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

The title says it all, but just in case: which is the highest film on IMDB's Top 250 that you find to be bad? I don't mean disappointing, overrated, not-your-style, or some kind of missed opportunity, but a genuinely sub-par film.

Obviously the list fluctuates, but for these purposes it should be okay. And, since Inception is precariously high right now, and will certainly fall, it might be better/more interesting to just go straight to the second-highest if that's going to be your answer.

I'm pretty torn as to what mine would be. I know a whole bunch of you will hate this, but my first rough candidate was Apocalypse Now at #38. I liked some of the ideas behind it but found everything else insufferable, but whether or not I'd call it "bad" is debatable.

A bit further down, at #50, I find a better candidate in A Clockwork Orange, and a better one still in Full Metal Jacket, which I think is the first film (at #83) that I'm pretty much positive I would call "bad." And if I were to waiver on that, I definitely wouldn't go past Avatar at #113.

So, now that I've surely enraged all Kubrick fans: what would you choose?

Definitely 12 Angry Men.

- A Kubrick Fan

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

See, that's just going to make them even angrier. And, uh, 12-ier.

Anyway, yeah, yeah, whatever. What would you pick?

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

Kidding about 12 Angry Men, by the way, don't really feel like negative repping the owner of the site for his Kubrick hating.

I don't really like American Beauty (currently #39), although that's more of a film being overrated in my opinion than being bad. I thought Gran Torino (#93) was pretty weak, so I'm going with that movie. Avatar (#113) was certainly a load of...and comes in second place (or second to last place).

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

It's hard not to weigh in the factor of disappointment but looking down the list the first movie that is mediocre to me is The Usual Suspects at #24. But I guess I would still call it a decent film so I won't count it.

The first movie that I would classify as "bad" from what I've seen would be Gladiator at #96.

Also where the Shawshank haters at?

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

I'm sure honeykid is compiling a long list as we speak.

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

I really Dislike Avatar (2009)
Much people said it was really great and i couldn't even sit through it,The ending was horrible to my point of view i'm just saying the concept of this film sounds kind of dull and boring to me. And There Will Be Blood (2007) was soo horrible i dont have any words to describe that horrible Film.

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

I hesitate to call any of them 'bad' but there are many I have little or no time for (Star Wars is the first one of them at #12 - if we're saving Inception that is ;)). Skimming through it, for I don't think the list warrants any more attention than that, the first 'bad' film i'd pick out would be Requiem for a Dream (Yeah let's ****ing do drugs), then on to stuff like V For Vile and Pirates of the Caribbean.

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

I only got 26 down when I saw Silence of the Lambs.

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

1. Inception: Utterly mediocre. It's obscene that it's above The Godfather II. :mad:

2. Schindler's List: People felt compelled to like this film even though it's the most implicitly fascist, patronizing, anti-Semitic film ever made. Switch it out for #77 please. La Vita e Bella is probably the most successful holocaust film ever made, but its ending was still a cop-out.

3. Toy Story 3: I didn't even see it but wtf? Let's be honest here. 10th best film of all time? Utterly obscene.

4. The Dark Knight: Another inherently fascist film. It says a lot about our collective ideology. So... Nolan... what your saying is that society rests on the basis of a lie. And it's now somehow heroic to be a scapegoat.

5. Memento: One-trick pony. Fun the first time then excruciatingly boresville the subsequent viewings.

6. Forrest Gump: Ideological failure. Millionaire propaganda.

7. Up: I can't even abbreviate here. WHAT THE ****? Finding Nemo is infinitely the greater film. Up had a great beginning, but the rest was random, senseless crap unsuitable for even a second dignified viewing.

8. Batman Begins: Just a bad film. Just plain bad. Total failure on many levels.

9. The Big Lebowski: This is one of the Coen's weakest efforts, but it's up there in the stead of their masterpiece Barton Fink because of the memes it generated and people like to say "the Dude abides".

10. How to Train Your Dragon: Wow. Just, wow. Look at some of the titles below this. Children of Men. :facepalm: The Kid. :facepalm: The Hustler. :facepalm: A Streetcar Named Desire. :facepalm: Magnolia. :facepalm: Brief Encounter. :facepalm: The 400 Blows. :facepalm: I'll stop now.

This just depressed me. :(

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

No matter how much you hate Forrest Gump, calling it a failure just doesn't make any sense at all.

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

The Wrestler

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

For me, it has got to be Fight Club, I don't see anything that really is great about that film.

Not trying to hate on Kubrick, but if Fight Club doesn't count, then I'd go with Dr. Strangelove.

American Beauty would be a tempting third choice but as a poster above me stated, it's probably more overrated than being a bad film.

Love the thread, by the way.

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

planet news is a Nolan fanboy.

If you haven't seen it, leave it alone...

These two have no relation to the thread's criteria.
So...does only being good for one viewing make Memento a bad film, or not? And does The Big Lebowski being (allegedly) one of the Coens' "weakest efforts" mean it's bad, or just not up to their usual standard? And do your problems with The Dark Knight's ideology (which you're making a number of presumptions about, by the way) mean it's a bad film?

Comments like the above are why I went out of my way to try to add some stipulations: so the thread didn't devolve into such predictable stuff as randomly commenting on the films in the list, or their order, or anything else like that. I think we can take it as a given that any human being who watches and thinks about films is going to have problems with any list of the best films of all time. Always. But that's not usually a very interesting topic by itself even when elaboration is given for each choice, and definitely not when it isn't.

Also...

You said similar things about both of these films in another thread, and I responded to both in a fairly measured way explaining why I thought each critique was invalid, inconsistent, or just generally baffling. And, in an instance or two, fair but harsh. If you want to discuss them, by all means, reply to those posts. :) I'd be curious as to what you'd say in each instance.

Hey, alright! We have a winner. I mean, I think this is horrendously wrong, and you really ought to elaborate on any potentially controversial and undeniably broad as "Total failure on many levels," but this does, technically, qualify as an answer to the question being posed.

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

If a movie is highly acclaimed, I just don't see how you can call it a failure. You can call it underwhelming, mediocre, overrated, or boring. But I don't think using the term failure can apply for any films on the IMDB top 250, much less Forrest Gump and Schindler's List.

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

#31: Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers: In my opinion the worst of the three LOTR films. It was visually stunning and all, but to have it up at #31 is a bit high for me.

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

American History X. There are some others but none that I have a ready-made diatribe for and I'm feeling too lazy to argue the case against another movie right now, and it kind of depresses me.

Trying to follow your criteria as closely as possible, I'd say there aren't any downright 'bad' films in the Top 100. Which isn't to say there aren't at least twenty overrated films. And these are films I still like, I own many of them. But I wouldn't be surprised if 75% of the users who pushed Fight Club into the Top 20 were 14-year-old boys who've seen less that 100 movies in their lives and immediately gave it a perfect rating.

The closest thing to a bad movie in the Top 100, in my opinion, is Full Metal Jacket, which I think is uneven, uninteresting, and poorly directed. I think it's one of the worst war movies I've ever seen. But even that's really good--Kubrick made it, so of course it had some level of quality.

The first BAD film, as in a film that should not be on the Top 250 under any circumstances, is Snatch. at No. 132. This movie isn't simply overrated, it's bad. I think Guy Ritchie is one of the worst major directors and writers working today. It has a completely unoriginal story, it's directing is pretty much robbed from Quentin Tarantino and Martin Scorsese, and it tries pitifully hard to be cool, and fails. I don't normally rip on movies unless it's generally accepted that they suck, but this is one I know many people consider a favorite. I just don't understand it. If you like it, could you explain why?

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.

Nope, there is nothing really meaningful in it. It's a soulless movie that is shallow and has no value beneath the surface. But the surface is so awesome. Fincher makes it a great movie. You can watch it again to be amazed at what a clean, precise director he is, but don't expect to find something profound.


I feel exactly the same way. I don't like to like Anderson, but I can't help but love this movie and be moved by this family. And of course, his movies are always visually appealing.


This is one of the greatest movies of all time. It's actually on my top 100 list, if I ever get energy to actually sit down and post it.


Also on my Top 100, actually the next installment. I usually don't like flashy camera work, especially when it distracts from the movie. But I think it works here. It's like, "this is your mind on drugs."

It's #16 on my list.. Does that make my Top 100 list inferior to yours??

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

Trying to figure out HK's movie taste is like wrestling with a pig in the mud.

Although anyone who likes Charlie's Angels better than LoTR has got something going for them. What that something is however... well you figure it out.

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

WAT WAT WAT AM I HEARING?

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/x...ws/HNNNNNG.png

---

C&W REPLY:

Let's just put it this way. Though I want to watch Fight Club again soon to reevaluate my thoughts on it, I never want to waste time and watch Batman Begins again. Maybe I was in a sh1tty mood the day I watched it, but it rubbed me the wrong way.

Yes, The Dear Hunter is a perfect companion to Platoon. Of course both are supposed to be anti-war. Let's be honest, are we really going to be praising the Vietnam war when the term "Vietnam" basically means epic fail? What I'm saying is that none of them do it as well as FMJ because of FMJ's sardonic, detached manner, while TDH and P are both constantly trying to be dark and dramatic. Apocalypse Now takes this dark drama to a surreal level, criticizing not so much the war itself anymore but human nature itself (a la Heart of Darkness). This is basically the problem I have with most holocaust films. Kubrick was right when he said no film could capture the horror of the holocaust. Actually, only partly right. Comedies can. This is why I love La Vie e Bell, though I think even the ending should have been funny. It should have been a comedy all the way through. FMJ pulled the same thing. I appreciate its moments of darkness, but this kind of absurdist mockery of war in a realist way is the true anti-war IMO. In both cases, why give it--war/the holocaust--any kind of dignity at all?

And yeah, BJM is just stunning.

No, of course not. Obviously these are all opinions. People are complaining that this thread has devolved into an 'overrated' films list. But asking which movies don't belong on a top 250 list will obviously become just that. These are films that are rated highly, and people posting here believe they shouldn't be, because they are 'bad'. They are overrated. Were people expecting this thread to find a movie that was definitively bad? Because there's no such thing. I could make an argument in favor of literally every movie on the list except for Snatch. and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels. And I'm sure someone else could even make a case for those.

And, I don't know how many times I gotta say this, but I think Full Metal Jacket is a very good movie. It just happens to be in my opinion the worst movie made by one of the greatest and consistently critically successful directors of all time. That still makes it ten times better than the best film of any number of good directors. It also happens to be one of the weakest inclusions in a genre that's filled with other great movies. That doesn't mean it isn't better than thousands of movies outside of that genre. What I'm saying is, of all the movies in IMDb's Top 100, this is the one that has the least cultural significance, critical appeal, or noteworthiness--to me.

And I never said anyone who would place Full Metal Jacket higher than 83rd automatically has inferior taste in movies. That's absurd. I don't judge anyone's taste in movies here. I have about twenty movies in my top 100 which could easily be replaced with a "better" movie. I don't think Fight Club is anywhere near the 78th greatest movie of all time, but that's where it is on my list. I'm sure you could think of at least seventeen movies that are better than Full Metal Jacket, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be sixteenth on your list.

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

Sorry, I worked on the post while you replied to other stuff so it was a bit after the fact. :blush:

I don't even care about IMDB anymore. The whole thing is just such an utter joke. Indeed, it's very representative of popular opinion, but popular opinion is an utter joke. This is why I'm damn glad we have a representative democracy. The founding fathers were damn right when they said that the common plebe shouldn't be allowed to vote. IMDB sucks because it doesn't have an electoral college with people who actually know about film vetoing sh1t.

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

And now for something completely different, I'm going to throw in #51 - The Departed. However, I've been contemplating giving it a rewatch so I'm remaining cautiously optimistic that it may be better a second time around.

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

@ C&W Really? You think Full Metal Jacket is worse then Eyes Wide Shut?

My Dad thinks Full Metal Jacket is brilliant and he actually went to Vietnam. The only film he likes better is Hamburger Hill.

I'm with you on The Usual Suspects. It's decent, probably not bad, but I didn't find the ending to be all that great. It's a typical thriller/crime film.

I would say that I think Eyes Wide Shut is better than Full Metal Jacket.

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

Powdered Water is giving me proof for the power of sarcasm. I feel like Vietnam "must have" felt much more like FMJ's antics than P or TDH.

Eyes Wide Shut is a dearly underrated film that contains a theoretical goldmine of meaning just waiting to be tapped into. Or has it been?

PLEASE, ALL EYES WIDE SHUT HATERS, familiarize yourself with THIS WEBSITE. It is absolutely brilliant, and I mean both the analysis and the film

I think Eyes Wide Shut is better than many of Kubrick's movies. I put it ahead of Spartacus, Lolita, and Barry Lyndon. But again, that doesn't in any way mean those are bad films, or that someone who prefers those films is lesser than me in film knowledge or taste. These are all opinions from a person who's never directed a movie or written an article on film analysis or criticism for a major publication. I have no expertise in this field, as I'm sure few people here do. But I have seen a lot of movies.

I am 22. I wasn't even alive during that war, and I've certainly never been in a war. I cannot judge the movie based on its authenticity or its message, and I'm sorry if my comments came across as knowing about war in any way, though I don't think they did. My opinions on the movie are solely from a movie perspective. My dad, who knows more about film than anyone I have ever met, considers Full Metal Jacket to be one of the 25 best movies ever made. And I still value his opinions on movies-more than literally anyone else's actually.

Get the f*ck out of here!! I thought I was the only person in the world who knew about this site. +rep. But I sincerely doubt this will change anyone's opinion on the movie.

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

I'd have to say that Avatar was the first really bad movie on the list. there were many I disliked, and a couple bad ones further down the line, but Avatar was the only one without a single reputable factor.

it's also incredible that someone could find The Good The Bad and The Ugly is legitimately bad.

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

Even, like, plebian philistine steriod football linebacker jocks could probably appreciate TG, TB, ATU. It's just an awesome as hell film.

C&W... :love::laugh:

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

I actually went and saw Eyes Wide Shut in the theater. I didn't love it but I certainly don't hate it or anything.

It's interesting to meet a few folks who really like it. I've always thought that it was considered by many to be one of Kubrick's weaker films.

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

Honeykid's funny like that. He'll watch damn near anything with Drew Barrymore in it regardless of the movie's overall quality, yet he dumps on countless beloved classics.

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

He'd probably like Andrei Tarkovsky's Stalker then.

:nope:

Actually, that's not quite true. I was watching it once, but I became bored and turned it off. Unfortunately, I didn't get around to watching the rest of it. I didn't think it was that bad, though.

Any Tarkovsky film is difficult to watch. They are very slowly paced and philosophical. It's like watching a philosophy essay on film with very obscure images.

Trying to eliminate my personal taste as much as possible (otherwise it'd be #1, Shawshank) and without getting into the ordering, I'll go with #90, The Green Mile. Cheesy, cheaply manipulative flick, and as much as I think Shawshank is ridiculously overrated it is Cool Hand Luke in direct comparison to Green Mile.

I mean I have problems with PLENTY of the movies long before #90, but putting them into relative perspectives of their popularity, critical reputations, historical importance or technical achievements, I can let them pass in such an exercise. But Green Mile? Nope. Gotta stop the train right there.

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

Why is a kiddie film about dragons in the top 250? That's a joke, seriously.

I also found LOTR dragged out and dull. It was good for what it was and I'm sure people who like fantasy will love it but it just never ended. I felt like throwing Frodo in the bloody mount/volcano too.

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

Short attention spans anyone?????? I'm no fan of fantasy or lolepic type stuff, but I've never been as impressed with a film as I was with LOTR and especially TROTK (trotsky?). I think they cut down the trek across Mordor quite a bit. It took several days in the book, where in the film it was made to look like maybe several hours.

I don't know what yall want from film. Do you want an emotional experience? A visceral experience? To care about the characters? To be excited, disappointed, scared, overjoyed? It had, well, everything. And much more, I'd say, since battle scenes like that have never really been seen before. I don't see most of yall being super-pretentious about other, much lesser films, but yall just want to cast LOTR aside like it's some kind of trash. "Legitimately bad". WTF?

---

The Green Mile had all the elements of being a film where you bawled, oooo'd and ahhh'd, but it still somehow fell short; it wasn't even emotional candy like Shawshank was.

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

I love LOTR.. I also like the books. But I didn't find it a drag.
After reading the books, it's hard to imagine how one could even think of adapting those books so faithfully. Peter jackson did a brilliant job.

But I didn't care much for Return of the King, I found it the weakest of the 3.

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

I found it the strongest or at least equal with The Two Towers. The Minas Tirith battle scene in TROTK is still the most amazing thing I've ever seen. Completely blows Avatar out of the water IMO. I'm glad I found it the strongest since it was the conclusion; it should be. The ending was sort of painful, but only "sort of", because... well... I liked seeing everybody happy. Even if LOTR is just pure candy--which is certainly is not "just"--it's such a bold and sweet serving of candy that I just can't up but love it.

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

Yes, that battle scene was beyond epic... But it still seems a bit rushed, & the drama was a bit of a letdown.
Two Towers is the best of the 3 & Fellowship had the best second half.

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

I could agree that The Two Towers is the best of the three. Kinda like The Empire Strikes Back of the group! Sure.

The whole trilogy succeeded amazingly. I like pretentiousness as well as the next guy, but unless you are some kind of realist purist or experimentalist or dogme #95 collective purist, you can't deny the successes of this film. I by no means refer to box office.

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

Damn, this thread got off topic quick. New thread for LOTR?

After Donnie Darko, I would jump all the way down to #221 Crash. I love Don Cheadle and Matt Dillon, but this film was a mess. I cannot understand for the life of me how this won Best Picture, especially considering it's basically Traffic, but s***tier. Maybe this would have been groundbreaking forty years ago, but it's a poorly written overwrought drama that attempts to make deep, thought provoking points about race by having people bitch about racial stereotypes, and then act according to them, and by having the same damn woman wailing for half the film.

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

I enjoyed Willow (It was a flop). So, for me a movie depends on the personal experience.
The movie could be entertaining, something I could relate to, etc... There could be tons of reasons why I love my movies.. But box office success means little to me.

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

Yes Crash was an Okayish film, don't get what the big deal was.

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

Crash was totally meh. People like it because of the OMG coincidence/irony factor. It said nothing about race relations or "human contact" whatsoever. "We crash into each other?" WTF does/can that even mean? No we don't.

Is Willow on that list???? Jesus Chri--:facepalm:^10

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

No.. no.. It's not.. I just told you I like Willow, & that Box Office success means little to me.

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

Thank. God.

Having just read the top 250 for the first time for ages (nice thread Yoda), I'm surprised at many of the films on it and how high some recent films are. I've got to agree with C&W about Snatch. That film is the only film I think is poor enough to question it being on the list at all.
There's others on there I don't particularly like, like Wall-E, but I couldn't say they were bad films just not not my thing.

I even noticed a film I've never seen of heard of at number 169 The Secrets in Their Eyes - anyone seen it? Must have a look at that.

Shittier than Traffic? I'm hard pressed to find ANY film shittier than that one, much less Crash.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Fu8Af7ufmb...our+Dragon.gif

First of all, it will surely fall down the list when it hits DVD, more people see it, and more time passes. Second of all....How to Train Your Dragon is awesome. Seriously awesome. Not "top 250" material, but a damn good flick, and definitely one of the year's best thus far. To dismiss it out of hand is a mistake. Very, very enjoyable movie, no matter what your age. Better movie than Avatar, that's for damn sure.

>dragons

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo :cool:

---

Are you saying this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...fficposter.JPG

was ****** or are you just trolling? What exactly was wrong with this film? I thought it was very good.

I completely agree. I went in to How to Train Your Dragon expecting a routine kid's flick, and was surprised to find that it was so much more. I saw it in 3D and I can say with confidence that it's the best use of the medium since A Christmas Carol. For better or for worse, it's one of the best movies of the first half of 2010. I think people are unjustly dismissing this movie because it's labeled a kid's movie, it is animated, and it was in 3D, which is starting to annoy people.

And people need to calm down about how newer movies are so high, or on the list at all. Whenever a 'good' movie comes out--not even a great one--the first people to rate it on IMDb will be fanboys and younger audiences who immediately give it a perfect score. They will fall in time, every movie does, with the exception of great ones.

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

Well, both Holden and C&W think this film is good so maybe I'll have to...

No.

And the list is meaningless then. Not that anyone's ever said it was meaningful.

I thought from the get-go it was generally accepted that the IMDb Top 250 is a complete joke with utterly no meaning in the ranking of films. The list is meaningless. I wonder if people have been looking at it as a legitimate portrait of the 250 best movies of all time.

I want to think differently, but the truth is that the vast majority of people ranking movies there are 14 year-olds who've seen very few movies and jump at the opportunity to give something like Snatch. or Fight Club or The Green Mile a perfect rating. You can pretty much approximate their ages and movie knowledge by the low maturity level of many of the posts.

Yes, Traffic was very solid! rauld, are we talking about the same film?

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

Maybe he means Tati's Trafic? He's probably just trolling.

When I first trolled on here, people used IMDB as some kind of justification. Or maybe that was some other board. Anyways, I've seen it done. It's a fine resource, so people take the list seriously, but I don't go for this. I don't like collective lists much either. I'd rather see a single list from an individual like Bordwell that accentuates his tastes and biases than some generic list meant to appease everyone.

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

Traffic is probably the quintessential "impressive but not enjoyable" film. For me, at least. I saw it back when it was in theaters, so perhaps a slightly more grown-up me would like it more. I'm not going to find out terribly soon, though.

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

No thanks - I opened the list and saw Shawshank at #1 and stopped right there - that list is pants. I think I noticed films like Lawrence of Arabia and Casablanca down around #20, so IMDB is so fired...so, so fired...

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

No, I kid you not. Traffic is one of the most unenjoyable films I've probably ever watched.

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

Overrated, too. But then, I find most of Soderberg's films to be.

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

I'm not saying that it's overrated. It may or may not be. I'm just saying it's a bad film. Though I'm not sure if it's on the top 250, it used to be and I couldn't figure out for the life of me why.

Fixed :p

I'm with Fenwick here.

The first film on the list that looks seriously out of place to me is Requiem for a Dream. I've never understood all the hip student love that overrated twaddle gets. A trumped up load of morose shock tactic nonsense about a couple of unsympathetic druggie muppets, and all directed in that artsy fartsy cooler than thou style that disappears up it's own rectum long before the end credits roll. It's probably Pete Doherty's favourite film; Yuck.

I dunno...I must be getting old or something.

:laugh: Very good, Fiscal. :up:

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

That one.

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

Apocalypse Now for me. It was 3/4 good and 1/4 crap, I really didn't enjoy the film from the moment Brando was introduced.

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

The order aside, finding a genuinely bad, as opposed to stupid, film in this list may prove to be hard...Braveheart, Gran Torino, It's a Wonderful Life is a questionable choice but "bad"? Perhaps

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

Can't help ya. :bored:

I would consider the Brando parts to be some of the best parts of the film. AN is a masterpiece beyond compare.

Since you mention you didn't enjoy from the moment Brando was introduced, I am certain you meant the ending... Coz Brando had introductory scenes in the beginning of the film.

You liked 3/4th of the movie & didn't enjoy what has to be a part when the movie falls into place & actually begins to make sense..
I wonder how you even managed to like 3/4th of the movie.

Anyway to each his own, I have few friends who can't sit through this movie..
Regardless of anything, Apocalypse Now is Coppola's best work... Also John Milius' best work.

A quick question, Did you enjoy the ending scene with The Doors' The End.
If you liked 3/4th of the movie, you have got to love that scene.

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

Absolutely agree. Trumps The Godfather (I) by miles and miles.

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

By lightyears...

I keep wondering sometimes, what if Coppola mixed The Godfather with themes from Heart of Darkness & directed in the style of Apocalypse Now.

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

Who would be Kurtz, the savage turncoat? Brando again? Seems more like Pacino.

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

I don't mean the exact storyline of The Godfather, but a similar storyline. maybe the Yakuza this time.