Re: Name the first legitimately bad film on IMDB's Top 250
 

I think American History X is a bad film. And I think its a testament to the kind of kids that vote on IMDB as to how it even makes a list like that.

Although, Fairuza Baulk should have easily won an Oscar for her role as a total tramp. I'm sure the role was a stretch for her. ;)

Seriously, the film is sh*t and I wish people wouldn't watch it. It has no "message" and all it does it perpetuate the lifestyle.

Interestingly enough, I don't really dislike any of the other films from the list. I'd move a bunch up and down but most of them are pretty good to great. I'm not even going to respond to bashing of Lebowski, that's just stupid. I've also seen the majority of them which is kind of cool I guess.

I wonder if I watch too many movies?

Not really interested in defending the film. I just have a fun time watching it. Sorry if it doesn't "blow your skirt up" but its just a fun flick. Overrated? Maybe, but who cares? IMDB is a popularity contest, so good for Snatch if the kids dig it.

Re: Name the first legitimately bad film on IMDB's Top 250
 

Donnie Darko at #127

Here is a quick copy of my mini review rom "Recently Watched DVD's thread"

Not a great explanation on why I think it's a poor movie (other than bad writing) but I'm trying to help my wife pack for a trip - so I will get back to this.

Re: Name the first legitimately bad film on IMDB's Top 250
 

Sometimes not understanding a flick makes me like it even more Fiscal.

:laugh:

Well, you know that I could put together a long, long list of the films that I hate or think are overrated, but that's not what's being asked. I don't know why Inception's being given a pass. Is it because you think it's going to fall outside the top 250, Yoda? Shouldn't Toy Story 3 also get a pass?

The first genuinely bad film on that list? I'm going get hated for this, but then what else is new, is this one.

#5. The Good, The Bad And The Ugly.

Now, I've not seen this in years, but, sorry that film's a p.o.s. I'm not even talking about hating it or not liking it because it's a Western (which is second only to fantasy in my genre hating) it's a bad film. Acting? Script? Bad. Direction? Poor. Score? OK, the score's OK, but the rest of the film stinks to high heaven.

Now, as boring as I find The Lord Of The Ring trilogy, they're well made films. So while they fail to entertain me (surely their primary function) they're technically excellent, so I won't include them. If I did, however, just imagine the list I could put together? ;) :p

So the Kubrick films are safe. North By Northwest is safe. I'm waivering on whether Aliens (#54 on the list) qualifies or not but, as I am waivering, I'll let it go... For now.

That brings me to #86 and Braveheart. Now, am I letting my hatred for this film blind me to the fact that it's actually a technically proficient film? Possibly, though you'll never convince me that the script and acting are even up to anything approaching mediocre, let alone good or brilliant. I'd say this is a bad film, but I could be wrong.

At #95 there's The Great Dictator, which is Chaplin being unfunny, but then that's every Chaplin film for me. So, if comedies that you don't find funny qualify, then it's in (as are a good few others on the list.) If not, I guess it gets a pass.

The film at #96 is one I've described as "painfully average" before but, again, that doesn't count here. So that's another slipping past.

#106 is Slumdog Millionaire. I hated this film. If the aim of the film is to make me wish I was dead, then it's a horrible film that succeeds in its aim. Otherwise, it's a horrible film. But is it bad? It's not, is it? It's a well made film that tells a story I hate in a way I hate which makes me want to kill myself, but it's not a bad film. Curses! This is harder than I'd like it to be.

I've not seen Avatar because I thought it'd be absolute crap, so I can't include that either.

I was tempted to put Heat in at #123. I like the way Heat looks and I like it, but I don't like anything about it really. Not the performances, not the characters, not the script, but it's not a badly made film. It's not sub-par. Sigh, will I ever get to add another film to this list?

Ah, hello #132! Snatch really is a worthy addition to the list. A film with only one redeeming quality and that is that it's better than Lock, Stock And Two Smoking Barrels. Besides that, what a pile of doggy doo it is.

If the first half of Million Dollar Baby was as poor as the second, it'd be a shoe in for this list. But it isn't. Now, does that mean it deserves to be on the list for pissing away a decent first half? Or does the first half haul it out of danger? I still don't really understand the limits of this list. I have a feeling I could be including a lot more than I am.

#172 is Lock, Stock And Two Smoking Barrels, about which I think I've made myself perfectly clear. This film is and has nothing. That it found an audience surprised me. That the audience liked it stunned me. The Good, The Bad And The Ugly is better than this.

I thought I was done and I'd already ruled out Kubrick, but then #240 loomed into view. Spartacus. As this list has continued I appear to have loosened my grip on the boundries of this thread and, as I just don't get this film at all and it bores me to tears because it's so uninteresting and pointless, it's in. :D

Now, had I seen more of the films on this list, I'm sure I could piss on a few more bonfires, but I haven't. However, if I've been too restricted with my understanding of the requirements of this thread, let me know, because there's plenty more failures on that list I could choose.

Re: Name the first legitimately bad film on IMDB's Top 250
 

Geez, who would've known HK would have the longest post in this thread?

Re: Name the first legitimately bad film on IMDB's Top 250
 

^ TL ; DR

And I'm done with Batman Begins. It's just not worth "my time", as precious as that time is. :rolleyes: I saw it once, and I was just like "whatever". I saw it again on the T.V., and I didn't even finish it. Just so pointless and empty.

How can Full Metal Jacket be referred to as "bad"? It's a great war film that's utterly, utterly uneven without any kind of conventional plot structure whatsoever, but it's not like it tried. Sure the film's two halves were entirely unreconciled and unconnected except for maybe 2 actors. Sure there were hang out scenes followed by battle scenes followed by more hangout scenes followed by social critique scenes followed by vulgar hang out scenes followed by battle scenes followed by interviews followed by a long stakeout followed by a really short battle followed by a "twist". I hate this stupid argument, but I'll use it: isn't that what war was like? I like these strange, uneven war films like FMJ and Jarhead and how they completely suck the glory out of war and turn it into a bad, sad joke. Look at the "critical" Platoon. Many people like this film a lot better, but why? It too glorifies a senseless conflict. Willem Dafoe's death scene is beautiful and for that precise reason it fails. It's Vietnam for crying out loud.

erm... that's it for nao...

Shame, I'd love to hear you elaborate on what was so wrong with the film.

If someone wants to pick Inception and go no further, I'm not going to quibble with them, I just think it's more interesting to exclude the really recent stuff, particularly given that we don't know where it will fall. That said, I don't expect it to fall out of the top 250 anytime soon. Or even the top 100.

I didn't really think anyone would realistically try to claim that Toy Story 3 is genuinely "bad," but I guess excluding that would make sense, too. But that choice would be interesting, all the same, which is the main thing for me.

So...you're pretty much dead to me at this point already. :p

Glad you can admit the score is "OK" (that's all? Really? You don't think "Ecstasy of Gold" is flippin' awesome?). But poor directing? It's beautifully shot! I love Ebert's observation that the first shot in the film initially looks like a wide shot, but actually turns out to be a close-up.

I can't argue with writing, not because I agree (I absolutely do not), but because I can't think of any way to make such a case. I'll just describe why I like it a bit, then: I think the dialogue is dripping with personality and bravado at every turn. I love the constant shifting in who's tracking who, and who's got who at gunpoint, and the little internal puzzle of which direction each track and gun is facing at each moment, particularly in how it informs the finale. There's symmetry, wit, humor, and lots of intricacies for what seems like such a simple story. To me, that equals a good script.

Re: acting. How much of this is due to the dubbing? Heck, even with that, Eli Wallach is a fantastic foil. I was about to start listing lines that he completely nails, but they're coming into my head too fast to transcribe. I simply refuse to believe that you didn't love Tucco. Refuse! This is my refusing face.

honeykid: easy to talk to into suicide.

I think you've got the basic idea right.

One of the things I like about the criteria is that it cuts through all the nonsense we all go round and round about with where we couch our own opinions as if they have to counteract the collective opinions of others, or because we don't like a certain type of movie, etc. We talk about a lot of decent (or even good) movies as if they were really bad, when all we mean is that we were let down, or think other people like them too much, or something else that really isn't about the movie's quality. I find it interesting to see which ones we find genuinely bad, and I find it more interesting that there probably aren't always all that movie films that qualify.

Re: Name the first legitimately bad film on IMDB's Top 250
 

I wanted to quibble by going a bit further into what I consider bad films.

To me I agree that Fight Club just simply isn't a good movie. From a film perspective, it really doesn't have anything fascinating to offer. I agree that 16 year old males drive this movie up as the best ever when it really is just another movie. I don't even really consider the movie average, I think it's a rather poor concept. Of course there's many disagreers, but of course I think I'm right.

There is something in which me and Dr. Strangelove did not connect. But I really don't get the hoopla surrounding it at all. Is it really a master of direction? Doubt it. Is it really that well acted? No. Is it really that funny? I didn't laugh once, albeit it's a dark comedy but that should be enough to provide at least one laugh or two a la a Fargo or hell even The Royal Tenenbaums which I really dislike as well.

American Beauty I have decided is not a bad film, but just overrated.

Requiem for a Dream isn't that good for me either. I don't know if it's that I've never connected withdrugs but the overlying theme to me just seems to center around how awful drugs can be. I believe that we really got the point of it after the first 10 minutes of the movie. The film offers nothing to me.

Finally City Lights and Modern Times for the same reason as someone stated about the great dictator. They aren't funny. I'll give City Lights a pass because I can see how one can love the story behind it, but Modern Times has nothing to offer in that regard.

Re: Name the first legitimately bad film on IMDB's Top 250
 

Am I the only who hated The Wrestler?

Re: Name the first legitimately bad film on IMDB's Top 250
 

Oh god, I didn't see that HK had TG, TB, ATU on his list. Holy F, that's a fail. C'mon, man. Slumdog was just plain sh!tty. Ideologically and filmwise. So messy and ugly and stupid as hell. But how are TLOTR films boring? What excites you for crying out loud? They were some of the most bombastic battle scenes and effects shots in the history of ever. Truly stunned me, these films did. Visually, emotionally. Great, great films and will go down in history as such. Absolutely equal with Tolkien's original work, which I read at much too young an age to really appreciate. All the others are meh either way.

The Wrestler on the other hand... THAT was boring. I know I've seen that film before. Like the exact same film before. Really felt tired and rehashed... sort of like the wrestler himself... hmmm, maybe Aronofsky's onto something? The Fountain is still his best film. Maybe one of the best films of the decade, really.

I haven't seen that one, then again I have no short term intentions to, either.

I couldn't tell you what any of them are called. TBH, I thought I was being generous in not toileting the whole thing.

Again, I have to disagree (obviously.) As I said, I've not seen it for years and I can't discuss specific shots or anything, but I found the whole thing ugly.

Wit? Humour? I completely missed that. There again, I miss it in comedies, so I've got no chance with a Western. :D

I couldn't tell you, but it's a good point. Then again, there's not really much to do, is there? And it still doesn't work, IMO, but I do take the point on board.

Oh, I really hate him in it. But this isn't about hating, so I didn't mention it. Like your refusing face, BTW. ;)

You have no idea.

Jolly good. At least I got one thing right. ;)

I want to agree with this statement, but I need to watch it one more time. I haven't seen it in a few years. I don't want to say it was bad, because I feel like there were a lot of really innovative and meaningful things in it and I remember Fincher's direction as being really tight and elegant, always worth points.

It's a satire. If you laugh, you laugh "nervously". I can't explain it to ya. I was weary about the hype too, but when I saw it I felt it utterly lived up to the hype. If anything, give it points for feeling more modern than modernism itself. For some reason I have a feeling that theaters today would be less ready for Strangelove than back then, and not just because of the content. It's a wholly original, weird as hell, and completely genius satire of political-military power structures during the Cold War. Plus the technical filmmaking is flawless.

As much as I hate falling for Anderson's quirky aesthetic, I really like this film. It really moves me on a lot of levels, and, needless to say, is a joy to experience visually. Still his best film.

Completely agree. Being John Malkovich should have won best picture and director that year. Grrrr....

It's a highly effective film, but I'm not as crazy for the editing as I was when I first saw it. Great application of various, obscure underused techniques. I think what it shows is that maybe these flashy editing patterns and fish-eye lenses and fast/slow motion sequences don't really do as much as some of the more "conventionally" shot sequences.

I laughed a good deal at all three of these, but they are, all three, much, much more than comedies. You should realize this from Chaplin. He was much more than Keaton or the Marx brothers. Much, much more. This statement is a massive, massive fail that needs to be immediately rectified with enlightened rewatches.

I'm not a big fan of Batman Begins either. But, remembering when it first came out, it was one of the best superhero movies ever made and brought a new level of sophistication to comic book films.

And are you referring to my comments on Full Metal Jacket? I never called it bad; here's a direct quote: "But even that's really good--Kubrick made it, so of course it had some level of quality." I'm just saying it is nowhere near the 83rd greatest film ever made. And I don't think it meant to be uneven, it was just poorly edited and directed; it didn't know what kind of movie it wanted to be.

Platoon in no way glorifies war. At all. It does exactly the opposite. Just because it's not an objective film doesn't mean it's romanticized. Oliver Stone's autobiographical film is meant to be subjective, it's the war as he remembered it. Willem Defoe was an important character, so his death was given great attention and dramatized, but in no way made dying look cool. But him dying glorifies war? I don't see how it does that. He's not dying like the bad guys in Kill Bill or Inglourious Basterds. Throughout the movie, there's no clear line of good and bad, using an obvious plot to unequivocally show our guys defeating their guys. There aren't even any real battle scenes in the traditional war movie sense. The characters struggle with war itself, not defeating an enemy. They use drugs and violence to cope, and are deeply flawed characters--because of war. War's bad, the film says.

I think Christopher Walken's death in The Dear Hunter is one of the most beautiful scenes in any movie, war or not. But does that mean that movie glorifies war?

Platoon, along with Oliver Stone's other Vietnam War picture, Born on the Fourth of July, are just about the most critical anti-war movies ever made. And Stone's just about the most critical anti-war director ever.

I do agree though, that Jarhead was awesome. I think it's a tremendously underrated movie, and Sam Mendes' best film.

Re: Name the first legitimately bad film on IMDB's Top 250
 

"I am Jack's utter lack of surprise."

And of course this thread took about two hours to degrade into which of these flicks are "overrated" or just "sort of" not good.

Re: Name the first legitimately bad film on IMDB's Top 250
 

Fight Club is worth watching just for the solid direction, it seems technically near perfect. It is over rated, blah blah, but I still enjoy it.

I laugh every time I see Ed Norton punch Pitt in the ear.

Re: Name the first legitimately bad film on IMDB's Top 250
 

I notice people are just expressing their personal POV's here rather than trying to figure out a movie which is bad & doesn't belong on the list..

This thread is so much like the Most Overrated film thread.. The moment a film we hate gets a mention more often, it turns out to be overrated.

For eg:- Planet likes movies which would be mentioned more often in a philosophy class... everything else is crap to him.

& like Powdered already mentioned IMDB's list is popularity based & it's future is not always certain.


I don't think there is a bad movie that everyone hates. I actually liked Plan 9 from Outer Space.

No, the film's a fail.

http://www.ratewall.com/cpics/5b9d21..._Barrymore.jpg

Yep, that was one of the boring things about them. Along with the story, the characters, the fact that it's a fantasy film, that all the do is walk, that bloody annoying silly talking Gollum, the fact that they go on and on and on, the fact that the last one has about 25 endings before it finishes, etc. But that's not really what this thread is supposed to be about.

You and millions of others. Me, it bored stupid.

Of course you didn't find the films boring, you made it through the books! I think I could be speeding my **** off and still fall asleep reading those books.

I thought it was ok, but it really is a rehashed version of lots of other films we've all seen hundreds of times. There again, that was a bad year for film.