said:

that was kind of a good movie

Ive not seen or even heard of Shaolin Soccer but with a name like that how on earth could it be bad?!?!?


[This message was edited Wed Dec 24 8:02:59 PST 2003 by JDINTERACTIVE]

rdhull said:

But there was no cliffhanger at the end! (Literally)

AaronAlmighty said:

Gotta disagree. I'm a huge fan of the comic, and I thought this movie majorly dropped the ball. It had a great cast, and a great director, but it ultimately got way too silly. All that crap at the end with his dad getting the absorbing man powers was just goofy, and not including the character of Rick Jones was wrong on sooo many levels. They should have hired Peter David to do the script, since he wrote the character for so long, and knows the whole dynamic of what makes the Hulk tick.

As for your comment that it was the best of the Marvel movies, that honor goes to X2, with Spider-man not far behind. This was my least favorite marvel movie since that awful Captain America flick from a few years ago

AaronAlmighty said:

I liked it too..I grew up on Hulk. I just wish for once, one of these movies will remain true to the origin of the character though. Such as Banner being caught in gamma rays in the test zone by throwing his young friend in the ditch to save him. So far I think it has only been Spiderman that followed the cominc book origiin.

When he first ever appeared, was he Dr DAVID or BRUCE Banner?

JimmyNothing said:

Bruce. His dad is David (which is actually true to the comic)

JediMaster said:

and in the TV Show did they change it to David because it was less aggresive or something?

JediMaster said:

favorite? oh, well, yeah, it's not my favorite, i LIKE both X-Men movies and Spiderman better than the Hulk movie (it beats out Daredevil, though). but as a film-making exercise, it is the best of the bunch. the direction on that movie is just beautiful.

i will agree with you about the end, though. it sucked. big time. it seemed to me like they had Nick Nolte and wanted to do something more with him than the movie would allow, so they threw in that Absorbing Man stuff. should have been left out completely. the plot could follow through basically the same all the way to the end, without the Absorbing Man stuff, and it would make for a much better movie.

JimmyNothing said:

Bruce--always been Bruce--in fact the person he saved from a gamma ray test site explosion in the desert was named David who became his life-long friend.

rdhull said:

yeah, but don't you think in 2003, the Hulk's real origin brought to the screen would be pretty anachronistic? atomic bomb testing? people being on the site? it's a little far-fetched in this day and age for the circumstance to have even presented itself to turn him into the Hulk.

JimmyNothing said:

I don't know why--I just know that the televsion show was a travesty in my opinion.

rdhull said:

EXACTLY! I didn't mind them tinkering with the origin a little, but they threw out so much of it that it wasn't the same. Rick Jones is so vital to the Hulk mythos, because of the guilt he feels for being responsible. This being cut out was INEXCUSABLE. The psychology of the story is not just The Hulk/Banner, but also Rick's conflict (which leads him to follow the Hulk/Banner wherever he goes), Betty Ross's conflict with her father (one of the few things the movie got right) and Thunderbolt Ross's conflict with Banner (ultimately, his drive to hunt the Hulk down is that of a father who doesn't approve of the man his daughter has fallen for).

AaronAlmighty said:

Possibly archaic as well yes..but then again we are talking about super heroes etc...IM just saying. I guess these things are updated for our times. Its just that I grew up on these things and when they finally have the ability to make these into movies it stings a little.

rdhull said:

No. The guy he saved was Rick Jones. David Banner was Bruce's abusive dad.

rdhull said:

Some bullshit about "Bruce" sounding too homosexual (no, I'm not kidding! Some exec thought Bruce was a gay sounding name!)

JediMaster said:

Bingo g money (I agree wholeheartedly). And yeah his name was "Rick Jones" , I ofrgot lol. I said it was David. And yeah Betty was the generals daughter etc..they screw lots of things up. Like I just did with Rick Jones was David lol

yeah, Rick should have been in it. that is a major omission. as it's own thing though, this is a beautiful movie well-directed and edited and brought to the screen. it's just the Rick Jones omission and the addition of the Absorbing Man stuff that really weighs it down. otherwise, i LOVE the look of it, the pace of it, pretty much everything else but those 2 things.

JediMaster said:

well...

One thing that pisses me off is ion Spiderman how MaryJane is not th eMaryJane in the comic book in perosnality. MaryJane is more of a free spirit veracious type of perosnality...the movie has her damn near one tragedy from being a goth kid.

rdhull said:

i'm glad they didn't go for the 90's MaryJane though, that was all glam and supermodelly. Kirsten Dunst is a pretty girl, but she can play other things than drop-dead gorgeous. but i was expecting them to go with the ultra-glam post-McFarlane MJ, so i was relieved that they played her as a little more awkward and (relatively) mousy.

Gigli


What a huge pile of dog crap that was!!!

AaronAlmighty said:

True, but they could have still had some sort of experiment out on a test field go awry (a gamma weapon of some sort). Bruce sacrificing himself to save some punk kid should have been in there, on way or another. Its just too vital to the mythos. I had no problem with them having the whole subplot that his dad had done an experiment on his DNA. That worked nicely, and had a whole "sins of the father" element to it. As soon as his dad turned himself into the Absorbing man, however, it lost any chance of being salvaged. It deteriorated into a bad "monsters duke it out" thing. It literally made the difference in whether or not I liked the film, and whether I would forgive the changes that were made.