Page 1 of 1

Worst Movies...

PostPosted:Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:53 pm
by Mully
This is a mirror post to Sines, "Favorite Really Old Movies" except these can be any movie at any time.

These are not movies that are so bad they're good, but BAD-BAD movies. The "I feel robbed and want 2 hours of my life back" movies.

The Wicker Man - 1973. Starring Christopher Lee. Hailed as "the Citizen Kane of Horror Movies", rented it, sucked. Looked online to see why all the hype...everyone said it was the greatest horror movie ever, but no one could explain WHY!

PostPosted:Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:55 pm
by Julius Seeker
The Terror - starring Jack Nicholson. It is a terrible movie, but somehow I couldn't stop watching it =P

On the Wickerman, which version did you see, the chopped up version or the extended edition? It is probably a bigger difference than Peter Jackson's theatrical Two Towers (the weakest of the trilogy in my opinion) vs. his extended version (the strongest of the trilogy, again, in my opinion).

PostPosted:Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:07 pm
by Mully
Dutch wrote:The Terror - starring Jack Nicholson. It is a terrible movie, but somehow I couldn't stop watching it =P

On the Wickerman, which version did you see, the chopped up version or the extended edition? It is probably a bigger difference than Peter Jackson's theatrical Two Towers (the weakest of the trilogy in my opinion) vs. his extended version (the strongest of the trilogy, again, in my opinion).
I believe I saw the extended edition. It was two disc. What are the differences?

PostPosted:Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:12 pm
by Blotus
It's Pat. I defy anybody to find a worse movie.

PostPosted:Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:16 pm
by Julius Seeker
Mully wrote:
Dutch wrote:The Terror - starring Jack Nicholson. It is a terrible movie, but somehow I couldn't stop watching it =P

On the Wickerman, which version did you see, the chopped up version or the extended edition? It is probably a bigger difference than Peter Jackson's theatrical Two Towers (the weakest of the trilogy in my opinion) vs. his extended version (the strongest of the trilogy, again, in my opinion).
I believe I saw the extended edition. It was two disc. What are the differences?
I felt the extended edition came together much better. The theatrical one was full of holes and I can see how someone watching the movie for the first time would be confused. Perhaps it is not the best movie for a younger generation though. It is sort of like Candyman, creepy as hell when it was released, but really tame by todays standards.

PostPosted:Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:45 pm
by Mully
Dutch wrote:
Mully wrote:
Dutch wrote:The Terror - starring Jack Nicholson. It is a terrible movie, but somehow I couldn't stop watching it =P

On the Wickerman, which version did you see, the chopped up version or the extended edition? It is probably a bigger difference than Peter Jackson's theatrical Two Towers (the weakest of the trilogy in my opinion) vs. his extended version (the strongest of the trilogy, again, in my opinion).
I believe I saw the extended edition. It was two disc. What are the differences?
I felt the extended edition came together much better. The theatrical one was full of holes and I can see how someone watching the movie for the first time would be confused. Perhaps it is not the best movie for a younger generation though. It is sort of like Candyman, creepy as hell when it was released, but really tame by todays standards.
Yeah, it was definitely the extended verison...checked my local video store! Anyway, I still don't get it. Not scarry at all. The islanders were indeed weird and odd. The music SUCKED! Corn Leaves and Barley.

PostPosted:Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:24 pm
by Chris
Black Lotus wrote:It's Pat. I defy anybody to find a worse movie.
um....gymkata....

PostPosted:Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:36 pm
by Julius Seeker
Dolph Lundgren's Masters of the Universe and The Punisher.

Hulk Hogan's Santa with Muscles and Suburban Commando.

PostPosted:Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:26 pm
by Lox
Dutch wrote:Dolph Lundgren's Masters of the Universe.
That I totally disagree with. I love that movie. I wouldn't even put it into the "It's so bad, it's good" category. I mean, I know it's no masterpiece, but I really enjoy it. I own it on DVD. :)

PostPosted:Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:37 pm
by Shellie
Lox wrote:
Dutch wrote:Dolph Lundgren's Masters of the Universe.
That I totally disagree with. I love that movie. I wouldn't even put it into the "It's so bad, it's good" category. I mean, I know it's no masterpiece, but I really enjoy it. I own it on DVD. :)
I'd put it into the "It's so bad, it's good" category hehe

Definitely not a WORST. MOVIE. EVAR. candidate tho...

PostPosted:Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:39 pm
by Chris
Breakin 2 - Electric Bugaloo

PostPosted:Tue Aug 05, 2008 5:38 pm
by Eric
Date Movie • Epic Movie • Meet the Spartans • Superhero Movie • Disaster Movie

All of these make me want to stab babies.

PostPosted:Tue Aug 05, 2008 5:52 pm
by kali o.
Alexander....I bought that shit on DVD for 25 bucks because it looked OK and had Jolie in it...

As for Seeker dissing He-man, that's pretty fucked up. That was an awesome movie for various reasons.

PostPosted:Tue Aug 05, 2008 9:09 pm
by Lox
kali o. wrote:Alexander....I bought that shit on DVD for 25 bucks because it looked OK and had Jolie in it...

As for Seeker dissing He-man, that's pretty fucked up. That was an awesome movie for various reasons.
Frank Langella as Skeletor alone makes it awesome. :)

PostPosted:Tue Aug 05, 2008 9:10 pm
by Imakeholesinu
Howard...the fucking Duck.

PostPosted:Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:50 pm
by Tessian
my vote would have to be for Night at the Museum... the first (and still only) movie I've ever purposefully shut off cause I couldn't take its crap.

PostPosted:Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:18 pm
by Kupek
kali o. wrote:Alexander....I bought that shit on DVD for 25 bucks because it looked OK and had Jolie in it...
So I saw that movie high. In one shot, it's Colin Farrel against snowy mountains in the background and I swear I saw a smiley face in the mountains. To this day, I don't know if that really was an Easter-egg put in by the special effects people, or if my THC-saddled brain made it up.

PostPosted:Wed Aug 06, 2008 5:15 am
by RentCavalier
Kupek wrote:
kali o. wrote:Alexander....I bought that shit on DVD for 25 bucks because it looked OK and had Jolie in it...
So I saw that movie high. In one shot, it's Colin Farrel against snowy mountains in the background and I swear I saw a smiley face in the mountains. To this day, I don't know if that really was an Easter-egg put in by the special effects people, or if my THC-saddled brain made it up.
THC concerns me at the moment, since we're on the subject. Bloody stuff stays in your system an awful long time for my comfort.

PostPosted:Wed Aug 06, 2008 8:13 am
by SineSwiper
Ghost of Mars. It's worse than It's Pat. Why did John Carpenter put his name on that? If I made a movie like that, I wouldn't even want to bother screwing up my reputation. At least Vampires was a remotely decent movie.

Also, the NEW version of Wicker Man is probably just as bad as the old one. Terrible movie.

Anything made by M. Night after Unbreakable. Especially Signs, because I actually watched that in the theaters.

Almost anything Martin Lawrence is in. Nothing to Lose was still pretty good, but everything else is just an attempt to capitalize on black stereotyping.

Nobody mentioned Battlefield Earth? Is it really that bad-funny?

PostPosted:Wed Aug 06, 2008 8:49 am
by Eric
SineSwiper wrote:Nobody mentioned Battlefield Earth? Is it really that bad-funny?
It is.

PostPosted:Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:10 am
by Zeus
Eric wrote:
SineSwiper wrote:Nobody mentioned Battlefield Earth? Is it really that bad-funny?
It is.
I agree. I was laughing my ass off when Travolta said "you had time to smelt it?!?" then just accepted the answer. It still makes me chuckle :-)

PostPosted:Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:18 am
by Mully
SineSwiper wrote:Nobody mentioned Battlefield Earth? Is it really that bad-funny?
Never bothered seeing it.

SineSwiper wrote:Also, the NEW version of Wicker Man is probably just as bad as the old one. Terrible movie.
Saw FUNNY clips on youtube here.

Image

PostPosted:Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:30 am
by Julius Seeker
SineSwiper wrote:Ghost of Mars. It's worse than It's Pat. Why did John Carpenter put his name on that? If I made a movie like that, I wouldn't even want to bother screwing up my reputation.
Probably because he wrote, produced, and directed it. I don't see how you can really be surprised though. Have you not seen many John Carpenter films?

PostPosted:Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:31 am
by Mully
Dutch wrote:
SineSwiper wrote:Ghost of Mars. It's worse than It's Pat. Why did John Carpenter put his name on that? If I made a movie like that, I wouldn't even want to bother screwing up my reputation.
Probably because he wrote, produced, and directed it. I don't see how you can really be surprised though. Have you not seen many John Carpenter films?
Yeah, he does all the music in MOST of his films, if not all of them.

PostPosted:Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:39 am
by Kupek
SineSwiper wrote:At least Vampires was a remotely decent movie.
Vampires was surprisingly fun. James Woods made that movie. Pretty much everything else was bad, but it was fun to watch him.

Man, how did I forget this: Lost Highway.

PostPosted:Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:22 pm
by Zeus
What about the movie all of us knew would suck before it came out? :-)

PostPosted:Wed Aug 06, 2008 1:20 pm
by RentCavalier
The Whole Wide World, starring Renee Zellwegger. It's the movie about the life of Robert E. Howard, revolving around some romance he has with some girl.

The movie is boring as shit, and would appeal ONLY if you are a really, really heavy Robert Howard fan but even then you'd prolly hate it because the movie just revolves around Howard TALKING about Conan the Barbarian a lot. In fact, the movie's "action" scenes are just the camera slowly closing in on Howard's face while he gets all bug-eyed and describes a scene of Conan visciously killing something while epic, awesome music plays in the background.

Really, it just made me want another Conan movie.