Hey there, having read the thread on ultra bad films, ie cheapest, worst acted, worst scripter etc. I got thinking: I've seen plenty of ultra-cheap films that have been good or at least intriguing due to half-decent actors, plot. So what if we invert that.
In terms of Crap to Resource ratio what are the worst films you've ever seen? In other words what films have you seen that in spite of Hollywood names, budgets into the tens and hundreds of millions, crews of thousands, acclaimed directors, veteran screenwriters etc. have still managed to be unwatchable?
I think the prime example has to be Catwoman (2004): Halle Berry, Sharon Stone, $100 million, a known character: popcorn gold, surely.
Directed by 'Pitof' the man who supervised Alien: Ressurection, Berry has openly called it a piece of s**t. Apparently scenes were being written on set prior to filming, and all in all WB were tripping over themselves to release a superhero film and get the inevitable wide profit margin: In one of the few examples of a fair world in return for their $100 million investment plus millions more in advertising, they only garnered $80 million at the box office.
If you haven't seen it, its a truly poor, rambling, cheap film with some of the most shocking CGI post-1998 (the other 2006 War of the Worlds springs to mind) and very strange concepts of physics.
How about GANGS OF NEW YORK? I absolutely fell asleep for the last hour of that boring piece of cinematic excrescence.
Pearl Harbor (2001) - The first half is, as Ebert put it, the story of a Japanese sneak attack on an American love triangle. Worse yet, the love triangle is composed of three of the most boring, clichéd, paper thin characters I've ever seen in my life. Just listening to them speak puts me in a semi-comatose state. In the second half, they definitely decided to go with the "little kids will say WOW" style special effects instead of anything remotely realistic. No, you cannot see smoke trailing after bullets in cool little vortices. In fact, you can't see bullets at all. Besides, my brain had entered a fully comatose state before the battle even started, so even the greatest CGI in the world wouldn't have been able to save it.
Titanic (1997). The grand story of a one-night stand told against the background of one of the 20th century's greatest tragedies, this tripe offends me like few films have ever managed. If I get started griping about all that's wrong here, I'll get myself worked into a rage, and it's just too early for that. Please see my other posts on this movie if anything else needs to be said. This movie is the epitome of the "all flash, no substance" style of moviemaking.
Quote from: Derf on December 12, 2008, 08:34:06 AM
Titanic (1997). The grand story of a one-night stand told against the background of one of the 20th century's greatest tragedies, this tripe offends me like few films have ever managed. If I get started griping about all that's wrong here, I'll get myself worked into a rage, and it's just too early for that. Please see my other posts on this movie if anything else needs to be said. This movie is the epitome of the "all flash, no substance" style of moviemaking.
Thank you sir. :thumbup: My comments are available in several other threads as well.
I would also like to nominate anything, and I do mean ANYTHING, by M. Knight Shamalamamamamamamama.
This one has gotten me practically tarred and feathered in the past, and I predict I'll probably catch more flak about it until the hype dies down in the year 2979.
The Dark Knight
Quote from: WilliamWeird1313 on December 12, 2008, 12:21:36 PM
This one has gotten me practically tarred and feathered in the past, and I predict I'll probably catch more flak about it until the hype dies down in the year 2979.
The Dark Knight
To quote myself from another thread...
QuoteI received TDK yesterday and starting watching it. Slowly but surely I found myself bored in several parts. Too much time (more than I thought initially) is wasted on Harvey Dent/Bruce Wayne/Rachel. Eventually I ended up fast forwarding to the parts with The Joker in it. I think I am coming to the sad realization (and I know this is a sacrilege) that the film may be a bit overrated...at least in my eyes. That and I'm noticing certain plot flaws now that I didn't think of before. For example, Batman blowing up random cars to get by. Don't get me wrong, TDK is still a good film but it seems to lack the second time around for me.
Well said DarkSider from another thread, well said indeed. :tongueout:
Quote from: Jack on December 12, 2008, 07:44:30 AM
Pearl Harbor (2001) - The first half is, as Ebert put it, the story of a Japanese sneak attack on an American love triangle. Worse yet, the love triangle is composed of three of the most boring, clichéd, paper thin characters I've ever seen in my life. Just listening to them speak puts me in a semi-comatose state. In the second half, they definitely decided to go with the "little kids will say WOW" style special effects instead of anything remotely realistic. No, you cannot see smoke trailing after bullets in cool little vortices. In fact, you can't see bullets at all. Besides, my brain had entered a fully comatose state before the battle even started, so even the greatest CGI in the world wouldn't have been able to save it.
If some of the special effects would have been better, and if they whole love triangle was removed that movie might have been better.
Quote from: Derf on December 12, 2008, 08:34:06 AM
Titanic (1997). The grand story of a one-night stand told against the background of one of the 20th century's greatest tragedies, this tripe offends me like few films have ever managed. If I get started griping about all that's wrong here, I'll get myself worked into a rage, and it's just too early for that. Please see my other posts on this movie if anything else needs to be said. This movie is the epitome of the "all flash, no substance" style of moviemaking.
Amen Derf, I don't like the whole idea of having a love story coincide with a movie that was based on tragedy to me is not right IMO. That is why I am GLAD that no one tried to be a love story in either World Trade Center, or Flight 93, because if they did I can guarantee that person would no longer be among the living.
I must be the only person here who actually likes Titanic.
I still don't understand the hate it receives. :lookingup:
And I totally agree about Gangs of New York. Blech!
I kept waiting and waiting for something interesting to happen and it never did.
Even worse was waiting for DiCaprio's character to have a big fight to the death with Bill the Butcher and that never happened, either!
Gangs of New York could have been a great mini-series, but that wouldn't have been enough, no, it had to be an oscar-sweeping film event! I'm a patient person. I like movies that take their time. But this is a perfect example of a movie that should have been great, that kept trying to be great, and trying and trying and trying...
The only thing worse than the hype about Titanic is that people are still b***hing about it.
The Dark Knight was good, or rather better than absolute crap, which made it seem great by comparison to all the other superhero movies. It's a no-brainer, really.
It's too obvious to point out Star Wars and The Matrix, right?
In the same vein as Gangs of New York, though, we have Shakespeare in Love and Mystic River. What's that? We have to love everything Eastwood touches because he was a badass in the 70s?
No, we don't. I since have not and likely will not watch another Eastwood movie.
I don't rate "E.T", it was a bit too dull and bland for my liking (I suppose that it is primarily a childrens film). I thought that "Men In Black" was actually terrible, unfunny, poorly paced and overrated. The recent "There Will Be Blood" had great acting but was way too slow.
Interestingly I watched Pearl Harbor and Tora, Tora Tora in Dec 7 ... I forgot what a sap laden piece of cinematic garbage Pearl Harbor was. Loose the love story and you'd have a watchable film, but for some reason directors feel the need to stick a love story smack dap in the middle of what could be a testosterone war fest. Another one I watched last night was The Dark Knight and I swear I don't see what all the hype was about it really wasn't that good.
So Pearl Harbor and The Dark knight get my vote.
I can just about sit through Titanic if I have company and we're all halfway towards alcohol poisoning, plus Billy Zane's parts, who I'm convinced was totally drunk while filming, are comedy gold.
Pearl Harbour: What can I say that hasn't been said, well I went to see it in the cinema because at the dawn of the millenium I was slightly more young and impressionable and I bought trailer-hype 100%. Whe Affleck 'dies', drowning in the English Channel half the audience (well, the guys) let out a "waaaaay!". I think it says something when a British audience is cheering the Luftwaffe.
Star Wars Ep. III. Ultimately a Star Wars fanatic can fob off I & II because frankly people were just waiting for the appearance of Vader. Beyond the crap-myself mindblowing CGI at the beginning, it felt like a wet squib. I got so detached from the story and characters when Anakin goes into the room with the young jedis and it implied he kills them, I laughed my ass off because the 'tension' struck as comic timing. Christian Hayden is a crap actor to boot, reminds me of the rebellious son in tacky TV movie dramas.
Oh... and chuck me a Lopez 'romantic-comedy' and I'll make sure when I chuck it back, it wounds.
I have a feeling that The Dark Knight is joining Pulp Fiction under the internet banner of "Cool to hate this movie". I still like it a lot, and the people who bash it, for the most part, are the kind of folks who like comic book movies to be nothing more than mindless explosion-fest action films. Though, maybe my opinion will change over time, like it did with the Lord of The Rings films.
My vote goes to No Country For Old Men . I understand what the Cohen Brothers were trying to say with this film, but I still found it overly depressing, with an abrupt ending, and ultimately not worth more than one viewing. Of course, this is the kind of stuff that the Academy gobbles up, which explains why I've taken issue with pretty much every Best Picture winner I can think of.
Quote from: D-Man on December 13, 2008, 10:30:18 PM
I have a feeling that The Dark Knight is joining Pulp Fiction under the internet banner of "Cool to hate this movie".
Trust me I don't care what's "cool" and what's not. I'm far to old for that crap.
The Dark Knight IMHO was way over hyped and Batman sounded like he smoked 4 packs a day. Ledger as the joker was "cool" but the rest was at best mediocre. Oh and I like Pulp Fiction. I get sick of the endless need to toss a love story/love triangle into every stinking movie.
QuoteBatman sounded like he smoked 4 packs a day
:bouncegiggle: :teddyr: :bouncegiggle: :teddyr:
I love DKR, saw it three times in the cinema me and my friends went Batman crazy for about a month around its release, the most OTT and fanboyish I've ever been over a film yet when Batman speaks.... I couldn't help laughing.
Apparently Bale was pretty unhappy with it, because the post-production team dropped his voice a
tad to make him seem 'manacing', though really he's just comes off weezy.
Still I'm easy to please, if that film had just been Batman & Robin 2.0 but with the 'disappearing pencil' scene I would have still walked out with a smile on my face :drink:
Ok, I agree with you on Batman's voice, hehe. That's about the only thing that irritated me about TDK.
If you're going to mention Catwoman, then I must put forward....Daredevil & Elektra. :buggedout:
Sweeney Todd: I went to the cinema with my girlfriend at the time and she had to wake me up halfway through! We both went not knowing it was a musical, you know it's Tim Burton, so it will be good? ...And you know what chicks are like when it comes to Johnny D? :lookingup: It looked good, big budget, had Burton's stank all over it, but was the most boring film I have ever seen. Possibly the worst musical of all time too, as the songs are painful! I was very familiar with the Sweeney Todd story and other adaptations of it, which looking back now are superior to this tripe (IMO). Even though the film was sooooo long, it seemed like hardly anything happened at all. My breakdown;
- Sweeney gets off ship, sings about his wife and child
- Sweeney meets Mrs. Lovett, more cockney singing
- Mrs. Lovett makes pies.....whilst singing
- Sweeney opens barber shop.....sings about shaving facial hair
- Some boy pines after some girl.....more singing
- Lots of throats get cut, pies, broody stares......more singing
- The end
i feel like I'm the only person in the world who liked Sweeny Todd. I've always loved the musical, and the movie is good on it's own, even though there's a lot of cuts in the music which makes it stumble just a little.
Also, Stephen Sondheim doesn't write songs to be memorable or "catchy" like Rodgers and Hammerstein. He uses them as a device to move the plot along, almost like in an Opera. But I guess, in this age of Disney musicals, recycled tripe from popular movies and ABBA songs, and in an age where anything with singing is considered "gay", there's no place for this kind of musical anymore.
Teknolust - good production values, talented actors, but it SUUUUUUUUUUCKS! Currently, it is the worst movie I have ever seen.
Kill Bill - awful, awful movie. Complete waste of money (as in the budget to make it and the money I spent for a ticket).
Alien - One good character, one cool monster, but the movie is deadly boring.
Gladiator - I personally consider gladiatorial combat to be one of the most horrific and disgusting aspects of Roman culture. I thought the movie would be along the same vein. No, we're supposed to be enjoying the spectacle of these people kidnapped from their homes and sent to their deaths. Then it ends with Maximus declaring himself Emperor and commanding everyone to, basically, make everything nice and happy. WTF?
Wow! :buggedout: What's happening to people on this forum all of a sudden? I' glad The DarkSider decided to bring up the topic on fanboys as it seems very relevant to me at this moment in time.
I've made quite a few posts in the past two days that have been unfairly criticized and had people (not naming names) resort to using immature names to judge me and question my intelligence. I've been branded "narrow minded", "stupid" and been practically accused of being some kind of disease of my generation. All this for giving my opinion, which I'm entitled to, everyone on here is. Yet, there are some who take personal offense to my "opinion". When I post my views on a topic I don't expect anybody to change theirs or accept it, but I damn well don't try to call somebody out about it.....it's only a movie at the end of the day!
I'm 22 years old, alot of people should be glad I'm not a quick-binge, mainstream sheep. Yes, I'm not a fan of musicals, but I never said all musicals are bad or name-call a single poster for liking that genre. I don't like CGI, yet I didn't go out of my way to push my views onto anybody or act in an immature manner. I accept what others post, I enjoy reading different perspectives on a variety of subjects, agree or disagree. It's just text on a screen, get over it!
I'm sorry if I offended you, Circus. I just get a little worked up about some things. I've just been called a "theater fag", a "fanboy", and other ugly things by people for pretty much my entire life, so I tend to jump to conclusions sometimes, and go into kind of a fight-or-flight mode whenever I see any hint of that anywhere.
I'm not gay, but I have a lot of gay friends, who I adore. and in this, the age of Prop. 8, and Fred Phelps, I can sometimes jump to defend them a little too quickly, because I assume too much of people who I perceive as bashing musicals, or other similar things.
I've cooled off now, and I can see how I'm in the wrong here. Again, I apologize for making too many assumptions about you, too quickly, circus.
Quote from: D-Man on December 14, 2008, 11:35:23 AM
I'm sorry if I offended you, Circus. I just get a little worked up about some things. I've just been called a "theater fag", a "fanboy", and other ugly things by people for pretty much my entire life, so I tend to jump to conclusions sometimes, and go into kind of a fight-or-flight mode whenever I see any hint of that anywhere.
I'm not gay, but I have a lot of gay friends, who I adore. and in this, the age of Prop. 8, and Fred Phelps, I can sometimes jump to defend them a little too quickly, because I assume too much of people who I perceive as bashing musicals, or other similar things.
I've cooled off now, and I can see how I'm in the wrong here. Again, I apologize for making too many assumptions about you, too quickly, circus.
Thankyou D-Man, I apologise to you also. I've had a few issues with certain topics that I have held back from on the forum. So, some irritation within me has been brewing for quite a while. I needed to vent. :smile:
Quote from: Circus_Circus on December 14, 2008, 11:42:15 AM
Quote from: D-Man on December 14, 2008, 11:35:23 AM
I'm sorry if I offended you, Circus. I just get a little worked up about some things. I've just been called a "theater fag", a "fanboy", and other ugly things by people for pretty much my entire life, so I tend to jump to conclusions sometimes, and go into kind of a fight-or-flight mode whenever I see any hint of that anywhere.
I'm not gay, but I have a lot of gay friends, who I adore. and in this, the age of Prop. 8, and Fred Phelps, I can sometimes jump to defend them a little too quickly, because I assume too much of people who I perceive as bashing musicals, or other similar things.
I've cooled off now, and I can see how I'm in the wrong here. Again, I apologize for making too many assumptions about you, too quickly, circus.
Thankyou D-Man, I apologise to you also. I've had a few issues with certain topics that I have held back from on the forum. So, some irritation within me has been brewing for quite a while. I needed to vent. :smile:
Sure. I understand that perfectly. :smile:
Transformers.
How can a film about giant robots from outer space be so boring ?
AVP R
Still haven't got all the way through it.
Quote from: doggett on December 14, 2008, 11:50:45 AM
Transformers.
How can a film about giant robots from outer space be so boring ?
AVP R
Still haven't got all the way through it.
Transformers: The Answer is simple...it was all about the humans. I understand the need to make a Transformers movie that the GP can relate to, but they could have dedicated just a little more screen time to the robots without ruining the whole thing.
AVP Requiem: This was the first time I was burned by the hype of a Red-Band trailer (The second time was Punisher: War Zone). I will never trust an Ultra-violent movie released in December again. They took a great concept, and really screwed it up. Before the first one was even made, David Giler said that an AVP film would be too much like Godzilla VS King Kong, and boy he was right.
D-man, I couldn't even see what was going on in AVP R it was so dark. I feel cheated.
It was a monster movie where you couldn't see the monster!!!
What's the point ?
Quote from: D-Man on December 14, 2008, 10:49:34 AM
i feel like I'm the only person in the world who liked Sweeny Todd. I've always loved the musical, and the movie is good on it's own, even though there's a lot of cuts in the music which makes it stumble just a little.
Also, Stephen Sondheim doesn't write songs to be memorable or "catchy" like Rodgers and Hammerstein. He uses them as a device to move the plot along, almost like in an Opera.
You're not alone, I love Daemon-Barber of Fleet Street. I didn't know anything of the musical and it took me the first few songs to 'get' the operatic style but I loved it because it was unique to musical films, ie the songs weren't an odd diversion which a lot of the time I think slows down the plot, but in Todd as you said, moves it along and is naturally part of it. Plus the horror element is full on grizzly, I was shocked because i have to admit knowing it was a musical I did expect it to be
soft, but when the first body falls through the trapdoor and you hear the bones snap I winced. Better on a visceral level than any modern straight horror I've seen in a while.
The English Patient... The most boring film ever made and it won oscars, too... that makes it the worst "well-made" movie ever... :)
Quote from: Skull on December 14, 2008, 11:29:06 PM
The English Patient... The most boring film ever made and it won oscars, too... that makes it the worst "well-made" movie ever... :)
Ouch. I forgot about that one.
Ozzymandias speaks: The Fountainhead. I saw it on TCM when they had a guest programmer thing. The guy who picked it was a designer or artist. This is a great looking black and white film with a futuristic Art Deco style. The problem is it is so hokey. I don't know what is worst: the "swishy" newspaper guy, "impotent" business guy (Raymond Massey) and Patricia Neal's obsession with Gary Cooper's "big drill." This last one cracks me up. Everytime Neal thinks of Coop, we see an image of Cooper's power drill making a hole in a piece of marble. Thinking about the drill causes Patricia Neal to have a mini-orgasm.
Yes, this is a film from the late 40's, which is why the sexual image is so funny. Once would have been plenty but shows up again.
Quote from: Circus_Circus on December 14, 2008, 11:24:31 AM
I'm 22 years old
You damn kids get offa my lawn, , and take your rock and roll and your skateboards and your long hair with you. You get going or I'm gonna whack you with my cane.
Quote from: D-Man on December 13, 2008, 10:30:18 PM
I have a feeling that The Dark Knight is joining Pulp Fiction under the internet banner of "Cool to hate this movie".
I honestly was not even aware that Dark Knight was becoming a "cool to hate" kind of movie. I hated it when I saw it in theaters, which was actually the night it came out. I actually remember that for the next few weeks after that, whenever I had some time to kill, I went a-lookin' online for reviews of it that weren't "oh my god! this is the best movie ever!" and I had very little luck finding any bad reviews whatsoever. It is only recently that I found a few reviews of the film that are negative, which on one hand is kind of nice (it's nice to know that me and my best friend Nicole aren't the ONLY people in the world who didn't like it, which is how it seemed at first), but on the other hand it seems like there's two problems, in my opinion, with the Dark Knight backlash. 1- Only a few of the negative reviews I've read offer intelligent criticisms and REAL reasons for disliking the film... the rest just seem to be immature "this movie is for a-holes... if you liked it, you're an a-hole" kind of arguments (which I cannot stand), and 2- I have a feeling that much of the backlash is more a reactionary response to the over-saturization of Dark Knight advertising, hype, and praise in the culture, rather than any problems with the film itself... it seems, not in all cases, but in a lot of cases, that the people who write bad reviews of Dark Knight are doing so only out of a desire to balance out all the overzealous overhyped good reviews... while I can respect the desire for dissent, expressing negative opinions about a movie JUST TO BE the dissenting vote, JUST BECAUSE you're irritated by the lack of dissent, rather than by the fact that you actually do feel dissent, is stupid. Let me remind you by the way, that I am one of those people in the minority who DISLIKED (hated, in many ways, in fact) The Dark Knight. But I genuinely disliked it. I didn't dislike it because it's "cool" to. And I don't care for people who do, nor do I care for people who dislike it for little-to-no-reason and insist on making their arguments in a silly, petty, and immature way. If you can back it up, if you can offer intelligent, constructive criticisms and sincere insights about why the movie sucked, then power to ya. It just seems a shame that there's kind of a dearth of that.
QuoteI still like it a lot, and the people who bash it, for the most part, are the kind of folks who like comic book movies to be nothing more than mindless explosion-fest action films.
This comment genuinely puzzles me. You don't consider Dark Knight to be a mindless explosion-fest action film? I don't mean this as a personal attack on you, but I gotta disagree. If anything, Dark Knight seemed to, almost slavishly, fit the definition of "mindless explosion-fest action film" to the proverbial T.
Ridiculous car chase sequence featuring lots of things going "boom" and "bang" and absurd amounts of collateral damage? Check.
Incomprehensible plot twists with gaping holes in logic, continuity, and believability? Check (in spades).
Ham-fisted dialogue beating you over the head with it's "subtle" (HA!) messages? Check (again, in spades).
Pointless tangents that lead nowhere and are merely an excuse for otherwise one-dimensional characters to show off how "--insert character quality here--" they are (ruthless, tormented, and torn seem to be the qualities most popular in this particular film, poorly executed though they may be)? Check.
Gratingly over-the-top final showdown between hero and villain & villain's thugs executed in the fashion of derivative video game? Check.
Nonsensical made-up technology? Check. A lot of deux ex machina occurrences that are oh-so convenient? Check. Murky, underdeveloped character motivations and tenuous stereotyped characterizations? Check.
Overwrought acting? Check. Self-important writing full of cliche's? Check. Generic "gritty" direction that, in reality, is slicker than a smooth marble floor coated in baby oil? Check.
I could go on and on and on.
But, hey, that's just my opinion. Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk, just offer my own arguments of disagreement.
Quote from: The DarkSider on December 12, 2008, 08:58:03 AM
Quote from: Derf on December 12, 2008, 08:34:06 AM
Titanic (1997). The grand story of a one-night stand told against the background of one of the 20th century's greatest tragedies, this tripe offends me like few films have ever managed. If I get started griping about all that's wrong here, I'll get myself worked into a rage, and it's just too early for that. Please see my other posts on this movie if anything else needs to be said. This movie is the epitome of the "all flash, no substance" style of moviemaking.
Thank you sir. :thumbup: My comments are available in several other threads as well.
I would also like to nominate anything, and I do mean ANYTHING, by M. Knight Shamalamamamamamamama.
Like you two, been there, done that:
http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,120717.15.html (http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,120717.15.html) :thumbup:
And "Rose" could not have bought
Les Demoiselles d'Avignon!!! :hatred:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Chicks-from-avignon.jpg)
Oh! And I hated
THE HOURS. What was the point of all that misery... 'cademy 'ward winner
"Lenert?" :lookingup: (http://images-cdn01.associatedcontent.com/image/A6952/6952/300_6952.jpg)
I agree 100% with WilliamWeird's take on TDK. I didn't hate it (well, not completely) but TDK is nothing more than a disposable time-waster. And if I had two hours to kill, there are plenty of other explosion movies I'd stick in the DVD player before TDK.
Well said William about TDK.
QuoteI still like it a lot, and the people who bash it, for the most part, are the kind of folks who like comic book movies to be nothing more than mindless explosion-fest action films.
Not a personal attack on you but I respectfully disagree for a few reasons.
The way I look at it is this. TDK shined when Ledger was on the screen because he brought in the much needed chaos and action to the film. Harvey Dent should have been shoved in the background more because basically, it made it seem there were two movies going on at once. I'm not sure why we needed so much exposition on Dent anyways. I think the audience, after the court scene, got the fact he was a fearless good guy with a maniacal edge.
The first time I tolerated all the dialog between Harvey, Rachel and Bruce but on second viewing it bored the hell out of me. So in response to your comment (which I respect because you're entitled to your opinion) I'd prefer mindless exposion-fests to endless emoting between three every day characters. If I wanted that I'd see Sisterhood Of The Traveling Pants.
In other news, heres a film I found pretentious and boring.
Chronicles Of Narnia, The Lion, Witch And The Wardrobe. Pretty scenes, however no interest was held for me. I doubt I'll watch the next few installments.
Quote from: Ozzymandias on December 15, 2008, 02:48:49 AM
Ozzymandias speaks: The Fountainhead. I saw it on TCM when they had a guest programmer thing. The guy who picked it was a designer or artist. This is a great looking black and white film with a futuristic Art Deco style. The problem is it is so hokey. I don't know what is worst: the "swishy" newspaper guy, "impotent" business guy (Raymond Massey) and Patricia Neal's obsession with Gary Cooper's "big drill." This last one cracks me up. Everytime Neal thinks of Coop, we see an image of Cooper's power drill making a hole in a piece of marble. Thinking about the drill causes Patricia Neal to have a mini-orgasm.
Yes, this is a film from the late 40's, which is why the sexual image is so funny. Once would have been plenty but shows up again.
THE FOUNTAINHEAD is
horrible, just so lame, and it shows
GARY COOPER at his worst. In the courtroom, after having
blown up the building he had designed (the design of which had been altered)
COOP says to a series of questions: "Yes." "Yes." "No!" "Yes...!" :lookingup:
Almost none of the paintings shown could have been purchased in 1912 -- I just accepted this as a nudge-wink joke on the part of the film maker. Surely you couldn't have had such a large number of people involved on a picture and not one Art History major amongst them(Titanic).
That said, I didn't flat-out hate this thing the way I thought I might, and actually enjoyed the diving sequences with the little robot subs that were designed specifically for the film, yet remain in service to science to this day. Nah, gotta say I've had worse reactions to big-budget films than this one.
Gangs of New York: Flawed, yet with moments of sheer genius, and Daniel Day Lewis's Bill the Butcher is one of the great screen characters of all time. I own it, and look at the lecture sequence with Day-Lewis wrapped in the flag at least once a month. That and the initial war-declaration speech at the beginning. No, 'can't call this one bad by a long shot, though I'm aware of much that is wrong with it, eg. The wax "scars" that start peeling off DiCaprio's arm midway through a scene, etc. Day-Lewis's Bill is essentially the same fellow he did for "There Will Be Blood", but I guess part of why he was recognized for "Blood" was that he was ignored for "Gangs". I think one of the reasons that there was no climactic showdown was precisely because their interstitial warfare was so minute when set against the larger canvass of the times. The sequence where both of their graves rot into and are absorbed by the growing city says worlds about this -- that and the elephant running through the smoke of the cannon fire. We may think ours is the most important thing going on, but it aint necessarily so . . . No, I continue to derive a lot from this film.
As far as a real big-budget stinkeroonie goes, it don't get much worse for me than "The Devil Wears Prada" -- talk about a whole lotta nuttin' goin' on!!!
peter johnson/denny crane
I will say this for the Dark Knight.
I left the theater thoughtful, and as I drove home I thought about it. Specifically, I pondered what I would have done if I'd been in Harvey Dent's place and the Joker had been talking to me. Granted, that's the sort of issue I generally ponder in the gloomy moments when I get philosophical.
But there have been bloody few other movies that have made me sit back and ponder like that.
I'm gonna vote for Titanic, Pearl Harbor, and The Day The Earth Stood Still (2008) as my utter stinkburgers.
Quote from: Allhallowsday on December 20, 2008, 04:48:19 PM
Quote from: Ozzymandias on December 15, 2008, 02:48:49 AM
Ozzymandias speaks: The Fountainhead. I saw it on TCM when they had a guest programmer thing. The guy who picked it was a designer or artist. This is a great looking black and white film with a futuristic Art Deco style. The problem is it is so hokey. I don't know what is worst: the "swishy" newspaper guy, "impotent" business guy (Raymond Massey) and Patricia Neal's obsession with Gary Cooper's "big drill." This last one cracks me up. Everytime Neal thinks of Coop, we see an image of Cooper's power drill making a hole in a piece of marble. Thinking about the drill causes Patricia Neal to have a mini-orgasm.
Yes, this is a film from the late 40's, which is why the sexual image is so funny. Once would have been plenty but shows up again.
THE FOUNTAINHEAD is horrible, just so lame, and it shows GARY COOPER at his worst. In the courtroom, after having blown up the building he had designed (the design of which had been altered) COOP says to a series of questions: "Yes." "Yes." "No!" "Yes...!" :lookingup:
Ozzymandias speaks: Yeah that speech seems to go on way to long. Coop is remembered for the speech in Pride of the Yankees not this one.
Ozzymandias has spoken!!!