Your number one WORST film ever.
- Thread starter JunkSabers1138
- Start date
JunkSabers1138
Sr Member
Uggh, right there with you... caught it on STARZ once... had to change the channel... couldnt take it.
Jannix Quinn
Sr Member
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. Fell asleep in the cinema three times.
Zombie_61
Master Member
About the only thing you got right was the name of the film, Gods and Monsters. It's a fictionalized account of the final days of "big shot" director James Whale (Frankenstein, The Old Dark House, The Invisible Man, and Bride of Frankenstein, among others) that takes place in southern California in 1957, starring Sir Ian McKellen and Brendan Fraser. It's not one of the best films I've seen, but it's far from being one of the worst.
firesprite
Master Member
I think he's thinking of another film entirely, to be honest.
kalkamel
Master Member
Wow! I loved that movie! :confused It was like a Star Trek movie but on the sea instead of IN SPAAAACE!
Lord Abaddon
Sr Member
Def Con 4. Seriously a horrible, horrible movie.
PHArchivist
Master Member
Got to disagree with you there...
Remember: this thread is about truly bad films
M&C was a fantastic film. Beautifully crafted, and nearly every element of film making was spot on. About the only criticsm (and I think this is where your distatste may fall) is pacing. It does have an extremely protracted second act. It is a textbook example of the bane and pitfull of many screeenplays - the long, drawn out, potentially boring second act.
I wouldn't say the script or editing failed, per se. But in either the writing, or the editing, they could have tightened up the seconed act (particularly the sequences on the Galapagos), and gotten to the final battle quicker.
If you want relentless action and firefights throughout, this film is not for you.
If you want a masterfully crafted look at 17th century naval life, this film is perfect.
firesprite
Master Member
Well said. I LOVED Master and Commander. I thought it was well written, well acted, and beautifully filmed. The only issue I had with it was Russell Crowe's hair... he just does NOT look right with long blonde hair. :lol
Perhaps that was my real issue with 'Sideways'... I have no interest in wine and tend to see most 'wine people' as snobs whereas I love the sea and historical fiction. Hmm...
PHArchivist
Master Member
Its a shame M&C didn't do better in the box office. What a hugely rich potential for a series of films.
But even highly successful seaborne films are less likely to bear sequels - seems most producers and directors really dislike filming at sea!
From Wikipedia:
Sequel outlook
Over six years after the movie's 2003 release, there are currently no announced plans for a sequel to be made by movie-rights holder 20th Century Fox, despite the remaining 20 books available in the Aubrey-Maturin series written by Patrick O'Brian.
Director Peter Weir, asked in 2005 if he would do a sequel, stated he thought it "most unlikely", and after disclaiming internet rumors to the contrary, stated "I think that while it did well... ish at the box office, it didn't generate that monstrous, rapid income that provokes a sequel."[6]
In 2007 the film was included on a list of "13 Failed Attempts To Start Film Franchises" by The A.V. Club, noting that "... the Aubrey-Maturin novels remain untapped cinematic ground."[7]
And...
The gunnery scenes were particularly authentic[citation needed] with live rounds being fired over numerous microphones in order to capture the proper sound effect of cannonballs flying through the air. The scenes showing French gunfire raking the deck of the Surprise and the grim choreography of the British gun crews under fire are uniformly excellent.[citation needed] The audience is also graphically shown what happened to wounded seamen aboard a British warship during the Napoleonic Era. The ship's doctor and his instruments are often shown at work without the benefit of anesthesia. The film accurately shows how the medical orderlies were among the largest and strongest men aboard ship since their duties involved holding the injured down during amputations and wound "probings".[citation needed] Naval history enthusiasts awarded Weir high marks for his efforts at recreating the historical ambiance of O'Brian's novels[citation needed]. The on-location shots of the Galapagos were unique for a feature film as normally only documentaries are filmed on the islands.[citation needed]
Finally:
76th Academy Awards:
Won, Best Cinematography, Russell Boyd
Won, Best Sound Effects Editing, Richard King
Nominated, Best Picture
Nominated, Best Director, Peter Weir
Nominated, Best Art Direction
Nominated, Best Sound Mixing
Nominated, Best Costume Design
Nominated, Best Film Editing
Nominated, Best Visual Effects
Nominated, Best Makeup
Master and Commander was released the same year as The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, which won every award of the eleven that it was nominated for. The two awards that Master and Commander won were in categories for which The Return of the King was not nominated.
But even highly successful seaborne films are less likely to bear sequels - seems most producers and directors really dislike filming at sea!
From Wikipedia:
Sequel outlook
Over six years after the movie's 2003 release, there are currently no announced plans for a sequel to be made by movie-rights holder 20th Century Fox, despite the remaining 20 books available in the Aubrey-Maturin series written by Patrick O'Brian.
Director Peter Weir, asked in 2005 if he would do a sequel, stated he thought it "most unlikely", and after disclaiming internet rumors to the contrary, stated "I think that while it did well... ish at the box office, it didn't generate that monstrous, rapid income that provokes a sequel."[6]
In 2007 the film was included on a list of "13 Failed Attempts To Start Film Franchises" by The A.V. Club, noting that "... the Aubrey-Maturin novels remain untapped cinematic ground."[7]
And...
The gunnery scenes were particularly authentic[citation needed] with live rounds being fired over numerous microphones in order to capture the proper sound effect of cannonballs flying through the air. The scenes showing French gunfire raking the deck of the Surprise and the grim choreography of the British gun crews under fire are uniformly excellent.[citation needed] The audience is also graphically shown what happened to wounded seamen aboard a British warship during the Napoleonic Era. The ship's doctor and his instruments are often shown at work without the benefit of anesthesia. The film accurately shows how the medical orderlies were among the largest and strongest men aboard ship since their duties involved holding the injured down during amputations and wound "probings".[citation needed] Naval history enthusiasts awarded Weir high marks for his efforts at recreating the historical ambiance of O'Brian's novels[citation needed]. The on-location shots of the Galapagos were unique for a feature film as normally only documentaries are filmed on the islands.[citation needed]
Finally:
76th Academy Awards:
Won, Best Cinematography, Russell Boyd
Won, Best Sound Effects Editing, Richard King
Nominated, Best Picture
Nominated, Best Director, Peter Weir
Nominated, Best Art Direction
Nominated, Best Sound Mixing
Nominated, Best Costume Design
Nominated, Best Film Editing
Nominated, Best Visual Effects
Nominated, Best Makeup
Master and Commander was released the same year as The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, which won every award of the eleven that it was nominated for. The two awards that Master and Commander won were in categories for which The Return of the King was not nominated.
Last edited:
Jannix Quinn
Sr Member
It totally cleaned up in the "Best at Boring me to Death" category.
cboath
Master Member
Nope, not the same film. It was the english country side - they all spoke with english accents - the guy who died was Michael Gambon. Maybe it was the expectations I had since it was (or I thought it was) oscar nominated - just looked at a filmography on imdb, i think it was gosford park.
Still, left me feeling as bad as some of the truly horrid stuff out there due to the expectations I had going in.
cayman shen
Master Member
Man, I dunno...Sahara would be in the top ten. What a mess. At least, the first 30 minutes were. I couldn't get past that. No redeeming value that I could find.
cayman shen
Master Member
It wasn't ABOUT wine snobbery, just featured wine snobs. It was ABOUT a lot more than that...
Zombie_61
Master Member
My mistake; I apologize. Quite honestly, it didn't occur to me that you might have been thinking of a different film.
SSgt Burton
Sr Member
Yup- watched it about 25 years ago. Had some really cool cover art on the vhs box...
Which wasn't depicted at all in the movie. I can't even remember if they showed a nuclear strike or not- I don't believe they did.
Awful film. And even at 15 yrs of age I knew it was terrible.
Kevin
cboath
Master Member
Which sahara? The one about a car race in the desert or from the clive cussler book?
I don't remember much of the former, but i saw why clive sued the movie makers for destroying the book.
Solo4114
Master Member
Yup- watched it about 25 years ago. Had some really cool cover art on the vhs box...
Which wasn't depicted at all in the movie. I can't even remember if they showed a nuclear strike or not- I don't believe they did.
Awful film. And even at 15 yrs of age I knew it was terrible.
Kevin
I remember that one. Wasn't it about a bunch of astronauts who come back to earth AFTER the main nuclear exchange has happened or something? I think I tried watching that when I was about 12 or 13 and I couldn't even get through it. Mostly because it was too boring, as I dimly recall.
cayman shen
Master Member
The Cussler book. BAAAAAD directing. Washed out, overexposed, stuttering action...eeeech.
Similar threads
