|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: What is the worst movie you've ever seen?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 05-20-2018 10:12 PM
For me, there are two different categories of "worst." The first, I actually enjoy: movies that are just so incompetently written, acted and directed (or are trying to make an artistic or political statement, and fail) that they achieve unintentional entertainment value. The second are those that don't quite achieve that pinnacle of mediocrity, and as a result are just frustrating to watch.
I've seen so many in both categories that I'd struggle to make a definitive choice for one in each. In the "so bad it's good" category, Big Jim McLain definitely scores very highly: it was made in the wake of the Hollywood Ten scandal, when almost every major actor, writer and director felt the need to make at least one patriotic feature in order to prove beyond doubt that they were not red under the bed. Most of the resulting films were rush job B-movies, with terrible scripts and performances, and not much better production values. This is easily the worst I've seen: even John Wayne and Nancy Olson can't rescue the movie from its script and are clearly not seriously trying, and the slimy commie villain is a laugh a minute.
In the "not quite bad enough to be funny" category, the Nazi Titanic comes to mind. Without anything else to redeem the movie, the cartoon character English and Jewish stereotypes would have sunk it cleanly (sorry!), not to mention inventing a blonde, blue-eyed German, who, as we all know, was the Titanic's first officer, who heroically tried to stop the whisky-chugging (from the bottle, of course) Captain Smith from crashing the boat into the iceberg. But the crowd scenes and special effects shots are too well done to be able to dismiss it totally.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sam Graham
AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues.
Posts: 1431
From: Waukee, IA
Registered: Dec 2004
|
posted 05-21-2018 08:22 AM
quote: Cobi Fox
That one must be bad, because nobody I know has ever heard of it, even though it's a (relatively) recent release. Seriously though, who tf would call a movie Pumpkin?
I caught up with this at home after it's release and was SCREAMING at the screen because I was really tired and it took me deep into the movie to realize it was a satire. Then I re-watched it and thought it was funny as hell.
From Roger Ebert's three and one half star review
quote:
"Pumpkin" defies description. Maybe it doesn't need a category, it needs a diagnosis. Relentlessly, and sometimes brilliantly, it forces us to decide what we really think, how permissive our taste really is, how far a black comedy can go before it goes too far. It's like a teenage sex comedy crossed with the darkest corners of underground comics. We laugh in three ways: with humor, with recognition and with disbelief.
Also, to answer the question, "Star Trek V".
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 05-21-2018 12:44 PM
Shortly before I left the Egyptian, I was asked by the programmers to examine and provide condition reports on a private collection of about 20 70mm prints, in a deal worked out with the print owner and copyright owners, that could have resulted in public screenings (I don't know if any were ever played, because I left shortly after doing the print examinations).
They dated between 1974 and 1996, and most were either so pink or so battered that they were unplayable, or were of titles that we knew of better alternatives in circulation.
The one exception was a print of Howard the Duck, which was a magnetic, 6-track SR print that looked like it was fresh out of the lab. We put a reel up on the screen, and it looked and sounded like a brand new print.
I then did some Googling and figured out why. The movie was f---ing abysmal, universally panned, and pulled from almost everywhere it played after the opening weekend. In the case of one prestigious central London cinema, it was actually pulled during the opening weekend!
Sadly, there is an inverse correlation between the quality of a movie and the quality of any old print of it that happens to be be in circulation. The worse the movie, the better the print.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cobi Fox
Film Handler
Posts: 26
From: Earth
Registered: May 2018
|
posted 05-22-2018 04:10 PM
quote: Leo Enticknap
Shortly before I left the Egyptian, I was asked by the programmers to examine and provide condition reports on a private collection of about 20 70mm prints, in a deal worked out with the print owner and copyright owners, that could have resulted in public screenings (I don't know if any were ever played, because I left shortly after doing the print examinations).
They dated between 1974 and 1996, and most were either so pink or so battered that they were unplayable, or were of titles that we knew of better alternatives in circulation.
The one exception was a print of Howard the Duck, which was a magnetic, 6-track SR print that looked like it was fresh out of the lab. We put a reel up on the screen, and it looked and sounded like a brand new print.
I then did some Googling and figured out why. The movie was f---ing abysmal, universally panned, and pulled from almost everywhere it played after the opening weekend. In the case of one prestigious central London cinema, it was actually pulled during the opening weekend!
Sadly, there is an inverse correlation between the quality of a movie and the quality of any old print of it that happens to be be in circulation. The worse the movie, the better the print.
Do you honestly mean to tell me that 70mm prints were wasted on Howard the Duck!?!?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 05-22-2018 06:35 PM
Just like I could never name "the best movie", I could equally never name "the worst movie".
It's a bit like choosing your favorite kid. It also hugely depends on the moment and obviously, your taste might change over the years.
But hooking into Howard the Duck, it's actually funny how the movie about this Marvel character became one of the most publicized flops ever. Keep in mind, making this movie was mostly the brainchild of George Lucas, even though he didn't direct it, he controlled almost all aspects of it.
George Lucas, the guy who gave us Star Wars, is somewhat of a strange fellow. I think he is, generally speaking, an abysmal director, you only need to look at the Star Wars prequels or at some other unfiltered work by him, like the animated movie Strange Magic from 2015 or what about the brilliantly awful Star Wars Holiday Special? Then again, there is some genuine creativity in him too, he seems to be able to create worlds and characters like no other but is simply incapable of dreaming up an appealing story, dialog or "semantic story glue", without the extensive input of others.
It's somewhat of a magic that despite him, we got the Star Wars we got today. I guess that if the original Star Wars would've hit the cinemas in a totally unfiltered way, it would've been a total disaster of a movie and we've never heard about Star Wars again, except maybe as a cult piece, very much like Turkish Star Wars*.
* It's actually a thing, it's called Dünyayı Kurtaran Adam (1982), it actually blatantly rips footage from other movies like Star Wars (whole scope segments fitted into the otherwise flat framed movie, so the Death Star becomes more of an Death Egg). You should try to get a copy (there are no GOOD copies) and have the best 91 minutes of your life. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif)
. It was about this Italian spy and his apparently retarded son, whose name is (get this) Pistachio Disguisey. And Pistachio has to become a spy to save his father. The whole premise was bad, but the execution was horrendous. There was too much emphasis on awful fake Italian accents and fart jokes, and not enough on good acting and quality writing. This "film" shows Dana Carvey at his worst.
![[thumbsdown]](graemlins/thumbsdown.gif)
.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic