Bad Films You Hate

Rot your brains, then rot our boards

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Bad Films You Hate

Postby Malice » Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:11 pm UTC

Sure, we've all felt irrational love for cinematic schlock. But what about those cases where a film is simply detestable? What films have you seen that are totally without artistic or entertainment value, sense, or excuse?

Me, I watched Bullitt the other day, and was surprised to see how absolutely terrible it was. I think it was made before they invented writing. I love Steve McQueen as much (okay, more) than the next man, but he cannot possibly be awesome if he spends 90% of the movie getting in and out of cars and eating sandwiches. I could literally cut that movie down into a good, taut 30 minutes--plot set-up, character development, chase scene, dead body, airport finale. The movie has literally 80 minutes of filler.

(Luckily, the bravura originality of Three Kings made up for it.)

Anyway. Know any movies which aren't an improvement on a blank screen for the same amount of time?
Image

User avatar
cypherspace
Posts: 2733
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:48 pm UTC
Location: Londonia

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby cypherspace » Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:33 am UTC

Tomb Raider. What a godawful waste of millions of dollars. 100 minutes of entirely forgettable, contrived, unlikely setpieces. I've just looked at its IMDB page and the plot synopsis is empty, which is about as accurate as it could be.
"It was like five in the morning and he said he'd show me his hamster"

User avatar
Rodan
Any title.
Posts: 1846
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 11:52 pm UTC
Location: Eastern Standard Time

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby Rodan » Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:10 am UTC

Spider-Man 3 is probably the only movie I actively hate.

User avatar
kellsbells
Queen of Cupcakes
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:26 pm UTC
Location: The Land Beyond Beyond (Seattle)
Contact:

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby kellsbells » Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:16 am UTC

I just saw 21 and it absolutely drove me crazy. The plot is a long downward spiral into mistakes and bad choices, and then BAM! happy ending out of nowhere that leaves me thinking: "So if you stop being a good kid, ditch school, gamble away your future, and end up screwing over a lot of people, you can just go back to your old life later and everyone will forgive you and your future will be secure?" So not true, unfortunately.

Ugh. I hate it when movies just slap on poorly connected happy endings instead of actually dealing with all the things that happened over the course of the film.
A good pun is its own reword.
L wrote:A day without kells is a day not worth living.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby Malice » Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:36 am UTC

kellsbells wrote:I just saw 21 and it absolutely drove me crazy. The plot is a long downward spiral into mistakes and bad choices, and then BAM! happy ending out of nowhere that leaves me thinking: "So if you stop being a good kid, ditch school, gamble away your future, and end up screwing over a lot of people, you can just go back to your old life later and everyone will forgive you and your future will be secure?" So not true, unfortunately.

Ugh. I hate it when movies just slap on poorly connected happy endings instead of actually dealing with all the things that happened over the course of the film.


It is at least possible that that actually happened. Which is a good segue to an anecdote Ron Howard told the other night:
When talking about reasons for doing movies based on true events, Howard mentioned his reputation for going for the happy, Hollywood endings. The nice thing about a movie like Apollo 13 is that you can't complain about that--at the end, when the chutes open, well, they really did open! But he told us about a test screening for that movie, where the audience filled out response cards, answering questions about the movie. One question was, "How did you like the ending?" and one man's response was, "Typical Hollywood bullshit. They never would have survived."
Image

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8573
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby Zohar » Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:16 am UTC

The Prestige. I was so incredibly bored. Then I was shocked at the stupidity of it. Just... a complete waste of my time. As I've said before and I'll probably say again, Batman Vs. Wolverine would've been a much better movie.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
kellsbells
Queen of Cupcakes
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:26 pm UTC
Location: The Land Beyond Beyond (Seattle)
Contact:

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby kellsbells » Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:26 am UTC

Malice wrote:
kellsbells wrote:I just saw 21 and it absolutely drove me crazy. The plot is a long downward spiral into mistakes and bad choices, and then BAM! happy ending out of nowhere that leaves me thinking: "So if you stop being a good kid, ditch school, gamble away your future, and end up screwing over a lot of people, you can just go back to your old life later and everyone will forgive you and your future will be secure?" So not true, unfortunately.

Ugh. I hate it when movies just slap on poorly connected happy endings instead of actually dealing with all the things that happened over the course of the film.


It is at least possible that that actually happened. Which is a good segue to an anecdote Ron Howard told the other night:
When talking about reasons for doing movies based on true events, Howard mentioned his reputation for going for the happy, Hollywood endings. The nice thing about a movie like Apollo 13 is that you can't complain about that--at the end, when the chutes open, well, they really did open! But he told us about a test screening for that movie, where the audience filled out response cards, answering questions about the movie. One question was, "How did you like the ending?" and one man's response was, "Typical Hollywood bullshit. They never would have survived."

I realize that it was/could be what really happened... I have yet to actually read the book, but it's on my to-do list; anyway, it's not so much the happy ending that bothers me, it's the sudden and completely illogical upturn. There could have been some gentle guidance toward that point, but no, it's completely abrupt. I don't like abrupt when it doesn't make any sense.
A good pun is its own reword.
L wrote:A day without kells is a day not worth living.

User avatar
Clumpy
Posts: 1883
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:48 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby Clumpy » Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:47 am UTC

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy film - what a piece of crap. They emasculated the story and added the same obvious jokes that Disney has been cramming into live-action films for years.

User avatar
Amarantha
Posts: 1638
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby Amarantha » Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:21 pm UTC

The Postman

Joan of Arc (aka The Messenger, iirc)

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby Jack Saladin » Sun Apr 20, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:The Prestige. I was so incredibly bored. Then I was shocked at the stupidity of it. Just... a complete waste of my time. As I've said before and I'll probably say again, Batman Vs. Wolverine would've been a much better movie.

Seriously? Out of all the utter shit that is produced by the tonne in the film industry, you pick The Prestige? That was a great film.

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:39 pm UTC

He does have a point, though. Batman versus Wolverine would be badass. On the other hand, David Bowie is a god.
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

User avatar
no-genius
Seemed like a good idea at the time
Posts: 4221
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:32 pm UTC
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby no-genius » Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:51 pm UTC

Its actually hard to think of any bad films I hate. As much as I hate to say it, I liked all the Resident Evil films. And the hitchhikers film didn't annoy me that much - or maybe its still the culture shock. Actually, seeing as they took out most of the jokes, yeah, that is a bad film. Grrrrrrr, should never have been made by Disney anyway.
I don't sing, I just shout. All. On. One. Note.
Official ironmen you are free, champions officially

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:Why? It does nothing to address dance music's core problem: the fact that it sucks.

User avatar
Jarne
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:52 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby Jarne » Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:13 pm UTC

Shooter. I'm sure something good can be said about the production values, but when a movie has a message that hypocritical, I can't help but hate.
The Benchwarmers goes in for a close second. Stupid beyond stupid.

Wormwood
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:03 am UTC

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby Wormwood » Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:03 am UTC

Semi Pro. I enjoyed Anchorman, and I think that Will Ferrell is a funny guy, but Semi was nothing I hadn't seen before. He may be losing his touch. My sister loved it, but she hates 2001: A Space Odyssey, which I liked.
Bakemaster wrote:DOGGIE STYLE IS THOUGHTCRIME-SODOMY

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8573
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby Zohar » Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:35 am UTC

Fearbears?! wrote:
Zohar wrote:The Prestige. I was so incredibly bored. Then I was shocked at the stupidity of it. Just... a complete waste of my time. As I've said before and I'll probably say again, Batman Vs. Wolverine would've been a much better movie.

Seriously? Out of all the utter shit that is produced by the tonne in the film industry, you pick The Prestige? That was a great film.


I really can't think of a movie I hate more. It felt like such an insult to my intelligence... I suppose the fact so many other people love it that much is a factor in how much I hate it. But I remember the second it ended in the movie theater, even before my friends said a word about the film, that I was glad it was over. So it's mostly hating the film and no the appreciation for it.

Maybe I need to give it another chance sometime, just to see how I feel about it while knowing about the stupid (stupid STUPID!) plot twists.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
micco
Posts: 750
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 4:16 pm UTC
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby micco » Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:25 pm UTC

Scary Movie 2. This film was an insult to my inteligence. Bad jokes, bad acting, hell the whole movie was just bad.

The ring and The ring 2. No, these are NOT scary. No, these are NOT good. Go rent the korean versions, I assume they are a lot better.
An anarchist is a person that makes oatmeal and blows it up.

User avatar
Aleril
Le Rail
Posts: 2279
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:06 pm UTC
Location: Don't make me slap you.

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby Aleril » Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:03 pm UTC

Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron


It was like Disney took all of the cliches and shitty morals that they didnt use in their other films and slopped it all together on a horse.


URG.
Image

User avatar
no-genius
Seemed like a good idea at the time
Posts: 4221
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:32 pm UTC
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby no-genius » Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

micco"The ring and The ring 2. No, these are NOT scary. No, these are NOT good. Go rent the korean versions, I assume they are a lot better.[/quote]

[quote="teh wiki wrote:
Ring ( Ringu?) is a 1998 Japanese horror mystery film from director Hideo Nakata, adapted from the novel of the same name by Koji Suzuki, which draws from the Japanese folk tale Banchō Sarayashiki. The film stars Nanako Matsushima, Hiroyuki Sanada, and Rikiya Otaka as members of a divorced family, each cursed by a videotape. The film was later remade in Korea as The Ring Virus (1999), and in the United States as The Ring (2002).


and I have seen Ringu and Ring 2 (the Japanese ones) and The Ring (US one). I liked them all, I guess, but I prefered the Japanese ones. Haven't seen Ring Virus, sounds interesting. Also, another film series I'm interested in is The Eye - has anyone seen those?
I don't sing, I just shout. All. On. One. Note.
Official ironmen you are free, champions officially

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:Why? It does nothing to address dance music's core problem: the fact that it sucks.

User avatar
Durandal
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:12 am UTC

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby Durandal » Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:48 pm UTC

Heartbreak Kid.

That movie was godawful.

User avatar
Godeler
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:32 pm UTC
Location: Connecticut
Contact:

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby Godeler » Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:11 am UTC

The most detestable film I've ever seen? Meet the Robinsons (I was finagled by a friend, not my choice.) Worst. Time. Travel. Movie. Ever. Glaring paradoxes everywhere and not an interesting character in the bunch, though Disney tried to make them using gimmicks (like a jetpack! yeah, that'll work!) Also, the villain was essentially Snidely Whiplash, twirly mustache and all (not really, but I'm not spoiling the already wretched thing.) The message is something like, "Science is great! Especially when it has NOTHING to do with reality! Also, Dinosaurs and cars."
Even stick figures drawn with passion have more soul in them than the greatest masterpiece of a charlatan.

User avatar
Allium Cepa
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:46 am UTC
Location: RVA

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby Allium Cepa » Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:18 am UTC

I think you're taking that a movie a little too seriously. It was aimed at a much younger audience, so you can't expect it to have a fantastic plot-line with no scientific holes. If you didn't look too much into it, it was actually pretty funny and enjoyable, maybe not as good as their other stuff, but still enjoyable.

And I hate all of the (genre) movies. Even if they made me laugh in some spots because I'm mildly immature, they were still all horrible.
Take me back to the day that I went blind, I would like to see your face for one last time.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby Malice » Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:08 am UTC

micco wrote:The ring and The ring 2. No, these are NOT scary. No, these are NOT good. Go rent the korean versions, I assume they are a lot better.


Actually, I think there are Korean ripoff-versions. Probably not what you were referring to, though.

The Ring 2 isn't good, and for the most part isn't scary.
The Ring is both good and scary.
Ringu, the Japanese film, is good and scary, but more flawed than the American version. (Granted, I saw the American version first...)
Image

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby Jack Saladin » Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:14 am UTC

The Japanese versions are much, much scarier, but The Ring is a better film, I'd say.

Of course, that's a moot point considering you don't watch a horror for the Film Critic Goodness.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby Malice » Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:29 am UTC

Fearbears?! wrote:Of course, that's a moot point considering you don't watch a horror for the Film Critic Goodness.


Pish tosh. There are plenty of great movies which also happen to scare the shit out of you.
Image

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby Jack Saladin » Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:42 am UTC

Yes, of course, but the purpose of a film like Ringu isn't to be good, it's to be scary. So, when The Ring is a better film (but still isn't very good) in a critical sense, but suffers from being less frightening, it ends up failing.

This is taken even further with things like the Ju-On films, which are essentially a series of only vaguely related scenes designed simply to scare you.

User avatar
Narsil
Ask me about my junk!
Posts: 2995
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:59 pm UTC
Location: Columbus.

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby Narsil » Sun Apr 27, 2008 3:20 pm UTC

Oh, god. Ju-On sucked so hard.

If anyone's ever seen One Missed Call (Japanese version, can't speak for the English remake) that's actually a reasonably decent movie.
Spoiler:
EsotericWombat wrote:MORE JUNK THAN YOUR BODY HAS ROOM FOR

Mother Superior wrote:What's he got that I dont?
*sees Narsil's sig*
Oh... that.

User avatar
Mr. Beck
Commencing Countdown, Engines On
Posts: 1469
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:14 am UTC
Location: Albuquerque, NM.

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby Mr. Beck » Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:50 am UTC

We rented Reno 911- Miami. I could not see any value in that film whatsoever, and decided after 1/2 hour that I had better things to do with my life.

User avatar
Felstaff
Occam's Taser
Posts: 5181
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:10 pm UTC
Location: ¢ ₪ ¿ ¶ § ∴ ® © ™ ؟ ¡ ‽ æ Þ ° ₰ ₤ ಡಢ

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby Felstaff » Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:06 pm UTC

This will not go down well, as I've seen quite a few fans of this film on this fora.

I Am Leg End
.

What a bad film. Yes, the opening shots of a deserted New York overrun by nature are worth the admission price. (Well, Tiffany earrings are worth today's admission prices) But the rest of the film is just... trite. Will Smith plays "Will Smith", a wisecracking dude who cannot be anyone but Will Smith playing Will Smith in a Will Smith movie. I don't even know what the character's name is. Will Smith, I think. The CGI is woeful. Mummy Returns woeful. Whatever atmosphere is built up is suddenly ruined by chalky-faced zombies with inexplicably large shouty mouths. The first time I saw them crowded in a circle in the dark, I burst out laughing, thinking two words: "Soggy Biscuit". Not the intended reaction, I'm sure the filmmakers will tell you.

The meat of the fillum is passable, even enjoyable and thrilling in places, which retrieves the film above sub-meh for me. Will Smith's 'descent into madness' is hammy and unbelievable though. That's scripting problems though, rather than Smith's performance. Getting angry at an inanimate mannequin makes for pretty lazy writing.
"Hey Mark Protosevich, how are you going to show the effect of years of loneliness and isolation on this one-dimensional character?"
[shrug]
"Um, let's have him talk to a dummy as if it's a real person, then getting emotional when it doesn't respond?"
[/shrug]
"sold!"


So, it's alright, maybe rentable even... Until that tacked-on ending, with the religious iconography and absolute balls? What the heck? "Oh crap, we gotta give this movie meaning, somehow. Uh, how about, um imagery? So the audience can go 'oooh, we saw this icon earlier on in the film! It must mean something!'" Except it doesn't. The basic rule of filmmaking is if you want the solution at the end, you have to show specific object x several times throughout the film in an incongruous manner. (The "swing away" effect from Signs spring to mind. Or the red imagery in The Sixth Sense. M Night Shayamalan is pretty transparent with this device.) And
Spoiler:
the butterfly?
Well, perhaps it wasn't obvious enough 'cause I never saw it. Even if I did, I wouldn't have cared about it. So what. It's a
Spoiler:
butterfly
. Big friggin' deal. It ain't exactly Rosebud/Norman Bates' mother/Jacqueline de Bellefort, it's more of a hastily added McGuffin.

Playing golf from the wing of a big military jet is rather cool though. 28 Days Later does the same film, but better in every conceivable way, on a lower budget, with relatively unknown actors. And even that film loses its sense of direction 2/3 way through.
Away, you scullion! you rampallion! You fustilarian! I'll tickle your catastrophe.

User avatar
Mr. Beck
Commencing Countdown, Engines On
Posts: 1469
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:14 am UTC
Location: Albuquerque, NM.

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby Mr. Beck » Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:36 pm UTC

Not well received indeed.... :evil:
Ah well, we all have opinions.

User avatar
Allium Cepa
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:46 am UTC
Location: RVA

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby Allium Cepa » Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:00 am UTC

Felstaff wrote:. Will Smith plays "Will Smith", a wisecracking dude who cannot be anyone but Will Smith playing Will Smith in a Will Smith movie. I don't even know what the character's name is. Will Smith, I think.


I agree a lot with this, Will Smith has been subject to a lot of typecasting lately, and hopefully Hancock will be a departure, a return to his silly roots, but I doubt it.

I didn't hate I am Legend so much as I was disappointed by it. It had a ton of potential but they ruined it with only a decent main character. For this kind of movie you need a fantastic lead, who makes the entire movie interesting. And you can't let it fall on its face in a shitty third act.
Take me back to the day that I went blind, I would like to see your face for one last time.

User avatar
Clumpy
Posts: 1883
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:48 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby Clumpy » Thu May 08, 2008 12:13 am UTC

The message is something like, "Science is great! Especially when it has NOTHING to do with reality! Also, Dinosaurs and cars."


Yup - I agree wholeheartedly that the whole movie is a contrived drug trip. I still sort of liked it, though, except for the half hour where he's meeting the family. That part sucked so hard the tubes in my friend's tv started gasping for air.

User avatar
micco
Posts: 750
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 4:16 pm UTC
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby micco » Sat May 10, 2008 11:40 am UTC

Yeah I was reffering to the japanese versions of ring.
Another movie that I resently rented and hated was Hostel. The first half of the movie is totally pointless, adn the rest was rather boring. Sure, it was gory and violent, but gore and violence are not what makes a movie scary.
An anarchist is a person that makes oatmeal and blows it up.

User avatar
Felstaff
Occam's Taser
Posts: 5181
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:10 pm UTC
Location: ¢ ₪ ¿ ¶ § ∴ ® © ™ ؟ ¡ ‽ æ Þ ° ₰ ₤ ಡಢ

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby Felstaff » Sat May 10, 2008 12:23 pm UTC

Malice wrote:Ringu, the Japanese film, is good and scary, but more flawed than the American version. (Granted, I saw the American version first...)

You see, I actually think the 'flaws' are the reason why Japan > America, in terms of Ring versions. With Ringu, the video is mysterious; a few seconds of grainy, ambiguous, surreal images, of which little gets explained. The American Ring, however, has 27 separate grotesque/iconic images. Every single one of which is clearly implied throughout the film. Twenty seven. That's kind of insulting. (Hey, a ladder! We saw a ladder in the video! And now the ladder's falling over ...just like in the video. Cue Twilight Zone theme. Hey a lighthouse! We saw a lighthouse in the...) Why did everything have to be wrapped up in a neat little package? It's a horror based on the unknowns and paranoia surrounding technology (something far more prescient with Japanese culture to begin with, but I digress); all that tension gets frittered away with making sure every minor detail is accounted for, in a fastidious way, wrapped up and packaged as a generic horror for the post-ScreamSaw generation who are treated like they should put more effort into the actions involved in the picking up and eating of popcorn, than actually engaging in the film at any greater than a visceral base level.

Anyway, both aren't that great to begin with.
Away, you scullion! you rampallion! You fustilarian! I'll tickle your catastrophe.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby Malice » Sat May 10, 2008 9:33 pm UTC

Felstaff wrote:
Malice wrote:Ringu, the Japanese film, is good and scary, but more flawed than the American version. (Granted, I saw the American version first...)

You see, I actually think the 'flaws' are the reason why Japan > America, in terms of Ring versions. With Ringu, the video is mysterious; a few seconds of grainy, ambiguous, surreal images, of which little gets explained. The American Ring, however, has 27 separate grotesque/iconic images. Every single one of which is clearly implied throughout the film. Twenty seven. That's kind of insulting. (Hey, a ladder! We saw a ladder in the video! And now the ladder's falling over ...just like in the video. Cue Twilight Zone theme. Hey a lighthouse! We saw a lighthouse in the...) Why did everything have to be wrapped up in a neat little package? It's a horror based on the unknowns and paranoia surrounding technology (something far more prescient with Japanese culture to begin with, but I digress); all that tension gets frittered away with making sure every minor detail is accounted for, in a fastidious way, wrapped up and packaged as a generic horror for the post-ScreamSaw generation who are treated like they should put more effort into the actions involved in the picking up and eating of popcorn, than actually engaging in the film at any greater than a visceral base level.


That's not really what I meant by flaws. I meant things like, instead of a story that hangs neatly and believably together, Ringu just tells you its characters are psychic, so that they can read the screenwriter's mind and come up with answers and/or exposition. Ring does something sort-of the same (the kid), but does it from the outset and in a much more restrained way.

Nitpick, but those images from The Ring are not all in the film. One off the top of my head is the image of severed fingers in a box. Purely abstract.

The point of the video/life parallels, besides the thematic, is that The Ring tries to marry the horror genre with what is essentially a murder mystery. (I think it does so successfully; you might disagree.) In this sense it is actual closer to the original novel than the Japanese film.

It should be noted that the filmmakers know they're explaining every little piece, and use this fact: toward the end, before the twist, when they even explain the "Seven days" idea--it deliberately pushes things over the top, to give you a false sense of closure, which it then ruptures.

Come to think of it, that's pretty important. The explanations and life/video echoes are there throughout the film, but we eventually find out that they don't mean what we're told they mean. The last montage revelation has the point of the movie and investigation, and disregards everything we may have thought about the situation and the tape.

So, I disagree. I think the explanations are there on purpose, to drive the plot forward and increase the tension, and also to eventually be red herrings. You don't know what you think you know, which is what makes the scene with Noah at the end more shocking and horrifying.

In fact, I'd call this a more sophisticated technique. Whereas Ringu simply didn't tell you what was going on, Ring tells you the wrong thing. When you find out it is the wrong thing, it's fucking terrifying.

*shrugs* I don't know. I could be wrong, maybe the ambiguity works better in Ringu. I saw it last, after having seen The Ring and read the books and researched the story; so I knew most of what it wasn't explaining.
Image

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby aleflamedyud » Mon May 12, 2008 7:34 pm UTC

Have I mentioned that I despise "Napoleon Dynamite"? I think I have -- extensively and in length.

I'm also despising "You Don't Mess with the Zohan" *LONG* before it comes out. Because we *really* need another Adam Sandler film making Jews into objects of ridicule. Adam Sandler isn't even *funny*. His last good film was "Little Nicky", which gave him the Keanu-Reeves-as-Neo opportunity to play a character every bit as much of an incompetent moron as he is.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby zenten » Mon May 19, 2008 2:55 am UTC

Being John Malkovich: A bunch of horrible people do surreal, horrible things to each other. For no reasons. For hours.

Knight Tales: I was expecting a bad movie about some sort of killer knight running around killing gamers. Instead I got a bad movie that is just a bunch of gamers playing bad games of D&D. I only watched the first hour though, but that was an hour too much. I can go down to a local FLGS if I want to see a bad D&D game.

User avatar
r1chard
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:17 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, AU
Contact:

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby r1chard » Mon May 19, 2008 9:16 am UTC

Queen of the Damned.

I couldn't sit past 10 minutes of it.

My wife took *3* sittings to watch all of it. I've been somewhat in awe of that effort ever since.



Oh, and that awful Dungeons and Dragons film, if only because a dozen of us were yelling "backstab the fucker you idiot" just near the end. And he didn't.

User avatar
no-genius
Seemed like a good idea at the time
Posts: 4221
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:32 pm UTC
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby no-genius » Mon May 19, 2008 10:09 am UTC

zenten wrote:Being John Malkovich: A bunch of horrible people do surreal, horrible things to each other. For no reasons. For hours.

Really? There's a bit more to it than that.
I don't sing, I just shout. All. On. One. Note.
Official ironmen you are free, champions officially

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:Why? It does nothing to address dance music's core problem: the fact that it sucks.

User avatar
HMC
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:01 pm UTC
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby HMC » Tue May 20, 2008 2:30 am UTC

Being John Malkovich is a brilliant movie, as was The Prestige. You guys don't know what you're talking about.

As for me, I couldn't stand the movie 'The Core'. Everything in that movie was preposterous.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Bad Films You Hate

Postby Malice » Tue May 20, 2008 5:00 am UTC

The Core is probably supposed to preposterous. It's hard to imagine a movie taking itself seriously and, at the same time, featuring an important new material called "unobtainium" (and then never explaining how they obtain it...).

If you go into it expecting that, it is a wonderfully funny movie.
Image


Return to “Movies and TV Shows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests