Top Ten Most Disappointing Movies of 2006

We waited nineteen years for another Superman movie (twenty-five if you were counting after the last GOOD one) and were pumped up after being given the news that the new film would ignore 'III' and 'IV: The Quest For Peace'. We were even given a promising director (Bryan Singer - who missed out on directing 'X-Men: The Last Stand' because of this movie). But all that hope was for nothing since this movie was less exciting than an old woman doing a jigsaw puzzle.

The Last Stand was a disappointing mess of a film, however (in my opinion) it's better than Superman Returns. That's even more disappointing because he left X-3 to direct this movie, a boring, lifeless, mopey, corny and cheesy (not in a good way) film. The worst thing is that it has a 76% on RT. MOS got a 56%, a way better superman film.

I thought it was going to be one of the only-good superman movies, it turned out to be just another of those bummers like man-of-steel or BvS

Bryan Singer, the director of the first two films, decided to direct 'Superman Returns' and skip out on finishing his 'X-Men' trilogy because of it. Instead we were left with Brett Ratner (who's best reviewed film is 'Tower Heist', by the way). What became of the movie? Well, it was overstuffed with underdeveloped characters, botched up a lot of stuff (like continuity) that would plague the series for years (until being resolved in 2014), and dumbed down its brilliant story.

To be honest, I enjoyed this movie. It wasn't the best X-Men movie, but then again, you have a bunch of characters added left and right. But I found this movie to be better than the Wolverine movies. The first Wolverine film was good and I found it to be underrated, but I found the second to be boring and useless. The ending was the only exciting part to me. But I did enjoy that it was set in Japan.

Up to this point, Pixar was untouchable. Their movies were guaranteed successes (both critically and financially) and no other animation studio could top their efforts. Well, their dominance was reduced a bit when they released 'Cars', their first "just okay" movie. The story was mundane, the characters were noticeably less lovable, and there were no moments that gave you the "feels". It was very un-Pixar. And... Because six-year-old boys obsessed over the merchandise, we were given the more crappy 'Cars 2' and are glumly awaiting 'Cars 3'.

I never really was the biggest fan for this movie. And I definitely don't like the 2nd movie. How is this one franchise so popular?

Pixar is supposed to make good things for everyone. Not some stupid Cars movie for 6-year olds.

Four years earlier we were presented with Blue Sky Studios' first film, 'Ice Age', and, while a bit behind (animation-wise) of Pixar, it proved to be a considerable success. Sadly, this film was a bit of a setback. The story wasn't anywhere near as compelling and the humour simply wasn't there (not counting the scenes with Scrat).

Am I the only one who didn't like this? I mean I don't think it's awful, I just found it mediocre at best.

I loved all ice age movies except for the first one

A dull, gloomy, overblown mess of a movie that does a lot of things to turn away fans of the books and keep casual viewers away in droves. When a movie cannot even be saved by Tom Hanks' presence you know there is a problem. And that problem is most likely the movie's blatant struggle to understand what's going on during the majority of its running time.

The original story is very complex, and that is an aspect that is hard to bring from book to movie. But really, they could at least have tried harder.

Now, most fans of the series will tell you that the films really started to pick up after 2009's 'Fast & Furious' (the fourth film). I'd argue, however, that the series' first two installments were decent films in their own right (for those who like movies about urban street racing and undercover sting operations). Through those first two films did we become acquainted with the majority of the series' main stars. 'Tokyo Drift', however, decided to throw us into a completely foreign setting with an entirely new (and inferior) cast, and take away one of the very things that made the series what it was, speed. To be honest, there isn't a whole lot of furiousness going on during the movie, either. And, of course, there's that whole continuity thing that the series is now infamous for.

Michael Mann (writer/director of 'The Last of the Mohicans', 'Heat', and 'Ali', and director of 'Collateral') has what you might call a mixed bag of film works. He's responsible for making a number of highly acclaimed films and has also made a few big stinkers (2015's 'Blackhat' comes to mind). Most would consider this to be one of his lesser films. Colin Ferrell and Jamie Foxx, while inspired casting choices, aren't nearly as charismatic or interesting in the lead roles as Don Johnson and Philip Michael Thomas were, respectively. I'd say that the plot was noticeably embryonic, also.

As much as I love Steve Martin and much of his work is so admirable, I felt this idea was a mistake from the start. Yes, concieving of him possibly successfully pulling off the character wasn't a bad idea (if the character hadn't been portrayed and created perfectly before) following thru on that idea was misguided. Peter Sellers is Clouseau. Irreplaceable. Doomed attempt from the start. When an actor creates and defines a role to such greatness, an attempt to replicate is futile and disrespectful. There are likely many characters that can't and shouldn't be recreated after the substantial defining performance. I hope we never see someone new cast as Tony Soprano, or even Columbo. What's the point (except trying to capitalize on the past success). Nothing equal or better can be added

So many times do remakes/reboots of previously successful media franchises fail to recognize what makes the original so great. In this case it's the critical lead role of Inspector Clouseau. Steve Martin, while trying his best, simply isn't Peter Sellers. Perhaps there is no equal to Sellers' comedic genius. If so, no Pink Panther movie should be made until that equal replacement can be found.

The original, while controversial, was a considerable success as far as the erotic-thriller genre is concerned. This movie, while matching the original's degree of naughtiness (I feel really unclean right now, I'll have you know), was about as thrilling and imaginative as a wash cycle at your local laundromat (and just about as dirty).

There's really not much to say about this one that you probably can't already guess. It's a cheap remake of a classic horror film that over-emphasises the nastiness in favour of showing us anything new or significant regarding suspense or real terror. Unless you've got a strong stomach and a tolerance for being bludgeoned in the head with a sledgehammer for an hour and half, steer clear.