Worst films and why

shamrock55

e_e wrote: »

Did you not realize that going in? Such a compelling film.

Its pure muck there wasnt even a good story to it, compelling is one word that certainly wouldnt spring to mind when talking about locke

BuilderPlumber

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

What Barb Wire? Didn't put me in mid of Casablanca.

It could be some other thing .. but there definitely was a film of that description.

Mister Vain

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I think I remember this. Is this more or less a total remake of Casablanca moved to the present day or the future dealing with some present day war instead of WW2?

No its just a blonde with big boobs blowing stuff up.

e_e

shamrock55 wrote: »

Its pure muck there wasnt even a good story to it

What do you mean by a good story? Locke had more than enough to me, hell I'd go as far as saying that it could have been stripped down even further and been just as effective. There's strong character development, a premise that has the tension of a character having to get to one place from another in time and there is just so much at stake.

The whole criticism of story in films like Locke (which I have yet to watch) and Mad Max: Fury Road always feels like the person simply doesn't understand that not every story has to follow the traditional three act structure. Some of the most gripping story telling I have ever experienced has been in films, games, books, etc in which story has been secondary to everything else. A man alone in a car talking to others may not be the most stimulating of stories on the page but onscreen it can be the most gripping thing imaginable.

don ramo

e_e wrote: »

What do you mean by a good story? Locke had more than enough to me, hell I'd go as far as saying that it could have been stripped down even further and been just as effective. There's strong character development, a premise that has the tension of a character having to get to one place from another in time and there is just so much at stake.

you are aware your gonna be arguing this for days, Locke was a great film, it was extremely well received when it was released, as is the case when most people take a disliking to something, its just that they went to a film with certain expectations, in this case tom hardy was probably the main draw, but some are then shocked that its not your typical tom hardy film,

and being fair if this is the worst film the poster has ever seen then he must have a damn fine viewing record, if this is the worst film anyone has ever seen then their doing well,

e_e

I just reject this notion that there's some formula for a film to work, and that the premise of a guy in a car for 80 minutes somehow makes it automatically bad (when there's also so much more going on in terms of form and content). I mean it should be clear watching the film that this was a deliberate choice on the part of the people who made it, it's not the fault of the film makers that they made a bold choice and stuck with it for the entire movie. The fact that the camera is stuck in the car with him adds to how Ivan Locke is trapped to face the consequences of his actions and losing control of his life, all he can do is press on into the void. It works so much better than just having random cutaways to his job, his home, the hospital etc etc. I love how simply tension is built by the "you have a call waiting" message too, it's a film about a guy driving in a straight line but you still have no idea what's going to happen next. It's kind of brilliant.

dr.fuzzenstein

darkdubh wrote: »

That film with Adam Sandler where hes playing a woman,forget what it was called.Turned it off after 15 minutes into it,coulden't take any more.

Edit:Jack And Jill.

Oooh, wait till you see I now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry!

Mister Vain

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Oooh, wait till you see I now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry!

I thought that was great. Well great is a strong word, it was daycent.

ps3lover

The only answer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD4nrYFfwSY

The Sun King

I'm halfway through Perfume with the gf. I can't even describe how bad it is.

Nearly constant narration. Hamfisted plot device with the smelling power. The use of smell to the exclusion of other senses. The main character dodged an apple being thrown at him by smelling it coming towards him.

A truly dreadful, tedious and frustrating film that even Dustin Hoffman couldn't help. It may be one of the worst I've ever seen. I'm raging here

dr.fuzzenstein

I was intrigued by Sucker Punch because it was mentioned on this thread.
It was like watching one big music video. I get the story line, but it just didn't come together for me. It was indeed a giant mess of a movie. There were elements of steam punk, lord of the rings and the animated movie heavy metal.
I understand the need for fantasy sequences, but not when they take up the entire movie.

It has to be said it does look gorgeous. If you ever want to watch a very stylish 2 hour music video, this is the one to blast a max volume. The story itself could have been told in 5 minutes.

Mister Vain

Only God Forgives was a bad one alright, which is a shame because I really liked the score and cinematography. If only it had dialogue and some sort of a story it could have been good.

e_e

Mister Vain wrote: »

If only it had dialogue

Why? It's often a crutch for directors who can't tell their story adequately through images alone. Recent films like The Artist, The Tribe, The Illusionist and Quattro Volte show that you can have a successful film with nary a spoken word too.

Mister Vain wrote: »

some sort of a story

I really don't get why this complaint is constantly applied to films with such a clear sequence of events be it this, Birdman, Mad Max Fury Road or Boyhood. Granted it's pretty sparse in the case of Only God Forgives but there's a definite throughline there with the arc Julian goes through,

fleeing America to escape a toxic family influence, cutting all ties with his violent past and finding redemption.

I do think the film works on the level of a revenge thriller too.

Never really got why everyone went gaga over Drive but sneered at Only God Forgives in comparison, they're hardly worlds apart.

Tony EH

Yeh. I'm not really understanding the hate for 'Only God Forgives' I have to say. It certainly doesn't belong on this thread anyway.

As for 'Drive', it was a decent film, but vastly overrated by a ton of people, which I admit, I didn't get either.

Neither film is spectacular, but they absolutely don't belong in a "worst film" list.

Mister Vain

e_e wrote: »

Why? It's often a crutch for directors who can't tell their story adequately through images alone. Recent films like The Artist, The Tribe, The Illusionist and Quattro Volte show that you can have a successful film with nary a spoken word too.


I really don't get why this complaint is constantly applied to films with such a clear sequence of events be it this, Birdman, Mad Max Fury Road or Boyhood. Granted it's pretty sparse in the case of Only God Forgives but there's a definite throughline there with the arc Julian goes through,

fleeing America to escape a toxic family influence, cutting all ties with his violent past and finding redemption.

I do think the film works on the level of a revenge thriller too.

Never really got why everyone went gaga over Drive but sneered at Only God Forgives in comparison, they're hardly worlds apart.

I think its one of those films you either love or hate. Films like Birdman and Boyhood worked though. Only God Forgives was just a mess in my opinion. I thought Drive was good but nothing special.

don ramo

i wouldnt consider nicolas winding-refn in any way a great director, bronson is probably his best film, and drive is probably what hes best known for, and its a good film and thats about it, its how he uses the content of his films for me, what he had in drive was good, it had a nice slow cool kind of pace to it, and it never really broke stride, a slightly engaging story it, just enough to fill in the film for the slow pace it had, so he basically had a 40-50 minute story and managed to pad it out into a 100 minute film, and it worked, fair play to him,

but he slowed the pace down even more in only god forgives, but the film only had enough story to fill probably 20-30 minutes in my opinion, and was stretched out to 90 minutes, and what a long ass 90 minutes that was,

honestly only god forgives had a good storyline to it, but it didnt have the content to justify a 90 minute runtime, i dont see how anyone could even rate the film more than a 4 (or a generous 5) outta 10,

e_e

Have to disagree with the above post. The attention to detail and subtle visual storytelling in Drive is just outstanding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsI8UES59TM

e_e

don ramo wrote: »

i dont see how anyone could even rate the film more than a 4 (or a generous 5) outta 10,

Honestly I'd give it a 9 if asked to rank out of 10. But I don't rate film for the "quality" of the story, I rate for how it made me feel. OGF was a harrowing, intense and beautiful experience for me. I went to see it opening day with lowered expectations because of the response it got and it just blew me away. The sound design, cinematography, score, pacing and theme are all first rate for me. I'd even go as far as saying that it used violence in a more effective and thought-provoking way than the vast majority of movies I've seen.

I think my post re:Locke on this page applies here too, just because the film doesn't play by the rules of most movies made today.

don ramo wrote: »

but the film only had enough story to fill probably 20-30 minutes in my opinion, and was stretched out to 90 minutes,

That's just the way Refn chose to pace it though, a slow pace is as valid as a fast one, especially if the director is doing a lot of little things with setting, character, tone and theme. To me both Drive and Only God Forgives would lose so much if just sped through.

don ramo

e_e wrote: »

Honestly I'd give it a 9 if asked to rank out of 10. But I don't rate film for the "quality" of the story, I rate for how it made me feel. OGF was a harrowing, intense and beautiful experience for me. I went to see it opening day with lowered expectations because of the response it got and it just blew me away. The sound design, cinematography, score, pacing and theme are all first rate for me. I'd even go as far as saying that it used violence in a more effective and thought-provoking way than the vast majority of movies I've seen.

I think my post re:Locke on this page applies here too, just because the film doesn't play by the rules of most movies made today.

yeah 1-10 is probably a terrible way to convey quality, but old habits and all that,

but what you describe as harrowing, intense beautiful experience, i just see as some guy taking the piss with this very basic story that he managed to put to paper, some good aesthetics ill agree, but i just thought it was pure style over substance, i know some people liked it a lot, and fair enough, i just dont feel the same myself,

id say whiplash would be my idea of an unbelievable intense film, my stomach was actually in knots at parts of it, it simply sucked me in into its world for the entire film, i dunno you may see it differently or maybe you loved both, thats whats great about films,

e_e wrote: »

That's just the way Refn chose to pace it though, a slow pace is as valid as a fast one, especially if the director is doing a lot of little things with setting, character, tone and theme. To me both Drive and Only God Forgives would lose so much if just sped through.

ive no problem with slower paced films, its just in this case it took away from the experience for me, like i said with drive, it was slow paced, and it worked, but not for only god forgives, it had a lot less story than drive and was told at a much slower pace, simply beyond what i can accept personally,

Looper007

Mister Vain wrote: »

Only God Forgives was a bad one alright, which is a shame because I really liked the score and cinematography. If only it had dialogue and some sort of a story it could have been good.

Still think that film is awesome and is my film of the year from 2013, its splits opinion like no other film, the ones who love it love it with a passion and the ones who hate it despise it. Refn's films always bring out a clear divide in people.

Looper007

don ramo wrote: »

i wouldnt consider nicolas winding-refn in any way a great director, bronson is probably his best film, and drive is probably what hes best known for, and its a good film and thats about it, its how he uses the content of his films for me, what he had in drive was good, it had a nice slow cool kind of pace to it, and it never really broke stride, a slightly engaging story it, just enough to fill in the film for the slow pace it had, so he basically had a 40-50 minute story and managed to pad it out into a 100 minute film, and it worked, fair play to him,

but he slowed the pace down even more in only god forgives, but the film only had enough story to fill probably 20-30 minutes in my opinion, and was stretched out to 90 minutes, and what a long ass 90 minutes that was,

honestly only god forgives had a good storyline to it, but it didnt have the content to justify a 90 minute runtime, i dont see how anyone could even rate the film more than a 4 (or a generous 5) outta 10,

Have to disagree very much with you when you say Refn isn't a great director, still think he's one of the most undervalued ones out there aside from Drive, only real film fans know his other work.

I rate Only God Forgives 10/10, as I said before my film of 2013. I think he's done some amazing work like The Pusher Trilogy. Bronson, Bleeder, Valhalla Rising and Drive. The only film I feel he probably mistepped with was Fear X, even then I think it has some great stuff to recommend it. But I can see why he has his detractors. His films can be self indulgent, can be too slow for some tastes, Can be uneasy and unsettling, Refn himself can be at times a bit of a Jerk. But I just love the devil may care attitude he takes with his filmmaking. Plus his Films always look great and his films always have the best soundtracks.

don ramo

Looper007 wrote: »

Have to disagree very much with you when you say Refn isn't a great director, still think he's one of the most undervalued ones out there aside from Drive, only real film fans know his other work.

I rate Only God Forgives 10/10, as I said before my film of 2013. I think he's done some amazing work like The Pusher Trilogy. Bronson, Bleeder, Valhalla Rising and Drive. The only film I feel he probably mistepped with was Fear X, even then I think it has some great stuff to recommend it. But I can see why he has his detractors. His films can be self indulgent, can be too slow for some tastes, Can be uneasy and unsettling, Refn himself can be at times a bit of a Jerk. But I just love the devil may care attitude he takes with his filmmaking. Plus his Films always look great and his films always have the best soundtracks.

fair enough, i completely disagree, bronson as i said i would consider his best, and thats for me is his only noteworthy film, drive as i said is probably his best known film, dunno why it is, but it is, and thats really only ok-good,

i think Christopher Nolan will end up as a great director, once he pads out his work with a few more films, but renf has some serious ground to make up to catch nolan in my personal opinion,

but its all subjective and really there is no way to prove it one way or the other,

AndyBoBandy

Watched Fifty Shades of Grey last night (with the missus of course, as usually I'm the dominant when it comes to TV/Movies, so it was time for 'something for her')(see, see what I did there).

What an utter pile of horse manure, and she was in total agreement.
I knew putting it on it would be bad, but at least I thought she'd be rather enthusiastic after watching it.

What an absolute pile of shíté!!

kunst nugget

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

Watched Fifty Shades of Grey last night (with the missus of course, as usually I'm the dominant when it comes to TV/Movies, so it was time for 'something for her')(see, see what I did there).

What an utter pile of horse manure, and she was in total agreement.
I knew putting it on it would be bad, but at least I thought she'd be rather enthusiastic after watching it.

What an absolute pile of shíté!!

Haha…

'It was shíte and I didn't even get a shag after it!'

furiousox

Its not known as 50 shades of ****e for nothing! :-)

kunst nugget

furiousox wrote: »

Its not known as 50 shades of ****e for nothing! :-)

Actually, it reminds me of my pet name for P.S. I Love You - P.S. It's Shíte - which gets my vote for worst movie.

Tony EH

I sat through 'Island of Death' last night. A video nasty that I avoided all these years. Can't say I was missing much.

Mister Vain

It doesn't get much worse than Sharknado.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hEZkkqjSfs

Frank Grimes

Mister Vain wrote: »

It doesn't get much worse than Sharknado.

The Asylum have made worse, much worse.

dr.fuzzenstein

Also check out Sharktopus and Shark in Venice.

The Sun King

Can't forget about Super Shark. Had an absolute howl watching it a few years ago when I stumbled across it with friends.

dr.fuzzenstein

The Sun King wrote: »

Can't forget about Super Shark. Had an absolute howl watching it a few years ago when I stumbled across it with friends.

Amazing how movies with sharks frequently go badly wrong. They almost match martial arts movies in track record.
So, what would be the criteria or early warning signs for a truly bad movie?
Sharks, zombies, martial arts, anyone care to expand on that?

Tony EH

Uwe Boll?

Or failing that, The Asylum, who produce all those idiot "shark" films. But their films are just shit. They're not "so bad it's good". They just shit, because they are trying so hard to get that "so bad it's good" vibe deliberately and that stuff is only found by accident.

Kev W

Tony EH wrote: »

Uwe Boll?

Or failing that, The Asylum, who produce all those idiot "shark" films. But their films are just shit. They're not "so bad it's good". They just shit, because they are trying so hard to get that "so bad it's good" vibe deliberately and that stuff is only found by accident.

100% agreed. I hate when they try to do that on purpose, it just doesn't work. Kung Fury being a good* recent example.



*meaning "****e".

The reason that so many things like Kung Fury and The Asylum fail is that they deliberately make bad films to cash in on nostalgia or appeal to the so bad it's good crowd. They fail to realise that the reason that films such as Plan 9 From Outer Space are so much fun is that so much love and heart was put into making as good a film as possible. There's a charm to be found in a film that tries to be good but fails at every step, something that Sharknado never seems to grasp. I love many bad films, or I did in my younger days but I can still rewatch Boa Vs. Python and enjoy it for the utter nonsense it is. It's a cheap and cheerful film that does what it can with a limited budget while striving to be something more than just lowest common dross. There's an artistry evident in all areas of production and you get the sense that all involved are trying their best.

dr.fuzzenstein

^^^
Fatal Deviation, a prime example. Great, great movie. So, so utterly bad. sorry, I just HAD to mention it again.
"You made me look bad and that is not good"

ps3lover

I really enjoyed Sharknado 2, the first one, not so much.

BuilderPlumber

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Amazing how movies with sharks frequently go badly wrong. They almost match martial arts movies in track record.
So, what would be the criteria or early warning signs for a truly bad movie?
Sharks, zombies, martial arts, anyone care to expand on that?

Yeah, most movies featuring these tend to be awful in the extreme. The reason tends to be because they are generally poor copies of a good original film featuring such topics.

There are numerous films mentioned here I thankfully have never heard of. Some sound awful even titlewise. The title of a film often say it all. For example, would anyone go to see films titled:

Bumbleshark 4: Revenge of the Atomic Turtles.
Karate Zombie 2: The Healing Mind Journey
Zombiehead 5: Hair of the Sharkdog

Mister Vain

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Amazing how movies with sharks frequently go badly wrong. They almost match martial arts movies in track record.
So, what would be the criteria or early warning signs for a truly bad movie?
Sharks, zombies, martial arts, anyone care to expand on that?

There's nothing wrong with martial arts movies. Obviously there are bad ones, but they don't come close to the awfulness of sharks and zombies. As for the criteria for a bad movie - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057417710