Three of the Worst Movies ever

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]Well, in your opinion at least since everyone has ideas of what's good and what should be burned in some kind of ceromony. Make sure to give reasons don't just say, it sucked. Why did it suck?

[b]Choice one: Blair Witch Project[/b]:

I don't understand all the hype with this movie. So many peopel thought it was so scary. The only thing that scared me was the fact that I paid money to see the movie and was out voted by two of my friends who [i]wanted[/i] to see Blair Witch. :rolleyes: Watching it gave me motion sickness. My friends both thought it was bad as well. It was so bad that after the movie we drove over to where Amanda's (one of the two I went with) brother worked and called him out for telling us it was good. Then they got a big I told you so from me, I am so not modest.

[b]Choice two: The Hours[/b]:

Sure, it won an award for best something, but I sure didn't vote that way. That was the first movie I ever began to sleep through and actually didn't grasp. Maybe it was due to the fact that I was tired and thinking of how to eliminate my roommate. Maybe it was because my mind was on something else entirely (hey, it [i]was[/i] Valentine's day). But everyone had talked up this movie. And I had waited so long to see it in Killeen. And then Lincoln bought tickets for the showing. And it was such a let down. We walked out, got our money back and saw Dare Devil the next day.

[b]Choice Three: Adaptation[/b]:

The only good part of that movie was when the two people were eaten by that crocodile in Florida and I didn't even [i]watch[/i] that part. The preveiws made it look interesting. And since it was a NIck Cage movie Lincoln had to see it. I think the plot was a guy writing a book on a lady who grew orchids and it got a bit messy. Thank Goddess we rented that one!

So there are my three choices. I may come back with more later :flaming: [/color]

[Brasil]

[size=2][QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman]Well, in your opinion at least since everyone has ideas of what's good and what should be burned in some kind of ceromony. Make sure to give reasons don't just say, it sucked. Why did it suck?[/size]

[size=2]Choice one: Blair Witch Project:[/size]

[size=2]I don't understand all the hype with this movie. So many peopel thought it was so scary. The only thing that scared me was the fact that I paid money to see the movie and was out voted by two of my friends who wanted to see Blair Witch. Watching it gave me motion sickness. My friends both thought it was bad as well. It was so bad that after the movie we drove over to where Amanda's (one of the two I went with) brother worked and called him out for telling us it was good. Then they got a big I told you so from me, I am so not modest.[/quote][/size]

[size=2]You didn't understand the hype? You didn't understand the purpose of the film. Blair Witch was not the Freddy Krueger or Child's Play of horror films. It never intended to be anything like that. Those people who said it was so scary did not mean "jump out at you" scary. Friends of mine slept with the lights on or didn?t sleep at all after seeing it, because Blair Witch is psychological horror. It attacks our subconscious; it targets those primal human fears of isolation and abandonment. And considering that we never see the killer at all, only shadows and fragments of a physical presence, we cannot disregard Blair Witch simply because there?s no maniac with a chainsaw coming after us. It is focused on the fear of the unknown, a quality of literature and entertainment dating back to The Epic of Gilgamesh. You just didn?t allow yourself to be open to the experience. Don?t write the film off because of a fault of your own.[/size]

[size=2][quote]Choice two: The Hours:[/size]

[size=2]Sure, it won an award for best something, but I sure didn't vote that way. [b]That was the first movie I ever began to sleep through and actually didn't grasp.[/b] Maybe it was due to the fact that I was tired and thinking of how to eliminate my roommate. Maybe it was because my mind was on something else entirely (hey, it was Valentine's day). But everyone had talked up this movie. And I had waited so long to see it in Killeen. And then Lincoln bought tickets for the showing. And it was such a let down. We walked out, got our money back and saw Dare Devil the next day.[/quote][/size]

[size=2]Hmmm?I doubt that. No offence, but based on your lack of comprehension of what Blair Witch accomplished?[/size]

[size=2][quote]Choice Three: Adaptation:[/size]

[size=2]The only good part of that movie was when the two people were eaten by that crocodile in Florida and I didn't even watch that part. The preveiws made it look interesting. And since it was a NIck Cage movie Lincoln had to see it. I think the plot was a guy writing a book on a lady who grew orchids and it got a bit messy. Thank Goddess we rented that one![/quote][/size]

[size=2][i]What?[/i] You?re joking, right? I hope you are, because you did not understand Adaptation at all. You say the only good part was when Susan Orlean and John Laroche get devoured by a crocodile, and you didn?t even watch that part. Okay, I guess I?ll explain the basic gist and themes of the plot.[/size]

[size=2]The entire film revolves around the question of a true reality. This is the beauty of Charlie Kaufman?s films. He blurs the line between what we think and what we see. Being John Malkovich illustrates this ideal exactly. You probably have not seen Being John Malkovich. BJM is about a puppeteer, Schwartz, who discovers a portal into John Malkovich?s head. Since Schwartz is a gifted puppeteer, he is able to learn to control Malkovich, and stay in there as long as he likes. BJM explores the idea that man is soulless. The idea it presents is that man is simply a shell, and there is some unseen force influencing his path. This can be interpreted as man unable of shaping himself, and always being affected by outside forces. This is defined further in Adaptation.[/size]

[size=2]The beginning of Adaptation begins in the middle of the??100 Malkovich? scene. This already hints at how we define our own reality. Our own realities are shaped by others. This takes on a very literal yet figurative meaning in Adaptation. Charlie Kaufman originally wants to create his own reality, independent of the commercialized Hollywood that his brother, Donald, enjoys. Charlie is so dedicated to being his own person that he is ruining his life in doing so. He is so determined to bring The Orchid Thief to film in a realistic and natural way that he loses touch with what life is all about. He forgets that we can only go so far in shaping ourselves, and eventually, we hit that brick wall. This is what happens in Adaptation. He hits Writer?s Block because he is so hyperfocused on himself. The dialogue in the opening credits should slap you in the face with it. It?s an [i]inner monologue[/i], for crying out loud.[/size]

[size=2]When Donald is brought on board to help with the script, we actually jump into the script. The entire last third of Adaptation is the actual adaptation of The Orchid Thief. It?s not a messy transition at all. It doesn?t hold your hand at all, too. It challenges you to think. The crocodile scene didn?t happen in the film?s reality. That scene happened in the adaptation third of Adaptation. In fact, the transition is rather sharp. If you had been paying attention at all, you would have noticed a distinct difference in tone between the middle third and the end third of the film. Up until Donald comes in, we have a ?normal? film, we have a serious film. A film grounded in Adaptation?s reality. However, upon seeing Susan Orlean?s nude pictures on John Laroche?s website, you should have realized that Donald has taken over, that Charlie?s obsession with shaping his own reality is now a mere shadow.[/size]

[size=2]Adaptation is a brilliant piece of film. It twists what we perceive and challenges what we think as real. Its message is a sound one: ?We are not in full control of how we shape our reality.? When one is so dedicated to isolating themselves from the world around them, treating the outside world like a monster that will destroy them, that one is destined to fail in their self-righteous crusade. That?s what happens to Charlie in Adaptation. His own self-righteousness destroys him.[/size]

[size=2][quote]So there are my three choices. I may come back with more later [/QUOTE][/size]

[size=2]I suggest that you come back with three different films that you actually understand.[/size]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Hey Petey how about instead of criticizing other people's choices you submit some of your own. Don't bore us to tears explaining how you love Adaptation and Blair Witch and then leave it at that.

Ok the 3 worst movies (man it's a hard choice I've seem so much crap...)

1. Koyaanisqatsi (sp?) -- Ok people either love this movie or they hate it. But I think to love it you have to have been really really really high. It's a 2-hour mish-mash of random clips of the earth and of industry and of human civilization and pollution and so forth, all accompanied by horrendous music. The title means "life out of balance" and the message is "protect our planet because human civilization has thrown off nature's balance" or what not. It's a great message, but if a rabid orangutang punched you in the stomach, bit off your nuts and, before running off, said "reduce reuse recycle" it would have been communicated better.

2. The Replicant -- Jean-Claude Van Damme hits rock bottom. Need I say more?

Of course I do. Ok for starters I want to say that usually Van Damme's acting is not that bad. It's not killer, but his parts are so easy that his acting is not what makes his films bad. Well, in this case, it was horrendous. I mean BAD. He had to play a serial killer and his retarded clone and ok, so it wasn't as bad as Jet Li in "The One" (where he played both parts exactly the same), but it was piss-poor. And the other actors, don't get me started on those. The plot was atrocious, and made absolutely no sense. Finally there was pretty much no fighting. No fighting in a Van Damme movie. ...Oh also I almost forgot, but the "happy ending" is the retarded clone Van Damme gets a hooker. I'm not kidding.

3. Timeline -- If you liked this movie, let me know and I'll send a ninja over to your house to kill you. I've never seen this many plot holes in a film (yes, it even outdoes the Matrix trilogy). The "science" was so bad I wanted to cry. I swear the "Centurions" cartoon seemed more plausible than this movie's time travel idea. On top of that, the acting on everyone's part did make me cry. I won't go into any details, because I wouldn't know where to stop. Let's just say this movie is bad on ALL levels. Don't watch it.

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Hey Petey how about instead of criticizing other people's choices you submit some of your own. Don't bore us to tears explaining how you love Adaptation and Blair Witch and then leave it at that.[/quote]Hey Sciros how about instead of taking issue with my detailed explanation of two complicated films you just shut your mouth and know your role. :p

Okay, you want my all-time, bottom three movies?

Event Horizon. I can't begin to describe how atrocious this movie was. It had a brilliant premise. The opening 20 or 30 minutes were excellent. Then they began to beat us over the head with this religious spin and the movie just fell apart. It was an exceptional set-up for a sci-fi film: research vessel disappeared in space without a trace left at all. Then after many years, it reappears. Damn it...too much rhyming. I'm fine with religion in cinema, even in sci-fi. But what Event Horizon did was crossing the line. [spoiler]Sam Neill speaking Latin at the end, his eyes gouged out, becoming the Satan figure[/spoiler]...just corny, and not the good corny, either. Within the first 45 minutes, the movie just fell into the common sci-fi horror cliches. Dreadful film. Any message of coping with fear and understanding emotion was buried under a pretentious high drama. The characters' backstories were pure camp. I didn't feel for any of them. [spoiler]The dead son sitting under the sheet on the medical table...c'mon. Cliche.[/spoiler]

My other two worst of all-time are actually two John Cusack vehicles. I'm very surprised at it, actually. Midnight In The Garden Of Good And Evil, and The Grifters.

Midnight seemed like it was trying desperately to incorporate William Faulkner-ish characterization and location, while keeping homosexual overtones similar to Walt Whitman. It felt very scattered and unfocused. Kevin Spacey was not utilized properly, nor was Cusack. I really think they were doing all that they could with the material. Unfortunately, no matter how gifted an actor is, bad material is bad material.

The Grifters is a movie that you either love or hate. The characters are very one-dimensional; they had no worthwhile backstory or purpose for doing what they were doing. They were con men, sure, but nowhere does it say that con men can't have personality. The Grifters was very flat, despite Cusack, Bening, and Angelica Huston. Again, I think it was an example of lousy material.

The Gifters and Midnight are the only two films starring Cusack that I despise. Cusack has a wonderful comedic timing and a very refreshing self-depricating humor. It's a shame that his broadening his horizons didn't give him the boost.

[TheShinje]

The three worst movies for me are...


3: The Others.

I hated this film, The main reason why I hated this movie was the acting. I felt nothing for Kidman's character the whole movie, she came off as a flat, one dimensiona character. come to think of it, I felt absolutely nothing for anythign in the movie. The fly buzzing around my coke cup was entertaining though.

Oh, the twist was horrid, really, [spoiler]the ghosts are the people of the living world and the living people are, well, vice versa.[/spoiler]

I know what the movie is trying to do, tell us what life might be like on the other side, yet I felt the movie was flat, and unenjoyable.

2: Hulk

I didn't like Hulk as much as I thoght I would, and in the end, thoiugh it to be a drawn out piece of crap.

It seemed endless in it's drivel. I'm sure the Architect in Matrix was more entertaining! not to say there isn't some quality entertainment to have with such a long backstroy, it's just not a movie I am likely to want to watch again. [spoiler] the mutated dogs were cool, especially the psycho Poodle!- Hulk taking on the military [i]almost [/i]redeemed it.[/spoiler]

The movie I hate the most is

Jackass.

What is funny about his asinine movie? nothing, no plot, just random skits of stupidity, no wonder they call it Jackass. I saw it at the movies when I didn't know what Jackass was, the poster looked good and I had a bit of money to blow. When I'm sitting in a theatre,the last thing I want to watch is something I could have taped with a handicam and mates stupid enought to risk life, limb and reputation for some 5 mintues of fame.

While some skits were funny, others were downright disgusting, and compltetely moronic. Each to his own, I guess.

[James]

[color=#707875]I'd have to agree with Shinji about Jackass. I never understood all of the excitement that surrounded the TV series, let alone the movie itself. It's about a group of idiots who decide to hurt themselves and annoy others. Wow, fun. The fact that it was popular gives me very little faith in mankind. lol

Actually, there are quite a few movies in this vein. Kangaroo Jack would be another example. The fact that it was number one in the United States is a scary, scary thought. But when you have people going to see movies like that and then saying in the same breath that The Matrix is terrible...well, you realize that you're definitely dealing with the "average Joe". People just aren't willing to put much thought into movies and it seems that this is occurring more frequently as time goes on. Is it a lack of attention span, or what? I don't know.

This really gets down to what makes a good or bad movie, I guess. I mean, Alex showed me a link to an IGN review of the Kill Bill DVD. Now, the review itself pretty much attacked the movie on every point -- that it was nothing more than a rehash of old cinema styles, that Uma looked uncomfortable holding a sword (and she did, in my opinion), that the story was as pointless as paper-thin as you could get, etc etc.

The thing is, I think a lot of it has to do with the movie's intention. I loved Kill Bill. No, I wasn't getting an in-depth, complicated story. No, I wasn't getting anything that really challenged me on a philosophical basis. But I [i]was [/i]getting something that was visually beautiful, artifully directed and which featured some pretty sharp dialogue in certain parts. It was a great blend of traditional genres and newer "genres" (ie: anime). The fact that this was all done so seamlessly is a huge triumph in my view.

But if you go in there and if you misunderstand the intention...you will never get it. And you won't like it at all, or appreciate it on any level.

The same is absolutely true for The Matrix movies. Yeah, a lot of the acting was as wooden as you can get (Keanu is possibly the most unemotional and monotone actor in the history of film). And some lines were truly annoying ("Neo, I believe" -- said as Kid tries to open the gate that connects to the Dock). However, these are totally superficial issues. When one understands the social commentary behind the film, the multi-layered philosophical elements and the sheer innovation present in the overall timeline of the film, there's an awful lot to be impressed by. Grand ideas being communicated awkwardly at times -- that's how I see it. But [i]because [/i]I see the intelligence and craftsmanship going on underneath the dialogue and acting...I'm far more forgiving about those superficial elements. But if you don't recognize what's happening underneath, you'll only look at the surface. And you won't come away with understanding.

So, in terms of other bad movies...I'd have to say that one of the recent stinkers would be Jeepers Creepers.

Mind you, I didn't actually see the second film. But I don't know how anyone could have truly enjoyed the first one.

It starts off well enough; almost like Stephen Spielberg's Duel. The scary-looking, rusted out truck is trying to ram 'em off the road and so on...the truck itself looks great and the fact that you can't see the driver only adds to it.

And then they drive past at church later on and see the guy dumping bodies into a pipe, from the truck. At that point I thought "Okay, that's interesting" -- the guy looked kind of frightening and mysterious, from a distance.

And then as time goes on, we realize how utterly stupid the whole thing gets. Not only is the villain a completely bizarre (and silly looking) demon-esque character, but everything that happens after this is just really pointless.

I mean, they meet the old woman in the police station and then what? She doesn't do anything at all to help them. Her advice is totally pointless. She basically disappears and the creature comes in and takes the brother away. It's kind of sudden and random, with no real meaning or purpose.

I just found the whole movie really annoying. At first it had potential, but it became so ridiculous and laughable that I found it more a comedy than anything else. So, maybe the second movie is better...I don't know. But it'd have to be a [i]lot [/i]better to qualify as a good movie in my eyes. lol[/color]

[Semjaza]

I really don't know what I'd consider to be the "worst ever" movies. There's movies I don't like, but none I hate with a passion. I'll just list three I really just didn't like and leave it at that... I'm sure there are much worse ones.

[B]The Outlaw Josey Wales[/B]

I admit, I've never actually seen this movie. However, when I was younger, my step-father and his friend were watching it at a rather high volume when I was trying to sleep. Of course, that was incredibly annoying, so I dislike this movie mostly because of that heh. There's a bias.

From all I've been able to gather from hearing it for over an hour, it's about an outlaw. His name is Josey Wales. That's the story. That's it. He basically just walks into places and people go "Who the hell are you!?" and he goes "Josey Wales!" and they start shooting eachother. I'm sure it was a masterful tale on paper, but it sucks onscreen.

[B]Tomb Raider 2[/B]

First of all, I hate the game series. Second of all, I got dragged into seeing this at the theaters. 1 + 2 = me being in a bad mood from the start. However, I don't think it affected my opinion of this movie.

The games were obviously inspired by Indiana Jones in some way (even on a minimal level), but nothing really gives that impression as much as this movie does. It tries very hard to emulate the things that make the Indy movies so great, but falls flat on its face in every conceivable way. There's probably more ways it sucks that I've not even noticed yet.

First of all, the movie seems like little more than an excuse to string together a dozen exotic locales for Lara Croft to visit. There's little reason for her to even be in a few of them and they serve nothing more than as yet annother excuse. This time it's to do some lame stunt that you've probably seen in another film already.

I can't remember any of the characters and there's a reason for that. They were unimportant, uninteresting and shallow. Lara's character randomly spouts out facts about artifacts and temples while trying to put on a sexy face. Every time she appears in a scene, it's like she's making pouty lips. Especially if there's a guy onscreen, regardless of who he is or what his appearance looks like. There's also a guy she was involved with at some time who becomes "evil". Whoopdie-doo.

There's one scene in the movie that I feel epitomized how lame everything else was, and that was the underwater scene. Lara apparently feels that she can't make it to the surface quick enough to survive. Generally when you're that low, you want to rise slowly so you don't damage yourself thanks to the pressure. Of course, Lara instead sees a shark and makes it come at her.

She punches the shark in the face. Freaking punches a shark. The fact that the thing actually gets scared is ridiculous enough in and of itself. Sharks probably get hit by more force by every other large creature they eat in the sea than Lara could have possibly given in that punch. She's in the freaking water... how much momentum could she have?

Then she grabs on and it unexplainably takes her to the surface and leaves her there. Terrible.

[B]The Medallion[/B]

I suppose you can't see a Jackie Chan film and expect the best movie in existance. However, I found them all at least tolerable and Jackie was always awesome with the stunts. That's why you watch his movies. It's certainly not for his wonderful acting ability.

The Tuxedo came out before this and I disliked that as well. The Medallion was about twenty times worse. I don't even know how that was possible. Both had some great action scenes, but these were brought down by stupid stunts that no one could do without wires. Basically, they give Jackie Chan superpowers and hook him up to things to make it look "real". Chan is about as close to a super hero that anyone is ever going to get in real life. Doing this and giving him stunt doubles really just brings all of that down for me.

The Medallion also just has an extremely stupid story. There's two halfs of a medallion and each have their own mystical powers. The movie tries to explain the differences between the two on a regular basis, but you never really understand it. This is mostly because by the time the good guys get a half and the bad guys get the other half, they basically do the exact same things. They just keep bringing people back to life, over and over again. Why all this nonsense trying to make them seem different?

[B]Signs[/B]

I just did not like this movie. When I left the theater I was kind of mixed on it, but after my eyes adjusted to the light outside and I drove away, I realized how dumb it was. I don't really believe in aliens in the sense that this movie portrays them. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy alien movies as much as the next guy.

The first problem for me with this film was just the water. It was everywhere. They try to make it a story element, but it just fails because they're constantly throwing it in your face. It's not subtle in any sense of the word. Camera change one, here's some water. Camera change two, here's another five glasses. Camera change three hundred and forty-two... more freaking water! It was made even more lame due to water's role in the ending sequences. The whole thing just feels insulting. As if we'd be too stupid to notice the irony of it all in the end.

On top of this we have aliens that are obviously super intelligent. They fly all the way over here. They have cloaking abilities far beyond anything human minds have been able to devise. However, they have no clue that the earth is mostly water, people are mostly water, the atmosphere contains elements of water, it rains on a regular basis... god knows what else.

I've been asked how they would even know there was water here in the first place. How could they not? They're super intelligent beings that are more advanced than we are and they can't figure this out? We've never been to most of the planets in our solar system and still have an idea of what makes them up. It's just stupid.

One could make the argument that 1) they didn't know they were allergic to water because it's not on their planet or 2) they were so desperate that they didn't care. These two make sense at least. However, for me it just all falls apart anyway. Especially because I felt a lot of the acting was very stilted, the "scary" scenes were mostly laughable and a lot of the cinematography was just too stretched out.

I remember the first time one of the aliens appeared. A lot of the threat is taken away because of the situations in which they're shown. At a child's birthday party, everyone is going nuts because they think they saw one. The thing casually walks by and looks into the camera. This is scary?

People have told me I think about the movie too much. Maybe I am. However, leading up to its release everything was proclaiming it to be such an intelligent, genuinely scary movie. I'm not supposed to use my brain when I watch it? It wasn't an action thriller.

I've had people tell me that it's "not about aliens, it's about a man and his faith". Well maybe they should have tried harder to develop that. There's a billion and one movies like that as it is... throwing aliens in it suddenly makes it fresh and interesting? No, it doesn't.

Don't bother arguing against me. I'm not going to be swayed in my opinion on the movie lol.

----------
I did four. Shoot me. I'd put Jeepers Creepers 2 up here too.

[Transtic Nerve]

[quote name='Petey]Event Horizon. I can't begin to describe how atrocious this movie was. It had a brilliant premise. The opening 20 or 30 minutes were excellent. Then they began to beat us over the head with this religious spin and the movie just fell apart. It was an exceptional set-up for a sci-fi film: research vessel disappeared in space without a trace left at all. Then after many years, it reappears. Damn it...too much rhyming. I'm fine with religion in cinema, even in sci-fi. But what Event Horizon did was crossing the line. [spoiler]Sam Neill speaking Latin at the end, his eyes gouged out, becoming the Satan figure[/spoiler']...just corny, and not the good corny, either. Within the first 45 minutes, the movie just fell into the common sci-fi horror cliches. Dreadful film. Any message of coping with fear and understanding emotion was buried under a pretentious high drama. The characters' backstories were pure camp. I didn't feel for any of them.[/quote]

You should take your own advice. Come back when you actually understand the movies you don't like.

Its too hard to list my worst movies. I don't like alot of movies. I'm not one for favourites, therefor i can't have my worst. I either like it or I don't. There are probably severaly hundred movies I don't like, some of those being independent films that most of you haven't heard of.

As far as recent films, I can name some of the ones I didn't particularly care for.

The Haunted Mansion - just stupid, as are most live-action Disney movies (with the exception of Pirates....). I fell asleep in the movie, that says enough for me.

Scooby-Doo - It was bad enough with the cartoon, I don't need to see idiots pretending they are real. Certainly don't need to see two movies either...

Bring it On, Drumline, Glitter, Honey, Save the Last Dance, Blue Crush, or any other horrible teen chick flick with cute guys, idealist girls, and a simplistic plot that only appeases the simple minded, stoned, dumb high school kid who doesn't know the difference between a soda can and potato chips.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']You should take your own advice. Come back when you actually understand the movies you don't like.[/quote]
Care to enlighten me then? It's one thing to just tell somebody they missed the point, but it's something good when you show them what they missed. TN, be my guest. Show me what I misunderstood about Event Horizon.

About Jackass, while it is extremely vulgar, crude, lewd, crass, bold, disgusting, nasty, revolting and disturbing, it's a guilty pleasure for me. I mean, I know I shouldn't find funny 99% of what they're doing, but the Mousetrap sequence just had me in tears. The sheer ridiculousness of it was--as painful as it is for me to say it--refreshing.

I mean, even though I'm disgusted by what these morons do as they find new and exciting ways to injure themselves, I admire their dedication to it. True, their dedication may not be rational thought, and perhaps be caused by some radical new brain damage inherent in males aged 18 through 25, but any man who is willing to strip down to his skivvies, strap on a pair of mouse ears, and crawl on his hands and knees across a floor of mousetraps gets props from me.

Yes, it's idiotic, but better they than me. The way I look at Jackass The Movie is this:

There are much more dangerous ways to waste braincells. Jackass is a good substitute for taking heroin. Lay off the smack, unless that smack is coming from a naked midget. Then it's okay, I think...

[Amarris]

three of my [B]LEAST[/B] favorite movies. i'll put it that way instead of saying "worst movies of all time". this is just my opinion, feel free to have your own.

1.) event horizon- i've talked to people who think this is a sci-fi masterpiece and i think that is a load of crap. the gore did not add to this movie's wonderfullness (is that a word?) either. look, i saw this movie a long a** time ago with my ex bf but the only thing i really remember is that i was really looking forward to seeing it. i thought it had an all-star cast (which it did). sam neil from jurassic park, sharon stone and laurence fishburne (sp?). the commercials were mysterious enough to pique my interest. all i really remember was that the main cast had received a message [spoiler]from some kind of lost ship or something and the crew thought that they were in danger and were going to rescue them. if i'm remembering correctly, the message was in latin or something and noone amongst the crew could understand it. either they reach the people who send the message or something happens and then the crew discovers the message was telling them to stay away from their location and that they were in hell[/spoiler]. suffice it to say, i was not impressed. maybe i'm remembering wrong whatever. but that movie was a huge disappointment to me.

2.) water world- how dumb was this movie? and with all the money they spent on it too. *sighs..tries to remember the plot* i think kevin costner is some sort of lone warrior and there's a war going on on earth..is it over who can control the water or something stupid like that? i know that most of the earth was water. i know most of the earth is water now, but i mean it seemed like the oceans were bigger like maybe all the glaciers melted or something. well, if it seems like i am not remembering it well it is because my brother and i walked out on the stupid thing. just asanine.

3.) chain reaction- i don't think keanu reeves is winning an academy award anytime soon, and if he somehow ever does it sure as hell won't be for this crappy movie. now wth was this about? i know morgan freeman was also in the movie. keanu reeves was some sort of scientist who was working with freeman blah blah blah i don't know if he makes some kind of scientific discovery or what..but then he and a female co-worker are suddenly on the run. yup. and the whole time they are on the run they never once don a disguise. not even a wig. [I]that makes sense[/I] . i can't even remember what else happens. i think it had a happy ending. this movie was just utterly stupid.

well, those are my answers. not very detailed but all of these movies are old and i don't tend to memorize plot points to movies i hate.

[Guess?]

[size=2]The three worst movies of all time:[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[b][size=2] Lord of the Rings: the first new one.[/size][/b]
[b][size=2][/size][/b]
[size=2]This movie was a letdown. It was probaly good but I saw it late at night and was promised lots of action. Plus there was to much talking to keep my attention so late at night. Lots of people said it was awsome and kickass, but I wanted to burn it.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2][b]Drum Line, Bring It On and any other crap teen movie[/b][/size]
[b][size=2][/size][/b]
[size=2]These movies just piss me off. They have no plot, acting is better in a 3rd Grade production of Snow White, and so many other reasons that I don't have time to share. I also agree with almost everything Transtic Nerve says, I saw some stoned and still thought they sucked big.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]I can't think of any movies that I dislike at the time being. But there are alot.[/size]

[Transtic Nerve]

[quote name='Petey']Care to enlighten me then? It's one thing to just tell somebody they missed the point, but it's something good when you show them what they missed. TN, be my guest. Show me what I misunderstood about Event Horizon.[/quote]

Event Horizon, as someone said above, is either the worst thing you've seen, or one of the best sci-fi films. I thought it was a good film. I don't think it's the worst thing ever. I found the plot to be in depth, confusing, and for the type of person that was interested in figuring things out in a movie. The movie's target genre is an intelligent sci-fi nerd who would take the time to try to figure it out, you're obviously not that genre if you didn't like it. Certain movies are made for certain people, like I said about those ridiculous movies like Bring it On.... they are targeted at stoned, dumb high school kids and only stoned, dumb high school kids would even remotely enjoy those kinds of movies. And only a person who appreciates sci-fi fims mixed with a little mystery and horror would appreciate Event Horizon. I appreciated it because I took the time to sit and watch it and enjoy the true plot of the story that apparently you never took the time to figure out. Probably cause you were too busy pointing out how corny this and that was...

The same thing applied to alot of sci-fi films it seems. Some people just don't get them. I never saw what was so horribly bad about Battlefield Earth, yet for some reason it was so absolutely horrible to everyone else....

I'd like to say also that most of the recent movies based on comic book heros are really bad.
Spider Man, The Hulk, Daredevil, Hellboy were all absolutely horrid. The Spider Man plot was ok but the complete lack of acting ability in the movie ruined it..... X-Men and X2 were the only decent ones based off a comic.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']Event Horizon, as someone said above, is either the worst thing you've seen, or one of the best sci-fi films. I thought it was a good film. I don't think it's the worst thing ever. I found the plot to be in depth, confusing, and for the type of person that was interested in figuring things out in a movie. The movie's target genre is an intelligent sci-fi nerd who would take the time to try to figure it out, you're obviously not that genre if you didn't like it. Certain movies are made for certain people, like I said about those ridiculous movies like Bring it On.... they are targeted at stoned, dumb high school kids and only stoned, dumb high school kids would even remotely enjoy those kinds of movies. And only a person who appreciates sci-fi fims mixed with a little mystery and horror would appreciate Event Horizon. I appreciated it because I took the time to sit and watch it and enjoy the true plot of the story that apparently you never took the time to figure out. Probably cause you were too busy pointing out how corny this and that was...[/quote]
Tell me, TN, do you read my MyO at all? I am quite possibly one of the geekiest sci-fi fans around.

I've had numerous updates focused solely on exploring the philosophical and religious aspects of 2001: Space Odyssey.

I've analyzed the Terminator Trilogy until people were bored of it.

I've gone into the Star Wars Original Trilogy and pulled out an interpretation that rocked the very fabric of belief of the Star Wars geeks here on OB.

John Carpenter's The Thing hasn't escaped my eye. It's a character study/Cold War paranoia disguised in a sci-fi/horror skin.

I've gone into the "Motherly figure as savior and slayer" in the Alien series, especially the original. Ridley Scott's Alien is teeming with sexuality and female imagery, and the original design of the egg resembled that of a part of the female anatomy. They were required to alter it to what we see in the film. Even still, it looks similar. The Alien creature itself is certainly a female figure in its form. Alien is a very delicious movie.

I've discussed finer points of The Matrix with James. Even though I may dislike the series, I'm still more than willing to talk about the intricacies of the plot and thematic elements.

My dislike of Event Horizon is not based on some misunderstanding of sci-fi, or lack of intelligence on my part. I watch Event Horizon and find an inferior, heavy-handed religious indoctrination. You mention how you have the plot figured out, so do enlighten me then, please. If you'd be so kind, also explore the themes presented in the movie.

Thanks very much, bye.

[quote]I'd like to say also that most of the recent movies based on comic book heros are really bad.
Spider Man, The Hulk, Daredevil, Hellboy were all absolutely horrid. [b]The Spider Man plot was ok but the complete lack of acting ability in the movie ruined it[/b]..... X-Men and X2 were the only decent ones based off a comic.[/QUOTE]
I suppose, then, that Willem Dafoe can't act? Platoon? Last Temptation of Christ? Born on the Fourth of July? Shadow of the Vampire? Finding Nemo, even?

I've never seen Tobey Maguire give a lousy performance. He was excellent in Pleasantville. He plays the geekboy extremely well. He did quite well in WonderBoys, as well.

I really can't see what you have against them.

Speaking of worst movies I've ever seen, anyone remember The Wizard, starring Fred Savage?

It came out in the late 80s, I believe. 1989. It's basically devoid of any plot, characterization, logic...you name it, The Wizard doesn't have it. What it does have going for it is being a 1.5 hour Nintendo advertisement. I used to love this movie when I was younger. I recently watched it again. Boy, it was [i]painful[/i]. I mean, I was cringing through most of it. The acting was dreadful, totally melodramatic. TN, you want to see really bad "teen" performances, check out The Wizard. It'll make the acting on Dawson's Creek look like Dustin Hoffman in The Graduate.

But the scariest thing about The Wizard, is that I didn't hate the movie. Sure, it was unbelievably bad, and I should hate it with every shred of my soul and being, but I enjoyed the corniness. I think that like Evil Dead, The Wizard is so bad that it's good. Plus, we get to see classic NES games played on an Arcade machine. That's a major mistake, right? Metroid being played in an arcade. :shifty:

[Solo Tremaine]

[color=#503f86][b]Disney's 'Dinosaur'[/b], hands-down is my number one all time worst film, I think.

The scientific inaccuracies are appauling, not to mention the nasty cutesy Disney style that was plastered to everything about the film. Why give the dinosaurs lips? They'd look much better with their natural beaks. It worked in The Land Before Time (the first one, not the numerous sequels), why not stick with that? [I know that TLBT was not a Disney animation, in case anyone says anything]

In terms of the science, just the whole way the meteor actually hit, although remotely impressive in terms of its graphics, was just laughable in my opinion. It's been a long time since I last saw it so I can't recall every detail about it, but the simple fact that this huge dome of [i]fire[/i] followed what's-his-face and those furry things to wherever it was he miraculously managed to find shelter was bad enough. The shots where the onkey-things faces went right up to the screen weren't necessarry, and as far as I could tell were only there for the animation studio to show off how well they could make CGI fur. Great.

On top of that, the plot was too formulaic, the characters rather dull and the music wasn't that impressive either. Give me Finding Nemo any day.

[b]Epoch[/b]
The idea's not too bad, but it's one of a series of many low-budget sci-fi films that have been screened on the UK Sci-Fi channel late at night (time that could be better spent on more anime, I think >.>). The premise isn't too bad, it was just incredibly badly done. The CGI's the same sort of thing you see in games like Star Wars: Force Commander- although mildly impressive for a game, crap for a film.

The same goes for all of the other films I saw made by this company. They were pretty much the only thing to keep me entertained at one point; another was the ship which disappeared in the ocean and aparrently [spoiler]went into Hell[/spoiler]. Much like Event Horizon then, only in the water. And either much worse or as bad, depending on your view point.

[b]Dungeons and Dragons[/b]
I was really disappointed with this film- it could have been so much more than it was, especially as I enjoyed the old animated TV series when it was on. It ended up being hilarious to watch anyway, if only because it was so terrible. The melodramatic acting was atrocious, and not even Jeremy Irons could pull it from the brink of becoming a bomb. There's a scene in it where Irons' character is calling forth to the dragons in the sky and his blue-lipsticked right hand man is desperately trying not to laugh. I think it's a good example of poor work. The dragons were alright, though...[/color]

[Vicky]

[SIZE=1][B]Mortal Kombat: Annihilation
HATED this movie. Let me say I'm a big fan of MK, but I don't go picking on old movies. I'd say MK isn't good today, because it's not as new. Anyways, Annihilation wrecked the MK fever. Luckily MK: DA was good enough for the fans. Didn't like Annihilation at all. They might as well have CALLED it Annihilation, because what happened to the MK story line? Sure, it came in at the end, but that was it. Acting was horrible, and James Remar playing Rayden? Seriously, bad, bad BAD mistake. The movies follow on after each other, so one minute you've got Rayden with a strange old man's voice, the next minute you got a Rayden who needs a shave with a stupid voice that doesn't fit. I just didn't like it...

The Grinch...
Well I almost DIED watching this crap. My little cousin made me watch it... and I did not like it AT ALL! The Christmas thing being over rated and that kinda made me fall asleep. Sure it's for little kids, but my cousin called it a pile of bull crap after she watched it (seriously). And they had to bring out The Cat In The Hat didn't they? I can't STAND it when it comes on TV...

The Tuxedo
Great acting and fighting, I just didn't like the story. A TUXEDO? Nah, didn't like it. Plain and simple.[/SIZE][/B]

[Semjaza]

Personally, I think that Evil Dead is just a very well done, albeit cheesy, B-horror movie for its time. I wouldn't say that it's so bad it's good, because in all honesty nothing it attempts to do is that bad compared to other similiar horror films back then lol. Doesn't stop Evil Dead 2 from kicking its *** though. Of course, it also had a much higher budget.

[QUOTE=Solo Tremaine][color=#503f86][b]Disney's 'Dinosaur'[/b], hands-down is my number one all time worst film, I think.
[/color][/QUOTE]

I remember the first previews for this movie and it just looked amazing. The dinosaurs looked great and from what I remember they didn't show any of the mammalian characters at this point. It was just like a few minutes of dinosaurs being dinosaurs along with some orchestrated music. I was kind of looking forward to it.

Then it came and the new previews appalled me. Everything was given voices and they all acted like people. The situations and story were ridiculous. What could have been a very cool high-brow film for Disney succumbed to the same ideas that every other Disney-made animated film in recent memory did. Absolutely terrible movie.

[amibasuki]

[font=Arial][size=2][b]Drumline[/b] - I wanted to see it, since I was on a drumline and wanted to see if they actually had decent drumline-type stuff in the movie. but Nick Cannon bothered the mess out of me, and the whole movie was infuriatingly ridiculous. you wanna act like a punk and you get kicked out of band, you don't get a second chance because you're just cool enough to. the whole movie was nothing but a bunch of pathetic hot-shot egoes going head-to-head trying to look 'tuff.'[/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=1][font=Arial][size=2][b]Spy Kids 3: Game Over[/b] - I ended up seeing this because my friend's family wanted to see it. I had never seen a movie that made me want to leave while it was still playing up until then (until I flipped to that Scooby Doo movie on HBO one time and tried watching that -- the only reason why that's not on my 3 worst movies list is because I flipped the channel under 10 minutes). and yeah, I know it's a kid movie, but it was bad even by those standards. almost all of the acting was horribly awful and cliche in the attempt to be dramatic, the lines were corny in the attempt to sound cool, and the story was absolutely boring. this movie was nothing but cheese. nothing redeemable about it whatsoever.[/size][/font][/size][/font][font=Verdana][size=1][font=Arial][size=2]

[font=Arial][size=2]those are the only two movies I can think of at the moment that I've actually seen all of. I can stand most movies, so if I don't like a particular one, then I REALLY don't like it, heh.[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=2][/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=2][i]EDIT:[/i] Chichiri's Girl reminded me of Eight Crazy Nights. just take everything that she said about it and apply it here.[/size][/font]
[/size][/font][/size][/font]

[Maully]

[color=green]Chibihorsewoman, you've named three of my favorite movies in recent years. I think all of those movies are absolutely marvolous, especially The Hours. I think it's a beautiful film representation of the human ability to cope, or lack thereof. All of the acting is wonderful and the set design is great. I think PT adequately covered the other two...

This is a really hard question. So many movies now are crap. We'll just go with what I can think of for now.

1. [b]Daredevil[/b]

I am a comic geek, but not to the level that I could enjoy this movie. Affleck is one of my least favorite big actors in Hollywood. He was even before the whole Bennifer debocle. I think he makes an alright sidekick, but I don't like him as the lead. Anyway, I digress. I found it shallow and too short. The cut to the bare bones of character development, only giving adequate backstory to Daredevil, not that anyone else neede any, I guess. The Electra character left something to be desired in the movie. In the comic she was a force to be reckoned with, but in the movie, she gets beat up by a blind guy and killed with her own weapon. There was nothing really groundbreaking about it technologically either. The lighting was drab and the sets and costumes were not impressive.

2. [b]Jeepers Creepers[/b]

I agree with everything James said about it. The movie started well and ended laughably. Definitely one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The beginnign of the movie is great, and I like the fact that the relationship dynamic was that of siblings instead of a couple this time. Some really creative ideas took place in the first 15 minutes of that movie. Then came cliches and then absurdities. Too bad, I guess. I think one actually sets a standard for bad movies.

3. [b]The Musketeer[/b]

Starring I can't remember who and it really doesn't matter... A not true the book account o fhow D'artanion (sp) comes to Paris to join the Musketeers. Complete with wire kit style acrobatics and not-quite martial arts. I understand that movies don't [i]have to follow[/i] the book, but it's good to have the same gist if it's as well known as The Three Musketeers. The yellow lighting and coloration through the whole thing was not a good choice in my opinion.[/color]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE=Petey][size=2][/size]

[size=2]You didn't understand the hype? You didn't understand the purpose of the film. Blair Witch was not the Freddy Krueger or Child's Play of horror films. It never intended to be anything like that. Those people who said it was so scary did not mean "jump out at you" scary. Friends of mine slept with the lights on or didn?t sleep at all after seeing it, because Blair Witch is psychological horror. It attacks our subconscious; it targets those primal human fears of isolation and abandonment. And considering that we never see the killer at all, only shadows and fragments of a physical presence, we cannot disregard Blair Witch simply because there?s no maniac with a chainsaw coming after us. It is focused on the fear of the unknown, a quality of literature and entertainment dating back to The Epic of Gilgamesh. You just didn?t allow yourself to be open to the experience. Don?t write the film off because of a fault of your own.[/size][/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet] By hype I meant, why did everyone think the cinamatography was so great. Give me Alfred Hitcock films any day. Maybe it's just that classic horror appeals to me more than some girl panting into a camera.

Big deal that your friends slept with the lights on, maybe they just have hyper active imaginations, or maybe they sat up higher in the movie theater. Either way, no two people think the same. Maybe I just fear different things than the boogy man and stick figures hanging from trees.

As for not allowing myself to open up, how the hell do you know what I was thinking?
Do you know me, were you in the same theater as me? Don't fault my opinions because of some closed mindedness of your own.[/color]

[quote name='petey][size=2']I suggest that you come back with three different films that you actually understand.[/size][/quote]

[color=darkviolet]I suggest you learn what an opinion is and then come back and discuss such things in a civilized manner.[/color]


[QUOTE=Molleta][color=green]Chibihorsewoman, you've named three of my favorite movies in recent years. I think all of those movies are absolutely marvolous, especially The Hours. I think it's a beautiful film representation of the human ability to cope, or lack thereof. All of the acting is wonderful and the set design is great. I think PT adequately covered the other two...

.[/color][/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet]Like I said, it's all in opion. Everyone doesn't like the same things. I like comedy and one of my favorite movies is Divine Secrets of The Ya-Ya Sisterhood. (I also like Fried Green Tomatos). I don't go to a movie to think, I go to a movie to relax.

Who knows, maybe if I had gone to an earlier showing with a different person I would have been able to grasp the situation instead of wanting to read the book. Like I explained, I was preoccupied with other topics (bills, roommate, the sinking feeling that Bush would invade Iraq soon) so peicing together where the three woman's lives intercepted wasn't what my mind was up to that day. But I did think the sets were amazing. But my mind just wasn't in the right place to watch something that involved thinking.

I have to agree with you on Dardevil though. Perhaps with a better choice as the headliner it could have done better. *shrugs* But the world will never know.[/color]

[Brasil]

[color=black][quote name='ChibiHorsewoman'] By hype I meant, why did everyone think the cinamatography was so great. Give me Alfred Hitcock films any day. Maybe it's just that classic horror appeals to me more than some girl panting into a camera.[/quote][/color]

Funny you should mention Hitchcock, actually. One of his favorite shots was the close-up. His preoccupation with claustrophobic camera angles is prominent in the majority of his work. From The Lodger up until Vertigo, there are close-ups everywhere, and often they're close-ups in the manner of Blair Witch's. Also, Hitchcock loved restrictive environments. Take a look at Blair Witch's tent scenes with that in mind. They pay homage to Hitchcock.
[color=black] [/color]
[color=black][QUOTE][color=black]Big deal that your friends slept with the lights on, maybe they just have hyper active imaginations, or maybe they sat up higher in the movie theater. Either way, no two people think the same. Maybe I just fear different things than the boogy man and stick figures hanging from trees.[/color][/QUOTE] [/color]
[color=black][/color]
My friends don't scare easily. They don't have hyperactive imaginations, either. They're very low-key people, very reserved, very composed individuals. It takes a lot to get them scared. It takes a lot to get me scared, and I was very spooked by Blair Witch. And the fact that you sit there and minimize what Blair Witch stood for, by reducing the horror to "boogy man and stick figures hanging from trees" proves that you do not want to give this film a chance. CHW, you're looking at it from a purely superficial level.
[color=black] [/color]
[color=black][QUOTE][color=black]As for not allowing myself to open up, how the hell do you know what I was thinking?[/color][/QUOTE]
[/color][color=black]You know what, I could be very mean right now. I could. Just know this. In your initial post, you said that you were[/color]
[color=black][/color]
[color=black][color=#9400d3][QUOTE][color=black][color=#9400d3]out voted by two of my friends who [i]wanted[/i] to see Blair Witch. [/color]:rolleyes:[/color][/QUOTE] [/color][/color]
[color=black][/color]
You weren't going to let yourself be open to the experience in the first place. You went in there with a closed mind. You treated it like you were forced to go. You didn't want to go. How can you be surprised that you dislike a movie when you go into it with that kind of attitude?

[color=black][QUOTE][color=black]Do you know me, were you in the same theater as me? Don't fault my opinions because of some closed mindedness of your own.[/color][/QUOTE] [/color]

Are you sure that you know yourself? CHW, I'd be glad to see you prove that I'm being close-minded here. I went into Blair Witch with an open mind, ready for whatever I was going to experience. You went in there thinking the movie was crap, and you hadn't even seen it before that. Now you get on here and just outright bash the movie, refusing to entertain the ideas that the film was utilizing. When I explain it to you, you get pissy. Who is close-minded here?

[color=black][QUOTE][color=black]I suggest you learn what an opinion is and then come back and discuss such things in a civilized manner.[/color][/QUOTE] [/color]
[color=black][/color]
No, CHW. It's one thing to have an opinion. It's something entirely different to have an uneducated opinion. When you understand the films that you are so blatantly, blindly criticizing, then I'll give you some breathing room. Until that time comes, however, expect no quarter from me.

And you know what? I know that you're just going to ignore what I've said here and continue on with a ranty, rambly, unfocused, and damn near incoherent reply about something that doesn't even touch upon the ideas and philosophies of the films that I've explained, so you can do whatever you want. You obviously don't take informed insight seriously, so why should I bother?

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Actually, I also thought that Blair Witch was a piece of crap film. I was really hoping for some psychological suspense, but instead ended up counting how many times each character cursed in a 5-minute timespan. Not to mention that the film ended up not hinting at anything "sinister" at all, making it the equivalent of a poorly-filmed and very uninspired X-files episode. That's what it is to me, anyhow.

Adaptation... well it's ridiculously cliche'd, but sure the acting is really really freaking good. The film has its moments for sure, but I can't consider it a masterpiece. I suppose there is some sweet irony in the ending, but I don't think there's anything particularly brilliant about using unoriginal ideas and at the same time criticizing those same ideas as unoriginal. The fictional supporting character? Please, it's been done (and better, I might add) more than once in the last few years alone.

Anyway, I want to add another batch of films that suck to no end.

Mortal Kombat: Annihilation -- I think people just consciously chose to forget that this atrocity ever hit theaters. I thought that the original MK, with its horrendous plot, elementary-school-play acting, and Chuck Norris-era fight choreography was pretty rotten, but this film made me reevaluate my standards altogether. This is possibly the worst martial arts film ever made,... with several exceptions I guess...

The Killer Meteors -- this is one of the exceptions. Another film easily on par with Koyaanisqatsi, in the sense that it can be used as torture to extract information from captured spies. It is a Jackie Chan movie from the Lo Wei era, back when J.C. (Jackie not Jesus, though feel free to confuse the two as I occasionally do) was forced to film the worst movies in the history of cinema due to a binding contract with the tyrant director (or producer, or both, I forget who Lo Wei was professionally). Anyway the movie is pure nonsense. And I watched it dubbed; it's not like I turned on Cantonese and forgot to turn on subtitles. But I might as well have, because all I remember of the film is some dude walking up to an altar and, in repentance for some bullcrap, cutting off his own fingers and leaving them there. Quite a memorable scene, especially if you consider how freaking fake it looked. The movie's a riot if you're drunk and trying to do an improv voice-over I guess.

The Matrix Revolutions -- I know a lot of you love this film and think that the Matrix trilogy is full of thought-provoking philosophy and killer special effects. But no, unfortunately all of the philosophy has been overdone, most of it is plain wrong, and the special effects WOULD'VE been okay had the Wachowkis not decided to simultaneously follow, ridiculously exaggerate, and absolutely ignore the laws of physics in every single action scene. Add to that more false premises and plot holes than I can mention in 200 pages, and you have a film that just hurts my head thinking about it. Oh yeah, and the acting and dialogue were also criminal. Oh, and the fight choreography. Almost forgot that. It's very refreshing to watch something like Jackie Chan's "Gorgeous" and notice that J.C. and Brad Alan are faster in real life than Neo was with CG effects.

[Chichiri's Girl]

[QUOTE=James][color=#707875]

Kangaroo Jack would be another example. The fact that it was number one in the United States is a scary, scary thought. [/color][/QUOTE]
[b][font=Book Antiqua][color=indigo][i] That was a number one movie? After learning that bit of trivia I'm not sure I'll be able to sleep tonight....::twitch:Right well my worst movies? Hmmm that's hard. I normally stay away from movies that look like I'll leave the theater wondering why in seven hells I wasted five dollars on that crap. But that's getting off subject.[/i][/color][/font][/b]
[b][i][font=Book Antiqua][color=#4b0082][/color][/font][/i][/b]
[b][font=Book Antiqua][color=#4b0082][i] 1.[/i] Eight Crazy Nights [/color][/font][/b]
[b][font=Book Antiqua][color=#4b0082] [i] I wanted to see themovie since I saw the first preview. I finally saw it in Febuary. Now maybe it was because after I watched that with my mom I headed to the basement to watch Millenium Actress and it just couldn't compare to MA. But whatever it was I thought it scuked. Badly. I mean the story could pass for an alright movie but then they had to, I;m not sure what to call what they did to it. They sapped it up with romance when the movie was a third over then made all these horrible jokes. And not the 'Oh god that's so friggin' stupid it's funny' jokes. It was just, just disgusting. Again not funny disgusting either. It made one hope that Adam Sandler had signed a contract and that was the only reason he was doing it. One can hope. The only part in the movie I liked was the credits. Really. I don't mean that I liked them because it ment that the movie was finally over but because of the song. Heh.[/i][/color][/font][/b]
[b][i][font=Book Antiqua][color=#4b0082][/color][/font][/i][/b]
[b][font=Book Antiqua][color=#4b0082][i] 2.[/i]Spy Kids(the first one)[/color][/font][/b]
[b][font=Book Antiqua][color=#4b0082] [i] Well it all started when Paccileo had to open his big fat mouth and say that for our X-mas party in school we could watch it. Now don't get me wrong I really did like most of the movie. It was the ending that had me looking for hte trash can so I could gag into it and not worry about my lunch coming up. It the last five minutes they changed the whole theme. It went from all 'we're gonna kick a** intill we find our parents' to *mimicks two hands talking to each other*'I love you. No I love you! No I love you! And from now on we do things as a family'. One also wonders why Juni was watching a show that was [/i]obviously[i] made for little kids. Not, what grade was he in? Fourth, Fifth? Yeah it boggels the mind. What a waste of awsome spy gear.[/i][/color][/font][/b]
[b][i][font=Book Antiqua][color=#4b0082][/color][/font][/i][/b]
[b][font=Book Antiqua][color=#4b0082][i]3.[/i]The Mummy Returns[/color][/font][/b]
[b][font=Book Antiqua][color=#4b0082][i] First off let me say I thought the first one was awsome. Period. But then they just [/i]had[i] to make a sequal. Why? This was just...bad. Well the first thing they did was to marry the two main characters and then, if that wasn't bad enough, they gave them a kid. Why?!?!?! Did they really run out of other ideas? Of course since the whole 'romance' element was gone there goes a big 'ol chunck of plot. Say goodbye to the plot kids because you'll never see it again after where it's goin'! Then the kid had to get all up in the parent's work and you know, just create extreme worldly chaos by waking up the mummy, again. Whoops. Can't we just give them their 300 years of rest. Guess not. Oh well. There go his chances of an afterlife. Oh and just to worsen the whole deal guess who they had to throw in? That's right! The Rock! Whoo! He had a five minute role and suddenly the critics are raving about his great acting skills and how he finished off the whole movie. Ugh. It urks me how the kid, who was one of the main characters mind you, wasn't even on the cover of the dvd and video while the rock, who made a five minute cameo, was right there a little to the left(or right I don't remember) of the center! Again, whoo! Don't even get me started on that horrible Kids WB TV show. I have fears that the squal to Pirates will turn out the same way...*sighs*[/i][/color][/font][/b]
[b][i][font=Book Antiqua][color=#4b0082][/color][/font][/i][/b]
[b][font=Book Antiqua][color=#4b0082][i]4. [/i]Any Disney Sequal [/color][/font][/b]
[b][i][font=Book Antiqua][color=#4b0082] I don't think I really have to explain that one. At least I hope I don' have to. After Lion King 2: Simba's Pride I lost all hope. Toy Story 2 is the rare exception along with thh Rescuers Down under, of course the latter was when good 'ol Uncle Walt was alive. Man that was an awsome movie. I feel like having a Disney marathon tonight now...the goo dones of course. [/color][/font][/i][/b]
[b][i][font=Book Antiqua][color=#4b0082][/color][/font][/i][/b]
[b][font=Book Antiqua][color=#4b0082][i]Right well that's all I can think of for now and I know I won't get slapped around for my opnion, because it's [/i]my opinion[i]. So sorry if you don't agree.:toothy:[/i][/color][/font][/b]

[Maully]

[quote]Adaptation... well it's ridiculously cliche'd[/quote]

[color=green][i]Are you kidding me??[/i] In my less than humble opinion, [i]Adaptation[/i] was one of the most original scripts to come out of Hollywood in a long time. Long Live Charlie Kaufmen (and Daniel too ;) ). May he bring brilliance and origianlity to the cinema for years to come. Next thing you'll tell me is that Wes Anderson makes horrible movies too. *shrugs* Oh well, your opinion is your opininion, and I will not change it.

As to Blair Witch, not to harp on something, but...I'm going to beat the horse all the way to death. I think it is a brilliant concept. I grew up on horror movies, name one, I've seen it. Blair witch reaches into your psyche and finds what scares you. It doesn't deliver you something that [i]should[/i] scare you. It lets you scare yourself. I remember seeing it in the theatre for the first time. I thought to myself. "Self, what are we doing here. It's and old abandoned house just like the one by the farm." In the theatre I never allowed myself to admit that I was scared. Once I got home and went to bed though, I turned off the lights, rolled over [spoiler]and I saw Mike standing in the corner of my bedroom.[/spoiler] Now, I know that's wasn't real. I knew it then. But that is the beauty of Blair Witch. The only personification you have of the killer is someone who killed children in the forties and is now dead. Powers and figures beyond your control that can easily identify and locate you when you cannot do the same to it. It's a standard plot administered abnormally here.

As to the very normal camera work complaint... In my opinion, which will differ from yours, the camera work is a huge asset to the film. In the random and erratic movements you not only become aware of, you are affected by the character's fears and tensions. You feel the trapped sensation they do in the tent, in the forest, without ever seeing their faces... Think of how many other films give you that emotional rush without facial expressions. I think that the scant lighting and the black and white add to the effect. So, if you're looking for art, look outside the box. Look at what they tried to accomplish and did. They made that movie for something like $25,000 if I remember correctly. I'll look it up and change it if I'm wrong. They sold it to Miramax for $1 million. Someone believed in the idea. I bought into it. I still don't like to watch it alone in the dark.[/color]

[Transtic Nerve]

[quote name='Petey']Tell me, TN, do you read my MyO at all? [/quote]

Nope, don't care one bit either. I don't care if you're the geekiest person in the world, that doesn't mean you can go around telling me what sci-fi movie sucked or didn't suck. I honestly don't care what you've wrote about. You can write about whatever all you want, that doesn't mean you understand it anymore than I do. It just means you have too much time on your hands to write about it. Do you want a cookie for all the crap you've written about, if so I'll be glad to mail you one.

[quote]My dislike of Event Horizon is not based on some misunderstanding of sci-fi, or lack of intelligence on my part. I watch Event Horizon and find an inferior, heavy-handed religious indoctrination. You mention how you have the plot figured out, so do enlighten me then, please. If you'd be so kind, also explore the themes presented in the movie.[/quote]

No your dislike of Event Horizon is purely based on the fact you spent your time finding all the negatives in the movie and never focused on what was good. And I never said I figured out any plot, I said I enjoyed the plot. I don't need to figure something out to enjoy it. I'm sorry, i tried to be nice inmy responce to you, something that normally wouldn't happen, but you didn't appreciate that either. And with the rude comment you posted after all that, I can't help but see that you're obviously stuck up on your opinion and aren't any interested in hearing mine, so I won't give you the pleasure of it anymore concerning Event Horizon. On that note I'd like to point out it is a movie... get over it. I don't care if you think it's crap, but you don't need to chastize someone else cause they like movies you don't. Thats being unprofessional and makes your opinion look more and more unimportant everytime you do so.

Thanks very much, bye.

[quote]I suppose, then, that Willem Dafoe can't act? Platoon? Last Temptation of Christ? Born on the Fourth of July? Shadow of the Vampire? Finding Nemo, even?

I've never seen Tobey Maguire give a lousy performance. He was excellent in Pleasantville. He plays the geekboy extremely well. He did quite well in WonderBoys, as well.[/quote]

Perhas if you stopped dwelling in the philosophical meanings of sci-fi films you'd be able to understand the art of acting. Just because one actor is good in one movie, doesn't mean he can't possibly suck in any other movie. Watch Spider-Man again, all the acting was below par. Watch the preview to Spider-Man 2... that whole scene in the restaurant is horrible. "Do you love me Peter?"... ".....no....".... ugh.... how unbelievably crappy can you get!?. I've not seen worse acting in a long time. I'm not saying Willam Dafoe or Toby Maguire aren't good in other movies, he just was absolutely horrible in Spider-Man. So was the majority of the cast. They focused more on plot than they did on acting. It didn't raise all that money because it had good acting, it raised all that money cause it had a good plot.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']Nope, don't care one bit either. I don't care if you're the geekiest person in the world, that doesn't mean you can go around telling me what sci-fi movie sucked or didn't suck. I honestly don't care what you've wrote about. You can write about whatever all you want, that doesn't mean you understand it anymore than I do. It just means you have too much time on your hands to write about it. Do you want a cookie for all the crap you've written about, if so I'll be glad to mail you one.[/quote]
TN, you're not even worth my time, then, if you insist on displaying that attitude. If you reply to me and criticize me, then I reply with a sound and logical basis and reasons to defend myself, to which you reply with "I don't care about what you think," then you obviously lack some very important social skills. TN, the world does not revolve around you, nor does it revolve around me. At least I have the common courtesy to explain myself with a detailed analysis and to debate with a point-by-point rebuttal, as to be as thorough as possible. You, on the other hand, refuse to engage in any meaningful discussion of anything, and outright ignore and disregard what others say. "I don't care what you think." TN, step off. You're nothing special.

[QUOTE]No your dislike of Event Horizon is purely based on the fact you spent your time finding all the negatives in the movie and never focused on what was good. And I never said I figured out any plot, I said I enjoyed the plot. I don't need to figure something out to enjoy it. I'm sorry, i tried to be nice inmy responce to you, something that normally wouldn't happen, but you didn't appreciate that either. And with the rude comment you posted after all that, I can't help but see that you're obviously stuck up on your opinion and aren't any interested in hearing mine, so I won't give you the pleasure of it anymore concerning Event Horizon. On that note I'd like to point out it is a movie... get over it. I don't care if you think it's crap, but you don't need to chastize someone else cause they like movies you don't. Thats being unprofessional and makes your opinion look more and more unimportant everytime you do so.[/QUOTE]
I have a feeling that you are all talk. TN, I'm offering you the chance to prove me wrong in a most major way here. I'm giving you an opportunity to assert your superiority in this situation. If you indeed know more than I do, prove it. Put your money where your mouth is and let's see what you can do. Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air here and have no basis for argument.

So, go for it, TN. Go for my jugular vein. Let's see if you've got what it takes to analyze Event Horizon, debunk my points, and prove me wrong.

[QUOTE]Thanks very much, bye.[/QUOTE]
You actually missed the reason why I used that. It's a professor's catchphrase here at Rutgers. You thought I was being condescending. Nope. It's a nice way to close out a subject.

[quote]Perhas if you stopped dwelling in the philosophical meanings of sci-fi films you'd be able to understand the art of acting. Just because one actor is good in one movie, doesn't mean he can't possibly suck in any other movie. Watch Spider-Man again, all the acting was below par. Watch the preview to Spider-Man 2... that whole scene in the restaurant is horrible. "Do you love me Peter?"... ".....no....".... ugh.... how unbelievably crappy can you get!?. I've not seen worse acting in a long time. I'm not saying Willam Dafoe or Toby Maguire aren't good in other movies, he just was absolutely horrible in Spider-Man. So was the majority of the cast. They focused more on plot than they did on acting. It didn't raise all that money because it had good acting, it raised all that money cause it had a good plot.[/QUOTE]
You're judging an actor on a 2-minute preview? TN, what performances do you like? You had mentioned X2? Let's compare Spiderman to X2, then.

Let's talk performances.

X2:

Halle Berry. I certainly don't recall any amazing performance from her. In fact, she didn't even perform. She essentially just walked through her lines. She demonstrated no emotion nor skill with the material.

Hugh Jackman. He was bordering on campy. It's almost as if he was stuck in the 70s. I swear, I was sitting there thinking, "Hyde?" But what differentiated between Hyde and Jackman was that Hyde did the rough guy well, while Jackman looks uncomfortable in the role.

Alan Cumming. Now, Alan Cumming is one of my favorite actors, and I expected him to wow me. He didn't. He was not utilized correctly, and his talent and charisma got buried under the make-up. I understand that Nightcrawler is a mutant with scaly, blue skin, but for the majority of the film, Nightcrawler was entirely shadowed. Cumming was lost under there, and his performance suffered from it.

Patrick Stewart. His character didn't change at all. It was very static. His brow was furrowed the entire film, his inflection stayed the same throughout. Perhaps it's just how he acts, but I really couldn't tell the difference between Prof X and Captain Picard.

Ian McKellan. He was quite possibly the only performance that was worthwhile. He fit the role. The other actors may have looked the part; McKellan was the part. He looked comfortable playing Magneto, he had the flair, the charm, and he was able to give us glimpses of the psychosis deep down inside of him.

Those are the principal players, more or less, and most of them gave a mediocre, flat performance. There was no excitement when most of these people were on-screen.

Spiderman:

Tobey Maguire. Similar to Ian McKellan, he fit the part. Not only did he look like Peter Parker, he was Peter Parker. Maguire is one actor that can play the geekboy and make it work. I think Anthony Michael Hall is the only other actor I've seen that can pull that off. What do you think you would have been feeling if you were in Parker's situation? What would you have done? How would you have acted? I'm willing to bet that the majority of the population would react precisely how Maguire handled the role.

School would be a new and exciting experience, especially when one is able to do obliterate a bully. TN, you've run into your fair share of bullies in your life, true? If you had leveled--dominated a giant like that, who had been tormenting you for years, you wouldn't have that thrill and exhiliration? Your face wouldn't be electric?

Peter Parker is the underdog, and Maguire handled that quite well.

Willem Dafoe. Dafoe and odd characters go hand-in-hand. He's extremely comfortable when he gets to play some outrageous lunatic. His career, like Steve Buscemi's, has been predominantly bizarre characters and situations. Dafoe has an excellent comedic timing, too, and the Green Goblin is that character: nutty, maniacal, with a wickedly evil sense of humor. When I heard that Dafoe was playing the Goblin, I was very pleased.

And his Green Goblin, while campy, was exciting. Dafoe has a definite flair when he speaks. He has a very strong screen presence, and that strength and command certainly comes through. His interpretation of Norman Osborne may have been questionable, but his Goblin interpretation was insanely good.

Considering, also, that he can smile and look like the Goblin, lol, he fit the role. They didn't even need the bulky helmet, just some minor prosthetics and make-up.

Regarding Kirsten Dunst, however, she was boring. Her MaryJane was just there as a sidekick, almost, similar to Sloane Peterson in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

Just a question for you, could it be possible that you hate the performances in Spiderman because Spiderman features a predominantly teenage cast, while X2 is predominantly adults? You do have a thing against the majority of teenage movies. Just a thought.