modelcitizen
Sr Member
Zardoz works for me in the so bad it's good way.
What is the Worst movie ever made?
- Thread starter PumpkinKing
- Start date
Anything made by Neil Breen surely has to be a strong contender for Worst.Movie.Ever.
Take for example Twisted Pair.
Take for example Twisted Pair.
sztriki
Sr Member
Agree, however it's also a matter of budget proportion. Rich Evans said that he considers Attack of the Clones the worst movie relative to its budget. I may not agree but I see the angle. Low-budget movies usually fail when they have no money and the ideas they may have had are not realized. Either because there's not a proper team to support it or no talent to work around the limitations (early Carpenter and Cameron were masters of this).
The really interesting thing is when there is track record, budget and the result is just a bad movie.
It's such an interesting topic, I could muse about it all day what makes a movie bad, when can some shortfalls be excused that sink other movies, etc...
Definitely (see above). TLJ made me confused, angry and disappointed, as much as I dislike it there are pros to that one. AOTC was one of the two movies when I wanted to get the price of my cinema ticket back (the other being Men in Black 2).
I don't know if any of you have seen or even heard of Attack of the Killer Tomatoes but this is a film that was so bad it was actually funny. Although the makers may have went a little too far when they supposedly used the footage of a helicopter crash that happened during the making of the movie where someone was killed. That could also be an urban legend although I've heard it mentioned by different people over the years.
I would have to list, because of my personal tastes, movies that exist just to shock.
I'm thinking of things like The Human Centipede series.
I'm going to mention this next one with a disclaimer-i have nor, nor will I ever watch this movie, & if you have any sensitivity to almost anything, I do NOT suggest even looking for a summary. I saw a reaction video where someone lost a bet & had to sit through it as a punishment, & I stupidly went looking for info & have regretted it since.
A Serbian Film
I'm thinking of things like The Human Centipede series.
I'm going to mention this next one with a disclaimer-i have nor, nor will I ever watch this movie, & if you have any sensitivity to almost anything, I do NOT suggest even looking for a summary. I saw a reaction video where someone lost a bet & had to sit through it as a punishment, & I stupidly went looking for info & have regretted it since.
A Serbian Film
'Ghostbusters 2' (yeah, I said it)
'Batman and Robin'
'Batman and Robin'
HMSwolfe
Master Member
Oh, Batman and Robin. I think you win. That one is a real stinker. That’s it. Close the thread, we’re done here.
astroboy
Master Member
So, I feel that although the prequels are bad in someways, the one way they aren't bad is that they tell their story well. George Lucas knew how to layout scenes, shots and dialogue that made sense. They never needed subsequent novels to actually paint the true picture.
George Lucas was a film student who knew his film theory and it shows.
And that's why my kids can watch these movies over and over again. Yet they have never wanted to watch the sequel trilogy again. (They didn't make it more than 15 minutes into TLJ)
astroboy
Master Member
Yeah,
Batman and Robin and TLJ are the only two movies I wanted to walk out on.
Oddly, I didn't mind Batman Forever
The Brahma Bull
Sr Member
Last Jedi. It's Script it's worse than the Room
I almost walked out on The Last Jedi. I never even bothered seeing The Rise of Skywalker because I was so fed up with that trilogy after the last one. I've written off all Star Wars films except the original three (theatrical versions only) as being a bad dream.
My dad and I laughed our way through Batman and Robin. Literally laughed out loud during the movie it was so bad.
I enjoyed Batman Forever to a degree, though nowhere near the Tim Burton films. I'd have to revisit it at some point though I really doubt it holds up in much capacity.
My dad and I laughed our way through Batman and Robin. Literally laughed out loud during the movie it was so bad.
I enjoyed Batman Forever to a degree, though nowhere near the Tim Burton films. I'd have to revisit it at some point though I really doubt it holds up in much capacity.
HMSwolfe
Master Member
I think Val Kilmer made a good Bruce Wayne, certainly more so than George Clooney (at least by his performance in Batman and Robin). But Batman Returns is my favorite of the 90s Batman films.
Edit: Unless we’re counting animated Batman films of the 90s. Mask of the Phantasm wins in a landslide
Last edited:
sztriki
Sr Member
You did NOT type that with a straight face!
So suppose that is correct what ways you think th prequels are bad?
I would agree that the overall plot was clear in the prequels. It was about the rise and fall of Anakin. I don't feel that it was all that well executed, but it was apparent in the films themselves what the focus of the story was meant to be. The sequels on the other hand have no overall plot. There may have been some sort of plan in place initially but you have to judge the movies as they are, not what they could have been, and what they are is a mess.
You can't judge a movie based on what was originally intended because all you're doing at that point is engaging in conjecture. It's not relevant in any way. I can ponder ideas all day long but if the end result is a movie that's a disjointed mess, then I have to review what is shown to me, not try and contemplate the intention of the director. That kind of thinking is useless in a real discussion.
Now, can the information surrounding why a director chose to do specific things in a movie be relevant to a degree? Of course. The problem is that too often some people build an entire argument on this to defend a movie as a whole and ultimately it has no real bearing on the discussion. It's as useless as the statement that all art is subjective. It says nothing because it's obvious. What one person loves another may hate. If that really has to be said every time a movie is discussed then why are we wasting our time saying things like that?
Film review is often very blunt because they are critiquing a work based on the end result, not the intention used to make it. Even the critics who are fans of say Star Wars are still judging those movies based on what they see alone so they don't feel the need to be precious about it.
Think of it this way. A teacher can't grade a thesis paper on what the student meant to say. They grade a paper based on how well they present and defend their thesis. If they do it well then they get a good grade. If they don't they get a bad grade. There has to be some definable metric by which these things are judged otherwise there is no point.
You can't judge a movie based on what was originally intended because all you're doing at that point is engaging in conjecture. It's not relevant in any way. I can ponder ideas all day long but if the end result is a movie that's a disjointed mess, then I have to review what is shown to me, not try and contemplate the intention of the director. That kind of thinking is useless in a real discussion.
Now, can the information surrounding why a director chose to do specific things in a movie be relevant to a degree? Of course. The problem is that too often some people build an entire argument on this to defend a movie as a whole and ultimately it has no real bearing on the discussion. It's as useless as the statement that all art is subjective. It says nothing because it's obvious. What one person loves another may hate. If that really has to be said every time a movie is discussed then why are we wasting our time saying things like that?
Film review is often very blunt because they are critiquing a work based on the end result, not the intention used to make it. Even the critics who are fans of say Star Wars are still judging those movies based on what they see alone so they don't feel the need to be precious about it.
Think of it this way. A teacher can't grade a thesis paper on what the student meant to say. They grade a paper based on how well they present and defend their thesis. If they do it well then they get a good grade. If they don't they get a bad grade. There has to be some definable metric by which these things are judged otherwise there is no point.
Last edited:
HanSolo2187
Active Member
I rather enjoyed watching Pumaman when I saw it with my friends: Tom Servo, Crow, and Joel...
PumpkinKing
Active Member
Is it good or bad that I haven’t seen 90% of the films being mentioned?
Similar threads
