what do you think the worst movie ever was
- Thread starter willic767
- Start date
Recommended Videos
its got to be either Truly, madly, deeply. or that film with horne and corden in it, i think it was called lesbian vampire killers, they're pretty unfunny on TV but they take it to a new realm of shitnes on the big screen
I am confused by this thread, are we discussing what makes a bad movie, or what IS a bad movie?
I'll answer both. Clichés make a movie bad in most cases, and a bad movie is House of The Dead.
I'll answer both. Clichés make a movie bad in most cases, and a bad movie is House of The Dead.
I tried the book. Sometimes great books make lousy movies (I'm looking at you, 'Dune') but unfortunately not this time.Angerwing said:
As far as the 'point' of the movie...I didn't miss the point, I just thought it was silly, cliche, utterly bland, overdone, and mind bogglingly stupid. "Bloodsport" could at least claim to be mindless fun, which was only enhanced by the spectacularly bad acting. But "Fight Club" tried to take itself seriously and only became a bigger joke in the process. This is largely because, as I noted, the whole "point" of the movie was just a bunch of generic pre-teen emo angst. It's (marginally) funny when you hear that stuff from the Goth kids on South Park. But trying to watch adults peddle that half baked angsty crap, it's just sad. And sad at the very best. "You're not your job! You're not how much money you have in the bank!" Oh. Gee. How insightful. Any other deep insights?
Most contemporary horror films, like the remake of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" are terrible, and somehow objectionable: not objectionable because of their violence, but because they're just so stupidly plotted and characterised you really don't care if everyone dies. Or...Any film that you forget within a week of watching it.
To name a few: Rise of the Scarecrows, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1356543/ It made it to DVD somehow. I barely made it past 20 minutes before i couldn't take it anymore.
That, Footloose and Any contribution to the 'Movie' series after Scary Movie 2.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and I think we can at least give a mention to Funny People. Saw it this Friday, ironically named, considering that it wasn't funny. Kinda saw it coming though.
That, Footloose and Any contribution to the 'Movie' series after Scary Movie 2.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and I think we can at least give a mention to Funny People. Saw it this Friday, ironically named, considering that it wasn't funny. Kinda saw it coming though.
In regards to Dune: Am I the only person disappointed that the original Dune film wasn't made? The one with set design by H.R.Giger (of Alien design fame) music by Pink Floyd and with the main villain played by Salvador Dali with a fee the size of most film budgets (and for an hours work a day)? It would have been a trainwreck. But a beautiful, glorious trainwreck.The Jack of Spades said:
In regards to Fight Club: You've missed the point. It's mocking the crap that you complain about it peddling. The Fight Clubbers abandon one mindless culture for another. The film doesn't support Tyler Durden, it's laughing at him. The message is to forget all that stupid teenage angst and just GROW UP.
Defending other films:
Inglorious Basterds: Of course it's a butchery of WWII. It's an homage to explotation films of the 70s and 80s. The whole idea is to be a twisted Jewish revenge fantasy.
Resident Evil:Yeah it was silly. And the plot was stupid. But it didn't try and be anything more than a slightly camp generic horror movie, which I think it acheived quite well. Resident Evil:Evolution on the other hand, was terrible. The effects were bad, the plot was convoluted, the set pieces were cliched without that knowing smile that pervades the games etc.
Watchmen: I'd say it's a bit like V for Vendetta. A reasonably decent film, but overall watered down compared to the comic. BrotherHoodOfSteel: would you care to elaborate on why it was so bad?
Batman Begins/Spiderman "Boring" and "sucked" are not adequate adjectives when discussing reasons for a films quality. Likewise "cinematic jokes" doesn't say anything. Iron Man was at least FUN. The effects were gorgeous, the fights were slick, and Tony Stark was a refreshing break from typical superheroes. He wasn't some angst filled Bruce Wayne/Peter Parker, he wasn't some absurd antihero Punisher, or someone driven by perfect morals (Superman) he was just a jerk. But an amusing jerk. Wolverine/Van Helsing were by most accounts pretty bad but they were at least entertaining once you looked past it. Roger Ebert said it best in his review of The Mummy: "There is hardly a thing I can say in its favor, except that I was cheered by nearly every minute of it. I cannot argue for the script, the direction, the acting or even the mummy, but I can say that I was not bored and sometimes I was unreasonably pleased. There is a little immaturity stuck away in the crannies of even the most judicious of us, and we should treasure it."
Manos: Hands of Fate A surreal dadaist masterpiece. Never has a film challenged out conceptions of the genre and twisted our percept....I can't do this. This film is terrible.
Baz Luhrman's Romeo + JulietNO! Stop it! You are measurably, empirically WRONG. This film is fantastic. It's hormone fuelled emotionally charged adolescent fake-love. Exactly what Romeo and Juliet SHOULD be. It was knowingly over-the-top and slightly silly (as are half the scenes in the play) and it felt good to have some actors actually speaking Shakespeare, rather than just standing and spouting it profoundly (as happens in the other Romeo and Juliet film that I've seen)
