The worst "Well-made" movies ever

Jape · December 12, 2008, 06:02:24 AM

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.

indianasmith · December 12, 2008, 07:01:51 AM

How about GANGS OF NEW YORK? I absolutely fell asleep for the last hour of that boring piece of cinematic excrescence.

Jack · 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.

Derf · 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.

Mr. DS · 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.

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.

WilliamWeird1313 · 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

Mr. DS · December 12, 2008, 12:51:41 PM

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.

asimpson2006 · December 12, 2008, 01:25:19 PM

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.

Ash · December 12, 2008, 03:37:40 PM

I must be the only person here who actually likes Titanic.
I still don't understand the hate it receives.

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!

HarlotBug3 · December 12, 2008, 05:36:15 PM

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.

JJ80 · December 12, 2008, 07:29:08 PM

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.

CheezeFlixz · December 12, 2008, 11:45:27 PM

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.

Jape · December 13, 2008, 07:16:26 AM

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.

D-Man · 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 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.

CheezeFlixz · December 14, 2008, 12:39:26 AM

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.