What do you think the WORST movie of the last decade was?

Hollywood does not represent the American public…

__________________

Heheh. not so! It was on tele here this saturday. I watched bits of it (coz to be honest i couldn't put up with the aggravating other bits). But it was exactly the polished, emotive, twisted piece of work i imagined it would be from the multiple reviews i read around its release.

The exagerration of american bravery by making the germans more demonic than they were in these types of instance is dodgy. Periphary throw-away things can be the things you just accept unquestioningly sometimes.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Out of pure curiosity… how did the movie Enigma portray the Germans?

So Golgot, what is wrong with the occasional patriotic film that exaggerates some things and fudges others? Its heart is in the right place. I'm guessing you didn't have a problem with Bowling for Columbine. Why then, should you have such a problem with this film?

It seems like we debate a lot Golgot. Predominately on silly things like this. I just want to make it clear that this isn't because I don't like you, because I do. Just wanted to check. Some people seem to take debating too seriously, (a few on this forum.....)

If there is one thing I've learned on this forum, it is that arguing about politics is like the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

And cherry, we did win the war.


(Sorry if my joke upset anyone.....why do I always feel obligated to say sorry?....Well...in any event....I am.)

__________________
"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" - Howard Beale

Seperate thought. Can we stop making EVERYTHING a political debate? I'm getting sick of it.

Oh well...

Heheh. Wish i knew Caitlyn. I've watched docs about that, but never this dramatisation. I imagine they also "demonise" many nazi actions too - but from what i understand it tried to be historically accurate for the most part - so i doubt they would have invented travesties (p.s. i know what you mean about hollywood. Too many people assume the Jerry Springer show = american culture etc etc. I don't hate americans by any means - but i do hate many aspects of hollywood's dumbing-down)

This is the point tho Bealey baby. Inventing travesties is silly when there are enough in the world already. Simplifying the morality of an event to make an idealised picture of history changes your perception of your current situation. If people come out of that cinema believing "america won the war" they're deluded and therefore the film's heart is in the wrong place i.e. if it emotionally subscribes false emotions and facts to important history. I like you too mate - altho i do wish you'd actually enter debates rather than just saying they're silly.

I politicise a lot of what i write because i think unquestioned sloppy beliefs amongst people are what allow the bigger powers that be (and random events) to manipulate us. The power is "ours" if we just keep our eyes open, and question both our own and others' beliefs. Films like this that put us into an uncritical frame of mind (it's only a bit of fun ) allow more insiduous ideas to slip into our head unquestioned or modify existing beliefs. Convince me that U-175 spreads more good than bad (I know, you can't really see the bad, but try anyway )

p.s. i do have problems with Columbine (the interview with the "missile" bloke for example is totally unrelated/unnescessary. It's too sprawling and too emotionally involved to be a truly all-reaching doc - but i do believe it's "heart" is in the right place, in that it knows it's trying to emotionally and intellectualy influence people, with a moral aim of balancing prevelant counter-claims.) "U" sets out with the intention of entertaining. Unfortunately, what you ascribe to as it's "heart" seems to be the underlying idea - as i've banged on about - that the US won the war single handed. When i get on an apparently "anti-american" theme on these threads is coz i'm trying to show you some of things that make the US unpopular internationally - coz now more than ever it's important that you guys at least address and engage with these issues a little. Movies can be a big cause of stereotyping by both "internationals" about "yanks" and vice versa. Beware this multi-delusional veil that is... the cack film)

Gg

My point was while U-571 merely tries to make people feel better and entertain them, while Bowling attempts to change their beliefs, or at least stimulate their minds. Both fudged some things.

I've tried to distance myself from political debate. It bores me.
But, I did kind of cause this in the first place, so, just for you, I will debate once more.

1) The movie doesn't depict Americans winning the war. They merely show that Americans fought Bravely. I believe they did, and this is a tribute to them, not something that is meant to depict an actual event.

2) Some of the facts or exaggerated or fudged, and that’s normal. This is not the only film that makes up facts, nor will it be the last. I'm fine with that. It is meant to entertain, not stimulate the mind. It isn't make to, nor do I think it has changed the minds/opinions of those who watch it. It is simply a patriotic film that is meant to be fun to watch.

3) So they dumbed it down. So what? Repeat #2.

4) I'm not completely against the demonizing of Nazis. Nazis are the meter stick by which evil is judged. Sure, these particular Nazis probably weren't the worst. Maybe they were like the Das Boot crew. Nazis as a whole are scum, and the crew of the ship was depicted as such. Since this wasn't an actual crew, they can take artistic license. This way, the sense or danger is heightened, and thus, it is made a more exciting movie. People didn't form any opinions of the Nazis by watching this film.

5) While the Americans didn't win the war by themselves (as this movie doesn't portray them doing). They were, however a good part of it. So, since they didn't win the war by themselves, are they required to show other nations helping them? No. I imagine there are plenty of films that don't involve the Americans (while I know that the majority do). This film doesn't show us winning the war. It shows us doing our part.

I'm done for right now....but I get the distinct feeling you'll want more out of me.

Why thanking you. both those films fudged some thing - tis true. They both fudged the facts in different places. The important thing is is that Moore recognises that bombastic presentation, mixed with entertainment (humour in his case) are ideal formats for engaging the watcher and stimulating/supplementing ideas. "U" ignores the subconscious and concscious opinion-aligning that goes on in the mind of a movie watcher - or when it does recognise it, it uses it for the purely selfish end of repeating base but appealing points of view to gain the average viewers affinity. Dodgy.

Yes. They did fight bravely (almost too bravely. Having not been hurt by the previous years fighting your generals were incredibly reckless with their soldeir's lives.) But this film does more than show them fighting bravely - it exaggerates their abilities (nine men can't run a sub - being phlegmatic doesn't mean one man can fix an unfamiliar engine when it's normal operator couldn't etc etc + they're made to look good by making the Nazi's navy look unrealistically evil). You must admit that over the years thousands of movies have pushed the idea of near immortal american soldiers taking on greater numbers, and acting as if they had hercules' pet bull rammed up their arse giving them the strength of ten men. It's entirely unrealistic. They also died and shat and ran away just like many other allied soldiers. The entire absence (or ineptness) of the other allies from most American WWII movies just encourages this self-idolising view to a dangerous degree.


See previous points. But also...it didn't change the minds of that many people...coz too many people walked in holding those unrealistic ideas to begin with, i suspect. When the patriotism, based in real events, is over-stated and unrealistic it becomes closer to a form of propoganda pushing a vaguely xenophobic viewpoint. If mindless-entertainment wants to be pure entertainment/detachment from life then let it stick the realms of the totally vacuous where it belongs - but then not even the daftest members of society would go to see it. It's got to have a structure that draws people in - something to relate to - in this case the dream-image overly-patriotic america has of this war. [still not understating what y'all did - just saying some people tend to over-state it]

It's important Dogdammit! Too many opinions people hold have been swizzled into their head subliminally, and then they go round spouting it thinking it's what they've always thought/that it's logical. It happens to all of us.

Yes - but isn't that outrageous?! - give a sub a historical name (the wrong sub for enigma - so that makes it alright?) - base everything in a historical context - then change all the facts to suit you. That is called propoganda (not designed to manipulate as such. Just designed to keep the dumbed-down dollar coming in). Not all "Nazis" were "evil" - many hid within the folds of the regime to do what they could. A society where the majority believes unquestioningly in their superiority, and only a minority try to minimize the damage of such idiotic views, does seem fairly unbalanced tho doesn't it Again, maybe people didn't form opinions of the Nazis coz they already had them. Who would question if the nazis killed submarine-victims? - we all know they were amoral evil scum to a man

They aren't required to do some everyone's-equal-ising, but when it was the other f**king nations that did the work they are portraying themselves doing, that's going too far. It just backs up the myth. It shows you wanting to believe you did everything. I'm not denying what you say about the actual war - but i am saying this movie DOES propogate the perceptual-twists i'm suggesting. Most international viewers, in my experience, hope ferverently that the average american viewer doesn't subscribe to the simplistic and slanted views of america portrayed in 90% of the **** action movies. However, they come on so thick and fast, and do so well at the box office - that we worry.

Heheheh. Well guessed. Issues that could do with addressing:

-Do you feel there are any types of patriotism that are negative?

-Do you feel that romanticising violence can have negative effects? [and is it worse when romanticising historical exploits, or playing on old stereotypes of war rather than the realities? How much do we condone violence when put in a moralised, ends-justify-the-means, or even -suspend-your-disbelief context?]

-Do fatuous and unrealistic depictions of american bravery, superiority and world-saving-ness affect or supplement a dangerously over-patriotic self-image? Oh, I've asked that

nuff

I think that in this whole U-571 argument you're really overlooking somethin important about it. The movie starred Matthew McHougnay and Bill Paxton so I mean...come on...who was really going into this movie with half a brain turned on. I don't think many people would take this movie as a history book lesson even if it were exactly true. So can't we just accept the fact that of the past decade the absolute worst movie was Supernova? Because it was.

__________________

Nhas mentioned it yet, but even if they have I will again to re-inforce it-

BATTLEFIELD EARTH
I am a travolta fan, but what was he THINKING.

The story and the dialogue were horrible. The
cinamatography(spelling?) was absolutely unbarrable, and the acting (yes even Travolta) was horrible.

I knew it was supposed to be a bad movie, but me and a friend rented it once to see if it could possibly be as bad as we had heard....OMG. I cannot remeber a time where I wanted to to turn off a movie after the first ten min, but out of pricipal (if I paid to watch it, i will....not to mention it was the middle of winter and I had nothing else to do) I had to finish it. That was absolutely the biggest waist of 2 hours in my life...2 hours that Travolta still owes me for, not to mention the money spent on it...that was the worst part, and the part I am most embarrased about, I actually paid money to see that peice of crap.

Either way, whats done is done, but that in my opinion is not only the worst movie of the last decade but deserves the title WORST MOVIE EVER!!! second only in rumor to a film I have not seen title "Attack from planet Nine" or something like that, apparently some old B-movie that is still apparently the worst ever.

__________________
In the end...
Everything we do,
Is just everything we've done!
- Corey Taylor (2002)

Never Been Kissed. Not that it was ever feasible, but it's just impossible to have any kind of respect for Drew Barrymore after this. Trust me, just stay away from it.

Heheheh, true, but it still backs up my point i think...Doing anything with your brain mainly switched off is a recipe for hypnotism. They don't "think" of it as a history lesson, but as they "veg" in front of it all of the worst messages contained in the structure and plausability processes are being compared to parts of their inner world etc etc etc. It's the seriousness of the reality-skewing that makes "U" worse than all the other bog-standard brain-dead flicks.

Ok, maybe I'll just put it up for:

Worst braindead use of "reality" and subliminal mis-information in the last decade

Note: This post is best received while listening to Mother's Little Helper by The Rolling Stones.

I think your point is an overblown conspiracy theory, but that isn't meant to be disrespectful or rude. My point is a weakly argued defense, which is probably fueled by denial. But that isn't the point.

I could deal with "Worst brain-dead use of "reality" and subliminal miss-information in the last decade" although I don't agree with it all.

But since you were good enough to reply to me....(drat!)....I feel obligated to do the honorable thing and reply back.

Ok. Here goes.

You are making excuses for a leftist film while condemning a film of which you have only seen pieces. You really should see all of it, so your argument is at least valid. To complain about a film in to the degree that you are without seeing all of it is, (I feel I'm using this word too much) silly. (Hopefully, this will all end soon, and there will be no reason for you to see this film.... but....)

They aren't included in this film because they aren't involved in this mission. This wasn't an allied attack. (The movie version anyway). I feel this point would be much more valid on another type of WWII movie. I could go on more on this...but I really don't think it's needed. I may be wrong however...

Are you equating depicting Nazis as villains to being xenophobic?
1) It’s not mindless.
2) You contradict yourself by saying that the film didn't affect people because they already had pre-ordained thoughts on WWII and nazis. With this statement, you almost admit that this film does little to no harm, and what it does do is re-enforce a view of war and nazis (which in my mind is not negative, but take that view point how you will) that is already re-enforced to the point that this one film doesn't matter. Thus shattering you're argument.

If a viewer can succumb to subliminal messages so easily that a movie such as U-571 would imbed itself in the viewers mind and alter the viewer’s opinions without the viewer noticing, then maybe the viewer’s will power and mind are too weak to be watching movies in the first place. Just a thought.

That is a very good argument.

Propaganda is by definition:
1. publicity to promote something: information or publicity put out by an organization or government to spread and promote a policy, idea, doctrine, or cause
2. misleading publicity: deceptive or distorted information that is systematically spread

Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

I believe you refer to the second definition. In order for this to be propaganda, this would've needed to be (in my mind at least) based directly upon a specific event. Characterizing can only be speculative when it is fictional. So....because these particular FICTIONAL Nazis are portrayed as monsters, this is propaganda? This is a very fine line we are on, so bear with me. Because this movie Nazis based upon stereotypes of Nazis that are monstrous, it would be distorted, given Nazis weren't monstrous. Now, there were Nazis that weren't evil, make no mistake, (mainly soldiers and sailors in my estimation), but the regiment as a whole as pure evil and committed massive atrocities. (This is a whole other argument, and I don't want to get off topic). Therefore, because Nazis can be accurately depicted in both ways, evil and those who just blend in to save their own hide, this is not propaganda. This movie portrays the monsters, Das Boot portrays the humans. It goes both ways. Neither one is propaganda in this manner. To go on the other side of the line, we have The Birth of a Nation, in which completely biased and false stereotypes are presented. While it is a fine line, it is easy to see how different these films are, and how the line is drawn.

I could argue this more, but whatever I do would be a rehash of my earlier argument in that what is wrong with a patriotic film? As long as other viewpoints are shown, which they are, what is the problem? I don't see one. (I do understand you're fear, but no need. It is all going to be fine. I promise. )

Yes, to be sure. Those types include anything that leads to murder (not talking about war) or genocide. Anything that leads to an infringement on others rights. I look at patriotism the same way as look at religion. It is awesome, wonderful, and beautiful, but you can't use it as an excuse. I do not, in any way, believe that this film is negative patriotism.

It can have negative effects, definitely. But I don't believe that it itself is a bad thing. Often it serves as a great commentary on society, and even in occasions provides humor. (Sometimes it just looks cool, like in a John Woo movie!) I believe that all sides should have their say in film. There should be un-violent films just as there should be violent. (or romanticized violent) You could carry this to any extent. To some extent, The Matrix Reloaded is romanticized violence. I think that all sides should have their say and representation in film, and since they do for the most part, it is alright. (The same "all sides represented" is my response for the historical exploits) I think we as a society do condone most forms of violence, just as we are repulsed by it. It is a double-sided coin Golgot. To argue for one side would be to close you're mind to the other.

Yes, you have. But I'll answer anyway. No. This coincides with the "is there any kind of negative patriotism" question.

In conclusion Golgot, stop sweating the small things. Stop worrying about mind control through film and such, and, most importantly, open you're mind some more. You have a wonderful and beautiful view of one side of the coin, but you completely miss the other side. See both sides Golgot. Open up. I think you'll thank me one day. (I mean this in a totally respectful manner. My view of the coin, while I can see both sides just fine, isn't as refined as yours for you're one side. If you could only move on to both sides, you could have something very special. You are a bright person. I think you'll come to it eventually).

Can we just agree to disagree? I spent a good amount of time on this post.....and....it does bore me....but, to be fair, I did start it, so I am at you're mercy. It is up to you.

P.S. Have you seen Dark City yet?

Gah, no not yet.

Oh Beale, you are a sweety. Thank you for preoccupying over my open-ness of mind. I must admit tho, i see this as more like quite a few spinning coins flying through the air. [It is a terrible thing tho about talking categorically that you always end up in either/ors, dualities, polarities etc - or you float off into multiple-theory relativity - where it's quite hard to be conclusive. (just thought i'd get the pretention count up early - s'what i'm good at )]

I am being one-sided tho - i admit that. I'm just arguing my main perspective. I like to think i can see your point of view too tho

I refute the conspiracy theory most strongly sir! (in this case ) I'm basically saying two things:

-that hollywood knows that simplified and glorified patriotic images will do well in the local market (and the action etc will do fine abroad too)

-that the images themselves of american exploits and abilities are mightily over-blown in the glorifying variety of war-film. For example in U-571 - they acheive the impossible. Taking over a sub, (impossible gun battle), fixing it and running it with 9 men isn't possible. Theses types of thing are allegories for how overblown the american perception of their own importance has become. Sorry, but when lumped together to make the "internal-logic" of the film, they are. All nations glorify themselves - but again, your size and influence make you the more logical one to try and slap on the wrist - coz the outcome can be so much more damaging all round

Not making excuses for it. It made mistakes. But it recognised the nature of its format is to perpetuate certain ideas. I attack "U", and u, for not conceeding that "U" equally propogates, perpetuates and placates certain ridiculous "yard-sticks" as u've called them.

teehee, titter titter. Sorry, but - yes they're not involved in the film "mission" coz it's an americo-centric piece of fiction as we discussed. If it was based on the real "missions" (accidents/bits of bravery/bits of opportunism, whatever they were) it would have involved either the aussies who blew up the original u-571 or the brits who made the two main Enigma discoveries. But yes, you're right, there are many films that play artistic liscence with real events, i believe.



Yes, quite shattered apart. Only...

I'm saying depiciting nazis as casual callous killers of the high seas is screwed up. (ESPECIALLY as a side-issue. If that's the only glimpse you get - you take that as being how it is). In reality from 2400 odd sinkings throughout the war, there was only one reported killing of survivors!
It makes your we're-all-hypnotised-already-so-what-'s-the-prob-with-a-bit-of-re-inforcement thing look suspect. You happily say Nazis should be the yard stick of evil, yet polarising them to this either-or/good-bad extent is unrealistic and leads to very dodgy decisions/opinions in the real world.
When the other end of the scales is the good-guy-americans, yes i think this can lead to a strange superiority-complex - which we could call a mild xenophobia (I prescribe the sarcastic and belittling humour of the gloomy gleamy british as a counter balance - the Yes Minister series is a good place to start )



Um - we are all susceptible to hypnotism etc in one way or another, and to certain extents. And we all love to rationalise our way around complex dilemmas - or why we made the decision we did etc. That's not conspiracy -that's the set-up, that's the game . I don't really know to be honest to what extent i think the movies can affect how we end up thinking - or if many even do that. But i think they do, as a rule.

The capturing of the first enigma machine?! I know it's only used as a vague device/reason for the action etc, but it's still the offical plot line/justification for the actions.

The sea "regiments" weren't "monstrous" by the standards of war at all. See above
Now bealey, who's only looking at one side of the coin here? Many Nazis were monstrous, therefore we can portray ALL Nazis as monstrous in this film. Shouldn't the film have mixed in the odd realistic "human" one, and the occasional, realistic, "humane"(-ish. Feck, it was war.) action on a large scale, to avoid being like this Birth of Nation film (which i haven't seen i'm afraid - but the title seems ominous. I did see most of the plot points of "U" i think, btw, and i've read a few breakdowns of the plot etc. The rest is quite easy to imagine ) .
You can't really think we should divvy up national tendancies into their opposing stereotypes in different films! Here's a film about fat-and-ignorant americans, here's one about some thin-and-greedy ones?? (sorry, common-currency stereotypes i'm afraid. Must be the french spreading propoganda thru their art house movies )

Heheh, unfortunately, my fears, like my hopes, are multiple. Do you mind filling in my gaps in the film's progression then and telling me what other viewpoints are shown i.e. ones that supplement, exclude or contradict the idea that america saved the world




You're right. They can both be beautiful and benficial things in a big way. They can both also be the rod for our own back, if used to rigidly. What happens when you infringe the rights of other nations? What happens when patriotic belief leads to ideas like: - whatever decisions our representatives make must be right - our current way of life is superior in some way - we are going to war to make things better coz that's what we do. One of my "fears" is that the american public might be a little too easily lead down bad alleys/broadways/garden-paths, however you care to imagine it... [NB i could point to beneficial things in these areas (but not as many ) and alternative ones too - but that wouldn't clarify the argument now would it ]


Cheers for the compliments b4 bealesy, but i'm afraid i can show no mercy Small things make the big things. I disagree with you only to hopefully make you see - there is no coin - or if there is it's a spoon

Cheers for chatting

Gg

I see you finally edited this post. Good arguements. (You even altered some of what I said and used it agaisnt me. That was a VERY nice touch, and I mean that).

Unfortunately, I'm really pressed for time as of most of this past week. I haven't even been able to post on my beloved Cinema Taste Test in the past few days. I've been reduced to a few short posts. Sad really. By this weekend, I hope to have everything sorted out, and thus I can begin to be myself again. I hope you won't mind waiting for the debate.

And by that time, try to see Dark City. I highly recommend it. I would love to talk about that as well.

But most of all, there is a coin. I will attempt to make it more clear in my next arguement (there is no spoon however).

Heheheh, looking forward to it Bealy. I've put myself down to see Buffalo Soldiers, but I'll do my best to get Dark City in too (um, there's another related one i need to see too, I'll track it down, forgotten the name )

Hmm, duality, polarity. Gird your loins and prepare your coin, for i am not a believer in this artful deceiver. Tis but some metallic ore, but like everything else, it could be door. [man, why is there no position like Chief Pretension officer in the filmworld? I'd give 'em some continuity )

OK There was this old school piece of crap movie with Van Damne called No Retreat No Surrender. I think this one takes the cake it was horrible. I think I would rather watch paint dry then see that one again...Has anyone else heard of it???

__________________
"Aim high, it costs no more to shoot at eagles then it does to shoot at skunks"

The title says it all . Come, organise your day job and re-plug your gob into this tattle-battle! I want to convince you the coin can cut in many ways, and it has a tendancy to spin they say

You are right when I say you are and not before!

I'll get to this soon. In the mean time, why don't you try to make some kind of point and back it up.

Heheheh. I make a very pointy point. Exaggerated patriotism (especially when using black-n-white yardsticks) can lead to negative beliefs and skew the believer's view, decision-making and actions. That's quite hard to prove. But it's definitely pointy.