Which is the worst movie ever?

Which is the worst movie ever?

  • Titanic

    Votes: 12 14.3%
  • Harry Potter(any/all)

    Votes: 5 6.0%
  • The Phantom menace

    Votes: 3 3.6%
  • Batman and Robin

    Votes: 6 7.1%
  • Waterworld

    Votes: 5 6.0%
  • Jaws IV

    Votes: 1 1.2%
  • Rambo III

    Votes: 2 2.4%
  • Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd

    Votes: 4 4.8%
  • RoboCop 3

    Votes: 3 3.6%
  • 'Manos' the Hands of Fate

    Votes: 4 4.8%
  • Giant Spider Invasion

    Votes: 2 2.4%
  • Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre

    Votes: 1 1.2%
  • Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie

    Votes: 6 7.1%
  • Superman IV: The Quest for Peace

    Votes: 1 1.2%
  • Omega Code

    Votes: 1 1.2%
  • Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Godfather (just making sure you're still reading)

    Votes: 1 1.2%
  • Anything by the Disney Studios

    Votes: 1 1.2%
  • other(I'll explain in my post

    Votes: 26 31.0%

  • Total voters
    84
  • Poll closed .
Marla_Singer said:
Oh please !
If Kurosawa would have made a movie about a Japanese soldier sacrifying himself to save another guy because 3 of his brothers have already been killed by the Americans, you would consider that film as pure propaganda.
And you would be right. Especially, if three minutes of the movie would be wasted in admiring a Japanese flag flying with some patriotic orchestration behind.

Ryan decides to stay and fight instead of taking a free ride back home - is that really so hard to believe? Alot of soldiers did have a strong sense of duty.
 
nonconformist said:
Marla, SPR shows all war as bad, but with some people showing their good side:
1. When Omaha is captured, American troops start killing surrendered Germans.
2. In the Ramelle fight, a Waffen S.S soldir fights with Mellish, eventually stabbing him to death with a bayonet. Then, as he leaves the building, he sees Corporl Upham, but Upham is siting on the stairs crying and scared. The German takes a look at him, and then ignored him, carrying on.
Blablabla. In that movie, the German soldiers are sadistic bastards who kill slowly because they enjoy to see American dying in silence. On the other side, American soldiers are common guys (easier for the identification) who engaged in the war for patriotic reasons, got a moralistic mission and sacrify themselves to fullfill their mission.

How not assuming the patriotic bias in Saving Private Ryan is beyond me. Actually, I've expected a lot about that movie especially because of the events it pictures. People warned me about the realism of that movie, that may be the reason why I've been so desappointed. The violent images are just there to enhance the patriotic message of the movie. A movie starting with the US flag waving and ending with the US flag waving.

Actually, the amphibious attack pictured during the first 30 minutes is with no doubt well-done, but afterwards, the story is degrading more and more. The worst being the final scene when Tom Hanks dies.

A movie like the thin red line is better thought. Unfortunately, it's way too long and way too slow. In my humble opinion, best movies about war are undoubtedly The Pianist, Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now and the Deer Hunter.
 
The Last Conformist said:
The thing that bothers me with SPR is that they basically sacrifice a bunch of guys to save one private.

Hmm, that is true, but I dont really think that is the point of the film. The point is that combat is hell, and the plot was really just a way of getting a squad of guys together so they go trekking accross France, experiencing the horrors of war etc. It is a bit unbelievable though, it would have easier to just skip the whole saving Ryan bit and just focus on a group of soldiers in Normandy.
 
Darth_Pugwash said:
Hmm, that is true, but I dont really think that is the point of the film. The point is that combat is hell, and the plot was really just a way of getting a squad of guys together so they go trekking accross France, experiencing the horrors of war etc. It is a bit unbelievable though, it would have easier to just skip the whole saving Ryan bit and just focus on a group of soldiers in Normandy.
No the point of the movie is about the sacrifice. This is the central theme of the movie : People who sacrificed themselves to save others.
 
Marla_Singer said:
In my humble opinion, best movies about war are undoubtedly The Pianist, Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now and the Deer Hunter.

you seem to like movies that do not have mass appeal like SPR but like those who do not. You remind me of film critics that I mentioned here. ;)

I guess to each his own.
 
Ah, maybe that is why we disagree, Marla. I saw the whole saving Ryan bit as just a way of setting up the action, you obviously saw it as the whole point of the movie.

I can see your point, but right now I'm not sure what I think of it and how it changes how I think of the film.
 
By far and the worst filmed ever made has to be A.I

You sit through around what seems like 5 hours of the worst dialogue/storyline ever...... you finally think the movie has finished but bang it starts again.

I had to walk out of the movie.......

Lastest reports indicate the film is still going on.

Edit: Sorry i missed out too many bad movies
The Patriot - Both of them but especially the American Revolution one, they kindly left out the part about how much of an arsehole Benjamin Martin actually was.
Pearl Harbour - One of the worst films of all time, the dialogue was crap, and the scene of the two fighters playing chicken :vomit:
Jurassic Park 3 - What is it with crappy sequels really?
The Thin Red Line - Simply put. The worst war film ever :cry:
 
Dungeons and Dragons.
 
Darth_Pugwash said:
Hmm, that is true, but I dont really think that is the point of the film. The point is that combat is hell, and the plot was really just a way of getting a squad of guys together so they go trekking accross France, experiencing the horrors of war etc. It is a bit unbelievable though, it would have easier to just skip the whole saving Ryan bit and just focus on a group of soldiers in Normandy.
That may have been meant as the point, but that war is hell is old news, and it's a hell we're used to hear justified. The sacrificing-a-squad-to-save-a-private bit, however, is unusual and bothering.

I'm not alone in feeling this, BTW. Several of my friends, and at least a couple of reviewers have expressed the same.
 
Mighty Morphing Power Rangers. :vomit:
 
No, but it sounds incredibly stupid. All I know that they're these weird guys in tights running around in giant robots doing fake karate moves. :vomit:
 
Marla_Singer said:
In that kind, Independance Day and Armaggedon are the kings though.

You aren't saying that because Paris gets destroyed in both movies, are you?(Armeggedon shows the actual destruction of it, whereas Independance Day just hints that Paris got destroyed).

I kind of find it hard to imagine that a movie about a 'world-threatening' disaster could NOT be accused of propaganda/nationalism if it is set in a certain country and the humans from that country survive/prevent the disaster.
 
Power Rangers Movie, i vauguely remember them going into space or something, and it being really lame. From that point on i stopped watching the show, and now i always laugh when i see the various permutations of the show in commercials and stuff.
 
"Robin Hodd: Men in tights". The only movie I ever walked out on (and that's coming from someone who managed to sit through "Autumn in New York").
 
Come on man, that movie is classic. The only movie i've ever walked out on is Timeline, i just couldn't bare to see it mangled any longer.
 
Bamspeedy said:
You aren't saying that because Paris gets destroyed in both movies, are you?(Armeggedon shows the actual destruction of it, whereas Independance Day just hints that Paris got destroyed).
No. Actually, it's quite a honour for a city to be destroyed in a catastrophe movie. It's proves it's a meaningful place. In a matter of frog pride, I feel quite honoured.

No the issue is the movie in itself. I could write a thesis about it but to summarize it expresses the fantasy of common Americans (once again easier to identify to) who save the whole world who wouldn't be able to survive without them.

Usually, there's always some kind of 45 second scene where the world is represented to make understand to the audience it's a worldwide stuff. Three places are represented in most of case, all with clichés so that it could be fastly identified.

Asia is represented with China... usually you see some buddhist monk medidating on the Great Wall. Africa is represented in general with massai warriors from Kenya, naked with a mask, a shield and a spear (usually celebrating the victory). And finally Europe is represented with either London or Paris, but France is generally preferred because it's continental Europe. Usually, people wear beret, moustache, holds some bread and drive cars from the 50's (even if it's today).
Bamspeedy said:
I kind of find it hard to imagine that a movie about a 'world-threatening' disaster could NOT be accused of propaganda/nationalism if it is set in a certain country and the humans from that country survive/prevent the disaster.
Well, a lot could be said on that topic. It's widely unconscious, however, scenarists and directors try to summarize things how they believe they are. That's why those movies are usually good caricatures about how the world is seen from America.

I should go to sleep, I would have posted a link to a former post I've written, unfortunately, I can't find it anymore. Is there a way to get access to a search tool ?
 
Back
Top Bottom