What is the worst movie you ever saw?
Also,
Blair Witch Project was very boring!
Harry Potter Movies are good
_________________
"You are the stars and the world is watching you. By your presence you send a message to every village, every city, every nation. A message of hope. A message of victory."- Eunice Kennedy Shriver
Well, there is a reason for that - it was an odd-numbered Trek movie, and we all know they're destined to suck as a matter of course
_________________
Why so serious?
Plutonian_Persona
Deinonychus
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 348
Location: Somewhere In The Kuiper Belt
I just saw Marie Antoinette last night and I'm NEVER going to see this film again! After seeing Lost In Translation (well, the first 10 minutes), I decided I would give Sofia another chance...she's never getting another cent out of me!
Things Wrong With Marie Antoinette
1.) Rock music in a historical film (what the hell!?!)
2.) Inaccurate costuming (i.e. colors too bright)
3.) Little mention of the French Revolution
4.) The ending: one of the worst ever! (Black screen...destroyed bedroom...black screen...end)
5.) The acting:
Maybe I'm just overreacting, after all my Master's is in French History, but I'm still asking myself why this film was even made. Oh yeah, because she's a Coppola, it can't be wrong! It's no wonder I wanted to see The Queen rather than this piece of trash when it first came out last year.
The Lost World (with Colin Farrell.) I want the 150 minutes of my life I spent on this back please. Colin bloody farrel sails to america, has exactly one fight lasting about 3 seconds which he manages to lose despite wearing half-plate and carrying a gun, faffs about in a corn field with some native bird for about a month, looking at the sky, then some people are ill, some other people get stabbed a bit in the most dire battle scene ever. Colin bloody farrel lies in a field a bit more.. goes home.. end. You want to know the Pocahontas story, watch the Disney film. its WAY better.
Alexander (with Colin Farrel again.) How did they screw this up? Mass battles, heroics, angelina jolie, anthony hopkins, brian "hawkmen DIIIVE" blessed even.. and what do you get? about 3 hours of farrel either mincing round in that godawful helmet (kill the design guy NOW.. break his drawing fingers for our sanity.) OR whining and moaning about loyalty and his bloody boyfriend like an emo. YES Alexander the Great liked men.. but I seriously doubt he was this kind of sadarse interior designer who spends more time crying than conquering. They managed to render one of the greatest (clue in the name) tacticians and generals and leaders of ancient times as Mr Humphries from are You being Served. Or maybe the Kings son from the " I built this castle.." sequence of Holy grail.
Philip of Macedon: [to Young Alexander] A king isn't born, Alexander, he is made. By steel and by suffering. A king must know how to hurt those he loves. It's lonely. Ask anyone. Ask Herakles. Ask any of them. Fate is cruel. No man or woman can be too powerful or too beautiful without disaster befalling. They laugh when you rise too high. And they crush everything you've built with a whim. What glory they give in the end, they take away. They make of us slaves.
Alexander: But father.. all I want to do is sing!! !! !
OR..
Brian "Butch Macedonian Wrestling Trainer" Blessed: You don't need much to fight. When you're in the front ranks of a battle, chasing some northern barbarian tribe. Courage won't be in the lining of your stomach Nearchus, is in the heart of a man. You don't need to eat everyday or until your full Ptolemy. You don't need to lay in bed in the morning when you can have some good bean soup,Cassander, after a forced night's march. Come on Alexander. Come on. Who'll ever respect you as king? Do you think it's because of your father? The first rule of war is to do what you ask your men to do, no more, no less.
Alexander: OOh you are a caution.
No. Just No. Oliver bloody Stoned more like. Buggered this franchise backwards.. I demand a remake.
Alexander should have been more like 300, but with men who have sex with men. (Clarification.. not being homophobic here, merely pointing out that effeminate homosexuals would NOT have got all that far in this particular society. Bear in mind that having sex with lads was considered a perfectly manly pursuit. It wasnt about paisley scatter cushions .. which i swear i saw in that film.. )
Finally (for now) Pathfinder (with karl Urban.) Not fair.. It should have been good. it should have been awesome.. but it wasnt. It was. a bit dull, nicked scenes from King arthur, and managed to make all the delivery cheesy (expected to a degree in films like this, but not so badly. if you're going to do Cheese.. do it with a wry grin, a la 300.) The Vikings were brutal though. Best bit really, with all the horns and axes and whatnot. Ill just clip those bits and watch them to a hard metal soundtrack I think.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
poopylungstuffing
Veteran
Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,714
Location: Snapdragon Ridge
Night at the Museum....I can't think of a movie in recent memory that I had more problems with...
also, i thought Ultra Violet sucked ass. All I could do is sit and watch her nose dissapear and reappear from scene to scene.
_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/MsPuppetrina
http://www.youtube.com/poopylungstuffing
http://www.superhappyfunland.com
"Ifthefoolwouldpersistinhisfolly,hewouldbecomewise"
Cant recall Batman and Robin at all, suggesting it really was crap. Titanic.. ahh, if only they had just stuck with the real story and not had that toss love story thing. The tale of that ship has everything a decent film needs and then some. it did not require extra made-up shite.
Ultra-Violet was basically a poor Equilibrium-meets-Blade, notable only for Mila Jovovich having a very nice ass, which spends most of the movie clad in skin-tight pants. No film will ever truly suck completely if it has that. The flaming sword fight was sort of fun as well.
Night at The Museum... mildly amusing no-brainer. Best bit? Steve Coogan as the tiny centurion, and owen wilson as the cowboy. They could have made the film involving just them, like a museum-based Borrowers, and it would have been fine.
Icheb.. Rocket to the moon? Is that the ancient black and white film, or some other film I'm not aware of?
Dont recall Alphavile or Gemini - The Twin Stars either. Running Man (if you mean the Swarzenegger vehicle) was just big budget cheese. I liked the exploding collar idea, and given the current fad for reality shows, a remake might work quite well. If memory serves its based on a short story by Philip K Dick (Bladerunner)?
Pet Sematary falls foul of the same issue a lot of the 80s Stephen King films do.. they just arent up to the standard of the books at all. Though that film is singularly responsible for my wearing of high-topped combat boots for about 15 years. (Chiild, scalpel, achilles tendon.. OUCH.)
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
Paguk
Raven
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 115
Location: Between the Port of Indecision and Southwest of Disorder
I generally don't have to deal with anything reeking of that caliber, though there was that one time that I had to sit through Larry the Cable Guy pretending to be a health inspector in what was essentially a procession of lame cliche's strung together on some abomination passing itself off as a plot.
I walked out after about twenty minutes.
Dont recall Alphavile or Gemini - The Twin Stars either. Running Man (if you mean the Swarzenegger vehicle) was just big budget cheese. I liked the exploding collar idea, and given the current fad for reality shows, a remake might work quite well. If memory serves its based on a short story by Philip K Dick (Bladerunner)?
Pet Sematary falls foul of the same issue a lot of the 80s Stephen King films do.. they just arent up to the standard of the books at all. Though that film is singularly responsible for my wearing of high-topped combat boots for about 15 years. (Chiild, scalpel, achilles tendon.. OUCH.)
"Rocket to the Moon" (1967) was an unfunny comedy based on Jules Verne's novel "From the Earth to the Moon" which tried to cash in on the success of "Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines" (which also starred Gert Fröbe). When the rocket took off, the movie ended. "Alphaville" by Jean-Luc Godard is said to be one of the best science-fiction movies ever, but I found it godawful. "Gemini - The Twin Stars" was a cheap Swiss production that never even made into the cinema. "The Running Man" was an inferior rip-off of the French movie "Le prix du danger" (1982) and would have been much better had it stuck to the Richard Bachman (aka Stephen King) novel it was supposedly based on. Like "2010: The Year We Make Contact", "Pet Sematary" was proof that writers should not turn their own novels into screenplays - they are so eager to please Hollywood that they throw out everything that was good about the novel.
Dont recall Alphavile or Gemini - The Twin Stars either. Running Man (if you mean the Swarzenegger vehicle) was just big budget cheese. I liked the exploding collar idea, and given the current fad for reality shows, a remake might work quite well. If memory serves its based on a short story by Philip K Dick (Bladerunner)?
Pet Sematary falls foul of the same issue a lot of the 80s Stephen King films do.. they just arent up to the standard of the books at all. Though that film is singularly responsible for my wearing of high-topped combat boots for about 15 years. (Chiild, scalpel, achilles tendon.. OUCH.)
"Rocket to the Moon" (1967) was an unfunny comedy based on Jules Verne's novel "From the Earth to the Moon" which tried to cash in on the success of "Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines" (which also starred Gert Fröbe). When the rocket took off, the movie ended. "Alphaville" by Jean-Luc Godard is said to be one of the best science-fiction movies ever, but I found it godawful. "Gemini - The Twin Stars" was a cheap Swiss production that never even made into the cinema. "The Running Man" was an inferior rip-off of the French movie "Le prix du danger" (1982) and would have been much better had it stuck to the Richard Bachman (aka Stephen King) novel it was supposedly based on. Like "2010: The Year We Make Contact", "Pet Sematary" was proof that writers should not turn their own novels into screenplays - they are so eager to please Hollywood that they throw out everything that was good about the novel.
Ahh, I see. I knew Running Man was from a story.
From what I recall, Stephen King retains a great deal of executive control over films of his works. Some of the newer films have been much better than the earlier ones, so perhaps Mr King is getting the hang of what to keep and what to throw away. A lot of films from the 80s, especially Horror-style ones, suffered from the same problem though. The effects were never up to the standards of what your own imagination can throw at you. Most King films, Hellraiser, Elm Street, Halloween and Friday The !3th.. they all have that issue. They went for very up front monsters, which makes it easier to "see the wires". Compare this to say, Alien.. where the only real shot we get of the whole beast is at the end..and THEN it looks daft. Previous to that, its merely hints and flashes.. No wires. Aliens also manages this feat rather well, as with clever filming, the aliens seem much more lifelike. Then look at Alien3.. the creature looks shite, is shite, and we get to see all of it most of the time.
Consider "Dog Soldiers" as well. This uses a similar technique as Alien.. clever angles and limited visiblity. Without that talent, if you actually see the werewolves, they look like that comedy thing they had in one of the later Howling Movies.. the one with the circus. IE guy on stilts with fur.
This problem seems to be getting solved, as now film makers are getting over the amazing abuse of CGI, and starting to use it in a more subtle fashion. So, in your average "creature feature", even a low budget monster can be made to seem more lifelike. Combine clever use of CGI with clever use of angles, and you can get some genuinely good things going on.
Question is.. what is it that makes a movie "bad"? (other than having Colin farrel in it?) Someone mentioned Plan 9 from Outer Space earlier, and that is recognised as one of the worst movies ever made. Yet in some ways it is truly great. The biopic of the director.. Ed Wood (with Johnny Deppe) is genius though. (Its also the last film Bela Lugosi ever made, and he was dead for the greater part of the filming. If thats not clever filming, I dont know what is.)
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
Also, I think the entire Full Metal Jacket movie should've ended after Leonard killed himself.
The whole combat portion of the movie was gruesome and boring.
Tim
_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!
Now proficient in ChatGPT!
I walked out after about twenty minutes.
I still want to see the Larry the Cable Guy movie.
Tim
_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!
Now proficient in ChatGPT!
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
worst jobs in US (I am number one [exclamation point]) |
06 Feb 2024, 11:00 pm |
World's Worst Time Traveler Warns Missouri to Be Blanketed |
04 Apr 2024, 9:46 pm |
Help with identifying Sci Fi movie |
11 minutes ago |
Anyone else a LOTR fan (Book and Movie) ? |
08 Mar 2024, 9:36 pm |