»

[Aubrey McFatum]

After reading the thread about good movies, I thought it would be interesting to have also a thread about bad movies. If you have movies you recommend to not watch, you're welcome!

Among recent stuff I have to say Snakes on a Plane is to avoid. Samuel L. Jackson has really gone downhill. His last movies were all bad IMO, but this has to be his worst.

[MakgSnake]

Ginger Snap, worst movie ever IMO. So dont bother watching it. And.....well...I hated Serenity so I dont recommend that movie at all too.

[trunks69420]

date movie or scary movie 4... i give anyone a free rental when they complain it sucked.

cause they both really did.


BAD.

[merylsilverburg]

Originally Posted by trunks69420

date movie or scary movie 4... i give anyone a free rental when they complain it sucked.

Are you allowed to do that?

Here's a couple of movies to avoid:

- Lost in Translation (omg, I HATE this movie)

- Mystic River (hated it too)

- 10 Things I Hate About You (I was dragged into seeing this by some
angsty 15 year old b*tch...what a friggin' pathetic movie)

- Wedding Crashers (again, dragged into seeing by the dumbass above...another stupid, stupid movie)

- Titanic (need I say more?)

That's all I can think of for now.

EDIT: OMG, I can't believe I forgot this:

- Closer ( Yet again, forced to watch this by that stupid above...this movie...just...the whole cast, plot, set, dialogue...enough to cause brain damage)

[trunks69420]

Originally Posted by merylsilverburg

Are you allowed to do that?

yeah. i'm the manager. who's gonna yell at me?? plus its customer satisfaction at all times... so thats what i give

[merylsilverburg]

Originally Posted by trunks69420

yeah. i'm the manager. who's gonna yell at me?? plus its customer satisfaction at all times... so thats what i give

Oh okay, I didn't know you are a manager.

[Pu the Owl]

Mysterious Skin has to be the worst movie ever made. It's so bad it's almost impossible to believe somebody could actually come up with anything like that.

Other bad movies I can think about now are:

ALL Sophia Coppola's works - this woman thinks her movies are all about sensitivity and art, but they're just the creation of a person who seems to ignore the basics of living and understanding -and respecting different cultures, too? No wonder though: how can you live and observe anything when you're Francis Ford's daughter?

Being John Malkovich - I don't get why all the praise and excitement over this film. Spike Jonze didn't realize one can't apply the same rules of music videos to feature length movies. If he has bad dreams at night, he should spare the audience and see a headshrinker instead of making movies out of it. Or, if he really can't live without a camera, he should keep on directing the Chemical Brothers videos only. And I hate John Malkovich.

Ladder 49 - so much rethoric it's almost disgusting.

Brother Bear - the worst Disney movie ever.

ALL M. Night Shyamalan's works - I know they are popular, but they really make me mad and most of all makes me mad to realize the guy believes he's a sort of new Hitchcock.

Almost all Lars Von Trier's movies - this man wants the audience to believe he's invented alternative film-making. He's just recycled. Or he's playing dumb and pretends he doesn't know, or he's just ignorant. Also, his scripts lack any coherence and depth. His characters are more illogical than Muppets. Not to mention that thanks to the alternative film-making part of the question, his movies also ugly to watch. How can they be called works of art, when they're just work of arrogance, it's a mystery...

[Redpyramidhead]

I'd have to say I really enjoyed both Mystic River and Being John Malkovich. In my humble opinion this is great film-making and I certainly don't see the problem with applying one's knowledge from making music videos to film in order to try something new and different.

_RED_

[Pu the Owl]

Originally Posted by Redpyramidhead

I certainly don't see the problem with applying one's knowledge from making music videos to film in order to try something new and different.

Because certain effects result in cheap and distasteful moviemaking. It can work when applied to promoting a product, like a music video that is made to promote music or the image of a band/singer, but it doesn't work when the film is the product itself and it has to speak for itself without pointing at something ideally, and actually, behind it. It's somewhat like saying an ad can be good, but a book written using the same language of ads is crap and ureadable. They're different products, music videos and films, with different purposes. Experimenting most of the times results in bad storytelling, if you're not a genius or a person able to use an experimental language limiting its influence to the form. The medium is the message, said McLuhan. In case of music videos it is. In fact the medium, the language, deforms the content, and the result is mostly about exteriority. Content is very marginal in music videos. In case of movies the medium, the language, should be functional to the message, not the opposite. If the language fagocitates everything else, the movie ceases to be a movie. Spike Jonze denies any content in order to make the language predominant. In a music video making language predominant is a perfect way to attract people, because as a matter of fact the video exists in the first place to sell something to the public. Not recognizing this difference is what I call ineptitude, speaking of art. But of course I'm not saying you have to agree.

[Redpyramidhead]

Originally Posted by Panuru

Because certain effects result in cheap and distasteful moviemaking. It can work when applied to promoting a product, like a music video that is made to promote music or the image of a band/singer, but it doesn't work when the film is the product itself and it has to speak for itself without pointing at something ideally, and actually, behind it. It's somewhat like saying an ad can be good, but a book written using the same language of ads is crap and ureadable. They're different products, music videos and films, with different purposes. Experimenting most of the times results in bad storytelling, if you're not a genius or a person able to use an experimental language limiting its influence to the form. The medium is the message, said McLuhan. In case of music videos it is. In fact the medium, the language, deforms the content, and the result is mostly about exteriority. Content is very marginal in music videos. In case of movies the medium, the language, should be functional to the message, not the opposite. If the language fagocitates everything else, the movie ceases to be a movie. Spike Jonze denies any content in order to make the language predominant. In a music video making language predominant is a perfect way to attract people, because as a matter of fact the video exists in the first place to sell something to the public. Not recognizing this difference is what I call ineptitude, speaking of art. But of course I'm not saying you have to agree.

You make a lot of good points. When looked at from that perspective I can understand your aversion to such a thing. You are right that in order to preserve the artistic integrity of a film that the way in which it is presented should probably not be done in a way that emulates such a commercial thing such as most music videos. The story, acting, and cinematography should probably be able to sell itself in the case of a great film. The only place I really disagree with you is that perhaps it could be done in a way that hasn't been done yet. Outright making a movie look like a music video is probably disgraceful in some ways, but using what one may have learned from making music videos in a new and innovative way in the cinematography for a film could be interesting. The reason I feel this way probably stems from the fact that I find a really great music video the work of a very intelligent artist in its own right, but I suppose we could probably argue about why the two mediums should never be mixed in any way whatsoever until we're blue in the face or just agree to disagree

_RED_

[Pu the Owl]

Anyway, I can see it mostly depends on the view you have about what "movie" really is. If you have a different idea of the object called "movie", your view will be totally different from mine. It is acceptable as long as you have an idea. Some people don't have a clue and just base their work on generic ideas as "coolness", "experimenting", "originality", and so on. I think if you lack solid basis, you risk a lot, but that can be also true for people who choose more traditional ways of film-making.

[Faile]

One plus about Coppola, S.'s films is the soundtrack though. Kevin Shields a-go-go on Lost in Translation! Lost in Translation has to be one of the coldest films I ever saw though. I'm very ambiguous about it on the whole. I have the Virgin Suicides kicking about on DVD here though, but seeing as I've not watched it in a year of owning it, I don't expect to be watching it anytime soon.

I liked Closer! I fon't understand why people think it's got bad dialogue. Having come out of a terrible breakup just prior to watching the film, I can absolutely guarantee that the dialogue is pretty spot on for the situation. It's based on a play, so having a go at the set is a bit silly really. I really liked it anyway.

I try to make a point of not watching bad movies wherever possible and the bad ones never stick in the mind, but I really disliked Goblet of Fire. Also the King Kong remake. And various other films that slip the mind. I'm very unsure about Eternal Sunshine too, but maybe it was my mood when I watched it.

[jjmoohead]

I loved Wedding Crashers - MA!!!!! THE MEATLOAF!!!

Movie to avoid at all costs - Dorm Daze 2 and Going Overboard

[Berserker]

I've always had a soft spot for cheesy horror movies, so I could name hundreds but a few that spring to mind:

Beneath still water
Decoys

[Redpyramidhead]

Oh how could I forget this downright horrible movie I couldnt even sit through more than 45 minutes of:

Lucky number Slevin (yep its spelled that way)

I figured hey... all star cast... Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, Ben Kingsley... what could go wrong? Well everything went wrong. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME ON THIS MOVIE!

_RED_

[Pu the Owl]

I have another really really bad one. And I'm not joking!

The Dreamers by Oscar winning-director Bernardo Bertolucci. Awful piece of soft-porn-wannabe movie disguised as a witty and devoted declaration of love towards films and the art of cinema. Last Tango in Paris was saved thanks to Marlon Brando. Bertolucci tries to use the same theme. But the actors in this movie are truly hopeless. The Dreamers is so bad to make you think real porn is better - and more fun. Please, do not watch it! I'm warning you!

[Berserker]

Edit: Another to avoid Mr. and mrs. Smith, even Jolie couldn't save this movie for me.

[merylsilverburg]

Originally Posted by Panuru

ALL Sophia Coppola's works - this woman thinks her movies are all about sensitivity and art, but they're just the creation of a person who seems to ignore the basics of living and understanding -and respecting different cultures, too? No wonder though: how can you live and observe anything when you're Francis Ford's daughter?

How right you are, although I've never seen any of her other films I'll take your word on it, especially after Lost in Translation. Look out though since critics are raving how "fantastic" her new stupid movie is.

Originally Posted by Panuru

And I hate John Malkovich.

You too?! Thank goodness because the guy is truly annoying.

Originally Posted by Panuru

Brother Bear - the worst Disney movie ever.

Are you talking about only hand-drawn works? Because if not, I'd have to say that "Chicken Little" is the worst Disney film. To be fair, I've never seen it but the looks of it seems incredibly dumb and something I wouldn't like.

Originally Posted by Panuru

Almost all Lars Von Trier's movies

I've only seen "Dogville" because it was recommended to me...the movie was nearly unbearable because the nature of the cast were so incredibly irritating...yet it was surprising how well they were portrayed because, well, aren't people like that anyway (or maybe I'm just very cynical)

Originally Posted by Redpyramidhead

I'd have to say I really enjoyed both Mystic River

Well I didn't like it because the whole outcome/circumstances of the film really turned out unfairly/unjust...but that's just me. I also couldn't stand the entire cast either (Sean Penn, Tim Robbins...I hate these guys) so it didn't help. I only saw this film because it was so raved and acclaimed.

Originally Posted by Faile

I liked Closer! I fon't understand why people think it's got bad dialogue. Having come out of a terrible breakup just prior to watching the film, I can absolutely guarantee that the dialogue is pretty spot on for the situation. It's based on a play, so having a go at the set is a bit silly really. I really liked it anyway.

I'm sorry I dissed off a film you liked but having no original intention to see it and involuntarily dragged into doing so really didn't sit well with me. Plus I didn't like the actors/actresses either so that didn't help. And I didn't know it was based on a play because, well, I don't like the film so I wouldn't know any background info on it. Sorry you are so offended.

Originally Posted by Redpyramidhead

Lucky number Slevin (yep its spelled that way)

I figured hey... all star cast... Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, Ben Kingsley... what could go wrong? Well everything went wrong. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME ON THIS MOVIE!

LOL, REChick said she enjoyed this film in the other thread.

[Pu the Owl]

Originally Posted by merylsilverburg

How right you are, although I've never seen any of her other films I'll take your word on it, especially after Lost in Translation. Look out though since critics are raving how "fantastic" her new stupid movie is.

The Virgin Suicides isn't any better, while Marie Antoinette is probably even worse than Lost In Translation. Actors are not helping either.

Originally Posted by merylsilverburg

You too?! Thank goodness because the guy is truly annoying.

Yes, I can't stand him. As I can't stand Richard Gere, Tom Cruise and Tim Robbins. These are actors usually regarded as "good", but that I dislike and can negatively influence my opinion on a movie. I'm not even going to mention actors I can't stand that aren't decent. It's a waste of time

Originally Posted by merylsilverburg

Are you talking about only hand-drawn works? Because if not, I'd have to say that "Chicken Little" is the worst Disney film. To be fair, I've never seen it but the looks of it seems incredibly dumb and something I wouldn't like.

Yes, I was talking about hand-drawn animation, sorry. Brother Bear was really un-bearable, hehe

Originally Posted by merylsilverburg

I've only seen "Dogville" because it was recommended to me...the movie was nearly unbearable because the nature of the cast were so incredibly irritating...yet it was surprising how well they were portrayed because, well, aren't people like that anyway (or maybe I'm just very cynical)

Well, Dogville isn't the worst movie by Von Trier. Actually it's one of the only "acceptable" ones IMO. Not that I like it, but compared to some others... *shivering*

Originally Posted by merylsilverburg

Well I didn't like it because the whole outcome/circumstances of the film really turned out unfairly/unjust...but that's just me. I also couldn't stand the entire cast either (Sean Penn, Tim Robbins...I hate these guys) so it didn't help. I only saw this film because it was so raved and acclaimed.

I liked Mystic River, mainly because I like Clint Eastwood a lot, as a director. His style is amazing, and he chooses very carefully his scripts. He's always made fantastic movies. I know the outcome and circumstances of this movie were terribly unfair to the point of being unbearable, but that's exactly what the film was about. Maybe a bit harsh way of portraing it, but such is life. Regarding Tim Robbins, I said above I find hard to digest him as well, but I think he was ok for this role.

[merylsilverburg]

Originally Posted by Panuru

I'm not even going to mention actors I can't stand that aren't decent. It's a waste of time

Or maybe we should create a separate thread for this. j/k

Originally Posted by Panuru

Yes, I was talking about hand-drawn animation, sorry. Brother Bear was really un-bearable, hehe

Oh okay. But what qualities about it made it the worst movie to you? I saw it and I thought it was okay, not the greatest...I would say that, hand-drawn, "Atlantis" was pretty terrible; although the voice-acting cast weren't so bad.

I have some more movies:

- Moulin Rouge, the one with Nicole Kidman and Ewan McGregor, not the one about artist Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec. I really can't stand this film - I already don't like Kidman or McGregor but the fact the film's plot was really "star-crossed-lovers-teenage-angst-like" didn't help matters. Sure, the incorporation of contemporary songs in an "updated" musical was fine and dandy but the film was just ridiculous. The costumes and sets and stuffs were fine, just the story. It makes me sad because I really liked Baz Luhrmann's old film "Strictly Ballroom" a lot.

- Adaptation with Meryl Streep and Nicolas Cage. Oh wow, talk about irritating. The whole premise seemed quite interesting but it got to the point of exasperation and anger-inducing when we find out Streep's messed up and loser behavior/personality in the end. Again, another film I saw just because people raved about it.

- Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: People who've been around would've read my rant on this film when it was released and know I hate this stupid film so much. For those who are fans, I am aware that this movie is popular and well-liked but I just don't like it. Michelle Yeo and Chow Yun-Fat are fine actors but that other wretched main character just bugs me to hell. Plus the fact they bounced/hopped around rooftops that are 20 feet away from each other is just ridiculous. Yes, I know...it's supposed to be the "masterly skilled" art of flying but please....if you're going to make the characters look like they're flying because of their long years of training, don't make it stupidly obvious they are being pulled by strings and are able to leap from mountains to mountains...yeah, it's a fantasy movie, but c'mon let's apply a little bit of the law of physics okay?

- The Chronicles of Narnia: What is wrong with this movie? How about the cast? They couldn't have chosen more annoying children if they tried. The only actor I found remotely suitable and possessing an ounce of talent is the kid who played Edmond. The girl who played the oldest sister (I forget the name) is so lazy, lazy, and what else? Oh, lazy! The little girl is really an evil and cunning little b*tch, you can so tell but it's hard to explain because normal people would find her "cute" and "adorable" or "intelligent." No she's not, she's sarcastic and condescending and at such a young age too, I'd hate to see her as an adult. For this reason, I couldn't believe her character as being a kind and innocent little girl.

That's it for now.