The median-est of all movie lists of the decade

I fail to see how you can have a list of the most mediocre films of the year, and not have at least one by the champion of adequatulence, Ron Howard.

Virtually bursting with adequacivity.

Here is my list of most mediocre movies of the decade, in no particular order, and I defy anyone to top it:

Ali
Ray
Walk the Line
La Vie en Rose
Frida
Pollock
A Beautiful Mind
Beyond The Sea
Kinsey
Cinderella Man
Milk

Hmmmmmm....do you notice a common thread running through this list?

Some friends suckered me into watching "Blue Crush", and I can tell you that it's not a mediocre film at all - it's utterly horrible. Maybe he has a thing for Kate Bosworth.

Whatever the case, the very idea of a median-ist list is hilarious. Professional critics should do this.

The most mediocre films, I've found, require a mastery of very basic storytelling and a complete lack of interest in the story being told.

I'm surprised there's no mention of Iain Softley, whose K-Pax and Skeleton Key struck me as inoffensive, painless, thoroughly passable films that never engaged, illuminated, energized, or even interested. I swear, they just pass through the eyes, through the brain, and right out the back of the head, where they evaporate quietly into the ether. Never to be considered, complimented, or condemned again.

Also, Scott Derrickson, the man behind [b]Exorcism of Emily Rose[/b] (notable only for Jennifer Carpenter's harrowing commitment) and The Day the Earth Stood Still, which took the original film's bold statement and watered it down into a morass of gray special effects and even grayer acting.

The middling-ness of this list is impressive, but for true neither-good-nor-bad-itude, I decided to turn strictly to films that I had actually forgotten I'd seen. As such (with the help of IMDB), here are my ten nothing-est films of the decade, one per year. They are in reverse chronological order, because there are no criteria by which to rank them.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009)
21 (2008)
Enchanted (2007)
The Pursuit of Happyness (2006)
Doom (2005)
Hidalgo (2004)
Anger Management (2003)
Orange County (2002)
Swordfish (2001)
Titan A.E. (2000)

JE: That may be the ideal criterion for a list such as this: "films I had actually forgotten I'd seen." So often I'm asked about a movie that made no impression on me. I might even remember where I saw it, or who I was with -- but I've retained nothing from the movie itself because it was no more memorable than the weather that day, or the drive to the theater... And then there are those movies I think I may have seen, but am not sure from the title alone -- until somebody describes them. Now, if I could only remember the names of those movies I can't quite recall seeing...

To answer the raised question of is Tom Hanks the most middling actor, I would respond yes, because his acting is the most middling.

I love this idea.

My picks:

About Schmidt (Alexander Payne)
American Splendor (Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini)
The Departed (Martin Scorsese)
4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days (Cristian Mungiu)
Chicago (Bob Marshall)
Sideways (Alexander Payne)
Solaris (Steven Soderbergh)
Traffic (Steven Soderbergh)
Up (Peter Doctor)
Wendy and Lucy (Kelly Reichardt)

I'd like to add "The Matrix" sequels here. The world they inhabited was still interesting, but there were times I kept hitting the armrest in the movie theater, looking for the "subtitles" button so that I could concentrate on what was being said instead of all of the eye candy.

Other films for consideration:

The "Shrek" sequels
The "X-Men" films
Disney/Pixar's "Cars" and "Ratatouille"
The first two "Ice Age" films
"Stranger than Fiction"
"Cloverfield"
"Catch Me If You Can"
"Space Cowboys"
"Valkyrie"
"Mission: Impossible"
"Star Trek: Nemesis"
"A Beautiful Mind"
"World Trade Center"

I realize that's more than 10, but I'm just glancing at the titles on my DVD shelves and coming up with a few random entries. Perhaps it will spark some debate.

What makes a movie run-of-mill for you?

I don't know. Maybe it's just that tingle in my spine... or lack thereof.

I remember Ebert opening a review on 'At The Movies' with a story about the way some neutrinos go through lead without any collision. That's a mediocre movie to me. A movie that seems content with hitting its marks, and being as painless as possible, softly lulling you into a numb torpor. To make a truly run-of-the mill movie, a director has to dare to have as little style as possible, with a filmmaking that can only be qualified as "functionnal".

But also the script, must be inconsequential. Telling a simple story, directly, of simple cardboard cutouts with hardly a complexity. And every issue no matter how crucial, important, divisive has to be reduced to a simple talking point with a clear separation between black and white.

And the actors shouldn't in any case, be authorized to grow into something more than the archetype they have to play. They cannot discredit themselves by acting completely stilted. And God forbids that anyone should get crazy and ham a little up. The actors have to be perfectly adequate. They have to, to paraphrase Tom Hollander in In The Loop : "stand their ground, on the verge."

Only at that cost will a movie be a perfect storm (which reminds me, The Perfect Storm is a perfectly suitable contender) of beige. Also, it's almost impossible to remember a detail of such a movie.

To answer your question about which actor was the most middling of the decade, my money's on Russell Crowe, who no matter how big he acts, gives a perfectly flat characterisation. He perfectly disappears into his characters, and given that his movies this decade have included : Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, A Good Year, Cinderella Man, American Gangster, Proof of Life, 3:10 to Yuma, Body of Lies... that actually means he disappears into thin air.

I have to disagree with this list. Of the ones I've seen, only Runaway Jury and Insomnia(I'm assuming the American remake, not the brilliant original with Stellen Skarsgaard) are median movies. The Mexican and Charlie Wilson's War were both horrible movies that would probably make or at least come close to the worst of the decade for me. Terminal, 3:10 to Yuma, and Changing Lanes may not be Top Ten of the decade, but each were on, or close to, my top ten of the years they came out. I know I may be one of the few people that love Terminal or think Christian Bale deserved an Oscar nomination for 3:10 to Yuma. Look at that movie, especially the scene of him telling his wife he misses how she used to look at him, and compare it to Terminator 4. I hope Bale can go out and make more movies like 3:10 to Yuma and get his acting career back on track.

Let me be the first to stick up for "3:10 to Yuma". Goodness gracious -- in the same small list as "Blue Crush" and "Music & Lyrics"!?

While it's true I would not put it in my top 10 nor in my worst 10, I am not sure it's debatable that it should be moved somewhere closer to the top. Some individual scenes alone -- and their riveting dialogue -- would seem to mandate that.

Some of those films (Runaway Jury, The Terminal) aren't mediocre, they're just flat-out awful, and I thought Insomnia was a supremely intelligent and gripping film that serves as an exception to most American remakes of foreign films.

And I agree that the absence of Ron Howard lowers the credibility of this list considerably. Cinderella Man, Frost/Nixon, A Beautiful Mind and The Missing could all easily make a claim for the #1 spot.

I quite liked Charlie Wilson's War, I thought it had exceptional pacing, enjoyable performances, and a script that was both a funny political satire and engaging true story. A rare feat.

The only other movie on the list I've seen is The Terminal, which is certainly middling. Mildly enjoyable, but ultimately it garners a meh reaction from me. But hey, it still counts for something for a movie to not be actively bad.

Bob, Beyond the Sea is too weird to be condemned as a mere mediocrity. I think The Day the Earth Stood Still crosses into being a "bad" movie.

I'd nominate Mystic River, Enemy at the Gates, Bandits, The Great Raid, Vertical Limit, Veronica Guerin, Don't Say a Word, The Last Castle, Planet of the Apes, Antwone Fisher, any of Lasse Halstrom's films, The Harry Potter movies, K-19 the Widowmaker, Road to Perdition, Seabiscuit, Open Range, Master and Commander, Hidalgo, Spartan, The Alamo, The Notebook, Finding Neverland, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. I can quite decide whether Rent qualifies or if it's just bad.

Thanks for making the distinction between raising the question and begging the question.

Question: is the list ordered from greatest distance from the median to the least? That is, saying our measure of the goodness of a film is 1 to 100 (1 being "The Hottie and the Nottie" and 100 being "Chinatown"), would the number one film be the one closest to being 50? If so, how high a movie is on the list is irrelevant to how good of a movie it is (simpliciter), just how close it is to being 50. In that case, a 49.8 would be higher on said list than a 51.4. Just clarifying.

I was going to make a list of such movies, but it slipped my mind.

It looks like "A Beautiful Mind" is quickly becoming the consensus choice for most mediocre movie of the decade here.

Although I do like the suggestion of the Harry Potter movies.

Harry Thomas said "Disney/Pixar's "Cars" and "Ratatouille""

Ratatouille? Seriously? That film contains some of the best action sequences of the decade.

Ratatouille…

"3:10 to Yuma" might be called mediocre if there wasn't that excellent version from 1957. With the orignal version out there however I would put it on the list of the worst movies of the decade.

Avatar came to mind immediately. I thought it might be a little too soon to suggest it, but then if I left it too long, everybody might have forgotten about the film, myself included.

*That may be the ideal criterion for a list such as this: "films I had actually forgotten I'd seen." *

What a great idea? I keep a journal of films I've seen and it goes back to 2005. Going quickly through my journal, the films I had no idea I had actually seen (I had to look them up to find out what they were):

Dear Frankie

Mad Hot Ballroom (I knew what it was, but would have sworn that I had never seen it)

Sister Rose's Passion

Trapped Ashes

When the Sea Rises (even worse... I reviewed it, and still had to look it up. Appropriately enough I gave it a 6 out of 10.)

Venus

The History Boys (you'd have won a lot of money from me if you bet me that I had seen this)

You Kill Me (Looked it up, still doesn't sound familiar)

X-Files: I Want to Believe (I remember seeing it - I just forgot that it existed)

I would humbly suggest the following criteria for run-of-the-mill: "Will TBS (or Peachtree TV, as it's now known) show the movie on constant repeat?".

I agree with the guy who put only biopics on his list .... great idea. I think the other choices - I kinda cringe at the glee in criticizing some, but hey, to each their own. But don't biopics just scream to be mediocre from the get go? Is there a biopic whose documentary on the same person was not infinitely more interesting? It's one of the reasons I avoid bothering going to the theaters for those movies -- though I did see "Milk," just to watch Sean Penn's performance (though the Harvey Milk doc is outstanding).

My only exception is "Charlie Wilson's War" - I thought that was great ... for the acting, the pace, the humor, and it was helped that very few people knew anything about what he'd done -- unlike "Ray," - "Walk the Line," etc...

"A Beautiful Mind" was OK - i.e. mediocre :) -- the book, I highly recommend. Outstanding.

JE: It's true. The word "biopic" practically screams mediocrity -- but does so in a well-modulated, inoffensive voice that nobody is likely to pay any particular attention to. Fortunately, "Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story" -- which nailed virtually every biopic cliche to a coffee table -- has made the entire (sub-)genre unwatchable for me. From where I sit, almost any movie in which sandals and swords (not machetes, swords) are featured is sure to leave my blood pressure and my interest entirely unaffected (exciting exceptions: Bresson's "Lancelot du Lac," Rohmer's "Perceval" and Boorman's "Excalibur").

Iron Man
Gone Baby Gone
Sweeney Todd
Cars
The Queen
Crash
Ray
Big Fish
Chicago
A Beautiful Mind

Could spend a little more time on this

Top pick: Slumdog Millionaire, after viewing City Of God.

I like Roman's suggestion of films that get shown repeatedly on TBS. Mediocre films tend to lend themselves well to the format because due to their formulaic structure they can be easily condensed and stopped for commercial breaks, and you can easily start watching one mid way through.

Roger's movie glossary has an entry that may or may not apply here: a Gandhi movie. That is, a movie that may be good or even very good, but after you've seen it, you have no reason to ever want to watch it again. Gandhi is obviously among the cited examples, as are long documentaries about the holocaust, and most of the French New Wave.

The dullest movie of the decade might have been Man of the Year. In a highly political time in the country (the year 2006) we get one of the most toothless political satires ever made. Oh wait...I just remembered Swing Vote, and I could've written the same thing, just replace 2006 with 2008.

Quick note: The biopic rule is no exception to the rule of exceptions. Case in point: "I'm Not There." On a somewhat more traditional note, I'd credit "Capote" for its dedication to one character arc rather than the person's entire life. (However, "Infamous" was devoted to the same timeframe yet would definitely be a contender for a decade review in mediocrity.)

On a side note, I love the scene in "Walk Hard" in which Dewey, after being caught by his wife, says "I'm guilty as charged" and then gets a glimmer in his eyes. To which his wife exclaims something to the effect of, "Don't you go writing a song now!"

By the way, "The wrong kid died."

JE: Well said! You're right -- I don't think of "I'm Not There" or "Capote" as bio-pics, because they don't follow the familiar formulas ("INT" is a fantasia on Dylan's work as much as his life; "Capote" is just about the creation of "In Cold Blood"). Likewise, I suppose, I don't see "All That Jazz" as a traditional biopic -- though it's certainly Fosse's autobiographical portrait of himself.

National Treasure has to be up there -- like most of those biopics, an unobjectionable but entirely forgettable exercise in ticking genre boxes.

Bizarre. I have such unusual taste. I loved Insomnia, I wouldn't describe it as mediocre at all, I loved Frost/Nixon, I also really liked Charlie Wilson's War and 3:10 to Yuma. I also don't agree with the poster who criticised Russel Crowe; I consider him to be among the greatest actors of all time. That said, I don't remember Body of Lies at all. That film must surely rank among the most mediocre films of the decade.

While the majority of films are undeniably mediocre, here is one that stands out in its utter mediocrity, and as proof I offer the fact that it is shown about every other day on TBS: "Hitch," starring Will Smith.

I would add another Will Smith flick: "Men in Black II," which is also just mediocre enough to warrant extensive cable TV airings.

I would nominate "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" if I weren't convinced that it is truly bad and not just mediocre.

The "X-Men" films are totally, painfully run-of-the-mill.

Hate to say it, but almost anything with Queen Latifah is run-of-the-mill.

"Quantum of Solace" was just another mediocre action picture, a big letdown from the brilliant "Casino Royale."

The "Get Smart" remake.

Anything starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson.

Anything starring Vin Diesel.

"Spider-Man 3."

"Ray" was shockingly mediocre, so mind-numbingly dull I couldn't even finish it.

In spite of all their special effects, the "Pirates of the Caribbean" sequels were amazingly mediocre.

"The Matrix Reloaded." ("Revolutions" was just plain bad.)

I thought that most of "Minority Report" was stunningly mediocre, if not awful, in that it became just another whodunit and depended on contrivances for its ending. Also, the jet-pack action sequence, with Tom Cruise crashing into living rooms, etc., on the cop's back, was just meh.

Anything starring Adam Sandler.

Almost anything starring either Vince Vaughn or Owen Wilson or both ("Wedding Crashers," I'm looking at you).

Anything starring Kevin Costner.

"The Stepford Wives" remake.

"Elf."

The "Night at the Museum" flicks.

More later, perhaps....

Some particularly unmemorable movie experiences this year:

The Chris Columbus Harry Potter movies
A Beautiful Mind
Spider-Man
The Last Samurai
Corpse Bride
The Holiday
The Golden Compass
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Actually, I found this enjoyable when I was watching it. But afterwards I realize that its only point is, um, people both start and end their lives unable to take care of themselves, and, um, have experiences in the middle. Life experiences.)
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
The Men Who Stare at Goats (Taking a very interesting real life story and reshaping it into the Hollywood formula until it doesn't seem real at all and ergo uninteresting, once again.)

Btw Jim, I'll bet I know what would be on your list: The Bank Job. A film you did an entry on and you wrote something to the effect that the film was as bland and generic as its title.

First of all, this is a great idea for a list.

I'm actually surprised The Matrix sequels are being mentioned so often on here - movies that dared to defy people's expectations in nearly every single way (okay maybe Revolutions not so much) to the point of going places that displeased many fans, action scenes that still amaze today (the freeway chase?? 100 Agent Smiths? Come on!). Call them bad or call them good but mediocre? I have a hard time believing that.

I'd disagree about the X-men movies as well: the third was simply god-awful, not median at all, while the second was a great ensemble piece that juggled all the different mutant characters nicely. Bryan Singer did a great job with those movies. And speaking of Bryan Singer...

Superman Returns - Who wasn't pretty bored by this movie?

Zack and Miri Make a Porno - great concept ruined by a predictable plodding story that utterly wasted it.

Dinosaur - Ha, maybe falling under the "I forgot I saw it category" - Disney's special effects extravaganza serviced by completely predictable Disney tropes every which way you looked.

Evolution - Anyone remember this movie? Great actors who seem bored the whole way through despite an awesome concept. Mediocre in the extreme.

Joe Somebody - I defy you to remember what this movie was about.

Enough - As I was browsing through my movie log I actually had to doublecheck to remember what this one was. Jennifer Lopez deals with spousal abuse. Even now it's fading from my memory - so utterly rote it dares you to remember it.

Equilibrium - Matrix rip-off with Christian Bale that goes nowhere with its high-concept tale.

Cold Mountain - saw this for the first time a few weeks ago and was utterly unmoved by how desperately it tried to make you care about this love story and the horrible awful things that were happening at the time. Great performances, but that's about it.

Secondhand Lions - again, anybody remember this movie? Lol.

Ella Enchanted - Serviceable story and interesting concept, but once again, who really remembers it? I'm pretty sure this one falls under the TBS rule too.

The Forgotten - It lives up to its name....

Shark Tale - Dreamworks trying to recapture "Shrek's" magic, and failing spectacularly.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow - I remmeber all the hype for its movie and how a few weeks after its release it faded from conscious memory like lightning speed. I've seen it, twice, but can't recall much of the plot at all.

Flightplan - Perfect TV movie. Doesn't really try to go anywhere at all.

Fun with Dick and Jane - Jim Carrey trying to be normal, with some female in the lead whose name I can't remember.

Robots - Once again, Dreamworks trying be Pixar...or was it 20th Century Fox?

Snakes on a Plane - In trying to be so bad it was good it wound up being so by-the-numbers it was forgotten.

Bee Movie - I'm still scratchign my head over why Seinfeld did this....

The Bucket List - Made for TBS material.

Dan in Real Life - I love Steve Carell, but what exactly was this movie trying to do?

Joshua - Creepy kid movie desperately trying to be a creepy kid movie.

Stardust - Stuffed so awkwardly full of everything but the kitchen sink including an overrated de Niro.

Cloverfield - Solid when I saw it opening night, but there's nothing much in there that makes it last.

Invictus - Yes, the one with Matt Damon and Morgan Freeman. Call my cynical, but nothing much about this picture moved me at all. I understand the message and the story, but an inspiring picture is still supposed to, you know, inspire you.

Since we're listing biopics that transcend their own genre, I'll throw "The 400 Blows" out there. It might not be autobiographical in the strictest sense, but it's close enough. I don't think of "Raging Bull" as a biopic, though it does use some of the standard motifs here and there. There's also "American Splendor", "Goodfellas", "Into the Wild"...

When I think of mediocre biopics, I think of films that try to present their subjects as history lessons. Often by attempting to cram in every historically meaningful event from the given persons life, the film becomes a bland theatrical play of everything we already know. I mean, if you like Johnny Cash, didn't you already know that he had problems with his first wife, problems with drugs, and that the Folsom Prison record was a gutsy move? The best biopics tend to avoid depicting a persons life from birth to death, and only present historically meaningful events if their vision of the person demands it. Which is why I'll never have any desire to see "Flash of Genius" again.

I nominate "Around the Bend" (2004) as the most outstandingly mediocre movie of the decade. I think I started to forget that it existed while I was still watching it. Needless to say, it evaporated from my memory right up until I read this blog and started to wonder if this particular movie really existed at all.

Incidentally, it features Michael Caine and Christopher Walken, somehow cast as father and son, and also includes an endless series of rather shameless plugs for KFC. Aside from the fact that it was in color, I can't really remember anything else about it.

JE: Wow, that sounds so... unmemorable! I don't recall even hearing of it, but with a title as bland as that it's no wonder.

I think that list is a little harsh on Changing Lanes. It's a while since I saw it (and yes I have forgotten most of it), but the movie had ambition and much subtlety to my recollection.

It's easy to tell a LOVE/ HATE tale where two people love each other, then one turns into a psycho and tries to kill the other, but why should every story have to be based solely on extreme emotions?

This, I believe, is what Changing Lanes is addressing... we don't _need_ the ending to always result in a boiled bunny bloodbath at the abandoned warehouse. At least I don't.

So I can see how Changing Lanes can be mistaken (in my view) as a rally-call for middleness, but actually it's a valid statement in itself against the PERPETUAL REPRESENTATION of extremist actions in popular culture.

I agree with the cry of FOUL over the lack of Ron Howard movies on there.

I would also have to add the first "Spider Man" to the list of mediocre movies. It was a total blah, aside from its exceptional cheesiness.

I also second the nomination for "National Treasure." There is nothing special about this movie, just more walking and talking actors explaining the plot to each other.

Also, I was glad to see the 2000 animated flick "Dinosaur" get a mention. I was trying to remember the title of that movie just the other day! I remember taking my daughter to see it, and afterwards that it was a big mistake, but otherwise I recall nothing about that movie. Wow.

"Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" was mediocre/terrible. (Mediocre start, terrible finish.) Has Harrison Ford done ANYTHING worthwhile since .... 1993?

How about "Monster-in-Law," with Jane Fonda and J-Lo? (Shown again and again on our favorite TBS.) And "Failure to Launch," with the ever-reliable Sarah Jessica whozit and Matthew Whatever.

"The Day After Tomorrow."

"Lara Croft: Tomb Raider."

"Daddy Day Care."

"Ocean's 12" and "13."

Jeez, I could go on.

Regarding bios, I think it partly depends on the person who is the subject. I love Ray Charles, so while Ray was extremely conventional, I was swept along with it. Alternatively, I don't particularly like Johnny Cash, so Walk This Way, which wasn't particularly helped by its performances (in no other year would Resse Whitherspoon have won the Oscar) became one of my most mediocre films of the decade.

Well I'm going to join the choir of singing the mediocre praises of the entire biopic genre. I recall mildly liking most of the ones I see as they quickly fade from my memory. Isn't a well made documentary almost always strictly better?

Middling movies start with the screenwriter as far as I'm concerned.

"Syrianna" (I actually had to look up the title because for the life of me I couldn't remember it.
This is going to appear on another response to a post.)
"Traffic" ... Stephen Gaghan is a very middling screenwriter.

And as much as I love Steven Spielberg he's had 2, hasn't he.
"War of the Worlds" (Most of David Koepp's scripts belong on this list, who I think has stopped thinking now that the big pay days are coming in).
"Minority Report" (Both Spielberg's films have Tom Cruise...a coincidence?)

"The Shrek" series.

Stanley, I agree that Changing Lanes deserves some credit for Ben Affleck's best performance of the decade.

Bob K's list at the top of the page can not be topped. It blows Wain's list out of the water. In order for any sort of mediocrity list to really matter, the movies on it can't just be mediocre, they must also be lauded by mediocre people. Luckily, a large portion of America's mediocre are members of the Academy, so this is easy to gauge.

Public Enemies- I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet. Shockingly mediocre.

Behind Enemy Lines- I MUST be the only person in the world who remembers this movie.

Men in Black 2

Family Man

Blades of Glory

A Haunting in Connecticut

Family Man

Ocean's 13

I have to stop. This is emotionally draining.

"Superman Returns", "Robots", "Swing Vote", "Man of the Year" and "Dinosaur" are indeed movies that are becoming harder and harder to remember.
But I must add that "Premonition" is one of those rare movies that wasted more of my time than its actual running film length. It was so badly made that several months later I had to spend about ten minutes trying to remember what movie it was that my brain had thrown out...
Sorry, brain.

Judging from many of the comments already posted, there's definitely a sub-genre that could be put in here, that being the overly mediocre CGI animated kids films. Considering the quality that Pixar puts out by not giving us constant vertiginous action or lame attempts at socially conscious humor, these movies really left my brain as quick as they went in. Of course, they are aimed for children in a way that is supposed to do just that. My kids loved them while they were on, but they sure don't linger.

(In no particular order of middle-of-the-roadness)

1. Space Chimps
2. Monsters Vs. Aliens
3. Bolt
4. Any Ice Age movie
5. Over The Hedge
6. The Ant Bully
7. Barnyard
8. Bee Movie
9. Chicken Little
10. Open Season

If you want more, here's a whole list. See how many of these are lodged in your cerebrum. I'd bet only a handful have made an impression on anyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer-animated_films

Bee Movie was another big disappointment because it was so damn middle-of-the-road. I recall the huge PR campaign that Jerry Seinfeld waged for this movie, Bee Movie was being pitched like mad on NBC every time you turned around. I caught the movie on DVD and watching it was almost painful; it just failed utterly to hold my attention. Definitely a case of a big advertising campaign signifying nothing.

I think *almost* any sequel or remake should be up for consideration. I know there are exceptions, such as The Godfather Part II, but, in general...

Jeremy Matthews asked me to defend my inclusion of "Ratatouille." I found it the least likable of any of the Pixar films, which is why I included it on my list.

Perhaps it the "ick" factor of having a rat as a cook was part of it, but the more I think about it, the bland character of Linguini, the plot device of the dead chef talking to Remy, the scorned bad guy chef with the nefarious plot to capitalize on the name of the dead chef ... those elements combined to make it my least favorite Pixar film. It was especially disappointing, because "The Incredibles," also directed by Brad Bird, was (and still is) my favorite Pixar film.

All of that said, I'd rather watch "Ratatouille" than most of the CGI drivel out there. Ross' list is a good example of drivel.

Reading over the comments here, I find the "TBS rule" is a fairly accurate definition of mediocrity. I'd like to add a category: films that you own on DVD, but feel no special compulsion to watch again anytime soon.

A few more to add to the mix:

"The Prestige"
"Evolution"
"Dinosaur" (wish I'd thought of this one - Roger Ebert nailed it on the head when he expressed his disappointment when the critters began to talk)
"Quantum of Solace"
"Miss Congeniality"
"Over the Hedge"
"Ladder 49"
"Hulk" (the Ang Lee emo version)
The Director's Cut of "Amadeus" (the inclusion of the topless scene did a lot to damage one of the best films ever made)
"Terminator Salvation"

Because I Said So
Rumor Has It
Just My Luck
How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days
My Sassy Girl
Failure to Launch
What a Girl Wants
50 First Dates
Deliver Us from Eva
Sweet Home Alabama
Wimbledon
Chasing Liberty
Fever Pitch
It's a Boy Girl Thing
27 Dresses
What Happens in Vegas
Definitely, Maybe
The Ghosts of Girlfriends Past
The Wedding Date

Ok, in short, I think the romantic comedy is the genre that lends itself most to mediocrity, and purely functional, robotic filmmaking. Oh, and Martian Child. That movie evaporated before it was even released, as did The Greatest Game Ever Played, The Yards, The Good Shepherd, Smokin' Aces, Triumph of Love, The Legend of Bagger Vance, Bobby Jones: Stroke of Genius, Glory Road, Kicking and Screaming (which defiled the good name of Noah Baumbauch), and both Night at the Museum films.

And Nicolas Cage makes any bad film too bizarre and hilarious to be relegated to mediocre status, so everyone's wrong about National Treasure. That film is strangely entertaining and truly awful in equal measure. And there's no way Crash qualifies. That film is stupefyingly horrendous on a nearly obscene level. And Sam, your listing of Big Fish and Sweeney Todd is downright puzzling, as is William's inclusion of Corpse Bride. Burton is, whether you like him or not, a visionary with a fascinating style, and I am utterly perplexed as to how anyone could find those films (the first two of which are masterpieces, and the third deeply flawed, but visually striking)on the same level as the cinematic ephemera that Wain is going for. Even the horrid Planet of the Apes remake is stunningly memorable, if nothing else than for its abysmal twist ending. Big Fish is a heartbreaking, sublime look at the necessity of invention and storytelling, and the way we choose to define our lives, and Sweeney Todd is a masterwork about the messy, grim nature of revenge. I can see why some hate Burton, but to call him unmemorable or mediocre is simply out of the question.

There are far too many examples for me to name, but I tend to agree with the comment that romantic comedies lend themselves to mediocrity. I'm thinking of 95 percent (or more) of the rom-coms that CONSTANTLY air on TBS (very funny!). These movies are mediocre-to-atrocious, UNfunny, obvious, sitcom-level, aimed at folks who apparently think Vince Vaughn, Luke Wilson, Sandra Bullock and Will Ferrell are gods of comedy (and romance). I'd like to see a contemporary rom-com that doesn't adhere to a strict formula, resort to cheap misunderstandings about a character's sexual orientation, or fire non-stop cutesy hyper-ironic dialogue at us. To do that, I guess I'll have to go all the way back to some of Woody Allen's better romantic films from the 70s and 80s. I can't wait for It's Complicated and Did You Hear About the Morgans? to hit heavy rotation on cable; won't be long, only about two years!

that list pissed me off, because i think Changing Lanes is one of the best movies of the decade. incredibly underrated, really wonderful script and performances. grrr.

I love this thread.

It seems to me that the term "mediocre," while it literally means "average" or "ordinary" often has, in English, a pejorative connotation. To avoid this, I'll stick with "median" as my term of choice.

To me:

- Many people have to to actually LIKE a median film- that is, it must have done reasonably well at the box office or achieved moderately good Tomatometer or Metacritic ratings.

- It can't be a bad film, nor can it be considered great.

- Some elements of the film must be good or executed professionally. But, overall, the film fails to fly- perhaps because the film was TOO professional and by the book. Sometimes these films feel as if they are checking boxes on a list made out by the leader of screenwriting/directing seminar: We need a joke here... CHECK... we need to enchant the audience with visual beauty here... CHECK... the plot needs a moderately interesting twist here... CHECK...

- Often, median films are made by former or future TV directors who end up making TV-like movies. If that TV director worked on or will work on a show like "Lost", "Heroes," "Battlestar Galactica," or "24" the chances are double that the film will turn out median.

- The perfect place for a median film is in the small DVD (not blu-ray) collection of your non-cineaste relatives next to the wall-sized TV that they just bought primarily for watching sporting events. When played (if ever) movies played on this TV will be stretched or squished to make them fill the the 16:9 screen. Movies probably won't be watched from beginning to end in one sitting, except by young children.

- Cineastes will likely watch these films once, derive a modest amount of amusement, and never think too much about them again, except for the purpose threads like this one.

- Median films comprise the vast bulk of the stock in USED DVD shops and of the time slots on non-basic cable channels.

- Median films very frequently are films that "coulda' been great" had they done just a little bit more.

So, my list:

- Star Trek: I got a moderate amount of enjoyment out of this film while watching it, but I don't care if I see it again.

- The Quantum of Solace: It touched all the right Bond bases, Daniel Craig still looks as if he could crack walnuts with his eyebrows, it had a few funny lines, did nothing seriously wrong, but very little seriously right either.

- The Ice Age Movies: These films have charm, a small amount of wit, and certain amount of visual beauty and graphic interest. Can I remember specifically what happened in them? No.

- War of the Worlds: To me this is a film that "coulda' been great". The parallels with the then fresh in mind "Shock and Awe" campaign were resonant, the effects gave the viewer an appropriate "you are there" feel, but the movie insisted on grounding itself in a Spielbergain family drama. It needed a tiny extra something.

- Superman Returns: I can't remember anything about it except that I was engaged while watching it. Oh, and that "bullet hits the eye" thing...

- All Woody Allen films except Vicki-Christina-Barcelona: Woody Allen has never made a truly bad movie. In the 2000s he made only one that was memorable. I've seen them all and was never bored.

- The Chonicles of Narnia: The story engaged but didn't enchant.

- World Trade Center- A professionally done, competent execution of a film that was bound to be made sooner or later. Told its story well, tastefully, but it was, ultimately, unmemorable. Another wasted opportunity.

- The Road: This is a case of the wrong director. The harsh philosophizing of Cormac McCarthy requires the genius of people like the Cohen brothers, not a "check the boxes" director like it got.

- Cloverfield: Its storytelling technique was somewhat original, but the story was not memorable. Directed by a former TV director.

Top 3:
Ridley Scott's A Good Year
Robert DeNiro's The Good Shepherd
Paul Weitz' In Good Company

Alternate 3:
Neil Burger's The Lucky Ones
Curtis Hanson's Lucky You
Paul McGuigan's Lucky Number Slevin

Just so no one gets the idea that only the US produces median films:
Agnes Jaoui's Look at Me (Comme une image)
Jean-Pierre Jeunet's A Very Long Engagement
Sanjay Gadhvi's Dhoom

"Does the presence of Dustin Hoffman automatically make a movie more mediocre, and if so, by how much?" What a fantastic question!

But what makes a movie qualify for such a list? Is it that we especially remember the movie for its mediocrity? Is it that we expected better things from the particular movie? Is it that the talent involved went only so far while we yearned for it to go farther? Are mediocre movies sickening to the soul because they so epitomize their genres as to be faceless? Is a movie still mediocre if what we might call mediocrity sinks it to the level of being terrible?

I guess the best way to decide the most mediocre movies would be to have a vivid memory of all said movies over the past decade, which I find utterly impossible. Medicore movies have a shelf-life in my brain of about 4 years. Anyone remember "The Recruit?" yeah me neither, but I do remember paying to see it and it had Colin something-or-other in it

As a huge of the first terminator film, I thought that T2 was too family friendly and moved away from the real plot. T3 although average set the scene for T4 which was innovative, clever, told a brilliant story, and paired Bale and Sam Worthington together who were brilliant.