Worst Movie of all time?

[Grille]

Originally posted by YNCS
Plan 9 From Outer Space (or any other Ed Wood movie, but Plan 9 is probably his worst).

Being told that "Plan 9..." would probably be the worst movie before I watched it, I was somewhat surprised about me enjoying it when I gave it a try. It's sooo crappy that I couldn't resist to love that trash...
I put my vote on "Independence Day". Not crappy enough to love it, although hacking that alien computer... MS rules the universe...
After all, the persiflage "Mars Attacks" is of course much more fun when you know "I... Day".

 

[Thadlerian]

Two Towers
Attack of the Clones

They're pretty much the same. Lots of special effects, no depth.
Fellowship of the Ring was great, though...

But for the really bad ones, I say Iron Eagle. And all Disney movies past 1990.

 

[Pangur Bán]

O Thadlerian, I think you're asking for trouble

 

[TheStinger]

The Patriot is very bad, there is an intersting move that could be made about the war of independence, this isn't it.

 

[Thadlerian]

Originally posted by calgacus
O Thadlerian, I think you're asking for trouble

If you mean my comment on TT, then let it come...

 

[thestonesfan]

I have yet to see Two Towers, but if it's anything like the book, it should be great. I can't wait to see the Ents and Gollum.

 

[Renata]

Gollum was flat-out wonderful - steals every scene he's in. The Ents I didn't like as much - maybe I was expecting too much?

Anyway, on the whole I loved it, despite numerous quibbles. If you're as much a visual person as I am, you probably will too, no matter your other criteria. The first scene is awe-inspiring.

On topic: worst movie is even harder than best, I think. I've seen some godawful comedies (romantic and otherwise), but I'll vote for The Postman, with Kevin Costner, because it tried to be meaningful and failed abysmally, and because it was based on a book I enjoyed. Yuck.

Renata

 

[Darkness]

The talented Mr. Ripley...

 

[Thadlerian]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
I have yet to see Two Towers, but if it's anything like the book, it should be great. I can't wait to see the Ents and Gollum.

You put the finger on the very two matters I dislike in TT. The film takes a whole lot of liberties in the storyline,

*** Spoiler! ***

like Faramir being as corrupted as Boromir, Faramir taking Frodo to Osgiliath, and Elven warriors coming from Lothlorien to protect Helm's Deep (that was just silly; added solely because elves are cool).

The Ents were supposed to be a moral aspect. Tolkien lived nearby a forest that was chopped down in his childhood. Ents were supposed to be a message about preserving. Instead they were turned into the standard Crazy Savage Warriors(tm) that you see in a lot of Bond and Disney movies. Producers should have made up their minds too, whether Ent community is a democracy (Entmoot), or a monarchy (Treebeard commanding the others into attack).

But Gollum was good, and so were the other actors and effects (Gollum is both actor and effect).

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by Thadlerian

You put the finger on the very two matters I dislike in TT. The film takes a whole lot of liberties in the storyline,

*** Spoiler! ***

like Faramir being as corrupted as Boromir, Faramir taking Frodo to Osgiliath, and Elven warriors coming from Lothlorien to protect Helm's Deep (that was just silly; added solely because elves are cool).

The Ents were supposed to be a moral aspect. Tolkien lived nearby a forest that was chopped down in his childhood. Ents were supposed to be a message about preserving. Instead they were turned into the standard Crazy Savage Warriors(tm) that you see in a lot of Bond and Disney movies. Producers should have made up their minds too, whether Ent community is a democracy (Entmoot), or a monarchy (Treebeard commanding the others into attack).

But Gollum was good, and so were the other actors and effects (Gollum is both actor and effect).

I agree with all the points raised. These changes to the original were not warranted, and did not add to the film. Changing essential elements without due reason is not a good thing.
Overall, I thought that the film struggled with the balancing and juggling of the competing narratives that came to be after the splitting of the characters. If the issues mentioned had been dealt with in a more appropriate manner, and a proper ending scene added for Helm's Deep, before swapping over to Frodo and Sam with the silly voiceover, then it would have been a better film. As it is, it is not as good as the first.

 

[Thadlerian]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade


I agree with all the points raised. These changes to the original were not warranted, and did not add to the film. Changing essential elements without due reason is not a good thing.
Overall, I thought that the film struggled with the balancing and juggling of the competing narratives that came to be after the splitting of the characters. If the issues mentioned had been dealt with in a more appropriate manner, and a proper ending scene added for Helm's Deep, before swapping over to Frodo and Sam with the silly voiceover, then it would have been a better film. As it is, it is not as good as the first.

I didn't like the first movie after watching it, but then the DVD version came, and it added a lot of nice things, like Bilbo's Shire introduction at the beginning.
But TT has messed up too much, and I have weak hopes that a DVD version can help it.

 

[joycem10]

my votes:

super mario brothers, the royal tannenbaums (tries way to hard to be witty and different), congo, double dragon, almost all john claude van damn movies after the 1st, all steven segal movies, ishtar, jacob the liar, what dreams may come, supertroopers, cannonball run II and smokey and the bandit II & III (all of which are essentially the same movie), teen wolf...

the list goes on.

 

[thestonesfan]

Well, we'll see how I like it when I finally get to see it.

I do think that there is room to change some things. Tolkien himself says he would have changed some things in retrospect. I liked that the first one was a little more streamlined than the book, and with no Tom Bombadil. I don't think Bombadil added anything but confusion to the book.

 

[thestonesfan]

Hey, the basketball coach in "Teen Wolf" is one the greatest characters in movie history. Don't go dissin' him.

 

[Serutan]

Originally posted by Furry Spatula


{snip}

2001 A space Oddesy was a load of crap. That was the most boring movie I've ever seen. I'm sorry but I don't find seeing a guy in a space suit float slowly towards an object in space with a bloody annoying hissing sound going on the entire time entertaining what so ever.

The real problem with 2001 the movie is that if you haven't read
Clarke's novel, the movie isn't going to make much sense. And the pacing is going to be a bit slow for a lot of people... But the saving grace for me is that, for once, they had a proper "computer goes amuk" scene in a movie: they pulled the plug!!!

My worst ones:

1. Plan 9 From Outer Space (So bad it's actually worth seeing once!)

2. Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (Just plain bad).

3. Star Trek I. After the first 15 minutes, makes 2001 look fast paced.

4. Dune. As mentioned before, the book is too long for a movie to to justice to it; throw in that they did it badly...

 

[Thadlerian]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Well, we'll see how I like it when I finally get to see it.

I do think that there is room to change some things. Tolkien himself says he would have changed some things in retrospect. I liked that the first one was a little more streamlined than the book, and with no Tom Bombadil. I don't think Bombadil added anything but confusion to the book.

Woha! Don't you offend Tom Bombadil!
I loved him. Showing in a perfect way that Middle-Earth wasn't all fighting and profound dialogues.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by Thadlerian

Woha! Don't you offend Tom Bombadil!
I loved him. Showing in a perfect way that Middle-Earth wasn't all fighting and profound dialogues.

Who or what was he? Who was older, Bombadil or Treebeard? They were both the oldest, according to the book.

I thought the hobbits were there to make Middle-Earth seem like it wasn't all fighting and profound dialogues? Besides, those were the best parts!

 

[Thadlerian]

Originally posted by thestonesfan


Who or what was he? Who was older, Bombadil or Treebeard? They were both the oldest, according to the book.

I thought the hobbits were there to make Middle-Earth seem like it wasn't all fighting and profound dialogues? Besides, those were the best parts!

Tom Bombadil's age and specie is probably the greatest riddle of the book. Noone knows where he comes from, though people guess everything from a spirit, to Illuvatar himself. I don't think Tolkien was quite sure himself. You don't really need an explanation for Tom, he just is.
Treebeard is easier to explain. The Ents were created by Illuvatar to protect the forest from the Dwarves, who cut trees to make fires.

Of course swordplay and profound wielding of speech is great, but you need a break from time to time, if you see what I mean.

 

[thestonesfan]

Thank god the movies don't have those infernal songs. That was easily the worst aspect of the books.





********Minor Book Spoiler************************






I hope ROTK fleshes out the ending a little. I thought they found the Cracks of Doom a little too easily, I mean, it was right inside the door! Also, it wouldn't have hurt for Sauron to actually make an appearance.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the books, but just because they are the original doesn't mean they can't be improved a little.

 

[Thadlerian]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Thank god the movies don't have those infernal songs. That was easily the worst aspect of the books.

I had hoped for the songs about Durin the Old and Eärendil the Mariner to be sung in the movie.

Honestly, the songs is a major part of what makes LOTR epic.