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?
October 24, 2014, 07:43:41 PM
536216 Posts in 40570 Topics by 5098 Members
Latest Member: AqueousStar
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  You Know What Really Grinds My Gears? « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 153
Author Topic: You Know What Really Grinds My Gears?  (Read 120748 times)
The Gravekeeper
addicted to the macabre
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 85
Posts: 759



« Reply #390 on: September 05, 2010, 03:30:43 PM »

After spending some time with people in the art world, I think I've learned something: you can get away with calling just about anything "art" as long as you can come up with at least 3 pages of BS that sound good. It makes it look like you put a lot of thought into it and are a deep, insightful soul when really all you did was nail the receipt to the two-by-four you bought from a local hardware store. Alternatively, you can be genuinely deep and insightful or just have really good technical skills (the latter is a necessity for commerical art, while the other two aren't.)

You know, I took an art appreciation course in college, and I remember reading in the textbook that was assigned to class (can't recall the title, but i could probably look it up if anyone's interested) about this one artist who put a urinal in a museum piece.  The book explained how the urinal was now NOT just a urinal but a piece of art because it had been taken from it's regular environment and put in a museum or some such.



That was actually the joke. Marcel Duchamp (the artist who "created" the work in question, "Fountain") was part of the Dadaist movement in the early 1900's (just after WWI). His whole idea was to get people to ask "what is art?" It'd certainly been labelled as such (after he'd taken a pen name for the piece and defended this "up and coming" artist), and at the time the public was willing to let art critics decide what art was for them. The critics themselves seemed willing to call something "art" if the artist had a reputation or connections to someone with a reputation. Of course...the piece itself wasn't really art. It was just a urinal that guy had found, signed with his pen name and dated, and turned on its side. It's satire.

The idea of questioning the traditional concept of art was pretty much the whole point of the Dadaist movement. They kind of figured that since WWI had changed the world, then traditional art belonged to a world that had since disappeared. They felt that it didn't belong in the new world because it didn't reflect what had happened (whether or not that's true is entirely up to the individual; after all, there are many works that came from the war that use traditional techniques to depict what was happening).

Sorry for the slight lecture there; I had my art history textbook sitting around and figured I'd crack it open to get the real story on that piece. Well, at least what the textbook writers and my art history profs think was the real story.
Logged
AndyC
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1398
Posts: 11161



« Reply #391 on: September 05, 2010, 06:47:09 PM »

Moles.   Hatred   Damn things are tearing up my yard.

ETA~ When someone uses my Ipod because they are charging theirs, runs my battery out, and doesnt charge it!    Bluesad

My wife never charges the cordless phones. We have one with two receivers, and if one of them goes dead, she gets the other one, but she never puts the dead one on the charger. I'll come along and find both phones sitting on the coffee table, one working and the other dead. If I don't find them and get them both charging, eventually they're both dead, and I'm scrambling to answer the upstairs phone. The odd thing is, she has a laptop and an iphone, and is very consistent about keeping them both charged. But the cordless phones are never put back in their bases when she isn't using them.
Logged

---------------------
"Join me in the abyss of savings."
dean
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 220
Posts: 3229



« Reply #392 on: September 07, 2010, 08:45:00 AM »

After spending some time with people in the art world, I think I've learned something: you can get away with calling just about anything "art" as long as you can come up with at least 3 pages of BS that sound good. It makes it look like you put a lot of thought into it and are a deep, insightful soul when really all you did was nail the receipt to the two-by-four you bought from a local hardware store. Alternatively, you can be genuinely deep and insightful or just have really good technical skills (the latter is a necessity for commerical art, while the other two aren't.)

You know, I took an art appreciation course in college, and I remember reading in the textbook that was assigned to class (can't recall the title, but i could probably look it up if anyone's interested) about this one artist who put a urinal in a museum piece.  The book explained how the urinal was now NOT just a urinal but a piece of art because it had been taken from it's regular environment and put in a museum or some such.



That was actually the joke. Marcel Duchamp (the artist who "created" the work in question, "Fountain") was part of the Dadaist movement in the early 1900's (just after WWI). His whole idea was to get people to ask "what is art?" It'd certainly been labelled as such (after he'd taken a pen name for the piece and defended this "up and coming" artist), and at the time the public was willing to let art critics decide what art was for them. The critics themselves seemed willing to call something "art" if the artist had a reputation or connections to someone with a reputation. Of course...the piece itself wasn't really art. It was just a urinal that guy had found, signed with his pen name and dated, and turned on its side. It's satire.

The idea of questioning the traditional concept of art was pretty much the whole point of the Dadaist movement. They kind of figured that since WWI had changed the world, then traditional art belonged to a world that had since disappeared. They felt that it didn't belong in the new world because it didn't reflect what had happened (whether or not that's true is entirely up to the individual; after all, there are many works that came from the war that use traditional techniques to depict what was happening).

Sorry for the slight lecture there; I had my art history textbook sitting around and figured I'd crack it open to get the real story on that piece. Well, at least what the textbook writers and my art history profs think was the real story.

The Dadaists and the surrealists are awesome.

Though this may not be my opinion, but by placing an object such as the fountain in such a context gives it meaning, and therefore art.  One could say that at least [not me].

I remember hearing from a filmmaker who said that someone came up to them gushing about their film in a Q and A about how they loved the symbolism of some milk spilling off a table and went on and on talking about the metaphors and such.

The filmmaker just laughed and said the only reason that was in the film was that one of the production assistants knocked over a glass and they filmed it thinking 'hey that looks cool'.   TeddyR
Logged

------------The password will be: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch
AndyC
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1398
Posts: 11161



« Reply #393 on: September 07, 2010, 09:45:37 AM »

I think my feeling about abstract and surreal art is that it is difficult to recognize whether the artist has any special skill. You can't tell whether the piece turned out as the artist envisioned, or whether he botched it entirely. Is the piece exactly what the artist intended? It might not look like something in the real world, but how closely does it resemble the image in the artist's head?

I think even if it doesn't look like anything, art should reflect some skill on the part of the artist. Even a film of spilled milk can show talent in the lighting, composition and editing. And the most surreal works of Dali still show a great mastery of form, colour, light and shadow, etc.

Same with Picasso. Even his most abstract work shows considerable skill and workmanship, and he did quite a bit of realistic painting. I know he could paint, so if I look at a Picasso that looks like my daughter painted it, I know that is precisely the image he intended to paint. I can look closely at the cubist paintings of Braque and see a careful attention to detail, even though the primary image is stylized to such an extreme degree. Actually, the fact that you can still recognize the image is a testament to the skill involved.

Contrast that to a Rothko worth millions that any mediocre house painter could produce in under an hour. But even Rothko didn't start out painting gigantic blobs of colour. I think it's significant that the pioneers of the various radical artistic movements started out working and studying in more traditional styles, and then chose to do something different. Any idiot can declare himself an abstract artist and start out splashing paint on canvas or welding random bits of scrap metal together.

You don't have to paint a perfecty realistic picture of a tree, but I'd like to know that you could if you wanted to. Otherwise, what makes your work more worthy of praise and financial reward than anyone else's?
Logged

---------------------
"Join me in the abyss of savings."
Skull
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 104
Posts: 1467



« Reply #394 on: September 07, 2010, 10:23:30 AM »

Quote
The Dadaists and the surrealists are awesome.

Agree...  Smile

In the zombie book that I've written, I wanted to take the idea of zombies stories at another level. The zombies were used as "art" although in the story the killer was murdering normal people to make them zombie art (although there is much more to my story...  Smile ).

So I've did lots of research and found Dr. George Hodel... Although its assumed because he was never arrested for the crimes; it was believed that Dr. George Hodel has a strange fasination with Man Ray and the Black Dahlia Murder was a mimic towards Man Ray "minotaur."
Logged

I'm raised by a wild pack of jerks...


Mr. DS
Master Of Cinematic Bowel Movements
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 1841
Posts: 15378


Get this thread cleaned up or YOU'RE FIRED!!!


WWW
« Reply #395 on: September 07, 2010, 10:40:42 AM »

I can't stand it when I have my headphones at work and someone interupts me.  Granted if it is work related thats fine but usually it isn't.   Not sure why people feel a need to interupt my groove to share a pointless story.
Logged

DarkSider's Realm
http://darksidersrealm.blogspot.com/

"You think the honey badger cares?  It doesn't give a sh*t."  Randall
BTM
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 351
Posts: 2866



« Reply #396 on: September 07, 2010, 11:17:40 AM »

I can't stand it when I have my headphones at work and someone interupts me.  Granted if it is work related thats fine but usually it isn't.   Not sure why people feel a need to interupt my groove to share a pointless story.

You get to wear headphones at work?  Neat.
Logged

"Some people mature, some just get older." -Andrew Vachss
JaseSF
Super Space Age Freaky Geek
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 638
Posts: 12870


Soon, your brain will turn to jelly.


« Reply #397 on: September 07, 2010, 11:48:15 AM »

Circuses, Zoos, Sea World. Wild animals belong in the wild, not being used/exploited for our entertainment dollar.
Logged

"This above all: To thine own self be true!"



R.I.P. Geoffrey William Stirling
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 487
Posts: 4645


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #398 on: September 07, 2010, 11:50:32 AM »

Circuses, Zoos, Sea World. Wild animals belong in the wild, not being used/exploited for our entertainment dollar.

I agree with you for the most part. The zoo item is borderline for me, however, only because there is some educational value there.
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
Rev. Powell
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1797
Posts: 14542


Click on that globe for 366 Weird Movies


WWW
« Reply #399 on: September 07, 2010, 12:22:55 PM »

I think my feeling about abstract and surreal art is that it is difficult to recognize whether the artist has any special skill. You can't tell whether the piece turned out as the artist envisioned, or whether he botched it entirely. Is the piece exactly what the artist intended? It might not look like something in the real world, but how closely does it resemble the image in the artist's head?

What you say is true of abstract expressionism, AndyC, but not of surrealism.  I don't think the two can be lumped together; surrealism incorporates elements of the real world but juxtaposes them in novel or impossible ways (like realistically drawn ants crawling out of a hole in a realistically drawn hand).  As you say you can easily recognize the skill of a Dali or a Picasso (a surrealist and a cubist) but you say below that you can't evaluate a Rothko (a completely abstract expressionist).  

I also think the skill requirement is overrated.  If I thought the measure of great art was how well the artist realized the vision that was in his head then I would be forced to conclude that PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE was terrible.  But watching the movie totally refutes that theory: it's clearly great, even if the greatness was not what Ed Wood intended.  There is a lot of accident in art; sometimes great artists produce poor works and mediocre artists luck into making great ones.  

The worth of the art lies in the tangible final product; the artist's skill is just one element to consider in art appreciation.  Henry James was a very skilled prose stylist, but damn, are his books boring.  


I think even if it doesn't look like anything, art should reflect some skill on the part of the artist. Even a film of spilled milk can show talent in the lighting, composition and editing. And the most surreal works of Dali still show a great mastery of form, colour, light and shadow, etc.

Same with Picasso. Even his most abstract work shows considerable skill and workmanship, and he did quite a bit of realistic painting. I know he could paint, so if I look at a Picasso that looks like my daughter painted it, I know that is precisely the image he intended to paint. I can look closely at the cubist paintings of Braque and see a careful attention to detail, even though the primary image is stylized to such an extreme degree. Actually, the fact that you can still recognize the image is a testament to the skill involved.

Contrast that to a Rothko worth millions that any mediocre house painter could produce in under an hour. But even Rothko didn't start out painting gigantic blobs of colour. I think it's significant that the pioneers of the various radical artistic movements started out working and studying in more traditional styles, and then chose to do something different. Any idiot can declare himself an abstract artist and start out splashing paint on canvas or welding random bits of scrap metal together.

You don't have to paint a perfecty realistic picture of a tree, but I'd like to know that you could if you wanted to. Otherwise, what makes your work more worthy of praise and financial reward than anyone else's?

 
« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 12:27:02 PM by Rev. Powell » Logged

"The best parts are watching Sly go through the full range of emotions: deadpan, deadpan with raised eyebrow, deadpan with quivering lip. There's also a great sequence where Sly drives his VW Beetle down the interstate for about 20 minutes, staring dramatically through the windshield.."-Joe Bob on A MAN CALLED RAMBO
The Gravekeeper
addicted to the macabre
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 85
Posts: 759



« Reply #400 on: September 07, 2010, 01:21:22 PM »


I also think the skill requirement is overrated.  If I thought the measure of great art was how well the artist realized the vision that was in his head then I would be forced to conclude that PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE was terrible.  But watching the movie totally refutes that theory: it's clearly great, even if the greatness was not what Ed Wood intended.  There is a lot of accident in art; sometimes great artists produce poor works and mediocre artists luck into making great ones.  


I don't know...I lean much more to the school of thought that declares more or less that while happy accidents are a part of art, a person's style must come mostly from the deliberate choices they made. Accidents will only get them so far; they need actual skill (the ability to decide on compositions that work for what you intend to convey, colour palettes, what technique they'll use to apply the medium of choice, what medium to choose; these things shouldn't be left to chance) to realize their vision. Otherwise, they'll learn very quickly that accidents that hurt
are much more common than happy accidents.

Besides, when a person knows the "rules" of art, they can break them much more effectively than someone who doesn't know them. Plus, they'll know which rules have already been broken and find new ways to break them (eg- people who choose to "challenge" the norm by treating comic book art the same way as traditional fine art. It's been done. There are people who make their living using the same style of graphic art to create stand-alone pieces and comic-style art is starting to show up in art galleries).

@Rev. Powell: I do actually think that from an artistic/filmmaking standpoint, Plan 9 was terrible. Do I hate it? Nope. I think it's one of those rare failures that's fun to watch (most failures are just kind of painful and boring).

PS-Does anyone else think that this art discussion is getting to the point where it warrants its own thread?
Logged
Rev. Powell
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1797
Posts: 14542


Click on that globe for 366 Weird Movies


WWW
« Reply #401 on: September 07, 2010, 04:52:02 PM »


I also think the skill requirement is overrated.  If I thought the measure of great art was how well the artist realized the vision that was in his head then I would be forced to conclude that PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE was terrible.  But watching the movie totally refutes that theory: it's clearly great, even if the greatness was not what Ed Wood intended.  There is a lot of accident in art; sometimes great artists produce poor works and mediocre artists luck into making great ones.  


I don't know...I lean much more to the school of thought that declares more or less that while happy accidents are a part of art, a person's style must come mostly from the deliberate choices they made. Accidents will only get them so far; they need actual skill (the ability to decide on compositions that work for what you intend to convey, colour palettes, what technique they'll use to apply the medium of choice, what medium to choose; these things shouldn't be left to chance) to realize their vision. Otherwise, they'll learn very quickly that accidents that hurt
are much more common than happy accidents.

Besides, when a person knows the "rules" of art, they can break them much more effectively than someone who doesn't know them. Plus, they'll know which rules have already been broken and find new ways to break them (eg- people who choose to "challenge" the norm by treating comic book art the same way as traditional fine art. It's been done. There are people who make their living using the same style of graphic art to create stand-alone pieces and comic-style art is starting to show up in art galleries).

@Rev. Powell: I do actually think that from an artistic/filmmaking standpoint, Plan 9 was terrible. Do I hate it? Nope. I think it's one of those rare failures that's fun to watch (most failures are just kind of painful and boring).

PS-Does anyone else think that this art discussion is getting to the point where it warrants its own thread?

Gravekeeper: what you say is true, I think, but it's mostly looking at it from the point of the creator.  My focus when I'm looking at a work of art is to look at the piece itself and its effect on me, and not try to play the game of looking backwards to try to guess what the creator was trying to accomplish and then deciding whether he achieved his aim before I decide if I like it.  I was picking up on (and probably misrepresenting) Andy's quote "it is difficult to recognize whether the artist has any special skill. You can't tell whether the piece turned out as the artist envisioned, or whether he botched it entirely. Is the piece exactly what the artist intended? It might not look like something in the real world, but how closely does it resemble the image in the artist's head?"  If a piece of art "works," I don't see why it should matter what was in the artist's head.

We'll have to agree to disagree about PLAN 9.  Wink  It's my main exhibit for why I think the artist's intent should be immaterial to our appreciation of the creation. 

You can start a new thread if you want---my suspicion is that this discussion heer will die out soon.  I'm very much an amateur at art appreciation (meaning of the visual arts) and you've obviously had some training. 

You may want to check out EXIT THROUGH THE GIFT SHOP if you haven't already (you too, AndyC).  It's a documentary about the modern art scene that  asks the old "what is art" question in an entertaining, if somewhat snarky, way.     
Logged

"The best parts are watching Sly go through the full range of emotions: deadpan, deadpan with raised eyebrow, deadpan with quivering lip. There's also a great sequence where Sly drives his VW Beetle down the interstate for about 20 minutes, staring dramatically through the windshield.."-Joe Bob on A MAN CALLED RAMBO
AndyC
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1398
Posts: 11161



« Reply #402 on: September 07, 2010, 05:15:50 PM »

I think my feeling about abstract and surreal art is that it is difficult to recognize whether the artist has any special skill. You can't tell whether the piece turned out as the artist envisioned, or whether he botched it entirely. Is the piece exactly what the artist intended? It might not look like something in the real world, but how closely does it resemble the image in the artist's head?

What you say is true of abstract expressionism, AndyC, but not of surrealism.  I don't think the two can be lumped together; surrealism incorporates elements of the real world but juxtaposes them in novel or impossible ways (like realistically drawn ants crawling out of a hole in a realistically drawn hand).  As you say you can easily recognize the skill of a Dali or a Picasso (a surrealist and a cubist) but you say below that you can't evaluate a Rothko (a completely abstract expressionist). 

I also think the skill requirement is overrated.  If I thought the measure of great art was how well the artist realized the vision that was in his head then I would be forced to conclude that PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE was terrible.  But watching the movie totally refutes that theory: it's clearly great, even if the greatness was not what Ed Wood intended.  There is a lot of accident in art; sometimes great artists produce poor works and mediocre artists luck into making great ones. 

The worth of the art lies in the tangible final product; the artist's skill is just one element to consider in art appreciation.  Henry James was a very skilled prose stylist, but damn, are his books boring. 


I think even if it doesn't look like anything, art should reflect some skill on the part of the artist. Even a film of spilled milk can show talent in the lighting, composition and editing. And the most surreal works of Dali still show a great mastery of form, colour, light and shadow, etc.

Same with Picasso. Even his most abstract work shows considerable skill and workmanship, and he did quite a bit of realistic painting. I know he could paint, so if I look at a Picasso that looks like my daughter painted it, I know that is precisely the image he intended to paint. I can look closely at the cubist paintings of Braque and see a careful attention to detail, even though the primary image is stylized to such an extreme degree. Actually, the fact that you can still recognize the image is a testament to the skill involved.

Contrast that to a Rothko worth millions that any mediocre house painter could produce in under an hour. But even Rothko didn't start out painting gigantic blobs of colour. I think it's significant that the pioneers of the various radical artistic movements started out working and studying in more traditional styles, and then chose to do something different. Any idiot can declare himself an abstract artist and start out splashing paint on canvas or welding random bits of scrap metal together.

You don't have to paint a perfecty realistic picture of a tree, but I'd like to know that you could if you wanted to. Otherwise, what makes your work more worthy of praise and financial reward than anyone else's?

 

Yeah, I didn't really mean to lump surrealism in with abstract art. Did a lot of rewriting on that post. In this situation, I mainly use "abstract" as a blanket term for styles that are not realistic or traditional. Anyway, you understood what I meant.

As for happy accidents, they work out because the result is somehow pleasing to people. That in itself is valuable, even if it doesn't reflect skill on the part of the artist. And in Ed Wood's defense, his movies do show some effort and some passion. And in terms of cinematography, Plan 9 shows more skill than a lot of movies of the time.

If I produce an object that shows no evidence of craftmanship, effort or ability on my part, that looks like nothing in particular and wouldn't even be recognized as art unless I put a sign on it, I just don't see why that should have any value at all. I think at the very least, I should have to establish some credentials with a more traditional style of art, to demonstrate a difference between abstract art as a creative choice and abstract art as a necessity. If people are going straight into abstract art without demonstrating the skill to produce something realistic, that couldn't be produced by any idiot with a can of paint or a MIG welder, then I don't see where the value is. Even if I find it beautiful to look at, I can just make my own or pay a high school art student (or shop student) to make it for me. Paying through the nose for something that required no effort or special skill, just because it's by somebody or other, is like the Emperor's New Clothes.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 05:17:56 PM by AndyC » Logged

---------------------
"Join me in the abyss of savings."
Mr. DS
Master Of Cinematic Bowel Movements
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 1841
Posts: 15378


Get this thread cleaned up or YOU'RE FIRED!!!


WWW
« Reply #403 on: September 07, 2010, 08:29:36 PM »

The Duggars...these people are f*cked up far as I'm concerned.  They have some serious issues.  If I saw them in public I'd tell them so. I also can't stand Kate Gosslyn and her kids...or anyone else who throws their family on the TV.  Sorry, already have a family don't need to watch another one doing...well...nothing.
Logged

DarkSider's Realm
http://darksidersrealm.blogspot.com/

"You think the honey badger cares?  It doesn't give a sh*t."  Randall
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 487
Posts: 4645


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #404 on: September 07, 2010, 09:12:00 PM »

You know what really grinds my gears?

People who use texting language in their actually speech. I've got this lady in one of my MBA classes who actually says "OMG" and "LOL." And tone of voice is even more infuriating, because it sounds like she started doing it because she thought it was cool, and it just incorporated itself into her everyday lexicon. I want to scream at her. You can't use the brevity argument with OMG, because it doesn't shorten the time it says to say "Oh my God." She's not the first person I've seen do this. Why?

I can understand the use of commonly recognized abreviations in texting, it makes sense, although I even keep that to a minimum because I cherish communication skills. But actually saying OMG and LOL. What the f**k? Maybe it shouldn't bother me this much, but it really, really gets on my nerves.

On the bright side, however, I guess this person has made it very, very clear to me that I would never want to hang around with her. I don't have to find that out over time. So I guess there's a silver lining for you.
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 153
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  You Know What Really Grinds My Gears? « 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.