Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 19, 2019, 09:54:40 AM
619382 Posts in 47895 Topics by 6432 Members
Latest Member: GasminM
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  Name those movie clichés ... « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9
Author Topic: Name those movie clichés ...  (Read 37304 times)
BTM
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 352
Posts: 2865



« Reply #60 on: July 15, 2007, 04:53:01 PM »


The only way for two male protagonist to become friends is to:

A) Get drunk together
B) Get into a fist fight (with each other or teaming up against someone else)

Sometimes all in the same night.

Cops/military men can only show how much they care for each other by saying things like, "You son of a b***h!" while smiling or exchanging close up shots of them nodding at each other.
Logged

"Some people mature, some just get older." -Andrew Vachss
peter johnson
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 107
Posts: 1489



« Reply #61 on: July 15, 2007, 06:05:26 PM »

Frank Zappa's great song, Cheepniz, which I have championed in older posts as needing to be the badmovies.org official theme song, makes mention of how " . . . and there's always a girl who falls down and twists her ankle. (audience laughs).  Sure there is!  You know how they are:  The weaker sex & all, twisting their ankle on behalf of the little ice cream cone . . .". 
He's referring to the "rounded off-pup tent affair/tipi" shape of the monster from "It Conquered the World".
On the topic of ankle twisting:
How many women are either running along a wet sidewalk, sand at the beach, on a tile rooftop, in HIGH HEELS?!!?.  Much less prevalent in today's films, but just about ANY monster movie from the '50's and '60's have them trying to run in heels . . . amazing.
Okay, now it's the mens' turn:
How many movies can you think of wherein the lead male good-guy leaps all over slippery ceramic-tile roofs, trees, steel fire escapes, etc. etc. in smooth-soled leather dress shoes, you know, the kind you used to go to church in, and does NOT fall or die or even twist his ankle a little bit??!!  James Bond films are particularly guilty of this.  I can buy a laser-shooting pen, flying cars, jet-pack briefcases, or what-have-you, but I still cringe in disbelief when I see him leaping about rooftops in those Slick Dress Shoes.  See also Cary Grant in "To Catch a Thief".
peter slick/denny help i'm falling!!
Logged

I have no idea what this means.
Doc Daneeka
The Game is Finished?
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 166
Posts: 1848


It's neVer over!


WWW
« Reply #62 on: July 15, 2007, 07:35:15 PM »

Quote
How many movies can you think of wherein the lead male good-guy leaps all over slippery ceramic-tile roofs, trees, steel fire escapes, etc. etc. in smooth-soled leather dress shoes, you know, the kind you used to go to church in, and does NOT fall or die or even twist his ankle a little bit??!!  James Bond films are particularly guilty of this.  I can buy a laser-shooting pen, flying cars, jet-pack briefcases, or what-have-you, but I still cringe in disbelief when I see him leaping about rooftops in those Slick Dress Shoes.
My dad would love you Smile
Logged


https://www.youtube.com/user/silverspherechannel
For the latest on the fifth installment in Don Coscarelli's Phantasm saga.
Inyarear
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 47
Posts: 360


Slimo! Slimo! Slimo!


« Reply #63 on: July 16, 2007, 07:22:11 AM »

Hidey Ho! --
I still don't know, really, Mr. Inyarear . . . I've read your analysis, but don't quite get it still --
For the record, I am a registered Libertarian, so my Right Wing credentials should be unsniffable!

Not so unsniffable these days, especially if you've read the stuff on www.reason.com as much as I have lately, but I've noticed that the card-carrying Libertarians with a capital "L" are at least more likely to give a social conservative such as myself a hearing rather than just dismissing me as a "fascist" or making other Nazi comparisons. (Especially for my pro-Israel views. Sheesh! The times, they are a-gettin' loopy!)

I still have a problem with a lot of what I read/hear on TV/radio re. the alleged "persecution" of majority Christianity or majority conservatism in film.  Seems like a buffet-style pick-and-choose complaint to me, a bit -- I would suggest, by all means, DO go out and see the films I've mentioned.

Actually, where I live, it's more likely that whenever I get around to seeing any of those flicks, I'll be ordering them in rather than going out; the theaters around here mostly only show the most mainstream films. For indie films and B-grade stuff, I generally get those from two sources: the internet, and the discount bin at Wal-Mart.

When you say "majority" I think the term you're fishing for there is "mainstream" although in either case, that's a somewhat wobbly definition; if all the people who claimed to be Christian truly were, the box office figures would be a lot different from what they are now, I can tell you that! If the complaints seem a bit cherry-picked to you, consider that most of these people you're hearing from are probably talking about mainstream films, which mostly precludes the kind of movies we review on this site. What kind of selection you have is not necessarily the same as what's being offered to those folks on TV and the radio. (That's part of why I'm here in the first place. B-flicks sometimes do things Hollywood never does.)

Not all mainstream offerings these days are outright hostile to Christianity and/or social conservatism, but consider how hard it is to find one that's friendly to either or both. When's the last time you saw an anti-sodomy movie, let alone one that takes a Christian position on homosexuality? There are maybe all of a few brief scenes from a Mel Gibson movie or two that dares cast homosexuality in an unfriendly light. Compare that to the brazenly pro-sodomy Brokeback Mountain, to the open perversity of V for Vendetta, to American Beauty's vicious caricature of an anti-sodomite, etc. That's a mainstream selection; don't forget slightly-less-well known pieces like Priest and If These Walls Could Talk. Which way does it look like Hollywood is pointing to you? And that's just on one issue: with Million Dollar Baby, we get a brazenly pro-euthanasia message; with The Cider House Rules, a pro-abortion screed. A lot of other mainstream films, though they're not really pushing any big agenda, are awash in promiscuity and gratuitous sex. Is it so hard to see why we might think Hollywood's more than a bit hostile to us?

Now I'll concede that there are more pro-Christian films than there used to be. There are also a fair number of flicks (Knocked Up comes to mind) that might appeal to what someone called the "South Park Conservatives" too. Still, from where I'm sitting, it seems we've got a long way to go before any of us on the loosely-defined "Religious Right" can be considered to be getting much of a fair shake. Likewise, conservatives who don't care to wade through the crudeness and vulgarity of South Park are likely to come up a bit short for entertaining movies to watch.

The claim that "magic" is always used unquestioningly by the so-called "heroes" of a given film, without consequence, is a particular bugaboo for me -- one I think is promulgated by the Benny Hinn Christian crowd with no respect for nuance or anything like "truth" as such.

Well you're not dealing with someone like that here; I, for one, actually complained against the Doom movie for NOT including all the Satanic imagery and the whole "lone marine takes on the forces of Hell itself" theme of the game. The magic in Harry Potter is not wholly innocent, but a lot of it is just "storybook magic" of the sort one finds in tales by the Brothers Grimm. (I'm a big fan of their works too, by the way.) In any case, I wasn't talking so much about obvious fantasy on the order of Harry Potter or even barbarian sword-and-sorcery flicks like Conan the Barbarian. I was thinking more of horror movies--Puppet Master, anyone? Stephen King's Carrie also seems a little too friendly to magic and unfriendly to those who oppose magic: Carrie's the poor misunderstood magical girl and Carrie's mother is the caricatured fundamentalist who's too nuts even to accept that menstruation is natural! Then too, if any cheap teen slasher flick has a professed "psychic" in with the teenagers being slashed, you can bet that instead of secretly being the villain or just being a really preposterous fraud like Madam Clio, she'll turn out to be the hero, and right about all these magical "visions" she's having.

Anyway, the thread was about cliches, and I'm still not sure that some of the things you mention qualify -- Certainly you may have COMPLAINTS about them, but I don't think they occur with the frequency required to constitue a "cliche".

It seems to me that enough movies (and TV series, I might add) have these contrived heroic "psychics" in them for it to be a cliche. How about these for a cliche rules:

--"Psychic" powers will always turn out to be real.

--The teen psychic never turns out to be a nutcase or a fraud; instead, it always turns out that you should have listened to her.
Logged
peter johnson
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 107
Posts: 1489



« Reply #64 on: July 16, 2007, 11:44:28 PM »

Yeah, that's a good observation -- That at no time does anyone claiming to have psychic powers turn out to be a fraud . . . Except for The Wizard of Oz.
I think something you may be running up against here is that the opposite of what you intend simply isn't cinematic enough -- Take dragons for instance.
I'm sure David Lynch or someone could come up with an unusual film that had someone faking a dragon invasion for their own gain, but what's more cinematic is to have real flying fire-breathing dragons, no?
It occurs to me also that in the 1930's and '40's there WERE any number of mainstream films that exposed the monsters as fakes:  The Black Cat, The Old Dark House, one of Lugosi's Vampire films that was a remake of London After Midnight, etc.
* * *
I think too that there is a fundamental problem with any sort of "anti-sodomy" movie, just as there are fundamental problems with anti-Jew or anti-black movies.  Certainly mainstream Muslims find many of our films that show un-burkad women highly offensive.  I remember when I lived in Pakistan and India, the incredible lengths the popular films went not to offend the Hindu majority.  And, yes, I do know the difference between "mainstream" and "majority", and I don't think we really need to change my wording.
I'm not meaning to argue or pick nits here, but surely you can see how it's not possible to return to the days of Stepin Fetchit or Mantan Moreland, with their bug-eyed social caricatures -- well, unless it's Eddie Murphy doing it.  I guess I don't think there's any way to do an "anti-sodomy" film without it being bigoted.
peter johnson/denny crane
Logged

I have no idea what this means.
Fishasaurus
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 10
Posts: 166



WWW
« Reply #65 on: July 17, 2007, 05:01:34 PM »

The most supremely evil movie villains, to a man, are classical-music listeners.
Logged

It takes a child to raze a village. -- Jello Biafra
peter johnson
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 107
Posts: 1489



« Reply #66 on: July 18, 2007, 01:31:08 AM »

Yes, the more Eeeevill they are, the more erudite, well-spoken, and fashionable they are.  The more politely Alan Rickman speaks, the more dreadful the outcome is sure to be.
peter champagne/denny truffledeath
Logged

I have no idea what this means.
Just Plain Horse
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 9
Posts: 567


« Reply #67 on: July 18, 2007, 06:45:24 PM »

You make some very good points, Inya- I've always felt signs of true tolerance & equality are really just the pendulum of power swinging from one extreme to another, then back again... and forth... and back...
Logged
Inyarear
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 47
Posts: 360


Slimo! Slimo! Slimo!


« Reply #68 on: July 20, 2007, 09:42:50 AM »

Yeah, that's a good observation -- That at no time does anyone claiming to have psychic powers turn out to be a fraud . . . Except for The Wizard of Oz.

Notice, too, that The Wizard of Oz was a fantasy filled with good ol' storybook magic. I wonder if anyone has thought of doing another Dirty Harry movie: I could see one of those stories having a psychic turn out to be nothing but a clever fraud, as it would fit in with how those movies always made fun of TV cop show cliches. (Harry's partners keep getting shot, Harry keeps shooting bad guys week after week, and he keeps crashing vehicles too, but in his semi-realistic world, people actually notice this and complain about it.)

I think something you may be running up against here is that the opposite of what you intend simply isn't cinematic enough -- Take dragons for instance.

Again, this is more of a fantasy tale, although in this case it involves fantasy creatures invading an otherwise realistic world. If the directors want to do a fantasy-invades-reality film, more power to them. They could possibly play with a further theme about fantasy turning out to be down-to-earth reality after all, though: in such a scenario, the dragons would turn out to be real enough, but also shown to be the results of a breeding experiment gone hideously wrong.

I'm sure David Lynch or someone could come up with an unusual film that had someone faking a dragon invasion for their own gain, but what's more cinematic is to have real flying fire-breathing dragons, no?
It occurs to me also that in the 1930's and '40's there WERE any number of mainstream films that exposed the monsters as fakes:  The Black Cat, The Old Dark House, one of Lugosi's Vampire films that was a remake of London After Midnight, etc.

Yes, I've heard of a few like that from the old days. Still, those are more stories about monsters than about magic or (maybe I should say) psychic power.

I think the opposite scenario, in which reality invades fantasy, could be cinematic as well; I've never seen a movie do this, but in one comic book, a fellow came up with the idea that just as magic could still do some amazing things in a world already filled with our amazing technological achievements, technology would tend to be pretty amazing to people living in a world filled with magic. The comic book showed a bunch of dimension-hopping thieves loading the goose that lays golden eggs and other wonderful treasures from a storybook fantasy into the back of a big yellow Pontiac.

I've also seen an RPG in which, although the natives of a particular planet all use swords and sorcery, the protagonist has a pistol (with limited ammunition) that proves very effective against the local creatures. I could see that scenario playing out in a movie: "A sword? Forget it, kid. Those dragons have long-range blasts of fire. You want to take one out and save yourself a princess, try this AK-47 and its armor-piercing rounds instead."

For that matter, didn't Masters of the Universe have a cop blowing away some magical invaders with his shotgun? I'll bet that was a crowd pleaser. Too bad movies don't do things like that more often.

I think too that there is a fundamental problem with any sort of "anti-sodomy" movie, just as there are fundamental problems with anti-Jew or anti-black movies.  Certainly mainstream Muslims find many of our films that show un-burkad women highly offensive.  I remember when I lived in Pakistan and India, the incredible lengths the popular films went not to offend the Hindu majority.  And, yes, I do know the difference between "mainstream" and "majority", and I don't think we really need to change my wording.
I'm not meaning to argue or pick nits here, but surely you can see how it's not possible to return to the days of Stepin Fetchit or Mantan Moreland, with their bug-eyed social caricatures -- well, unless it's Eddie Murphy doing it.  I guess I don't think there's any way to do an "anti-sodomy" film without it being bigoted.

I'm not into caricatures either, but I think you underestimate what's possible. With due respect to various people with their odd desires, though, being into sodomy is not the same as being black or genetically Jewish; I've never heard of anyone who could just stop being black or Jewish--or start, for that matter. Michael Glatze, a former homosexual leader, has now given up homosexuality; did you hear about that? Then there's the basketball player Sheryl Swoopes, who wasn't always into lesbianism, but is now; did you hear about that? I might add that I oppose sodomy among "straight" people too; nothing is moral merely because "straights" do it.

One doesn't have to caricature gays to have them be the bad guys in films, nor does one have to reduce everything to simplistic "good guys" and "bad guys" scenarios. All that's necessary is to turn all the cliches inside out and portray gays going straight, straights going gay, gays oppressing ex-gays, and gays not finding gayness very morally uplifting or enjoyable. Bigotry always relies on caricature; take out the caricatures and be more realistic, and you can do anything without truly being bigoted.

That's not to say people won't be offended, of course. The only film exception I have ever heard of to the Hollywood rule that "all gays are wonderful people who will help you improve your life" is a film called (most unfortunately, in retrospect) Windows that came out in 1984. It dealt with the recently-divorced heroine having to escape the obsessive desires of a certain lesbian who has her eye on her. Gay and lesbian advocacy groups howled very loudly and drove it out of theaters everywhere. To this day, I have never yet been able to see it for myself. To put it mildly, seeing this kind of "advocacy" in action did greatly influence my views of homosexuality, but not in the direction these advocacy groups wanted them to go, I think.

The incredibly wretched movie Gigli also took a contrary position to the whole "gays can't change" cliche, but that's a pretty rare exception, and I can't think of any others; besides, it wasn't a very realistic portrayal of what makes lesbians go straight. I don't think it was the sight of a really beautiful woman that caused Michael Glatze's pendulum to swing the other way, y'know?
Logged
Ozzymandias
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 23
Posts: 322


« Reply #69 on: July 20, 2007, 09:51:50 PM »

Ozzymandias speaks: This is one you don't see much these days, but probably more realistic for the times when the films and TV shows in question were made. I've noticed this in research for my novel which takes place in the 50s and early 60s.

Pre-teen boys (and girls too) are always decked out in cowboy outfits complete with cap guns. Granted, Baby Boomer grew up not only with the adult Western boom on TV, but afternoon and Saturday morning TV was filled with juvenile Westerns and old B-movie Westerns.

I think the last film to feature this was the kid in Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

Ozzymandias has spoken!!!
Logged
peter johnson
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 107
Posts: 1489



« Reply #70 on: July 21, 2007, 02:00:53 AM »

Re:  Changing Gays --
     Here you lose me, I fear.  For every single, exceptional, case that can be cited re. "quitting homosexuality", as if it were like smoking or a change of wardrobe, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of cases of failed attempts to "change".  One problem I have with promoting "ex-gay" strategems is their loss of touch with observable reality:  The reality of thousands of gay men and women praying and punishing themselves for decades in hopes that they WOULD change, and then have nothing happen beyond their own sense of guilt, encouragement to suicide, or criminal behaviour.  Indeed, much of the drugging and promiscuity that the Christian Right finds so appalling in gay culture can more easily be explained by these feelings of worthlessness ground into gay people by the majority culture, and not a product of homosexuality per se.  Were this so, then it would be impossible to explain the existence of long-term committed homosexual relationships that last as long as straight ones do --- 20, 30, 50 years.  Personally, I know of 2 such couples.
     Living so close to Colorado Springs as I do, the headquarters of the "ex-gay" movement, it's no trick to read of this sort of struggle every month or so in the local press.  One of the shining lights of the movement was outed about a year ago in the local publication "Westword" for getting caught going back to gay bars after "marrying" an "ex-lesbian" & performing like a trick pony for the Focus on the Family group.  It seems driven by the same sort of self-hatred that drives some Jews today to champion anti-semitic causes, and drove the multi-billion dollar industry in hair-straighteners and skin bleaches for blacks.
     Based on what I've read, the "Ex-Gay" movement is an ideologically driven dog-and-pony show that so far has no long-term case studies of "success" to support what it is they claim.  Far more reasonable to me is that yes, some men and women find themselves more attracted to their own gender, some exclusively so, and that we, as humanity or society or however we wish to call ourselves, really have no business demonizing folks whose most visible "flaw" would be seeking same-sex companionship.
     Really, I must say, I grew up in Virginia at a time when water fountains and waiting rooms in hospitals, not to mention bathrooms, were labeled "White" and "Colored".  I have to note that virtually every single anti-gay argument I've heard today I can find a mirror for in conversations of my youth -- just substitute "n****r" for "gay", and I can easily go back 40 years & relive it all. 
     And I probably don't need to tell you, but feel a need to say so anyway, that at the forefront of keeping the darkies in their place was the local Christian Establishment.  My word, they would say, miscegenation is forbidden by the Bible!  Does it not say we should seek out our own kind?  Marry within our own tribe?  God doesn't want those darkies touching our white women!! Very rare indeed were the white Southern Baptists who had the courage to break ranks & march, etc.
     To me, the whole business of "gay choice" and "gay conversion" are on par with Creation Science.  If one starts citing passages of the Bible to prove a point of bigotry, then, as I'm sure you already know, we can also go to Leviticus and cite the passages relevant to selling our daughters into slavery, stoning our wives to death, and a host of other things we no longer practice.  Do you shave?  Eat pork?  Eat -- God forbid! -- crab or lobster??  Then you and I have our places also reserved in Hellfire, for these are abominations before the Lord.  Point of doctrinal fact, cultural shifts HAVE occurred, some pretty significant ones within just the last 50 years.  Heck, even Bob Jones University eventually backed off of their stand on interracial dating a year or so ago!!
     I'm sure you mean well, but if you really believe what you propose here -- and I think you do -- then you ARE arguing for oppression, regardless of cinematic content or direction.  Oh, right, this thread was about movies, wasn't it?
     As far as film goes, we have ample evil queers to look at or laugh at throughout cinema history.  Take the slimy gay couple in "North by Northwest" as the first thing to spring to mind.  Martin Landau grinding Cary Grant's fingers into Washington's skull before being shot like the filthy faggot he is!  To be fair, I can think of many films where the pendulum DID swing too far the other way, as a sort of overcompensation, much like the Blaxploitation films overcompensated in their depiction of Black Power.  The exerable remake of "To Have or Have Not" and the equally poor "Victor/Victoria" spring to mind as ham-handed, stridently shrill gay-culture propaganda vehicles that shot themselves in the foot with their earnestness.  I don't believe these films could be made today, or if they were, they would be looked upon as needlessly old-fashioned.  If you wish for an ignoble example of a gay man in popular culture today, take a gander at Jack on "Will and Grace".  A more useless individual would be hard to compose.
     Now, despite your arguable definition of what constitutes bigotry, I do not think that caricature alone defines its parameters.  It can also depict the group to be repressed as somehow noble or good, yet subject to inevitable decline and extinction simply because of who they are -- Red Injuns, anyone?  Perhaps the determinate factor of fairness would be how we're trying to depict black detectives in TV detective shows today:  Just part of the crowd & not trying to be special in any way.
     Also, I wish you'd re-read your statement about how the "advocacy" groups colored your perception of homosexuals.  I don't know how old you are or where you grew up, but this sounds to me like an echo of all the grey-hairs complaining about the "uppity nigras" and "what are they complaining about?  They got it almost as good as whites! I don't mind 'em, except in numbers, but they want to take over!!  And I don't want n****rs shoved down my throat!!"
     Advocacy groups don't appear out of thin air for no reason.  They appear because somebody feels stepped on and that there IS something to advocate.  We had white advocacy groups in Kilmarnock when I grew up as well, who felt stepped on by the uppity nigras.  I don't have to tell you the names of those groups if you're up on US history.  Today these white advocacy groups are thought of as either wicked or a curious echo of Southern past, except for the vociforous minority that keeps them alive.  No doubt, in time, the "ex-gay"/Focus groups will be thought of in a similar fashion.
peter johnson/denny crane

Logged

I have no idea what this means.
Inyarear
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 47
Posts: 360


Slimo! Slimo! Slimo!


« Reply #71 on: July 21, 2007, 06:25:53 AM »

Take a deep breath, Peter Johnson.
Logged
Midnightxpress
Dedicated Viewer
**

Karma: 0
Posts: 15


« Reply #72 on: July 22, 2007, 03:36:19 PM »

One piece of ductape is all that is required to completey gag someone...or villians will tie up someone and not gag them so they can still speak

But the biggest cliche in films...childhood best friends that become arch enemies in adulthood, usually wth one being a cop and the other a villianous scumbag...

Logged
peter johnson
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 107
Posts: 1489



« Reply #73 on: July 22, 2007, 07:55:43 PM »

Dear Inyarear:
Breath taken.
Awaiting further instructions . . .
peter j/denny c
Logged

I have no idea what this means.
CheezeFlixz
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 494
Posts: 3737


Pathetic Earthlings


WWW
« Reply #74 on: July 22, 2007, 07:58:43 PM »

Dear Inyarear:
Breath taken.
Awaiting further instructions . . .
peter j/denny c

I'll instruct as proxy, release, inhale, repeat. Kind of like shampoo just healthier.
Logged

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  Name those movie clichés ... « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.