Badmovies.org Forum

I was thinking today about the movie One Hour Photo with Robin Williams.  A lot of people in the past have called it creepy but I always felt his character could have been a hell of a lot more menacing.  In other words, I thought the idea of a psycho one hour photo clerk was great but ended up fizzling out due to the fragility of Wililams's character.  He would have been 10x as scary if he killed off a few people in the movie.

That made me think, what other movies had the potential to be awesome but just ended up as ok...any thoughts?

I have always thought that "Psychomania" could have been a lot better than it was.  Some parts of the movie are great, but large sections of the film are so horribly slow.  When the gang members are committing their suicides and later, when they are bullying people who they felt wronged them, it is fun to watch.  For the most part, the remaining balance of the movie is a slow mess.

American Psycho, movie was okay, they should have went more over the top with the gore to make the character more psychotic but they watered it down for mainstream audiences (and now have action figures and t-shirts, how ironic)

I agree about PSCHOMANIA. What really p**ses me off is the 1931 DRACULA-Sooo many wasted cinematic oppertunities wasted !I think it was because sound films were a novelty still,....silent films exclusivly focused on story telling through IMAGE. Plus< I think Tod Browning was still bummed out by the death of Chaney. Lugosi is the ONLY reason this movie is still as well loved as it is today.(at least by me.)
the american version of GODZILLA-WHY WHY WHHHYYY???????


EDIT 2011-
After 5 years I finally fixed this messed up post!

Oh, god yes. What an utter disappointment. I still bought the bloody thing on DVD, but it in no way lived up to all that tremendous hype.

Boy-I really f*cked up on my thread! Somehow (leave it to me) I erased part of my post! "- means a good film? Hammer did a totally original take on DRACULA_-thanx to Chris Lee"s Very physical and strong performance,and the Frankenstien series consentrated on the misadventures of the good doctor"-sorry...I was cooking dinner and typing and watching kids all at once.

Mission to Mars could have been great. It had a great sci-fi premise, great special effects and good science. The problem is they shoe-horned alot of really bad and unnessessary melodrama into the script.

Lost in Space could have been great. Again, it had a good story, good effects and set pieces. The problem was with the characters. The dysfunctional family in space concept just didn't work. They should have stuck with the family working as a team concept they used in the television series.


Wing Commander could have been great. I liked the visuals and the "Top Gun" in space concept. The problem is the plot wasn't very clear. I've watched the movie several times, and still don't know what it's about. Some of the female characters were a bit annoying as well. If they are going to incorporate female characters into a movie like this, they need to at least make them likable.

Superman Returns
(http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/648/648611/superman-returns-20050907113002822-000.jpg)

I just watched this the other day on DVD and while it was decent, it could've been so much better.
I thought Brandon Routh was good as Superman and I especially liked Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane...even though just about every other film critic and Superman fans have trashed her performance.
Couldn't take my eyes off her.  In fact...she was the only character I really cared about in the entire film.
Thought Spacey's performance as Lex Luthor and everyone else's was just OK.

erk --
Again, this is soooo subjective, re.  The very film that starts this discussion, "One Hour Photo", I thought was just fine the way it is -- Sorry!
No, I genuinely liked it the way it was, & think that if it had gone further, it would have ruined the structure & become another ho-hum monster killer slasher horror poo, that too many of us here seem to revere . . .
And I DO NOT mean to DEMEAN anyone's general taste -- It's just that I generally like films that try to go for something more -- successful or no . . .
Ralph Bakshi's "Lord of The Rings" could have done a lot more -- And "OOps!!", here we have Peter Jackson's version!!   How nice . . .
Yeah, I know it's a real issue, . . . but I simply can[t think of one right now --
peter stupid/denny huh?

Santa Claus (1959)
Just before Santa & his creepy cyborg reindeer leave the palace, he asks "Lord Jesus to join us on Earth tonight!" I spent the rest of the movie waiting for some hippie to make a cameo.

And I find it odd that children from all over the world would be making toys for the children of Earth, but not for themselves. And how did they get there? Are they orphans? Could they be the souls of dead children?

Maybe they were saving that for the sequel.

Mystery Men: The premise was OK, the characters were fine, and the silly take on superheroes was nice. However, it was far too long and too slow. They could have cut half an hour at least.

The first Nemesis  film had a great opening shootout, and the beginnings of a plot for a decent cyberpunk action flick. The plot goes nowhere, the action is hit or miss and the stop motion cybernetic Tim Thomerson is a littel too old-fashioned for this film at that point in time. Early 80s it would have been cool, but times were changing. I'm still one of the few fans of this movie, but it could have been much better. One of the better Albert Pyun films, faint praise indeed, but more could have been done with it.

The new Miami Vice movie had its moments, but it also reminded me why Michael Mann mostly disappoints me as a filmmaker. Again cool believable gunfights (could have used more shouts and screams from the wounded for realism, getting shot hurts no matter how macho you are) and the film plunges you into the world of the characters from the beginning making you pay attention, a good start. But it bogs down in the excuses for emotions and relationships presented. Tubbs and Trudy seemed like a couple only because they were around each other, I never bought that they cared for each other, even when the story requires it later on. Gong Li's character was only in the film to give Crockett something to do (no pun) in between plot movement, and a chance to bend the rules while being noble at the end. Mann creates types not characters.

I agree Los in Space had potential. Needed a less muddled plot, the time bubble thing was just stupid, also too much time wasted with the tour of the derelict ship, make that a movie of it's own or leave it out. The bad CGI pet was a distraction as well.

I'm in the minority, but I would have liked Open Range, better if along with the beautiful scenery and interesting camerawork during the action if they had a plot that was more than just like something out of an old Audie Murphy backlot western from the 50s.

Another one I thought of...The Gingerdead Man.  Stupid and silly in concept it could have been another Jack Frost.  Charles Band truly dropped the ball on that film. 

Either version of Willard instantly comes to mind. As much as the general relationship between Willard and the rats was essential and pretty creepy, there seriously needed to be more to Willard's rampage. It was largey advertised as a horror film.

As for the new one, it needed to retain more of Willard's innocence from the 1970s version, it also could have had a batter ending

Cabin Fever. I think if they played it as straight horror then it could have been better.

And I agree with Godzilla (1999)

Demolition Man.  I liked it an all, but I just thought there could have been something more there (and get rid of the awkward "now all restaurants are Taco Bell" product placement.)
Maybe a few more jokes or social commentary.

Yeah that Blockbuster coulda' been a blockbuster, but no, only applies to rewards card members...

The Island (2005) could haven been great but Micheal Bay just ruined it. Besides a drawn out story that had potential instead it was just their to show the next action scene,it had so much product placement from Budweiser to X-Box to name a few. It was VERY distracting and drove me up a wall.

Damn, "Gigli" coulda been sooooooooooo gooooood.

I mean, all the star potential it had!   But it just wasn't written good, and look how it turned out.

(Sorry Scott!) :hot:

Demolition Man needed smarter jokes and social commentary (or maybe it was just too much LA-based humor for me to relate to), not just Dennis Leary doing one of his stand-up routines right in the middle of the movie. He was hard to believe as a revolutionary leader to begin with, but that just shut down the movie. The Taco Bell thing didn't bother me, since I was just glad it wasn't a burger joint, especially one of the big names. And Sting should never be allowed to remake or remix his own songs or old Police tunes, he always screws them up, not just in this movie.

While we're talking Sly movies, make Judge Dredd like the first 15 minutes and don't take his helmet off, and you have a cool comic-book movie that resembles the comic. Also kill Rob Schneider's character early on in a completely brutal and coldly ironic way to set the tone. Or just kill Rob Schneider on general principle and save us from many lousy unfunny films and dumb cameos in Sandler films to follow.

Just watched it over the weekend...in total agreement.  Thought the cinematogrophy was excellent but the script/plot seemed chucked together.  Even Spacey couldn't do much with the script.  Everything has such a "just go with it" feel plot wise from why Superman left for five years to Lois's son. 

Queen of the Damned...well, sure it doesn't even qualify as "ok" but then neither does the American version of Godzilla.   Queen of the Damned might have been an ok sci-fi channel flick, but it was a rolling pile of feces of a movie.  First of all, it had little in common with the atmosphere of Interview, which was a good flick IMO.  Secondly, they kinda forgot a book in between there, Lestat's life story, which IMO was a greater story anyway, and finally, they butchered QOTD so badly that fans of the book would hate it and non fans would be, at the least, totally confused.  I could write an essay on what else is wrong with that one, but I don't want to put more work into it than the people who created the movie.  At any rate, due to its pathetic-ness, we can forget about seeing any kind of movie version of The Body Thief, which is the best of the Vampire Chronicle stories.

And next is the two joke-of-a-movie Dungeons and Dragons movies.  The first was a total abomination, the second was only mildly better, but at least they tried for a real D&D experience.  Good call about going straight to Sci-fi channel.

My proposal for a halfway decent D&D movie is as follows, and this is something Kevin Smith could probably pull off, although I'm not a huge fan of his -seems to be up his alley:

They need to make a D&D movie from the players' perspective ... show the group of players getting together around the table, dealing with the antics of trying to play a game and then intercut it with animated sections of the gameplay/adventure itself. 

This way, they could insert a lot of comedy - you know, show the guy who always shows up to the game late, the other guy who's girlfriend keeps calling and interrupting the game, the guy who always seems to get killed/ko'd, etc.,  And they could showcase each type of player as well: the manly man/real man, the brainac puzzle solver, the thespian who tries to talk to every npc, the loon, and the munchie.  They need to showcase the best elements of the game - players making fun of each other, throwing cheezy puffs at one another, etc.,

You mean like Jumungi and Zathura.

I would like a D&D live action movie based off the 1980s cartoon series.

Hey, just signed up.  But I have been a fan of bad Movies for a loooooong tim, so I am not a newcomer, if you catch my drift.

Anyways, try Pirates Of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest.  Now, I loved the first one.  And the second one was......fun at times.  But it pales greatly in comparison to the first one.  Obviously they didn't use that 300 mill budget to have Johnny Depp act like he did in the first one oh so well.  The stupid love triangle was pointless, and it was long.  It was just a big ass let down from the first.  Still, it had its moments.  Davey Jones was great, and the Kraken was pretty cool, though not original by any means.

Complete with the Frank Welker-voiced little kick unicorn?    :teddyr:

Welcome aboard Fro Man.  You mentioning "Pirates Of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest" reminds me that I have yet to see that movie.  A bunch of things have been impacting my movie viewing for several months.  I like to get two or three under my belt every week, but I have been averaging less than one.  Doing a bit better of late, mostly by staying up late. 


Jeepers, I used to watch the D&D cartoon and can dimly remember a little unicorn.  The memory is so vague, it could even be a cross-wiring with something else.

The series was released on DVD last week. I rented the first disc from Netflix, and it arrived yesterday. I watched a few episodes. The show holds up pretty well for me. I hadn't seen it in 20 years. Yes, there is a baby unicorn on the show. I didn't remember it either, but it's there.

The 2005 King Kong.  It's just too long but, when it was good, it was really good.  When I got the DVD I ripped it to my HD and edited it down to around an hour and forty minutes just so I could have a version I enjoy.  I don't think it lost anything at all, except a lot of flab.

(NOTE: I'm not selling it or making it available to download.  It is strictly for my own enjoyment.  If you work for Peter Jackson, don't sue me.)

Sir, i am proud...PROUD to say, i have never seen "Deanzilla". If they had called it by another name, maby...but Roland and Dean, i knew Godzilla, and that sirs, is NO Godzilla!

Running from the Army...Arghh! Godzilla don't run from nobody!
Baka!

I have to disagree on that point.  Bakshi's animation is interesting and I think it helped make Wizards (http://www.badmovies.org/movies/wizards/) a memorable film, because the animation is a style and it worked well with the script.  His style also did good for "Fire and Ice."  I like the way the characters move in "Fire and Ice," especially when running - that looks quite good.  In "Lord of the Rings," it all seemed wrong, as if they were missing the right tempo by a full beat.  Also, the Bakshi style animation was not what my mind would accept for "Lord of the Rings." 

I'd like to see Bakshi do some more movies, though I know "Cool World" put a pretty big dent in him.  He needs to find the right subject and run with it.  After seeing his work on "Fire and Ice," I would have liked to see him team up with Frazetta again (though the artist is, last I knew, in poor health) and do an animated Conan.  Also, and this is an interesting thought, what about Bakshi doing something like "Dawn of the Dead," but animated?  That or something based on the War in Heaven, with angels against devils.  He does good with surreal, serious images, but character development is not a strong point.  Give him a template, an already known character (or type) to work with and create a story around the character's adventures.

"I like the way the characters move in "Fire and Ice," especially when running - that looks quite good."

I assume you're aware of the animation technique it uses, rotoscoping, right?  If you haven't seen the DVD yet, it has some pretty nice footage of the actors doing stuff in live action to be traced over.  Pretty cool actually.  Fire and Ice is probably his most solid film overall. 

My vote goes out to Kibakichi.  Samurai quasi-Werewolf fantasy chambara film.  Decent opening, quite entertaining finale, but the entire middle hour of the film is BORING.  It should have been trimmed A LOT and there should have been at least ONE action scene in the middle hour of the film.  How about giving us a hint of Kichi's werewolf look before the climax, for example?

:wink:

Cool World is another good example of a movie that could have been a lot better.  From what I understand - I don't know how true this is - Bakshi wasn't near done with the movie, particularly the live-action segments, when the studio cut off his funding and told him to just edit together what he had.  If that's not true, it was certainly edited to hell and back.  Cool World sure seems like it's missing a lot of important details.

Sure did know about the rotoscoping, and it looks pretty good for evil creatures when they fill in with black or other dark colors, like they did in "Wizards."    For some reason, those scenes and other serious ones all fit together with the characters such as Avatar and Elinore, which are much more cartoony in appearance.

I did not realize there was a short feature on the DVD about the making of the movie.  Will be pulling the DVD out to watch that, because it sounds interesting.  Thanks for the heads up.

Yes, Cool World could have been a lot, lot better... but I can't help but think a plot that seems to hinge so much on act of sex- and clearly not performances, since the best actors are are all hampered in some way (Bryne comes and goes, Basinger's animated most of the time, and Brad... well, he looks the part, I guess)- can't work when there's really no sex to speak of. It was about as intense as an Archie comic, only animated, and with better music...

I finally saw the new Kong, and boy was it overblown. Some good parts on the island, but overall, it seemed like a mess. Still, at least I didn't have to pay to see it.

Ah, Deanzilla. Never forget, lest such a travesty be repeated. Gumballs, anyone?

Er, just to be clear, it's the Fire and Ice DVD that has the documentary stuff I meant.

Fire and Ice is almost entirely rotoscoped, so they have quite a bit of the footage (along with rough, colored, and final animation over it) on the documentaries (I think there are two) on the DVD.  DVD is quite expensive, but it has some nice extras.

Yes, I had assumed that was the DVD in question.  Already have it in my collection.

[quote author=clockworkcanary link=topic=112076.msg122405#msg122405 date=1165945657

My proposal for a halfway decent D&D movie is as follows, and this is something Kevin Smith could probably pull off, although I'm not a huge fan of his -seems to be up his alley:

They need to make a D&D movie from the players' perspective ... show the group of players getting together around the table, dealing with the antics of trying to play a game and then intercut it with animated sections of the gameplay/adventure itself. 

This way, they could insert a lot of comedy - you know, show the guy who always shows up to the game late, the other guy who's girlfriend keeps calling and interrupting the game, the guy who always seems to get killed/ko'd, etc.,  And they could showcase each type of player as well: the manly man/real man, the brainac puzzle solver, the thespian who tries to talk to every npc, the loon, and the munchie.  They need to showcase the best elements of the game - players making fun of each other, throwing cheezy puffs at one another, etc.,
[/quote]

Check out a indie short film (short like 55 minutes) called The Gamers. That's the exact premise. It's hilarious, my friends and I tend to watch it about once a week. it's done by a group called the dead gentlemen i think their website is www.deadgentlemen.com; you're going to have to buy it becuase I'm pretty sure you can't netflix it or rent (i might be wrong) but it's well worth your money.

I was just on IMDB looking at this movie the original plot to cool world was so completely different, the studio re-wrote the script without his permission... the original film was about a live action animator who has sex with his cartoon creation and she gives birth to half cartoon/half live action child. The Child grows up hating what it is and goes into the real world to track down it's father... it was suppose to be a R-rated horror movie.

I say he remakes Cool World as that movie instead... I'd see it.

Pretty much all of the Sci-Fi Channel's films, even some of their better ones, could have turned out much better. As a matter of fact, I think the Sci-Fi Channel should change its name to the Wasted Potential Channel.

Robocop 2

I've always thought that film had a lot of potential if they only followed their ideas through.

Pretty much every Puppet Master after the first one. I do like some of them, but I felt like none on them ever caught the same magic as the first. I'm talking about the series itself, not vs. Dollman, Demonic Toys, or anything of those.

Pumpkinhead had really cool atmosphere and an excellent story, but it seemed lacking in it's overall delivery. Actually, my favorite of the series is one of the Sci-Fi originals.

 :bouncegiggle:

You just made my whole day. 

A lot of the Full Moon films. I found a lot of them to be rather tame in terms of the violence and gore. If you're going to make a low-budget cheesy horror movie, at least give the audience something to cheer for aside from some neat makeup/effects. It's almost like Full Moon is actually afraid to show somebody getting "offed" in some of their films.

My wife and I was watching the Subspecies series a few months back and I'd actually believe they could of been much better if the background music wasnt so "slugglish" it makes me sleepy at times and the slow, slow moving stop motion monsters looks too silly... often I'd wonder their purpose besides looking cool in the 90's.

In general most Full Moon films needs a little push and for whatever reason the producers dont. Maybe it's because they assume direct to video sales would be more then enough for the franchise.

The first two Tremors movies.
I'm sure it's just me, but I just can't stand romantic plot tumors in my monster movies. It really brought down the films for me. I'm only saying the first two due to not having revisited 3 & 4 yet, so I don't recall whether or not these were also plagued by godawful mushiness.

The Burning didn't really grab me, but folks seem to love it. I was all revved up to be blown away by a classic slasher, but the movie seems to be missing some indefinable quality that I can't explain. A lot of Fulci's films could be improved (ie: The Beyond, House By The Cemetary) with a little more style and class. Pieces would've been great if it weren't for those damn tennis playing segments. Clerks 2 had it's moments (few and far between though), but it seemed too self referential and "put on". I'd like to see a 3rd sequel set back at the convenience store. Class Reunion Massacre (aka The Redeemer) could use more gore, plus the killer didn't really strike me as being too scary, except when he drowns that girl while wearing a clown mask. I'm sure there's a lot more but I can't think of any at the moment. Oh, wait, Scream could've been half decent if the killers weren't some lame teens.

Actually there IS a film like that.  Check out The Gamers: Dorkness Rising.  It's a pretty hysterical film.  You can even get it from Netflix.

One word: War

I mean, seriously, WTF, people?  Plot: Jason Statham and Jet Li fight.  Seriously, they didn't have to say anything else to get my ass into the theater, that was enough.  And yet, while the film has some good action sequences, the two main characters only get like ONE fight scene and ten or so minutes or screentime.  What's the damn point in hiring two of the best fighters in cinema today if you're not going to have them smack each other around?

Improving The Beyond and Pieces would only take away the magic. It's the badness and the awkward Euro-way of doing things that made both the beloved classics that they are today. The Beyond without "Do Not Entry" and Pieces without "BAAAAASTARD" just wouldn't be the same. Its part of our pop culture.

Class Reunion Massacre (The Redeemer) is a respected cult item amongst genre fans because its so different compared to other "slashers" (plus it was ahead of its time). Personally I don't think the movie needs to be improved and is just great the way it is.

As for The Burning, it wasn't ground breaking or anything but has a reputation because of the raft massacre scene. Basically its just a fun camp slasher (and Friday the 13th knock off) with better than average gore effects (in the uncut version). I enjoy it for what it is.

Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy has already been brought up, but I'll provide some commentary of my own there.

I liked the movies, but they certainly could have been better. Here are two things that stood out that limited it from being great:

Aragorn: I like Viggo Mortenson as an actor, actually, but I didn't really like him as Aragorn. Something about him just didn't fit. Part of it was his voice. When I read the book I heard a much richer voice that Viggo has. I'm not saying it was a bad performance, it just didn't work in my opinion.

Gollum: I really wish they had stayed away from going all CGI with this character. This came in crystal clear when I saw the opening scene of the last film, where they explained the character's origin with the ring. Andy Serkis was actually quite good in portraying Smeagol before the fall, and his facial expressions when he first sees the ring and when he's killing his brother were appropriately disturbing. I think it would have worked much better if Andy Serkis has actually played the part with the aid of make-up and perhaps some CGI enhancements, kind of like what you see with Benicio Del Toro in The Wolfman. The capability was there, and I just think it would have played better, as I thought Andy Serkis' performance in the orgin sequence was far more convincing and moving than the CGI Gollum was. My opinion.

I think those two pivotal aspects had a huge influence over the series being good and being great.

Claws, I know what you mean about the Euro-ness of The Beyond and Pieces. I'm a sucker when it comes to that stuff - for instance, I really like a lot of Umberto Lenzi's work - it has that "magic badness" that makes me smile. But for some strange reason, I find Fulci's more popular works left me feeling like "huh?" - the gore and general atmosphere are pretty cool but i can't help but feel that there's something missing from these films, more coherence, more sleaze, etc. Don't Torture A Duckling was ablsolutely BRILLIANT, though if I must say, but it's quite far removed from, say, Zombie. I also agree about Class Reunion Massacre -I thought a lot of the acting was sub par, but I do agree that it was a certainly interesting take on the slasher subgenre, despiite a few flaws it may have had. And for me, the raft scene in the Burning was undeniably classic and redeemed what was, in my opinion, a kinda subpar F13th style slasher. Give me Sleepaway Camp or Just Before Dawn any day.

The Lost Boys.

While I think it is a good movie I just feel like having Sam and the Frog Brothers as a comedy element is too much. Either one or the other would have been fine.

Flash Dance

there is a good story here... but the characters are very underdeveloped