• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Worst Movie EVER?

i made the mistake of squandering my night off from parental duties to catch the joel schumacher/jim carrey flick the number 23 ... was a very insipid and trite piece, didnt even make it to the end, which is rare for me, i bailed about 2/3 of the way through
 
HenryFort said:
.. the joel schumacher/jim carrey flick the number 23 .. i bailed about 2/3 of the way through
Click to expand...

Humm .. so you bailed 2/3 of the way through it huh? .. take the / away and what number are you left with dude ? .. 23 is everywhere man !! ;) ... yeah, it was a bit shit btw, more of a study on obsession.

Have I slagged off Children of the Living Dead yet? .. if so, I'll do so again .. worst zombie film ever and I'll watch any old crap.
 
Swifty said:
Humm .. so you bailed 2/3 of the way through it huh? .. take the / away and what number are you left with dude ? .. 23 is everywhere man !! ;) ... yeah, it was a bit shit btw, more of a study on obsession.

Have I slagged off Children of the Living Dead yet? .. if so, I'll do so again .. worst zombie film ever and I'll watch any old crap.
Click to expand...
What is your opinion of Return of the Living Dead? I watched it for the first time a few weeks ago (a bit late to the party there) and found it highly entertaining. And is the sequel worth tracking down?
 
PeteByrdie said:
What is your opinion of Return of the Living Dead? I watched it for the first time a few weeks ago (a bit late to the party there) and found it highly entertaining. And is the sequel worth tracking down?
Click to expand...
I adored it back in the day .. punks, nudity, The Cramps and zombies :cool: .. I've still got the Vestron Home Video ex rental release that I managed to get a school teacher to play on a coach on a field trip to London ! .... Pt 2 is okay and sees the two warehouse guys back again as partners but this time as grave robbers (and tar man is back) I know, they all died in Pt 1 but who cares right?, its most famous moment is probably the Michael Jackson zombie. Pt 3 is worth watching because it has more of an emo/goth vibe with a girlfriend becoming a zombie but trying to stave it off by self piercing/harming so we're now firmly in the 1990's .. the zombies are extremely well 'executed' and the tone of the film is a bit darker .. Pt's 4 and 5 I can take or leave .. from memory they were shot back to back somewhere in eastern europe, 'Rave From The Grave' being the subtitle for one of them.

 
Naughty_Felid said:
The sequels aren't as good but still worth a watch.
Click to expand...
I reckon the first Return Of The Living Dead was a bit of a love letter to the 1971 Alan Ormsby camp classic Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things (think John Waters makes a zombie film) .. the night time graveyard sequences are extremely similar for one thing as well as the characters being a bunch of juvenile delinquents in both films .. I'm disappointed that the full film isn't on Youtube yet :( .... it's great fun if you can get the chance to watch it.

edit: sweet, I know what I'll be re watching today :drink:

 
I've now seen Misconduct, and if you told me the money ran out and they were unable to finish it I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised - loose ends a-plenty. Pacino and Hopkins don't even get a scene together! There's a motorbike-riding ninja assassin in it who has apparently wandered in from a different movie. The twist at the end is a straight copy of a certain Harrison Ford hit. It's horrible.
 
I did warn you about Misconduct on page 68. It's the tracking shots of kitchen units, and scenes with no visible people upon whom to hang the terrible dialogue that really did it for me. And as you say, Cato on a motorbike.
 
stuneville said:
I did warn you about Misconduct on page 68. It's the tracking shots of kitchen units, and scenes with no visible people upon whom to hang the terrible dialogue that really did it for me. And as you say, Cato on a motorbike.
Click to expand...

Some lessons you just have to learn yourself...
 
I've not posted this for a while, but it's still Battlefield Earth for me...:cry:
 
Timble2 said:
I've not posted this for a while, but it's still Battlefield Earth for me...:cry:
Click to expand...

I read and mostly enjoyed the book (knowing, at the time, absolutely nothing about the author!) when it came out, and was always intrigued by the "soon to be 2 major motion pictures" blurb. I remember thinking how ridiculous that anyone would want to see 2 movies of one book, however large. All the rage now, of course, and lets not forget that Battlefield Earth was as big as LOTR, and much, much longer than The Hobbit!

Despite the utter panning it got at the time, I've always been tempted to see the film, though I can barely find a good word written about it anywhere. Does it have any redeeming features, in case I happen to spot the DVD for £1 in a charity shop somewhere?
 
Its only redeeming feature is that there isn't a Battlefield Earth Part II...
 
Peripart said:
Does it have any redeeming features, in case I happen to spot the DVD for £1 in a charity shop somewhere?
Click to expand...
It is visually interesting, I suppose they did spend some money on it.
Mind you, the sight of John Travolta with tubes hanging from his nose throughout the film may be enough to put people off.
575126.jpg
 
worst movie ever for me has to be Blair Witch, went to see it when it first came out with the wife..... sat there waiting for something to happen.... then it ended...... :huh:
 
plastic wiganer said:
worst movie ever for me has to be Blair Witch, went to see it when it first came out with the wife..... sat there waiting for something to happen.... then it ended...... :huh:
Click to expand...
Agreed. One of the worst for me.
Never watched it again.
 
Blair Witch seemed to affect people most who saw it on the big screen. I knew two or three who said it made them feel sick with all the jolting camera-movements.

I've only seen it on the small screen and it did not have that effect. I quite liked the minimalism of it - maybe it plays better in the memory. Odd twisted twigs, symbolic stones . . . it's the sort of stuff which films should be made of!

It was overtaken, I gather, only by the Paranormal Activity fillum of 2007, as the movie which grossed so many times more than its cost. Blair Witch in 1999, managed it because it rode the use of social media to advertise it, before word-of-mouth got out that it was twaddle. I'm not sure how P. A. did it but I don't think there will be many more! :huh:
 
Mythopoeika said:
It is visually interesting, I suppose they did spend some money on it.
Mind you, the sight of John Travolta with tubes hanging from his nose throughout the film may be enough to put people off.
575126.jpg
Click to expand...


For me, the sight of John Travolta is enough to put me off any movie he's in, regardless of what's hanging out of his nose...
 
The Blair Witch Project might be the most influential film of the past twenty years. I saw it in the cinema and was unimpressed until it got to the last five minutes which made it all worth it. Nobody involved has ever made anything half as interesting since, must be one of those lightning in a bottle movie moments where the stars aligned.

Battlefield Earth is an insult to the intelligence, even without the sinister behind the scenes cult machinations. Robot Monster is more entertaining, and not dissimilar.
 
Just re-watched The Thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(2011_film) remake only seen it once when I was pissed.

It's not the worst film some of the special effects are good. It's just there's no spirit in the movie and it's shame as I really like Mary Ann Winstead, (fantastic in Smashed), and Joel Edgeton, (Wish You Were Here).

Not helped by a uninspiring script and meh plot.

4.5 out of 10?

Braver would have been been if everything was shot in Norwegian, culled the cast a bit and stuck more closely to what we knew from the original.


Also why do they have Flame throwers in the Antarctic civilian bases?
 
Naughty_Felid said:
Just re-watched The Thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(2011_film) remake only seen it once when I was pissed.

It's not the worst film some of the special effects are good. It's just there's no spirit in the movie and it's shame as I really like Mary Ann Winstead, (fantastic in Smashed), and Joel Edgeton, (Wish You Were Here).

Not helped by a uninspiring script and meh plot.

4.5 out of 10?

Braver would have been been if everything was shot in Norwegian, culled the cast a bit and stuck more closely to what we knew from the original.


Also why do they have Flame throwers in the Antarctic civilian bases?
Click to expand...

I'll give the remake another spin in that case .. I didn't dislike it either although the F/X artists were so pissed off that the practical F/X they created were replaced with CGI that they started a kick starter plea to showcase a better effort short film. They had a good point .. Carpenter's The Thing remake is loved for Rob Bottin's (and Stan Winston's) input and should have been the last film to even consider using CGI ..

Another good point that someone raised was that the recent remake lost a lot of the claustrophobia by also including scenes in the city ..
 
Swifty said:
I'll give the remake another spin in that case .. I didn't dislike it either although the F/X artists were so pissed off that the practical F/X they created were replaced with CGI that they started a kick starter plea to showcase a better effort short film. They had a good point .. Carpenter's The Thing remake is loved for Rob Bottin's (and Stan Winston's) input and should have been the last film to even consider using CGI ..

Another good point that someone raised was that the recent remake lost a lot of the claustrophobia by also including scenes in the city ..
Click to expand...

The special effects in the remake don't have the "warmth" (weird but the word seems appropriate), or the physicality of the original but the ideas are nice.
 
Swifty said:
I'll give the remake another spin in that case .. I didn't dislike it either although the F/X artists were so pissed off that the practical F/X they created were replaced with CGI that they started a kick starter plea to showcase a better effort short film. They had a good point .. Carpenter's The Thing remake is loved for Rob Bottin's (and Stan Winston's) input and should have been the last film to even consider using CGI ..

Another good point that someone raised was that the recent remake lost a lot of the claustrophobia by also including scenes in the city ..
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to hear what you think of why it doesn't work.

I'm guessing it's a mix of things and living in the shadow of the classic original. (not talking about b&w version either but JC's film - the best horror film ever made).
 
Naughty_Felid said:
I'd be interested to hear what you think of why it doesn't work.

I'm guessing it's a mix of things and living in the shadow of the classic original. (not talking about b&w version either but JC's film - the best horror film ever made).
Click to expand...
The F/X artists were robbed of the chance to deliver that high five to Rob Bottin is one reason .. and the factor that the film didn't deliver on tight shots on people contained so bounced around too much to different locations. It wasn't a bad film at all but when you're stepping into the shoes of John Carpenter and Rob Bottin, perhaps it's best not to even try to emulate that glory in the first place .. Bottin actually was admitted to hospital for exhaustion after his work on that (80's) film. I'm not anti remakes at all, I think the The Thing remake was pretty good but the final cut didn't make it 'great'.

When you're talking about The Thing, the 'star' has always got to be the make-up crew now .. and there wasn't enough dark humor in it unlike the 80's remake .. come to think of it, who's going to re remake The Invasion Of The Body Snatchers in this decade. I own all of the others ..

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top