In reply to Pete Dangerous: I read that one TV channel commissioned a tornado disaster film, and another station commissioned a shark attack movie, so Asylum (the studio that make all these on a 30 day turnaround) just made one film to cover both. Business genius!
'Revenge of Billy the Kid' is so bad it's brilliant!
I saw it quite by chance. I was around a mates house and he'd sent his missus off to collect our Takeaways and a Western for our evenings entertainment.
After she left and a few beers later we put the film on. We were a bit confused at first, as we were expecting a Western featuring Billy the Kid getting his revenge.
However, we persevered. Glad we did! Old randy and disgusting farmer, shags his goat and the resultant mutant half man/half goat goes around killing people.
What's not to like!!!
(There's also a lard homage to Last Tango in Paris...)
These two films aren't *bad films* in themselves, more films that annoyed, irritated, exasperated and made my cynicism meter catch fire. DD is almost beneath contempt as it's just a light, supposed feel-good, singy songy kinda thing. But I hate almost everything about Four Weddings.
I only didn't turn them off because the first film I had to sit through with an ex girlfriend, and the latter because I was politely sitting with the parents and they were sure I'd enjoy it...
Dunno if it's ego, I think he's just enthusiastic and knowledgeable about films. He does have an odd posting style which sometimes seems smart-arsey, but I don't think he is. A while back I started a thread asking for the name of a film from a few scenes I remembered. Although Straggler wasn't posting at the time, within 2 minutes he PM'ed me with the correct name of the film, as well as some genuinely interesting info about the making of etc. I thanked him. Minutes later he followed up with more info about the book it was based on, other films, plays etc. based on it. At no point did any of it come over as anything other than helpful and enthusiastic.
> He does have an odd posting style which sometimes seems smart-arsey
I used to climb at the same wall, seemed like a likable bloke. Knows a lot about films for sure. But thinks about it way harder than I can be arsed with, I'm just a film bimbo (a fimbo?) in comparison.
The last two Spielberg films I've seen were absolutely dreadful - War Horse and Lincoln. Lincoln was just about tolerable because of Daniel Day Lewis's very fine performance. But the very wordy script was atrocious, and told an extremely boring story. It was very long (I think nearly 3 hours?) but felt like about 10. War Horse was even worse. I think well over 2 hours, and definitely two hours of my life taken away for ever. All the theatricality and panache of the stage version was lost, and replaced by a yucky sentimental 'realism' that bore no resemblance to anything real whatever. Absolutely nothing worked. The attempt to depict an abstraction of the Great War (trenches etc) was so derisory as to be offensive. The 'authentic English' scenes had all the authenticity of an endless TV commercial for Comfort conditioner. An all-time cinematic embarrassment. The best moment in the movie was the fade to black at the end of the interminable credits. Who would ever have dreamt that the director of Duel and Jaws would one day be making films that were so dull as to be a form of torture?
Some great choices guys. I'm tempted by Warhorse I must say but feel anything with a numeral shouldn't really count, even Highlander 2 (not least because it turns out the original was far more shit than we originally thought it was back in the 80s). No, I'm going for Kenneth Brannagh's Frankenstein, or, to give the film its full name Kenneth Brannagh directs Robert de Niro as Frankenstein's monster but you'll have lost the will to live long before we get to the only good bit which is Helena Bonham Carter being fried by lightning, there I've gone and spoiled it for you.
I've grown more fond of HBC as she's grown up, mind. Wouldn't have wanted to see her fry in the King's Speech.
Although you have all made some interesting suggestions their papness falls away when compared to 'The Sweeney" with Plan B and Ray Winstone in it. I was genuinely and truly angry at having wasted my time watching it, and worst having bought it on DVD.
> Having been subjected to 'Taken' I can only assume the level of risible incredulity increase with 'Taken 2' and 'Taken 3'.
I was subjected to Taken once. Never getting that part of my life back sadly.
Shortly after I was subjected to Sucker Punch. That was dreadful! I'll take a month of 'style of ascent' debates on here instead of that tripe any day.
And then, in the TV series genre, 'Person of Interest'. One episode was enough. Too much actually.
And what's that claptrap about that boy with telekinesis and it is all shot like the Blair with Project? I walked out of that one. Got my money back too. It was so bad I've forgotten the name..
EDIT: And the HANGOVER! What a load of trollop. At the time I felt like the only person on earth who didn't understand the humour. Everyone around me were laughing like a bunch of high gibbering baboons. Weak.
> P.S. B.S. Bobby Deerfield is an okay sunday afternoon weepy. Pacino burning on the screen and Marthe Keller who is a fox. We may of had this exchange previously.
OK. Bicentennial Man suit you any better?
I actually watched Bobby Deerfield on a Sunday afternoon. If we've had this exchange before, you'll know that I blame Sidney Pollack who, as a director, had a nifty habit of taking great premises and draining nearly all the promise out of them (as a producer he was OK, and as an actor he was great fun!). All his successes would have been much better in other peoples' hands and were basically saved by the performers. Sadly, Bobby Deerfield didn't have much going for it, in STORY terms, in the first place.
The reason I class it as "worst ever" is that Pacino was at his peak when it was made, and presumably Marthe Keller although soon thereafter forgotten, was a classy A-lister (I liked her in Black Sunday). And Pollack was a respected big-hitter. So it should have been a great adult drama. It was, instead, just crap
Bicentennial Man. Patch Adams. What Dreams May Come. All total shockers. I watched the first all the way through like some filmic car crash I couldn't turn away from. Thinking about it now all these years later makes me want to hunt down Williams and punch him for crimes against cinema.
Steve Martin has a similar penchant for making complete dross - hard to believe the man who starred in The Jerk and Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid was making Cheaper by the Dozen, Parenthood and Father of the Bride 1 and 2.
Another total surprise was Walter Mitty. I'm not sure Ben Stiller can ever be forgiven for this high concept overwrought mating drama / turd. Even the cinematography and sound track couldn't save it.
I bought The Exorcist - The Complete Anthology at the weekend, mainly because I loved the original, liked The Exorcist III and Exorcist - The Beginning and hadn't seen the other two. Dominion The Prequel is good, basically a parallel version of The Beginning but The Exorcist II - The Heretic is something else entirely!
The whole thing revolves around a frankly ludicrous idea of synchronised hypnotism which causes some kind of telepathy but the star of the show is Richard Burton. For most of the film he sounds like he is somewhere else and at times you can see his blank expression as he reads his lines off a cue-card somewhere behind the camera. Burton's worst performance and a dire film all round. Well worth watching!
> The worst film *I've seen* is Burn After Reading.
Odd one that: we enjoyed it when we saw it in the cinema, but when it turned up on telly a few years later we gave up on it after about ten minutes. We honestly couldn't understand what we'd found good about it the first time round.
Obviously not the worstest films ever, but recent movies that have annoyed me through being just awful (thankfully on TV - didn't pay to see) were Colombiana, The Social Network, and The Adjustment Bureau (this really was 22 Carat shite)
I despair with posts like yours: so many films broadly respected as good in quite a few respects end up getting listed; sometimes even widely acclaimed masterpieces (the 'comedians' suggesting these, should stick to the day job). It is plain dumb to post issues seemingly purely based around taste when there are movies that are very expensive, poorly plotted and casted, badly written, terribly directed and mincemeat edited, some of which are disliked even within the genre target audience. Those criticising low budget art-house movies especially deserve to burn. 'I dont like it so it must be shit' is egotistal guff and since when did 'over-rated' become the same thing in english as 'worst'.
I'm sure you did, but you didnt say that or otherwise make it clear why they are overall worse than some very strong compettion. You could also have been humerous about it but instead you chose to label a few films, broadly regarded as middling if flawed by most, with no reasoning whatsoever. So why post? Lazy breeds lazy, so is it really the producers' and director's fault or is more about the lame audience, as illustrated by the many unthinking comments on this thread, that we face so much stuff in film that is plain terrible or could have obviously been a lot better.
I thought Prometheus was awful. Horror isn't really my thing, but I wanted to see what Ridley Scott could do in this. Not much, it turned out. There were so many plot holes it just didn't make sense. Why would you entrust a mission like that to that bunch of stragglers, why did they land at the first flat place they saw on the strange planet, why did they go right up to the weird alien snakey thing without any idea of how aggressive it might be, how would anyone be able to run around minutes after having not just any old caesarean, but self-administered one that gave birth to a monster from hell....???
> I'm sure you did, but you didnt say that or otherwise make it clear why they are overall worse than some very strong compettion.
- Do you really need it explained?
>You could also have been humerous about it but instead you chose to label a few films, broadly regarded as middling if flawed by most, with no reasoning whatsoever.
- It was in the spirit of the op.
>So why post? Lazy breeds lazy,
- because I can. It's a UKC thread about movies, i.e. not important or serious.
> so is it really the producers' and director's fault
- A lot of the time yes it is. They constantly underestimate the viewing public, are generally patronising and fail to come up with decent original films.
>or is more about the lame audience
- No. See above.
> as illustrated by the many unthinking comments on this thread, that we face so much stuff in film that is plain terrible or could have obviously been a lot better.
I'm really quite impressed at your consistently high quality posts and level of spelling considering your current cranio-rectal situation. Maybe a career in screen writing awaits? Although I'd avoid comedies if I were you...
In reply to PeterM: I'm not blaming you exclusively, or even in the minority, and yes the OP made what I'd regard as a dumb starting post. The lemming defense (no intended link to the regular here of the same name) just doesnt work for me (he jumped so......)...... or you going for the Mornington Crescent gambit?
As a film lover and a UKC regular I just wish most would try at least a little bit harder (or not bother at all), as some posters actually did. Life is too short to ape hollywood and pack it out with shit..
No that's not the case as the film was made for mass market commercial and artistic reasons, not to induce a caring emotion about the plot in every individual who saw it. Plenty of people, including most critics, were moved by that film and it did well financially, so as such the director did his job fine.
Playground dislike threads in general bug me (straight "I hate x" stuff), especially on things I like, like films or climbing routes, but the specific person is normally just part of a depressing crowd of the unthinking. On the other hand on the very same threads I can usually appreciate a good rant based on concrete issues and/or humour, even on things I love.
In this case I do care about the director and the others making that particular film in the little way they enhanced many lives with their art, despite working in an environment that encourages commercialism over quality. Its also interesting it's you being rather childishly dismissive as you have had huge detailed arguments on here about things you care about and normally display wit when having fun.
Not quite on topic but I've just recalled the worst film experience of my life.
An 11 hour (I think, may have been 14) coach ride through Mexico on extremely windy mountain roads feeling horrifically travel sick, while having a marathon session of Steven Seagal films blasted out one after the other for the entire trip.
and not even the ones you might know but really obscure and vastly more terrible ones.