Customer Discussions > Movie forum

10 Worst Films Ever Made


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-225 of 303 posts in this discussion
Posted on May 15, 2012 4:21:52 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 15, 2012 4:30:13 AM PDT
Million Dollar Hotel (Wim Wenders, he also directed the greatest film of all time → Wings of Desire)
Dead Man (Depp, Neil Young score).
The Comfort of Strangers (Walken, unbearable).
Taken (Neeson, unbearable).
The Traveler (Kilmer, unbearable).
The Coward Afflac, Jesse James blah blah... (Casey portrays himself, the most unlikable 'actor' in the history of cinema).
The Avengers (no NOT that one, I am referring to the complete waste of Connery/Thurman/Fiennes).
Dark Shadows (Yes, THAT one. OK, that's two Depp related, but it would have been three if 'Nick of Time' didn't have Walken in it).
Battlefield Earth ( No happy ending for you John Travolta!).
Superman IV (ENOUGH!)

OK, I know, it's not fair...you want an eleventh...OK → Babel (It WAS the Pitt's I tell ya...well, not her Highness).

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 5:52:37 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 15, 2012 6:01:51 AM PDT
>>>>Best and worst movie will always be objective. <<<<

I think you mean subjective, but still the sentiment is true, there are two kinds of opinions though, informed opinions and uninformed opinions. Not saying you have to be an expert on or have a degree in film, but sometimes some people totally miss the point of certain films because they lack knowledge, or are only watching films on a superficial level. For example you can watch a film like Galaxy Quest (not a bad film by any stretch of the imagination), and enjoy it, or you might think it's ludicrous. If; however you have a knowledge of Star Trek and conventions, you will appreciate it on a whole different level. It's like the Spinal Tap mention. To rock musicians, and aspiring rock musicians Spinal Tap is extremely funny, some knowledge of music and that lifestyle are necessary to get all the jokes, and to someone not interested in music in the least I could see that they might consider it a"bad" film. It's not, they probably just lacked the proper tools to appreciate it. I see this quite a bit, someone doesn't like horror films, and for some reason they end up watching a film like Seven which while not a "horror" film has elements of horror in it and they say it's a bad film. You can be completely subjective, but in the language of film you should still be able to pinpoint what makes a film bad. Plotholes, bad acting, bad editing, bad cinematography, bad writing, bad sound, miscast. At some point it's going to be one of these things that will truly make a film bad.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 6:45:14 AM PDT
Pulpman says:
I have to agree with Savage Lucy about the Star Wars saga. #3 is stupid when can teddybears take on and defeat Stormtroopers? Just sad the whole film.

Posted on May 15, 2012 6:56:56 AM PDT
Pulpman says:
For me ten worst are
Eyes Wide Shut
Battlefield Earth
Titanic (awful acting and script)
Kings speech (just boring)
Armegeddon
Twilight
New Moon
Breaking Dawn
Fat Albert (live action)
#23 (jim carrey)

Posted on May 15, 2012 7:11:43 AM PDT
Star Wars 3 imho is where the series started to go downhill . . . fast. It has it's moment, but by this time it was evident that Star Wars was probably making too much money to tell the story that they seemed to be wanting to tell after Empire Strikes Back.

I've heard people say that the Star Wars saga was made for kids, and not to criticize it, but I firmly stand by the belief that with the original Star Wars and Empire, Lucas was still primarily a film maker trying to make good films. He wasn't making kid's film, and he never intended to make a kid's film. His inspirations were Kirosawa and the Flash Gordon serials. With Return of the Jedi, I think he began to think of the best way to market to the widest audience, and to sell all the SW related stuff he could, which meant turning it into a kid friendly spectacle. In other words, I think Lucas sold out. To me Return of the Jedi, is a stupid film and disappointing film, not necessarily a bad film.

Posted on May 15, 2012 7:22:30 AM PDT
Pulpman says:
I feel that the words stupid and dissapointing show that it is a bad film. When taken in context as the 3rd film in the 1st series most people who have watched it do not like it anywhere as much as the first two.
Lucas spent a lot of money and simply made a bad film. He has continued that trend since. He is not great but just got lucky in my opinion and made a film Star Wars that is now tarnished by mediocre sequels. His cinstantly playing with the movies shows to me that he is vastly overaterd as a film maker.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 8:57:17 AM PDT
I can't really argue with you Pulpman. Lucas collaborated much more with others during the first and second Star Wars films. It could be true that he started to believe the hype and think that it was all his brilliance that made those two successful. If so it took four pictures for him to see that he was wrong.

However Return is only truly bad when taken in context of the first two film. The tone seems completely different. It does come across as a kid's film. If the first two had been in a similar vein, it would have fit right in. If this were a list of the 10 most disappointing films of all time. RotJ would be solidly on that list along with Phantom Menace. After those two I believe people were resigned that the magic was gone.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 10:01:36 AM PDT
Ms. Brentano says:
@Jonathan B. - Ever see Rasputin? He won an Emmy for that role. While many critics didn't like Closet Land when it was released, I thought both he and Madeleine Stowe gave great performances in that one as well. I thought he was good in Bottle Shock.
As for sex appeal, I said male critics, not fans.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 10:09:46 AM PDT
Ms. Brentano says:
@Balok - I hadn't heard that. Don't know if it's true but it's probably just as well for him. It was not that well received by critics, though many fans seem to like it. Never saw it myself so I wouldn't know.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 10:12:37 AM PDT
Ms. Brentano says:
@Christopher G. - Oh yes. I forgot about that one. I actually liked that film but, as I said before, to each their own.

Posted on May 15, 2012 10:46:22 AM PDT
JONESY says:
You'd have to spend an aeon searching, to find worse horrors ( in more ways than one) than these :
Eegah !
Don't go near the Park
Torched

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 11:03:46 AM PDT
I can actually sit back and laugh at Eegah. Bad yes, but over time it now seems like a comedy.

Posted on May 15, 2012 11:06:56 AM PDT
Question for the group. Does anyone subscribe to the notion that Rocky Horror Picture Show, was a bad film that happened to have the benefit of some very catchy songs, or is it just a good adaptation of the theatrical show?

Posted on May 15, 2012 11:09:06 AM PDT
Savage Lucy says:
Rocky Horror was bad on purpose.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 12:24:21 PM PDT
D. Larson says:
Tarantino's problem is that the directors he's homaging all the time all seem to have produced only low-rent crapola.

If he tried to get inspired by genres that got beyond Chop Sockey exploitation pictures and (as someone just noted) stopped thinking his jokes are as funny to us as they are to him, he might mature a little as a film maker.

Talented guy, but stuck in an adolescent rut. Maybe he should start putting his spin on better movies.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 2:20:24 PM PDT
Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_Mo0Clx0WY&feature=related

Thank for putting the proper amount of egg on m face.
That's a movie I find myself quoting more than most Allen films; completely forgot it was from that. My excuse? Posting while mentally exhausted. I'll try to avoid that in the future.

Posted on May 15, 2012 2:22:41 PM PDT
M. Gaudet says:
Star Trek Nemesis.

Troy. Brad Pitt version.

Matrix 2 and 3.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 9:06:42 PM PDT
Q says:
touché.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 9:28:35 PM PDT
Q says:
@James N. Smith

I agree. Still, interpretation of a film can almost never be "objective". ("Worst", "Best", etc.). Interpretation is always subjective. Unless you happen to be the writer or director or whatnot, and can make the assertion that the film served it's purpose. Or if you sat down with a director and he said, "This film is about ... and it is meant to say exactly ... and convey ... to the audience so that you feel ... " Only then could it possibly be objective.

"This film was made in 1984 and directed by Rob Reiner" = objective.
"This film was good" = subjective.

I thought 'This is Spinal Tap' was pretty darn funny, and I am not a rock musician, nor am I aspiring to be.

However, could someone please explain to me the significance of 'Eraserhead". I think it is absolutely ret@rded, and ridiculously contrived. How it made it into the National Film Registry is truly beyond me. I would love an opinon, subjective of course.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 9:32:10 PM PDT
Q says:
@Pulpman- >"I feel that the words stupid and dissapointing show that it is a bad film."<

Not necessarily. Stupid and disappointing to you, may be brilliant and fulfilling to the guy sitting next to you.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 9:36:01 PM PDT
Q says:
Re: Tarantino

I work with a doctor who looks just like QT. I razz him all the time about it. I think he likes it; it makes his head even bigger than it already is. And he DOES have a big head (in terms of both ego and size). Haha.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 9:58:01 PM PDT
Balok says:
@Q:

====
However, could someone please explain to me the significance of 'Eraserhead". I think it is absolutely ret@rded, and ridiculously contrived. How it made it into the National Film Registry is truly beyond me. I would love an opinon, subjective of course.
====

The "significance" of _Eraserhead_ is that Lynch managed, in a student film, to put a series of more or less completely original images on the screen, and that these images are ones that stick in one's mind long after one has seen the film. If you want to know what the film is "about," I can explain that to you too. Just don't ask me to explain _Mulholland Dr._ -- I've never been able to find any explanation for it beyond "_Lost Highway_ with lesbians."

Posted on May 15, 2012 10:01:09 PM PDT
Eric Stanway says:
Anything with Adam Sandler or Jim Carrey. Ugh.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 10:17:07 PM PDT
Q says:
@James

>"Question for the group. Does anyone subscribe to the notion that Rocky Horror Picture Show, was a bad film that happened to have the benefit of some very catchy songs, or is it just a good adaptation of the theatrical show?"<

I subjectively think that RHPS was brilliant. The songs are catchy (and ridiculous), but in no way are they the best part of the film. I remember when I first realized that Frank-N-Furter and Riff Raff were in the scene at the wedding. Yes, it actually took me several viewings to catch that one. With the exception of Meatloaf, whose performance I found overdone in a bad way, the cast was exceptional. The remainder of the film was overdone in a good way. It's thoroughly entertaining. Tim Curry is fantastic, and I love the sexual fluidity and gender-queerness of the film.

It satirizes so many aspects of human life and taboos that you almost can't name them all. The stupidity of the human race; abstinence until marriage, infidelity; the desire to discover "the secret of life", and to create a person solely to fulfill one's personal desires; the extravagant party thrown by the exotic socialite who lives in a fancy castle, which is attended by this elite group of oddball voyeurs, anxious to see this "creation", regardless of how cruel it's origination may be; concealed cannibalism, and finally mutiny, with Riff Raff and Magenta usurping Frank-N-Furter and peacing out with the castle. Deuces!

Yes, the alternate galaxy, or whatever it's supposed to be, is pretty silly, but how else could it end?! :)

Greatest cult film of all time, in my humble opinion. Not only because of the substance of the film, but because of the dedicated insanity that followed. Midnight showings, which became a party in themselves, with the synchronization of dialogue and routine of participatory activities that the majority of individuals on earth seem to know by heart like some underground secret society.....nonpareil!

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 10:19:33 PM PDT
Q says:
@Balok

>"Lynch managed, in a student film, to put a series of more or less completely original images on the screen, and that these images are ones that stick in one's mind long after one has seen the film."<

Nicely put. I can't argue with that point, as disagreeable as said images may be...
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Movie forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Movie forum
Participants:  78
Total posts:  303
Initial post:  May 8, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 3, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions