The Gang of Five
Beyond the Mysterious Beyond => The Arts => Silver Screen => Topic started by: WeirdRaptor on December 06, 2004, 05:12:01 AM
-
I know posting to different topics may look like spamming, but that is not my intent, I just came up with another idea right after completing the other.
My vote:
Jeepers Creepers (avoid this movie at all costs. What was supposed to be a farse of tedious horror flicks BECAME a tedious horror flick. I could go on and on about wat was wrong with this movie, but I won't. I'd have a mile long pos tif I did that.)
-
Glitter, starring Mariah Carey. I wasted 2.5 hours of my life watching this crappy love drama.
Nick
-
*yells at the top of his lungs*
HARRY POTTER :DD
That fantasy world just does not move me at all, in text or film.
-
Are you serious Arvens? :blink:
Nick
-
Most definitely! I can't sit there and watch that show....the plot of fantasy doesn't usually appeal to me, so it was no surprise that I didn't like the film. ;)
-
Besides Harry Potter(the film was children -oriented, so it had acting flaws), what is the worst film you have seen?
Nick
-
I had actually seen it just a couple of days ago to get in with the Christmas spirit - "Elf". <_< It was just too lame and too familiar...one movie I'll never watch again during the holidays (or anytime). ;)
-
Yes It was lame and annoying I will give you that. Here'a another film you shouldn't see. Wild Wild West with Will Smith.
Nick
-
I didn't like the Harry Potter movies either. They left too much out and characters who are of crucial importance in the books are left out or remain anonymous in the movies. They didn't even care enough to make Harry Potter's hair look ruffled as it is always described in the books.
Perhaps the books are too good to be made a movie. Then again they did a pretty good job with a book as good as the lord of the rings.
Anyway, I was very disappointed by each single one of the Harry Potter movies, while I really like the books.
-
the worst filmmmm um there are so many but the one i remember is
THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT
'The most scary movie you'll ever see!'
MY ARSE! ITS CRAP!
ITS JUST A PORNO MOVIE!!
I watched it expecting to see a scary movie but instead i got a cheap pornoish movie of 2 naked teenagers getting raped. I fell asleep twice and was totally disgusted by it
if only i could've been bothered to get up and turn it off :lol:
-
my question is, Why didn't you turn it off?
Nick
-
didnt you hear me? :p I said i was too lazy to move so it was hard. My lazyness hurts mee!
-
SCARY MOVIE 2!!! Don't watch! It's just sick sick sick! I'd rather watch Scream and Resident Evil compared to that.
-
I actually did watch it. and it was funny. There was all sorts of in-jokes and horny kids... and I laughed at the jokes.
Nick
-
In recent films....mine would have to be "The Manson Family". It's a load of <insert string of typical British unmentionable words here> rubbish! Its about a bunch of hippies in the 60s who got stoned, tripped on Acid and then went around killing people who apposed their beliefs. What the hell?! This is supposed to be a horror movie? Avoid it like the PLAGUE people! This is an official warning!!!
Also, the worst movie that actually made me laugh was "Deep Blue Sea". It was so appalingly bad I just had to laugh! Especially when Samuel L. Jackson gets mauled horribly but a massive shark in the middle of a moral-boosting speech after a squabble amongst the group! I laughed so hard I was in tears!!! :lol I'd watch it again just to laugh at that bit!
-
Oh..and to add to my hate list...
Star Wars and LOTR also belong here as far as Im concerned! PMSL! :p
-
Stars Wars Episode 1 is the worst of the 5 films, but LOTR was a great trilogy Littlefoot. Oh well, to each his own.
Nick
-
I've never quite understood howanyone can honestly "hate" LotR, but that's probably because I love those films so much. I can understand where you're coming from with "The Two Towers", though, but the whole trilogy?
-
"Half-Baked"--Worst, most pointless movie I've ever had the misfortune of laying my eyes on. It was on Comedy Central, and I quit watching about halfway through. Ugh! :p
I don't think the Star Wars prequel movies thus far are that bad: they have their good and bad points, like all movies. The lightsaber duel with Darth Maul was wicked awesome, and the foreshadowing at the end of AOTC is the best! I have them both on DVD, along with the original trilogy. I'm a Star Wars nut :D
-
Half Backed sure is a terribly bad movie! When it was inflicted upon me during the bus drive of a trip from school I could almost feel brain cells die as it was running on the screen!
One thing that really disturbed me about the 3rd Lord of the Rings movie is how they presented Denethor, the steward of Gondor. In the movie he comes just across as a mean guy. In the book however I felt great pity for him, and it appears more like he was driven into insanity by Sauron. Really, they should have at least mentioned Denethors Palanthir, and it sure wasn't necessary to let him run all across Minas Tirith so he could fall down that cliff for spectacularities sake. They should have granted him the impressive ending he had in the books.
-
I don't think the Star Wars prequel movies thus far are that bad: they have their good and bad points, like all movies. The lightsaber duel with Darth Maul was wicked awesome, and the foreshadowing at the end of AOTC is the best! I have them both on DVD, along with the original trilogy. I'm a Star Wars nut :D
*nods* They're ok, it's just that when you're so used to the original triology and all of a sudden 30 years later when the technology is that much better someone tries to make prequels they don't flow together as they should, you know. ;)
I still plan to see Ep3 when it comes out to see how it all works together in the end. :)
-
That ending Malte, appears in the extended version DVD, along with the final scenes with Saruman.
Nick
-
I was talking of a different end for Denethor, not for the movie in general. For all I know they made a scene for ROTK in which Wormtongue throws Saruman down from the balcony of Orthanc (must be more difficult to throw wizards rather than Palanthiers ;) ) I'm really looking forward to the special extended edition of ROTK which will be released here on December 10th. It's high up on my Christmas wishlist.
-
I was refering to Denethors end Malte
Nick
-
You were? :blink: But that would mean that they really made changes about the movie from the way it was shown in the cinemas. So far they just added new scenes in the special extended editions. Are you really sure about it?
-
They made several different endings for Denethor. Jackson simply choose the one that ended the most spectacularly.
Nick
-
I sure hope they have a more booklike variant on the extended edition. I found the Denethor from the books much better than the Denethor from the movie. It almost seems like they wanted him to come across as a bad guy. The movie story about the light fires of Gondor is just another example.
-
Worse movie I seen... mmm it has to be... metor.
Where a rock hits the ground but after long boring zzzz talking and non basic actions. zzzz nothing good about the first parts.
I like space, history, sience fiction and many others but this one old film take the zzzz out of you almost killing you with bordom. Only great part is the rock hitting LA or was it New York... can't remember
-Threehorn
-
To make a probatum film version of the entire trilogy would cost an astronomical amount( the New Line Trilogy cost $300 million). All in all, most LOTR fans were extremely happy with the films. Athough some would have liked to see Tom Bombadil, or in your case, the Denethor from the book, no film is perfect.
Nick
-
I sure agree on that Nick, and I certainly didn't mean to slander this awesome movie.
-
Don't mind but not my taste the first LOTR. the second one and thrid one are much much more better!
-Threehorn
-
No Problem Malte. Threehorn, the first film served as the introduction, it began the story. With the second and third films, you already knew the characters, so you didn't need to be introduced.
Nick
-
Yeah I know but it was a bit dale for me.
-Threehorn
-
TTT was the only dale one for me. RotK and FotR were a joy to watch for me, on the other hand. TTT was just SO not LotR, it was disgusting.
-
I've never read any of the Tolkien books so I really have no idea how close they (the films) are to the books or not. :unsure: The movies sure seemed quite nice in my opinion, but I've nothing to compare them to. :p
-
Well, all the films were good, even TTT, but I was very disgusted with now far from Tolkien it got.
When it came to the themes of the story, 'Fellowship' was the closest. When it came to what the characters were going, what was said, and what was happening, 'Return of the King' was closest. The first half of 'Two Towers' was very much the book, but the last half went so far from the book that it was disgusting.
-
Which changes in the Two towers were those which you disliked in particular Drew? One thing I mourned about the second half of it was that Faramir (like his father) appeared less like a good guy in the movie. However, they do have a point when they say that it would sort of disenchant the power of the ring if they presented him just like he appeared in the book (he says something to the effect that he would not pick up the ring even if he found it laying beside the road). Then again it would have been nice to have another really thoroughly good human (with Aragorn being the other one).
The battle of Helm's deep was varried a bit from the books (Erkenbrandt's job was done by Eomer for example), and the wood of ents and Huorns was only in the extended edition.
But which points did you dislike in particular?
-
1. The butchering of Faramir's character. (I hated how Jackson made everyone less of what they were, and yet, somehow, still managed to make a great triloy.)
2. The retardation of Treebeard. (The Ents were slow to speak, but not slow of mind.)
3. The Aragorn/Eoqyn/Arwen love trilogy. (Don't even get me started.)
4. The Redusion of Eomor's character. (Why?)
5. The redusion of Hama's character. (Again, why did they do that? He could have been at the wall like the book, instead of poor Haldir.)
6. How Frodo is much, MUCH less of what he was in the books.
7. How they tried to make Gollum a sympathetic character. I'm sorry, but a guy who murders his own cousin for a piece of gold is not worthy of my sympathies.
8. How they tried to make Grima Wormtongue a sympathetic character.
9. How they made Theoden a stubborn, resentful jerk, instead of the kind soul he was in the books. I'm glad they allowed his true nature to surface in 'Return of the King'.
10. The fact that Frodo held a sword to Sam's throat. Something he, in the books, never even dreamed of doing, even when he was, more or less, the Ring's.
-
Some people will love some films that others will hate. I know that evenyone should know that by fact
-Threehorn
-
You mention a lot of changes that made the film different than the book.
I think I've said this before, but there is no way a film can replace the book, it cannot happen. They can come close, but something will always be left out or changed to make it work on the screen. It's very very hard to compare a book where one uses different thought processes to understand what is going on, from that of a film. ;) Thus, if you read the book before seeing the film, most everyone makes the opinion of "the book was better" simply because one cannot interpret a detailed text in the same way as a film.
-
Gollum was a sympathetic character, Malte, at least I had sympathy for him. His murder of Deagol, along with his long posssession of the Ring, haunted him for the rest of his life. Whether or not Gandalf could have cured him after the destruction of his precious is debatable, Gandalf said himself that there was little hope that Gollum could be freed from his addiction to the Ring. I havbe read all three of the books and I loved all 3 films. TTT was the middle film, and middle films sometimes seem to lose thier way. Take Matrix Revelations, for example.
Nick
-
^ You noticed that it was not my list of criticism Nick, didn't you?
I do agree with some of your points Drew, not with all of them though.
I'm sorry, but a guy who murders his own cousin for a piece of gold is not worthy of my sympathies.
The point is that the ring is NOT just a piece of gold, and I think many of the scenes you were not too fond of were made to show just that. I for my part do pity Smaegol same as Gandalf.
How they tried to make Grima Wormtongue a sympathetic character.
Did they try to make him sympathetic? I found him just nasty!
Concerning Theoden, I think that they might have done better if they had shown Gandalf's cure of him the way it appeared in the books rather than the way they made it in the movie. But a majority prefers the effects over the rhetoric of the book, so I may be overruled here.
The fact that Frodo held a sword to Sam's throat. Something he, in the books, never even dreamed of doing, even when he was, more or less, the Ring's.
I agree on that one. It was even more extreme in ROTK where Frodo even sent Sam away. I would have prefered the book version there, but this was certainly another attempt to make the horrible powers of the ring visible to the audience. So everyone realizes that it is not just a piece of gold with the funny habbit to make its wearer invisible.
The retardation of Treebeard. (The Ents were slow to speak, but not slow of mind.)
I agree that it was not necessary to make the Ents first decide against attacking Saruman and then let them change their mind at the sight of what they already knew (Treebeard was aware of what Saruman was doing). I can only speculate that the idea was to give Merry and Pipin a somewhat more active role than they had in the book (after all it is them who change the Ents' mind, while in the book their role is comperatively passive).
-
I was refering to Drew's list Malte. Drew, the Ring was far more than just a piece of gold. The film showed its ability to corrupt all who came in contact with it.
Nick
-
Sorry but LOTR really didn't do it for me! Im massive fan of fantasy and much of the sort but LOTR was just TOO much! I literally fell asleep watching "The Fellowship of the Ring" in the cinema. It just didn't grab me at all...Sorry to say it people but LOTR is definitely one of my lower rated films! <_<
-
To Littlefoot: No problem, Littlefoot. I might suggest you try the books, at least, they're better than the movies.
To Nick: Sam didn't murder Frodo to get the Ring. Gandalf didn't murder Bilbo to get the Ring. Faramir didn't murder Frodo to get the Ring. So what excuse does Gollum have? Neither does Boromir, but he, at least, redeemed himself.
-
So did Gollum, by falling into Mount Doom. Gollum had given into lust when he murdered his friend. The others were tempted to do the same, Boromir even wavered, but as you said, redeemed himself. Gandalf knew the powers of the Ring, he was well aware that it eventually corrupted its users.
Nick
-
No, Gullom never redeemed himself. He was jumping around, congraduating himself for getting the Ring back, then he accidently fell into the lake of fire. If things would have gone his way, he would have out it on and made off with it, until the wraiths got him.
Boromir did redeem himself by deliberately putting himself in danger for the sake of Merry and Pippin.
-
You have a good point Drew about stating that the ring did not seem to have the same effect on everyone. Maybe it depended on how powerful Sauron was by the time the ring was found, but this, I admit, is no plausible explanation as Sauron was not as powerful by the time Smeagol found the ring, as he was by the time Frodo got it. However, he was very close to the ring by the time Smeagol found it. Sauron's spirit was in Dol Guldur, his fortress in Mirkwood by the time Smeagol found the ring, and it is not far from the Gladden Fields where Smeagol found the ring. Moreover Frodo and the others, unlike Smeagol, knew about the fatal powers of the ring. Perhaps this made it easier for them to resist its powers.
-
What kind of a creature could so easily be corupted into murdering his own cousin, though? And right on the spot! Surely things like common sense, family loyalty, self-control, and natural family love would have stopped a decent being for doing such a thing.
Even Boromir was not corrupted that fast, and he thought of it as a weapon that would save his people. And Bilbo, also being completely ignorant of its powers did not try to kill Gandalf to keep it.
Please forgive the blunt and almost harsh nature of the above writing.
-
I don't mean to say that Gollum is a lovable character. He certainly isn't and probably wasn't even before he got the ring. Still I think that most of what he is, is what the ring made of him. I do think it was a good thing not to present only the monster (he still came across as a nasty guy in the movie). But I wonder if things could have taken a different turn if it hadn't been for that incidence with Faramir at the Forbidden pool. I don't think Gollum ever understood that Frodo had saved his life.
-
It would be hard to understand how anyone can do anything good when your mind is corrupted by evil thoughts....hence Gollum's demise. ;)
-
Gandalf said that the Ring had nearly devoured him. I say nearly, because there was a little corner in his mind that was still his own, a corner not totally consumed by evil. Smeagol wasn't perfect before he got the ring, but the fact that even after 500 years of being consumed by the ring, he still retained a part of himself, speaks volumes. Bilbo was not corrupted by the ring, because of his innocence, the ring did not begin to really affect him until his Farewell birthday party. The ring stripped away Gollum's innocence, and corrupted him. There were times when he was his old self, not lovable, but pitiable. He knew what had happened to him, and he hated himself for it. Malte is right, the Ring created Gollum, and banished Smeagol into the back of his mind. there is not much written about Gollum's family, there is no mention of a father, but he did live with his grandmother. I view Deagol's murder as an irrational act, a spur of the moment thing, that defied common sense. With the Ring, he became a thief and a liar, he abused its powers, and eventually was kicked out by his grandmother for his misdeeds.
Nick
-
Maybe a great deal has been written about this matter. While I did a bibliography for my Anglism studies (a bibliography about secondary literature on American drama writing) I came across one entry of a book with the title:
"Gollum, a misunderstood hero."
Though at first thight I would certainly NOT underline that title I'm sure that if somebody bothers to write a book about it, the author must've been thinking about it for longer a while than any of us has so far.
-
Well if you read the book a certain way, you could come to that conclusion. Had Gollum survived, Frodo and Sam would have taken him to Minas Tirith, and there they would have tried to cure him. Without the Ring, Smeagol would have gradually regained control of himself, though he would always remain tainted by his long possession of the Ring.
Nick
-
I doubt that Smeagol could've ever become himself again. With the terrible effect the ring had on Bilbo and Frodo in the few years they had the ring I think the effect of more than 500 years with the ring must be devastating. The much the more if one considers the way Smeagol obtained the ring. What if Bilbo had slain Gollum? He probably would've turned into something similar. The thought of what would've happened if Gollum had survived is quite interesting. I think there would have been many possible variants, though I doubt any of them would have been a pleasant one for Gollum. In the book Frodo asks same to forgive him after Gollum died, because the task would've failed without him. I'm not sure if Frodo would've been of the same mind if Gollum had survived. Either variant seems possible.
-
bilbo had it for 60 years, Frodo had it for about 30 years, most of which he kept it secret. Had Gollum survived(lets say in his celebration he slips and falls down and the Ring falls over the side) , first he would have been distraught over the loss of his preciouss, then Sam would have tried to hurt him for biting Frodos finger off, Frodo would likely have had pity for Gollum and stopped Sam from hurting him. The eagles would have rescued them and taken them to Minas Tirith. There Gandalf could have mended Frodo's finger and tried to heal Gollum. Gollum would not like the treatments Gandalf would perform on him, so surving would not have been a pleasant experience for Gollum.
Nick
-
Gollum might have as well turned absolutely mad and could have attacked Frodo and Sam. Maybe he would have wanted them to kill him.
-
Yeah, it is probably for the better that Gollum perished more quickly like that, as if he had survived, he would have been in major agony and continual suffering for the rest of his life.
-
We could open a Lord of the Rings thread here. Here's another really bad film. The Cat in the Hat. My sister saw it and she said it was horrible. I went to see it and wish I hadn't. Mike Myers( who I really like in Austin Powers) was hamming up every scene. I left halfway through, it was that bad.
Nick
-
"The Cat in the Hat": I didn't even bother. I liked "The Grinch", though.
-
Yes, the Grinch was funny. Jim Carrey did a good job mugging his way through that film. I have the soundtrack to the film.
Nick
-
Yes, I thought it was pretty funny, too.
Let's get back on topic.
-
Very well. has anybody seen any bad movies lately? Not quite the worst films, but still very bad.
Nick
-
Some time ago there was a cinema movie about Jeanne of Arc which I found really very stupid, as it (almost bare of historical facts) it seemed to consist of esotericism mainly. I've seen a much better direct to TV movie about her.
-
Last movie I watched that I didn't like was Elf (maybe I said that already) but I just sat there like a zombie watching it....nothing spectacular.
-
"Garfield: The Movie", for starters. It doesn't do the original comic, or even the cartoon TV show any justice. It really wouldn't be that hard to ge a Garfield movie right. They did it all the time with animated features, bu they seriously messed up this new live-action feature. It just did no justice to the comic to the point where it was just ridiculous.
Problems with the movie:
1. John not geeky, whiney, or desperate enough.
2. Odie not stupid enough.
3. Nermal not annoying enough.
4. Who the heck was that big dog that chases Garfield? I don't remember any particular dog that did that in the comics.
5. Garfield not in control enough. Since did does John throw Garfield outside without suffering greatly moments later?
6. Garfield not mean enough. Come on! Leaving Odie out in the cold is nothing the real Garfield would be openly bothered about. Sure, he's do the right thing in the end, but he'd not get all teary like he was in the pound.
7. Garfield not intelligent enough. This cat could think circles around the villain they had for the movie. Heck, in comic format, the villain would have been more intelligent, himself, just to make sure that the real Garfield didn't think circles around him.
8. Garfield not cool enough. COME ON! When the real Garfield wants to be cool, there's no topping him!
9. The heck?! Garfield=afraid of dogs???? Um, since when?
10. No Irma.
11. The vet not mean enough. Since when was she EVER nice to John?
12. They should have put quotes right from the comics in there. The jokes and one-liners they made up just didn't do the trick.
Yes, the comic, for those of you who haven't read it yet, sounds cynical and everyone sounds weird or mean. Well, that's the point. A point that the movie missed totally.
-
For anyone who's ever read a book and then discovered that a movie was made based on the book will soon discover you cannot compare the books to the films because they are not the same animal. If one tried to do an exact duplicate of a book for a film, we'd have ten hour films.
Same applies to comic books--they can't take and use everything that was used in the comic books or they'd have a plot that went all over the place trying to fit every little thing in that readers remember about the book. If one goes into a film based on a book hoping to see the book in pictures, prepare to be dissappointed.... -_-
-
Arvens, its a movie based a comic strip. It would no thave been that hard to think up a script where the characters were much more true to what they are in the comic! The plots were never that deep, and the characters are 2D, at best, and its a comic strip. It would not be that hard to get a movie like that done right. And that fact is, they didn't.
The integrity of the characters should be considered first, and if they had been doing that, there would have been a lot less scenes in the film that would have contradicted everything Jim Davis did with the comic. Instead, in their place, would have been good scenes that kept the characters in check, so they still would have had a film of the same running time, just with the characters much moew true to what they actually supposed to be like.
-
I think the main word needing to be highlighted here is BASED! I've come to learn that when film people say something is BASED on a book/a game/a true story etc. do not expect an exact replica. It's just the ideas and concepts that are used and in most cases, not all of them are used. For me, my personal example of a movie based on something and I didn't like it was the first Resident Evil flick. It says BASED on the Capcom video game series which I love but I really didn't like he flim. There was too much inconsistancy and in some places, new things had been added that weren't in the games at all! For example, the main character Alice. Who's Alice?! There's no Alice in ANY Resi Evil games!
The Garfield movie (I personally liked) but I agree that some of the stuff didn't seem right. John definitely didn't seem geeky enough and Garfield (although beautifully animated) didn't truly reflect the Garfield from the comics or the cartoon! I think the word "based" is overlooked a bit too much and that's why people don't like film remakes of novels etc.
-
I haven't seen Garfield, and never planned to see it. I've seen the animated series of a long time ago, and while that was good, it still cannot capture what you can find in the comic strip. ;) I always enjoyed the comic strip over the animated show, no matter how often I watched that tv series.
-
You were the smart one then. I gave it a chance just out of the fact that "Scooby-Doo 2" satisfied me for the most part.
Hey, by the way, they have two whole volumes of the "Garfield" animated series out of on DVD. Thus far, they have 48 episodes. Its still very entertaining.
Anyway, another bad one I saw this year was "Angel's Revenge" (only good if you like looking at gorgeous women in scimpy outfits). Good for nothing else.
-
Hey, let's get this thread going again! It was fun while it was active! Come on!
The most recent bad flick I've seen:
"Mortal Kombat".
-
Easy, "Super Mario Bros. The Movie"
Reasons:
Mario and Luigi had Brooklyn accents.
Luigi was younger than Mario(they were supposed to be twins) and had no moustache.
Needed special boots to jump. (Mario is known for his high jumping)
Where is Princess Peach?
Bowser Koopa looked like a human. (Should be a Turtle/Dragon)
The Mushroom Kingdom was a joke.
Toad wasn't a Mushroom person.
Since when did Goombas have arms and legs?
Yoshi looks kind of like a raptor and Mario never got to ride him.
cliff-hanger ending with no sequel (thank goodness)
and MUCH MUCH MORE...
-
Actually, the brooklyn accents are right. The Marios were originally from Brooklyn, until that was all changed in Mario 64.
Princess Daisy was the original name of Princess Peach.
Other than those two little details, you're completely right.
And, it was never said that they were twins until AFTER this movie was released. It was only said that they were brother. The film was released 1993, "Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island", was released in 1995.
-
Mortal Kombat wasn't too bad, especially when you compare it to its sequel. I have seen some bad sequels before and after, but MK: Annihalation was the worst I've seen. However, I love the soundtrack so I got that instead of the movie. When New Line Cinema tries to make movies based off of games, you know it won't be half as good as the games...
-
Which is surprising, considering they'd be the first ones I'd go to for a "Legend of Zelda" movie. They may have a bad video game movie record, but they a good fantasy movie record. Which means it could either. Dou!
-
A movie called Sid and Nancy. It was the story of Sid Vicious from the...Sex Pistols I think it was? I watched it because one of my friends thought it was phenomenal...and I wished that I'd spent my time banging my head against a wall for the two hours I spent watching that horrific film.
-
i have a few that are the worst i've ever seen
shrek 1 & 2 - f###### pointless and boring, it was'nt funny at all :mad
grease - a heller crap and gay musical :p
all of the scary movie's - thay were'nt funny at all just sick borring and childish <_<
south park the movie - worst than the show :x
most of the land before time sequal's - only one i liked were 2,3 and 4 the rest were ballock's
-
Birth of a Nation.
I had to watch that in an English class. This movie is THE absolute worst piece of **** I had ever seen. It was so overtly racist I felt like killing the director.
Oh, the movie is from 1916.
-
Princess Daisy was the original name of Princess Peach.
Actually, her name was originally "Princess Toadstool"
And Mario and Luigi are not twins; Mario is older than Luigi.
-
Birth of a Nation.
Oh my gosh, that movie is more like a historical source :lol:
Indeed I did watch it for academic purposes. From the technical aspects the movie was setting new standards at its time. There hadn't been any such long evening filling movie before. The big battle scenes in the movie were almost revolutionary at the time of the movie's production.
The political message of that movie (which was first meant to be named "The clansman") is of course ABSOLUTELY INTOLERABLE today (and it would reflect better on those days if back then it had been more questioned as well). The movie is basically a commercial for the KKK with a lot of racist and pro-southern stereotypes. The way things are presented in the movie one might be misled to think that John Wilkes Booth was an abolitionist.
Really, an interesting historical source, but a propaganda movie which ought not to be watched for entertainment by anyone who doesn't know about the historical truth.
-
Starcrash is by far the worst movie EVER! David Hasslehoff is in it. Enough said.
here is the link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079946/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079946/)
-
It would have to be Doogal.
I dont know why I wanted to see it, but me and a friend went ahead and saw it. I know it was a french(?) film to begin with, but they could have tried A LOT harder to match the mouth flaps...it was like watching badly dubbed anime...
-
most of the land before time sequal's - only one i liked were 2,3 and 4 the rest were ballock's
:blink: :blink: :blink:. Ya mean ya don't like the sequels :o? Everyone has their opinion, but what LBT fan could'nt like the sequels?? I mean, sequels never measure up to the original, but LBT is good entertainment and the sequels leave many opportunities for discussions fans like us can discuss here ;). Some tend to bash LBT on how the sequels have seemingly decreased in both violence and suspense. Yeah, I LOVE a good psycho-slasher film. However, I also love LBT for it's messages and relatively peaceful way of approaching everyday life issues.
Off my soapbox now :rolleyes:, and back to topic. It seems when a movie is created from an existing television series, it's horrible. I could'nt stand the Rugrats movies :x. Don't know why, but I've always liked the series but hated the movies :huh:. An animated movie I hated was Antz. An animated film with significantly suggestive themes and more-than-mild profanity got on my nerves <_<. While I do not support censorship except on the GOF, this was too much for a kid's film.
WeirdRaptor, I agree with ya on Jeepers Creepers. This movie had a lot of potential as far as the storyline was concerned, but the last half-hour of it just butchered all hopes of it becoming a blockbuster -_-.
-
Ya mean ya don't like the sequels ? Everyone has their opinion, but what LBT fan could'nt like the sequels??
I'm not a fan of them either. ^^
-
:blink: :blink: :blink:. Ya mean ya don't like the sequels :o? Everyone has their opinion, but what LBT fan could'nt like the sequels?? I mean, sequels never measure up to the original, but LBT is good entertainment and the sequels leave many opportunities for discussions fans like us can discuss here ;). Some tend to bash LBT on how the sequels have seemingly decreased in both violence and suspense. Yeah, I LOVE a good psycho-slasher film. However, I also love LBT for it's messages and relatively peaceful way of approaching everyday life issues.
I don't like the sequels that much myself. I used to like them more when I was younger though. The reason why my interest in them decreased overtime is that there's just too many of them, in my opinion. And I don't like what they're doing to the sharpteeth. And I'm getting tired of the songs. No offense or anything.
It seems when a movie is created from an existing television series, it's horrible. I could'nt stand the Rugrats movies
I only loved the first Rugrats movie. Suspenseful, I liked the animation, I liked the wolf (although it was horribly deformed), and was somewhat darker than what I'm used to with the Rugrats. If it weren't for that movie I probably would not have strived to improve my fanfiction.
I didn't like the second movie because it focused too much on romance. And the third one I kind of liked because it was a crossover and I liked the idea of Spike talking, and I liked Siri. But that's all I liked about it.
-
"Garfield: The Movie", for starters. It doesn't do the original comic, or even the cartoon TV show any justice. It really wouldn't be that hard to ge a Garfield movie right. They did it all the time with animated features, bu they seriously messed up this new live-action feature. It just did no justice to the comic to the point where it was just ridiculous.
Problems with the movie:
1. John not geeky, whiney, or desperate enough.
2. Odie not stupid enough.
3. Nermal not annoying enough.
4. Who the heck was that big dog that chases Garfield? I don't remember any particular dog that did that in the comics.
5. Garfield not in control enough. Since did does John throw Garfield outside without suffering greatly moments later?
6. Garfield not mean enough. Come on! Leaving Odie out in the cold is nothing the real Garfield would be openly bothered about. Sure, he's do the right thing in the end, but he'd not get all teary like he was in the pound.
7. Garfield not intelligent enough. This cat could think circles around the villain they had for the movie. Heck, in comic format, the villain would have been more intelligent, himself, just to make sure that the real Garfield didn't think circles around him.
8. Garfield not cool enough. COME ON! When the real Garfield wants to be cool, there's no topping him!
9. The heck?! Garfield=afraid of dogs???? Um, since when?
10. No Irma.
11. The vet not mean enough. Since when was she EVER nice to John?
12. They should have put quotes right from the comics in there. The jokes and one-liners they made up just didn't do the trick.
May I add to this list?
13. Nermal not "cute" enough. He isn't even a kitten!
14. Arlene isn't pink and tall...and does not have a gap in her teeth.
15. Garfeild does not bully dogs
16. No Lyman...but...that doesn't really count since he hasn't been seeing in ages.
-
I think the worst movie I have ever seen was August Underground! :mad
-
Worst movie I have ever seen? Probably Garfield. I didn't really like that movie at all in fact I thought it sucked and I'm pretty easy to please.
-
While I will admit the Garfield movie was a major letdown in EVERY sense of the word, and had nothing that I remember from the comics about it at all. (And believe me, I collected the comic books for several years!)
and @ DH...They had a THIRD Rugrats movie...how did I miss that one?
-
I didn't like the garfield movie either, it just wasn't the same as the old comics i read all the time, so it didn't catch my interest much.
-
When I saw the previews I knew it would not do well since the old time fans would not like the movie. That is one thing you have to always take into account, is if something has old time fans you can not alienate them.
-
Ya mean ya don't like the sequels ? Everyone has their opinion, but what LBT fan could'nt like the sequels??
I'm not a fan of them either. ^^
i glad to see someone who hate the sequels to, i mean i love the first one & the first few sequels but the rest were s***
-
Manos: The hands of fate. A movie in which they forgot to put in the opening credits, a major character's actor was on LSD the entire time, almost nothing happens in the plot, and there is no resolution to anything.
-
Manos: The hands of fate. A movie in which they forgot to put in the opening credits, a major character's actor was on LSD the entire time, almost nothing happens in the plot, and there is no resolution to anything.
you beat me to it!
It twas also a MST3K classic. Also where my fastbiter character Torgo was inspired...
Torgo FTW!
-
Worst movieI ever saw... Hmm... Let's see. "See No Evil" was pretty bad. It was suppose to be a horror movie but it was full of the classic horror cliches, lame plot, stupid characters, and a bunch of other junk I don't feel like mentioning.
Then again, Happily N'ever After. was also pretty bad. To me, it seemed like a lame ripoff of Shrek.
Happily N'ever After= fail.
-
Another one I never added to my list: Dinosaur. While the animation was gorgeous and there were some funny one-liners, this seemed like nothing but a big Disney rip-off of LBT :angry:. Sorry, crooks, but LBT will never be matched. Long live LBT!
I'm going out to see Shutter tonight. Dunno, The Ring and The Grudge sucked in my opinion. Hopefully Shutter will fare way better.