2006 was a surprising year in movies for me. For the most part, the past year has been nearly free of lousy overproduced films. There is one or two, but at least the masses wre not hit over the head this past year with an army of them like two to three years ago. Consider it an act of mercy, or at least an oversight on Hollywood’s part. Yes, I’m well aware we were handed Jackass 2 this past year as well- but I can’t really knock a cheap film for being anything other than it pretends to be. I will, however question the intellect of those who paid hard earned money to see it and made it a hit film in the States for two weeks straight. In the meantime, read on and question my intellect on whatever forces possessed me to watch the following pieces of high priced trash.

The films on this list are in random order, except for #1. It will be no surprise. Before we get to that crapola festival, let’s have a look at the rest of the crop. It will not be pretty.

Is it is easy coming up with a top ‘worst’ ten? Last year, it was , because a good chunk of those 2005 films were rejects from 2004. In addition, there were films in 2006 which I did not catch up to until DVD. One small blessing is that there was even one from that fits both criteria that I rented on DVD…from my local library. That’s a really small blessing by the way. Another blessing is that due to the “Pirates Of The Carribean” sequel, there was another film in 2006 that starred Johnny Depp, one quickly forgotten, and with good cause. The Libertine is the worst movie he has been in. Laurence Dunmore’s film about the life and times of 17th century artist John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester, is boring, slow, hard to follow, hard to see due to an overuse of fog machines and overacted by Depp. Alright, he plays a unsavory character. You aren’t supposed to like him. So you are watching a film about a character I’m not supposed to like, even if, at one point he asks the viewers “How do you like me now?” Fair enough. But even the fog machines can’t cover up the horrible makeup job on John Malchovich’s King Charles. I like period pieces, but I like to see the costumes and production design. Someone out there didn’t want this seen for almost two years. I can’t fathom why…let’s move along.

Horror remakes return this year, and with the exception of two of them – ‘The Omen’, which wasn’t half bad, and ‘Black Christmas’, which I haven’t seen yet, although I wonder if the latter will get hit up due to bad taste and/or timing. But the question becomes: do audiences really need these remakes which are so pedestrian? I’ll give them a chance, but I thought it was bad last year. I had no idea. Let’s break out the scorecards. Pulse, The Grudge 2, Texas Chainsaw Massacre The Beginning, When A Stranger Calls…but the one I hated the most out of all of them is “The Hills Have Eyes”. I suppose it is due to the fact that the original films were not all that great to begin with, and was only iconic due to Michael Berryman. The main problem with the update is that our cannibalistic miner mutant killer community was exposed to the radiation/nuclear tests of the 60’s. They blame all ‘outsiders’ for their condition and way of living. They show no remorse, no sense of humanity. They are undeveloped characters who serve one purpose: to kill, kill, kill. Aaron Stanford gets all gored up in a slightly heroic light, which loses effect when the filmmakers go over the top with the blood and in the final moments of the film itself. Listen. I like horror movies. I love horror films. But what many horror films today lack is both psychological themes and commentary on issues. They lack a chance for the viewer to know the characters. There is even in some cases, excuses for horror in terms of sadism. Films like The Grudge films and Pulse fail because done differently in their country of origin, they play just fine. In fact, with the exception of ‘Silent Hill’, let’s just state this right now: no critics screenings= piece of studio excrement 2006 had so much of these, I lost count.

There are a number who enjoyed The DaVinci Code. I was not one of them. Dan Brown’s book may be an interesting read, but even with inaccuracies, real life or imagined conspiracy theories, no matter. The film has to be involving and entertaining. I love most of Ron Howard’s films. I like most of the film Tom Hanks and other members of the cast are in. People went to see the film in droves. I went in with an open mind- as I regard the film as well as the book it is based on, as a work of fiction. The book is a page turner. The film is the equal to having the plasma drained from your body. A good fifteen minutes alone could be shaved off because nearly every bit of information is repeated as if you didn’t get it the first time. The film, while giving an overall walkthrough of Brown’s book, never even questions some of the Brown’s “facts” which in factual matters, does not hold up. Worse, the film refuses to clean up its own errors, such as a Frenchman leaving behind an incriminating letter written in English; and one too many characters with hidden agendas only to announce that they aren’t what the seem to be.

“Ultraviolet”, the worst special visual effects in 2006. What is interesting is that Kurt Wimmer helmed this; I remember a few years ago on the former film site I frequented, being this voice in the wilderness proclaiming Wimmer’s “Equilibrium” with a pre-Batman Christian Bale, to be one of the most awful science fiction films I had ever seen. I had no idea that his next picture would be twenty times worse. In fact, now I’m completely convinced that Milla Jovovich cannot act her way out of a potato sack. She does look great, however, in various phases of Cover Girl mascara, and dons high heeled boots to make herself look taller. The terrible CGI that surrounds her is so overdone and oversaturated, if could have been a comedy.

Now I also usually enjoy watching underdog, inspired by true event sports stories. This past year had some nice ones, in fact. “Invincible” , for example. “Gridiron Gang” was alright. Alas, there was something about Glory Road that makes it come up wanting. Could it be anachronism heaven? Could it be the notion that when someone likes the skills and gives a player a shot the first act of gratitude is to rebel against the coach who just stuck his neck on the chopping block for you? No, it’s all that, and the straw that breaks the camel’s back…’let my son play even though it could kill him’. Pass the kleenex.

On the action films front, The Marine…the worst action film this past year, hands down. Even Steven Seagal and Don ‘The Dragon’ Wilson puts out better cheese than this mess. I was expecting some decent action and good cheese. I witnessed the utter waste of actors, the underuse of potential action sequences, and horrid direction and writing. One of the bad guys is revealed to have a past in which he was molested as a youth. It’s played up as a joke. The same bad guy is knocked off a few minutes later. Hey, WWE- there is a thing as checking one’s brain at the door. That does not mean you take it literally.

I can’t comment on Brian DePalma’s “The Black Dahlia” because I haven’t seen it, another cohort of CoP has, and I suppose it’s not a bad idea to heed such a warning. I also did not witness “Little Man” or “Jackass 2″ (good for me!) and I have not yet seen “Snakes On A Plane”, although with the latter I will ask this of Hollywood: never, ever, ever focus on the shaping of a movie based on internet chat rooms, only to find that your target audience was just messing with you. But there are at least three more films from 2006 that deserve a big kick in the pants, so bear with me. I’ll make this quick and a bit more merciful than those who spurned this rubbish.

Ah, yes, Death Of The President a film which I managed to see and was mildly curious about. I was tempted to write a review on CoP; but changed my mind. I have in the past year, chose to cut back on writing about films that I truly despise (the exception being ‘The Marine’ because it was great fodder to rip on) but this film- the freaking overrated darling of so many film festivals…let me put it to you this way. Like him or leave him, President Bush is still alive and running the good old (?) USA. It is a sense of effective shock value, poor taste or not. What is in worse taste is the rest of the film after the ‘death’ of Bush. Politically and at times religiously bias, the ‘investigation’ and the aftermath is not as compelling or involving. The only reason why this film was a winner at the Festivals was simply due to it’s agenda. If you substituted a fictitious name for a President, the film is lazy and holds no interest. Now, the same story could be told, the point can still get across. As it is, Gabriel Range’s film is that it is now also somewhat dated, given the recent firing of Donald Rumsfeld.

Finally, which was worse in plot and story? The Keanu Reeves-Sandra Bullock bizarre love story The Lake House or…M Night’s “Lady In The Water“? Tough call. Better yet, let’s just take out the coin and get on with it: both stunk. I defy anyone to, with a straight face, explain the story of “The Lake House”, which is connected to only by the pooch and a mailbox. Do not ask me, I cannot make heads or tails out of this film.
On the other hand, it appears that M. Night Shyamalan’s former employers -Disney- had enough sense to know that his laughable Village aside, something seemed wrong with his new project. They passed, and Shyamalan , that celebrated auteur, blasted away at the execs for thier stupidity in the book The Man Who Heard Voices: Or, How M. Night Shyamalan Risked His Career On A Fairy Tale. Well, he went to Warner’s with “Lady In The Water’, and it bombed. Badly.

And despite the presence of good actors like Paul Giamatti, nobody who seen “Water” got it. I don’t know if the actors got it either, let alone how to keep a straight face while saying M.Night’s words. I’m pretty sure HE did though, for if nothing else, it is clear M. Night overworked himself at least, giving us proof that he is becoming a director who loses his focus because he’s ‘all that’, but that he is even a worse thespian. In addition, maybe his grassy wolves and the monkeys- uh, excuse me, the Tartuic- should have stayed in the shadows. Bryce Dallas Howard as the Narf/nymph should just have stayed hidden.

There are many lessons that we have learned here, folks. Why don’t I think Hollywood – or some of the filmgoing public- won’t?

Happy New Year.