 |
| |
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Asmodean just started a thread on stupid movies.
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=101829
But the thread brought up an interesting point - why makes a movie truly bad - not just in your opinion, but in general.
Some thoughts.
1) Judge it relative to the genre. If you judge a "feel good" movie ("You've got mail") by the standards of a serious movie, then you are doing the movie, and yourself, a disservice. The movie, because that's unfair. Yourself, because you limit yourself, and will find it less likely to get friends to go to movies with you (he always says movies I like are dumb, I'm not even going to bother to call him  ).
Certain movies are tough. Was "Alien" SF or horror? Actually, it may have been part of a budding subgenre, SF horror. Don't laugh, if you look carefully at a well-stocked video store, there are actually quite a few. As a straight SF film, it's dumb. As a horror film in an SF setting, it works. It would help, though, if I liked horror films. See below.
2) Admit if you just generally hate the genre. That way you can avoid it, and negotiations about which movies to watch with friends and significant others go MUCH better. I cannot abide "Dumb and dumber" style movies. My wife goes with friends when she wants to catch one. I go with friends for military flicks.
3) Make sure you are in the right mood for the genre/movie. I admire "Grave of the Fireflies". I would only watch it when I am in the mood for a serious movie (plus, I would NEVER watch it after a week of cold, wet weather when I'm feeling down  ). On a light fare day it would be a disaster!
Let's try looking at all time bad movies in their genre.
1) Crow 2 & 3. I believe Ebert liked the first movie, and his reasons coincide with mine. It was an atmosphere and cinematography type film, you had to suspend disbelief. Crow 2 and 3 had all the problems of the genre, with none of the advantages.  Bad for the genre, bad films.
2) Star Wars 1 & 2. Space opera gone bad. Especially the first one. How did Jar-Jar Binks ever make it into the final movie?  Need I say anything more.
3) Certain Star Trek movies. I can't keep the numbers straight. Some were keepers, some weren't, I leave it for a Trekkie to post the right numbers.
4) Ishtar. Except which genre does it fit in? Does it make a difference.
5) Thumbilena - incredibly bad children's movie from the early 90's. Bad examples for kids, mediocre animation, etc. It even bores many kids, at least those who won't just watch anything put in front of them, to tears.
6) Pochohantas (Disney) - bad history, weak animation, lousy writing. The direct to video sequal was better.
Any thoughts on bad, vs. stupid, movies? (please note, plenty of overlap)  .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:32
|
|
What makes a film bad?
Is it based on a computer game?
(Super Mario, Mortal Kombat, yada, yada, yada)
Will it require colourful Oirish characters to do jigs, sing and say begorrah, and at all costs not be played by Irish actors? (Titanic, Far and Away, The Devil's Own, that crappy one with Jeff Bridges and Tommy Lee Jones as an incendiarist/bomber, Day of the Jackal MK. II, Finians Rainbow, Ryan's Daughter, Patriot Games, et al.)
Is it a sequel? Or worse, part three of a series?
Godfather III, Alien III, Police Academy III, and so on.
Is it a pointless irritating remake of far better classier film, or a retread of a witty amusing French/Italian/Chinese/Indian/Inuit original?
Get Carter MK.II (Sylvester Stallone? Were they mad? Is he?) Day of the Jackal MK.II, Assassin (here's a hint guys, it has two asses in the title), Three Men and a Baby, Green Card, The Birdcage, Grease II: The Sump Oil, the list is growing yearly.
Does it have Uma Thurman or Andie McDowell in speaking roles? (with the exception of Short Cuts)?
Does it have Nathan Lane in a role requiring consciousness?
Is it a vanity project for a singer/model/ex cocaine mule for the Colombian druglords?
'Glitter', any Kylie Minogue film, nearly all Sting's films, some of David Bowie's, Mick Jagger's 'Ned Kelly', 'Can't Stop the Music', 'Xanadu' Slade in 'Flame', Vanilla Ice's schlock, again, the list of debacles grows apace.
Is the film advertised as having a great soundtrack?
(The Mod Squad, Peter's Friends, containing the worst portrayal of a person meant to be drunk by a Shakespearean actor)
These are all some tips for identifying cinematic cack-ola and crappy doodoo of the highest order.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
Is Roland Emmerich the director?
Is Jennifer Lopez starring?
Is Angelina Jolie starring?
Is Paul Verhoeven trying to do Sci-fi?
Is Mel Gibson dealing with the English?
Is Richard Gere dealing with the Chinese?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
No one really reads your posts, Spec
Bad actors, genres, stories don't always make a bad movie. If you think because some idiot wrote the film, or some bad actor is in it, or because you don't like a certain type of move, then it is bad, then you are being and idiot
Bad movies are bad only if produced by Jerry Bruckheimer and directed by Michael BaY!
Seriously, bad movies are bad if there are serious plot holes, character development is poor, or if the movie ends and you find yourself wondering why you wasted $7.50 and 2 hours.
Crow 2&3 were bad, not because of the genre but because they were mere reshots of the first one with worse plots and no point, not to mention in your face imagry.
Ishtar sucked because the movie had not point.
Star Wars 1&2 sucked because of poor character development and gaping plot wholes that made no freakin' sense.
Most action flicks suck, but then you go to these for special effects and not for great acting or intriguing plots.
Most of what is needed in a movie is tough to include. Many of the bad writters put so much into their scripts that when the movie hits pre-editing half of what is needed to make it good ends up on the floor because no one wants to watch a 4 hour alright movie.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Buck Birdseed
|
 |
Khoon Ki Pyasi Dayan (1988)
Nov 2000
time: 05:32
|
|
I much prefer general principles to wishy-washy genre-specific ones. Like good music all good movies have stuff in common I think, some of which is extendible to all expression more or less.
E.g. Does it show intent? Have the ideas of the director been carried through effectively or is it indistictly directed? Has the director been able to control the way the film feels or does it seem really haphazard?
Does the film use the medium as well as it can? Or, alternatively, is it "stagey" and the reason it's actually been filmed is unclear? Is thestory/idea actually suited for filming at all? Does it have cinematography that contributes something meaningful to the film? Scenery? Costumes? Lighting? Is the pacing well executed or does it drag?
Is the film sufficiently complex? Does it have hidden depths in the script, the direction, the acting, the look, the cinematography, etc.? Is it intense? Or is there loads of extraneous stuff that ought to have been scaled away? Is it emotionally and energetically intense? Is it unified? Or do parts fit badly together? Does the way the story is told seem unbalanced?
Does the story hang together? Are the ideas, thematic, philosophical or otherwise, carried through successfully? Or is the plot lost, do some parts "break" the central idea?
Is the film original? Does it add new things to the world of cinema? Does it bring forth new ideas in some way?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
A movie is good if it entertains me, and bad if it doesn't. To me, the only point of a movie is entertainment. Simple as that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spec
Hollywood. |
Others are worse.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dis
|
 |
Las Vegas, Nevada
Feb 2000
time: 21:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
What makes a film bad?
Is it based on a computer game?
(Super Mario, Mortal Kombat, yada, yada, yada)
Will it require colourful Oirish characters to do jigs, sing and say begorrah, and at all costs not be played by Irish actors? (Titanic, Far and Away, The Devil's Own, that crappy one with Jeff Bridges and Tommy Lee Jones as an incendiarist/bomber, Day of the Jackal MK. II, Finians Rainbow, Ryan's Daughter, Patriot Games, et al.)
Is it a sequel? Or worse, part three of a series?
Godfather III, Alien III, Police Academy III, and so on.
Is it a pointless irritating remake of far better classier film, or a retread of a witty amusing French/Italian/Chinese/Indian/Inuit original?
Get Carter MK.II (Sylvester Stallone? Were they mad? Is he?) Day of the Jackal MK.II, Assassin (here's a hint guys, it has two asses in the title), Three Men and a Baby, Green Card, The Birdcage, Grease II: The Sump Oil, the list is growing yearly.
Does it have Uma Thurman or Andie McDowell in speaking roles? (with the exception of Short Cuts)?
Does it have Nathan Lane in a role requiring consciousness?
Is it a vanity project for a singer/model/ex cocaine mule for the Colombian druglords?
'Glitter', any Kylie Minogue film, nearly all Sting's films, some of David Bowie's, Mick Jagger's 'Ned Kelly', 'Can't Stop the Music', 'Xanadu' Slade in 'Flame', Vanilla Ice's schlock, again, the list of debacles grows apace.
Is the film advertised as having a great soundtrack?
(The Mod Squad, Peter's Friends, containing the worst portrayal of a person meant to be drunk by a Shakespearean actor)
These are all some tips for identifying cinematic cack-ola and crappy doodoo of the highest order. |
what do you have against Andie Macdowell? Okay she isn't that great an actress. But having her in a movie doesn't make it bad. I like multiplicity. I thought that was a funny movie. Of course Michael Keaton made the movie worked. He was the talent at work here.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
what do you have against Andie Macdowell? Okay she isn't that great an actress. But having her in a movie doesn't make it bad. I like multiplicity. I thought that was a funny movie. Of course Michael Keaton made the movie worked. He was the talent at work here. |
It’s very simple, Diss: I care enough about films to actually want the actors to be....actors. Proper actors, not ex-models who aren’t on a religious retreat at the moment, or having a coffee high colonic enema, or ‘soul’ or r’n’b singers whose last album fell through the basement floor at high velocity.
Robert Altman showed in ‘Short Cuts’ that he could make up for Ms. MacDowell’s, ah, short comings. She actually appeared to come to life in that film, which unfortunately she didn’t do in ‘4 Weddings’.
Remember her Shakespearean delivery of: ‘Is it raining? I hadn’t noticed’.
So, you’re in a clinch with the leading man, you’re feeling love, love, love all the way, and you emote with all the conviction of the Watergate liars attempting to tell us they told the truth. Imagine, say, Ingrid Bergman doing the same in ‘Casblanca’, Or Bette Davis in ‘Now, Voyager’, or Joan Crawford in ‘Mildred Pierce’. She has the emotional punch of cavity wall insulation. Unfortunately cinemas don’t do refunds if the producers/director chose as their leading lady someone who thought she was in a Revlon advertisement, or a promotional film for wood glue.
I agree that simply by having her in a film doesn’t necessarily make it bad, but it helps. I loathed ‘4 Weddings’ with a vengeance much as I did ‘Peter’s Friends’. It’s hard to believe that Great Britain used to produce society comedies as far back as Shakespeare’s day, through the Restoration, the society wits of the Regency, Oscar Wilde and George Bernard Shaw, Noel Coward, Terence Rattigan, and then we get Hugh sodding Grant. Who can play Hugh Grant, but unfortunately no one else who does not in some way resemble Hugh Grant. Which reminds me- ‘Notting Hill’ with Julia ‘Are My Lips Big Enough Now?’ Roberts. If she exposed any more teeth, I’m thinking an oceanarium might believe one of its sharks was missing. She’s another actor who has such a tightly circumscribed range, it could truthfully said to extend no further than her epidermis. When called upon to portray someone completely out of her experience (Mary Reilly, Dr. Jekyll’s maid, or the love interest in ‘Michael Collins’) what you get is a close approximation of the heat death of the universe. But less interesting.
Now can one actor ruin a film? I’d say no, but how about Pia Zadora?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
Julia Roberts is death to a movie. If she somehow manages to not ruin a film with her wooden "acting" she instead ruins a film because everything she is in has been given the big predictable Hollywood movie treatment. That's the smell of death strangers! |
What I find scary is that someone thought she'd make a a passable prostitute in 'Pretty Lady'.
Yes, wear a bad fitting wig, a mini-skirt and high heels you too can look like a whore. Which must be why she looked almost exactly the same (except for the wig) in 'Erin Brockovich'. The story of the L.A. hooker who does pro bono work on the side.....
Really, if any prostitute was that good looking, guess what? They wouldn't be pounding the pavements. Much like the gaggle of street walkers in 'From Hell'. If anyone has seen the post mortem photographs of Jack the Ripper's victims they looked like what they were- women on the margins, alcoholic, worn out and more than a little rough around the edges. It would be nice if Hollywood didn't treat everyone as though they were simpletons.
I agree with the assessment of the pointless remake of 'Psycho'. Even down to the shot where in the original, Anthony Perkins gulps, and his adam's apple bobs up and down in nervous tension. Except in the remake, Vince Vaughan don't got no pronounced adam's apple....
Has anyone seen the remake of 'Night of the Hunter' with Richard Chamberlain as the psychopathic preacher? I promise you, if you know the original it's enough to make your toes curl inside your shoes.
Oh- 'Rising Sun'. A waste of Sean Connery and Wesley Snipes. I can only think Sean Connery is attempting to outdo Richard Burton in his choice of late career crappy roles.
'Jurassic Park'- all of them. A triumph of special effects over acting and plot. Look, the Tyrannosaurus Rex is so heavy, it makes the earth shake! Except of course at the end, when it tiptoes in ballet pumps to surprise everyone and the intellectual velociraptors. Poor Bob Peck, a marvellous actor who somehow found himself in this primordial poop juice.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-11-2003 16:36
). He's a lot better than Roper. He sometimes gives mindless action flicks a thumbs up. He is a good enough reviewer to know a good action film from crap like Charlies Angels 1 and 2. 
|