Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

Worst Movies Ever


Recommended Posts

Copland btw I thought was a good role for stallone actually.  He is good at playing a has been if you know what I mean :P

 

You are right. Yesterday I saw D-Tox and there he played also a run down cop. When he looks serious or sad he look ok, but apparently he doesn't manage to show any emotion, apart from this, on his sad dog face. :)

Gerhard

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have a real beef with Tim Burton. He is NOT a creative genius, despite what his zany haircut may be trying to tell you. "Sleepy Hollow" was okay, mostly for the setting and Johnny Depp, who, try as I might to hate utterly, can still act some roles really well.

 

 

Speaking of Depp: Anyone see Ed Wood? Depp is great here and the movie over all is solid. Classic line: Martin Landau as the aged, opium addict Bela Lugosi..

 

"TROW ME DA VHISKEY!!!!"

Edited by Maximius
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I did see Ed Wood, and the Plan 9 From OuterSpace original movie - I think its amazing when they made Ed Wood they got people that looked a lot like the original actors.

 

Well, I dont' know about creative genius, I just like Tim Burton's style. Everything he's ever done has that dark cartoony sort of feel that I really like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm quite a fan of Tim Burton's work too, if not a creative genius, certainly one of the best film makers around. I have no idea what he looks like though, so I can't comment on his haircut ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the dark cartoony thing to a point, but jesus find another shtick once in a while. Id much rather read a collection of the creepy black and white comics from that British cartoonist who died a few years back, you know the cartoons, they are pretty famouse, they're the ones Burton apparently stole his ideas from.

 

Whenever I see Burton in interviews, he is rambling on and on about where all his creative energies come from and how he is shattering preconceived notions about filmmaking and how he is not afraid to stand up to the moneybags in Hollywood because he is guided by the pure white light of artistic inspiration. Part of this rebel genius persona that he promotes is captured in his trademark wild hairdos, long stringy hair moussed to the stars. As if creativity is forcing its way out of his mind via his hair or something.

 

Some of his movies are entertaining, but they fail my sure-fire test for filmmaking quality control: Do I feel like watching it more than once? Burtons are always one shot deals, in the case of "Planet of the Apes" a half shot deal cause I switched the channel halfway through.

 

obscurus:"...yet to see a Spielberg movie I like."

 

Amen, hallelujah. Spielberg's movies are agony. Melodramatic, schmarmy, formulamaic, pick your adjective. Here is another "genius", we are constantly told by the Hollywood Media Machine, come revel in his delights. As usual the delights begin and end with the special effects, the writing, casting, etc. are the same old situations, the same old faces.

Edited by Maximius
Link to post
Share on other sites

Starship Troopers is a very good movie (IMO) once you realise you are watching a satirisation of the American media and military industrial machine, dressed up as a B grade sci-fi flick... It takes the piss out of the US of A and it's militarism and "free" press brilliantly - the stories, spaceships, bugs and characters are incidental to the satire, and if you miss the veiled deconstruction of American society, it will just be another shitty sci-fi movie, instead of the comedy it is meant to be. I haven't seen the sequel, so I have no opinion of it...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe; i agree with Obscurus about Starship Troopers. The Media broadcasts that occur throughout the movie are brilliant; they remind me so much of Fox News its not funny.

I often wonder though whether Heinlein's original novel was cast as being a sattire of modern american society. I have yet to read; has anyone else?

Even if you didnt see the satire, Starship Troopers IMO wasn't that bad anyway; it had alright action sequences and the no-name actors actually filled their gung-ho, moronic marine roles quite well. Starship Troopers 2 on the other hand looks to be another disgusting sequel that Hollywood enjoys churning out after every movie they make. Hell i haven't even seen it but just by looking at its cover I know its gonna be bad; real bad.

Talking about Heinlein; we should start a thread on the worst actors in the industry :D . Tom Cruise takes the cake for me; not because hes a bad actor as such, (I enjoyed watching some of his movies, like the Last Samurai) but because he's completely fucking insane. You have to be; to be a scientologist. I love the way he's so arrogant; and that because hes an actor that makes him a genius and a god among mortal men.

Edited by SplaTtzZ
Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the dark cartoony thing to a point, but jesus find another shtick once in a while.  Id much rather read a collection of the creepy black and white comics from that British cartoonist who died a few years back, you know the cartoons, they are pretty famouse, they're the ones Burton apparently stole his ideas from. 

 

Edward Gorey's GashleyCrumb Tinies

 

I think burton's actually losing his ability to craft true classics, I mean, look at his earlier stuff (Edward Scissorhands, Batman 1+2, Nightmare Before Christmas, Beetlejuice, Ed Wood) compared to his more recent stuff (Planet of the Apes, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Big Fish, Sleepy Holllow)

 

The former are mostly considered to be semi-classics, of the latter name one that anyone is going to care about ten, or even five years down the road.

 

Talking about Heinlein; we should start a thread on the worst actors in the industry biggrin.gif . Tom Cruise takes the cake for me; not because hes a bad actor as such, (I enjoyed watching some of his movies, like the Last Samurai) but because he's completely fucking insane. You have to be; to be a scientologist. I love the way he's so arrogant; and that because hes an actor that makes him a genius and a god among mortal men.

 

Scientology is Hubbard not Heinlein. And the original book of Starship Troopers is only similar to the movie in the overall plot, the original actually makes you feel like the Fascist Society works, though in retrospect, i think some aspects of it were somewhat satirical.

 

The movie is good fun though. I'de love to direct Micheal Ironside in a similar role.

http://www.thirdfilms. com

A Thief's Path trailer is now on Youtube!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah my bad; you're right, L. Ron Hubbard is the scientologist guy. I still think Tom Cruise is a nutter though :laugh: . And why isn't Michael Ironside in any more films? He's not that bad an actor, though I suppose Splinter Cell might take up some of his time. I think he makes a good Sam Fisher.

Edited by SplaTtzZ
Link to post
Share on other sites
Starship Troopers is a very good movie (IMO) once you realise you are watching a satirisation of the American media and military industrial machine, dressed up as a B grade sci-fi flick...

 

In the beginning I thought what a crap movie this is. As if the director couldn't make up his mind what kind of movie he wanted to do, and so put in everything that came to his mind. Only after some while I realized that this was not intended to be taken seriously and then it started to become really interesting. :)

Gerhard

Link to post
Share on other sites

How is Charly and The Chocolatefactory rated in other countries? I was quite surprised because it got a rating "suitable for all ages" but I sure don't think that this is a correct rating. But I shouldn't rant about raintgs, because when I look at some movies and how they are rated, I can only shake my hand in wonderment how they got this rating.

Gerhard

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of like GTA San Andreas being available for teens to buy with all the violence, prostitutes, shooting people in the face, random looting, harassing cops, stealing cars, but as soon as people realised a Sex simulation could be unlocked in the game, it got slapped with an Adults Only rating and in most cases got pulled from the shelves.

 

It's a backwards world we live in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably, because stuff like that can be used. Powerhungry poeple like Goerge Bush and all the others can use this for soldiers, but the thought, that instead of killing others, they could enjoy sex must be absolutely horrible to them. Especially since they can't use this for their own maniac purposes.

Gerhard

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last weekend I heard some news on the radio that the USA prepares a new law that it can attack other countries with nukes. Does this say enough?

George Bush and his buddies knew that Saddam didn't have any mass desctructive weapons, but he wanted that war so he made it. Any additional comments needed?

Gerhard

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me ratings don't pose much of a problem. If some kids goes out and blows up a cop car or whatever after playing GTA, i would say that he is somehow mentally imbalanced anyway; and if GTA didn't set him off who knows what could? The colour red, or seeing a clown; who knows?

But GTA as a game I thought was crappy anyway; I mean what's the point of it? The entire objective of it was basically to drive cars around and kill a few people. After the first few missions i forgot who the hell my character was; and every mission after that was just one blur. It had no sense of class or style; its big kick was that it was a modern and graphical crime simulator.

And the Sex Simulation? I still don't understand why the hell Rockstar put that in. They're a bunch of juvenile deliquants the lot of 'em. Who the hell wants to watch poorly rendered graphical pornography? All their games have this massive amount of negative hype generated about them; which is what gets their sales. At first I thought the gameplay was fun; but after a few hours i found it to be overly boring and repetitive.

One game i did like in the style of GTA was Mafia. This game was set in 1930's chicago; it had a good blend of action and driving, was classy and had a passable storyline. If you like (or don't like) GTA try Mafia; its a whole new league above.

 

Heh; now we need a worst games ever thread. ^_^

Edited by SplaTtzZ
Link to post
Share on other sites
To me ratings don't pose much of a problem. If some kids goes out and blows up a cop car or whatever after playing GTA, i would say that he is somehow mentally imbalanced anyway; and if GTA didn't set him off who knows what could?

 

Actually I'm not upset about bad ratings because I fear that my kids could go out of sync. But the rating should give me some indicator as a parent wether this is suitable or not. I still reserve the final word on what I present to my kids or not, but I would expect that the rating gives me some clue.

 

I can give you some examples which I experienced in the last years.

 

My oldest daughter is now ten years old. In the theater she is allowed to watch movies with a rating of twelve when a parent is present (which I consider strange anyway), because such a rating allows kids of six years to watch the movie as long as a parent is with them.Lord of the rings is rated at this level which I found rather strange because it is quite violent and considering that six year old kids could watch it feels wrong to me. On the other hand my daughter is quite realistic and as such she has no problems with such a movie anyway. But this is not known to the raters and is in my judgment. I know also that my other daughter will not be able to watch such a movie even when she is thirteen because she is quite different in that regards.

Now last year I booked a ride on a steamtrain and at the same time Polar Express was in the theater, so I thought it would be quite nice to watch this movie with my kids one day before we gon on the ride with such a train. But that movie is rated for six years only, and my younger daughter was five at this time, so we were not allowed entrance. Now when I compare Polar Express with Lord of The Rings, which both can be watched by six year olds and above only, then there seems to be something quite wrong.

 

I watched another movie on DVD with Lawrence Fishburne, which was really a good movie with a morally good story and this movie was rated adults only. Therefore I denied the request of my daughter to watch it with us. But after I have seen the movie I couldn't understand why it was rated 18. There was only one kill in the movie, and this one was veiled, so you didn't see more as you can see in movies like Indiana Jones which also are rated at 12. The language was normal, and the message of the movie was also positive. Compared to Lord Of The Rings I would again have said, that this movie would be much more suitable for 12 then LOTR.

On the other hand I watched a movie with my kids which was rated six again. In this movie every second word was bitch, fuck, cunt, yank, etc.. I switched off after 15 minutes, because it didn't improve at all. I'm not a puritan, but I don't want my kids to use swearwords and they don't do this normally. If the actors would have used these words just because of the circumstances I also wouldn't have minded, but it appeared to me that they used them just because the whole "fun" of the movie was based on this and apart from that it was pretty boring otherwise.

 

The latest example is Charly and the Chocolatefactory. It was rated free for all ages here. When I noticed that I thought this is quite fine because I could take all my kids with me. But when we were in the theater, we had to leave in the middle, because my daughter was so scared of some of the scenes that we had to leave. Apart from that, I don't think that the story itself is suitable for childrens under six, and they will also not really understand the stereotypes they used in this movie. All in all I would rather rate it 6 or higher. In that case it was especially annyoing because AT THE SAME TIME there was Howl's Moving Castle in the theater wich was rated for six but which was MUCH more suitable than Charly.

 

So I'm not afraid of the consequences of ignoring a rating, I'm pissed of because I can't really rely on them at all, and they seem to be totally arbitrary at best.

 

With computer games it is easier. I can play them on my machine and then I can see if they are ok for my kids or not. I wouldn't give them D3 to play, for example. But I can't go to the cinema to see each movie, I plan to see with my kids, twice just to get a realistic judgment. So the only chance is Bittorrent and see for yourself.

 

But GTA as a game I thought was crappy anyway; I mean what's the point of it? The entire objective of it was basically to drive cars around and kill a few people.

 

I never played it. From the objectives it didn't sound intersting to me and contrary to Oddity's opinion (hehe) I'm not out for cyberblood to make a game interesting, just because I like to play shooters. :)

 

It had no sense of class or style; its big kick was that it was a modern and graphical crime simulator.

 

That's exactly why I never even had the motivation to look at it. :) I mean, Thief is also a crime simulator, but it is the gameplay and the motivation that matters. Games like GTA where the primary objective is to be cewl and kill doesn't offer much to me.

 

Heh; now we need a worst games ever thread. ^_^

 

Go ahead. :)

Gerhard

Link to post
Share on other sites
So I'm not afraid of the consequences of ignoring a rating, I'm pissed of because I can't really rely on them at all, and they seem to be totally arbitrary at best.

 

This is true. Whilst a parent should reserve the right whether or not to allow their child too see certain movies; they should be able to rely on ratings and classifications to know what their child is or isnt seeing.

Myself personally; i was exposed to alot of 'gritty' stuff at a young age. My only brother is 10 years older than me; and was often the one who looked after me. As such i saw alot of movies not suited for me; i saw films like Aliens and the Candyman at the age of 5; and alot of violence and swearing in other movies. Whilst the short-term effects were highly traumatic (nightmares for months on end sometimes) in the long-term I don't feel any worse for it; better if anything (though i couldnt speak for every other child doing the same).

 

It was the same for video games; as i was growing up games were just developing into what they are now. So i was playing GTA at the age of 14-15; before then games with that level of graphic, gratuitous violence hadn't really developed into a fad. it's kind of inconceivable to me that anyone would use a video game or music or a movie or whatever to commit acts of crime, which they know are wrong; in my mind thats just an excuse. Hence ratings and bans and censorship of video games seems pointless to me; i don't feel like bombing something just because i saw it on Television or played it on Playstation. Again however; i couldn't speak for every child; and i played games as a teenager, not as a young kid.

 

But theres no way i would let my children if i ever have any watch Aliens or horror movies of that like until they're in their teens. As I mentioned, no long-term effects; but it certainly mind-fucks you when your 5 years old :laugh:

 

...because I like to play shooters.

I too enjoy shooters; but only for their gameplay and storylines. Games like GTA have elements of FPS in them; but are no where near as fun or interesting to play. So i would probably stay away from GTA; the only word i think that can describe it is: gratuitous. Everything about it is unnecessary.

Edited by SplaTtzZ
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hence ratings and bans and censorship of video games seems pointless to me; i don't feel like bombing something just because i saw it on Television or played it on Playstation.

 

This is a lame excuse anyway. I guess most people who are doing the actual censoring may not even have children themselv. At least in interviews or such, they display a profound ignorance of what kids can understand or not. Most kids that I talked to have no problem realizing the difference between computergame/movie violence and real world violence. The argue as if kids were just stupid automatons who can't cope with the world until a certain age at which they suddenly seem to jump up a level and tehy can vote, drive a car and are suddenly responsible for themselv.

 

Again however; i couldn't speak for every child; and i played games as a teenager, not as a young kid.

 

I played computer games all my live, but of course. When I started the graphics was more a symbolic representation than anything resembling real world as it does now. On the Atari 2600 video game ythe graphics was blocky and the sound was beeping, but still it was great fun and at that time this was the best you could get and we loved it. :)

 

But theres no way i would let my children if i ever have any watch Aliens or horror movies of that like until they're in their teens.

 

This highly depends on the kid itself. As I said, my older daughter is quite "realistic" (don't know a better term for this). When, at the age of five, she stumbled in the living room where we were watching some movies she never had a problem, ebcause she never took this for real, and she just ignored it. My other daughter at the same age, has a big problem. When she sees me playing Doom 3 or similar she get nightmares, so I stopped playing until they are in bed. Of course as long as it's daylight she always wanted to see the monsters, it only took effect when it started to get dark. :) But this is not really an age thing or education, because I can tell her a hundred times that this are just computer monsters, similar to her puppets, or cartoon movies, this doesn't change a thing. This is purely a personal thing. Some have it and some not and you can not really explain this rationally. That's why I'm of the opinion that I know my kids best and know what I can let them see and what not. That's why I'm really pissed off about this Charly movie and it's rating. :)

 

As I mentioned, no long-term effects; but it certainly mind-fucks you when your 5 years old  :laugh:

 

Today I can also laugh at horror movies, but I couldn't watch them when I were a kid. I can't look away while watching and then in the night it starts ... :)

 

I too enjoy shooters; but only for their gameplay and storylines.

 

Don't know. In Painkiller you had a story, but I never really cared for it. If they would have provided none, I still would have enjoyed it for their mission design and atmosphere. :)

Gerhard

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its been a long time since I read the original "Starship Troopers" but I do remember its a quality pieces of writing. I'd like to re-read it now as a lot of my political/social perspectives have changed. I do remember the Fascist kind of leaning though.

 

Another GREAT sci-fi story, this time a take on Vietnam written by a Nam vet, is Joe Haldemann's "The Forever War." Its good sci-fi and its good social commentary at the same time.

 

Thanks for the link Goldfish, thats the guy. His stuff is great.

 

Tom Cruise is a complete lunatic, thats the truth, but at least he can act to a degree. What about......

 

 

Kevin "Mumbles" Costner

God do I hate this guy. He mumbled through Robin Hood, he mumbled through The Bodyguard with that fucking whack-o Whitney Housten, he CANNOT ACT TO SAVE HIS LIFE!!! Not to mention, as Robin Hood, he MAINTAINED HIS MIDDLE AMERICA ACCENT. CANT HE LEARN TO SPEAK WITH A ACCENT LIKE EVERY OTHER ACTOR DOES?!? WHY WHY WHY?????

 

Billy "Wakka Wakka" Crystal

Oh god just writing his name makes my hands tremble with rage. He IS his shtick, hes a wisecracking Jewish guy who plays a wisecracking Jewish guy. The movie could be about a family of Neanderthals making their way across pre-historic Europe and he would be dropping lines about Mother's guilt trips and Matza ball soup.

 

Robin "Thorazine" Williams

Proof positive that even coke addled schizophrenics can make a buck if they have the right connections. Similar to Crystal, he is his character, the "quirky" guy with a heart of gold. I know he has played a few serious roles but the weight of his accomplisments are as a scuttling weirdo who giggles to himself.

 

Jim "I accepted the role of Mask and never let it go" Carey

Apparently trying to outdo Williams for Kookiest Hollywood Komic, and hes gaining ground.

 

Adam "Eternal Fraternity Brother" Sandler

Raised substance abuse and vomiting to new comedic heights. Started out as a party crazy frat boy type, has progressed to a party crazy frat boy type with kids.

 

More to follow!

Edited by Maximius
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin "Mumbles" Costner

God do I hate this guy. He mumbled through Robin Hood, he mumbled through The Bodyguard with that fucking whack-o Whitney Housten, he CANNOT ACT TO SAVE HIS LIFE!!! Not to mention, as Robin Hood, he MAINTAINED HIS MIDDLE AMERICA ACCENT. CANT HE LEARN TO SPEAK WITH A ACCENT LIKE EVERY OTHER ACTOR DOES?!? WHY WHY WHY?????

 

from what I understand he tried to do an accent and it was so horrible they made him stop. It was so horrible that the people who thought making that Robin Hood movie was a good idea made him stop. That's saying a lot in my book.

Edited by Hewer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Robin Williams is a really good actor IMO - have you seen One Hour Photo, or Insomnia? When he restrains his manic side, he does a really good job of "serious" roles. I am also quite fond of Good Morning Vietnam, but a lot of his movies are just him riffing away - I prefer his stand-up to a movie where he is doing that.

 

Quote (Sparhawk) "Probably, because stuff like that can be used. Powerhungry poeple like Goerge Bush and all the others can use this for soldiers, but the thought, that instead of killing others, they could enjoy sex must be absolutely horrible to them. Especially since they can't use this for their own maniac purposes."

 

Indeed, the US Army publishes a pseudo-realistic FPS called America's Army, which is a deliberate recruiting tool for the military...

 

I don't see the point in not letting 16 year olds see hardcore porn when they are probably already having sex anyway, or seeing full frontal nudity when all they have to do is stand in front of a mirror naked for the same thing, but I do see the point in restricting access to very violent games and movies to adults.

 

Quote (Sparhawk) "Last weekend I heard some news on the radio that the USA prepares a new law that it can attack other countries with nukes. Does this say enough?

George Bush and his buddies knew that Saddam didn't have any mass desctructive weapons, but he wanted that war so he made it. Any additional comments needed?"

 

That is what I find so hypocritical about America - they chastise countries like China, Iran and North Korea for developing nukes, when they possess more weapons of mass destruction than all other nations combined. If America seriously expects other countries to drop their nuclear weapons programs, it needs to lead by example, and it needs to stop supplying them to countries like Israel.

 

Nuclear weapons are quite pointless...

Mutually Assured Destruction...

 

Anyone who thinks nukes are a good idea is mentally defective...

Oh, wait, that sums up George Bush in a nutshell

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...