the worst movies ever

Tools    





On the other hand, I guess it's somewhat fair to call a one-sided portrayal of war crimes propaganda.
Some of the worst American films are guilty of this kind of propaganda, recently including that spate of films that were specifically presenting a normalization, at the very least a rationalization, of torture (Taken, Inglorious Basterds, Zero Dark Thirty) all at the same time that it was discovered that the US military had been secretly engaging in this illegal and immoral program. By now, likely more Americans are under the belief that torture is neither illegal nor immoral, and there's no substantial controversy over this shift in national conscience.


Among the worst of this worst is Fury, a film that includes the one-sided portrayal with dehumanized Nazis mixed in some distastefully sadistic fabrications of the side the film was attempting to glamorize. We see cold-blooded executions used as a masculine rite of passage, and if that weren't clear enough, it's followed up by the more explicit masculine rite of passage of sex with female plunder, under the subtle coercion of an implied gun barrel. Things like torture and rape occur in most, maybe all, war settings where morality becomes a liability. Fury perhaps exaggerates the normality of such incidents (one historian has estimated that only 1/3rd of allied soldiers witnessed an extrajudicial execution, far fewer participating), but what's insidious is that the film isn't interested in examining the human implications of such behavior, but instead in championing it as a masculine (or national?) prerogative, and this may be due to the fact that David Ayer is one of the more sociopathic filmmakers over the past decade (a decade that was more than a little sociopathically competitive), and such an attitude wouldn't be unusual in the kind of filmmaker who "also pushed the cast to physically spar each other, leading to black eyes and bloody noses". Ayer didn't "get" Fight Club apparently, and films like Fury are an abomination to the likes of soldiers like Lafayette G. Pool, the real life "war daddy" that Pitt's commander is based on, a man who never was witnessed or accused of mistreating a POW or plucking the locally bereaved, in fact his reputation is exactly the opposite of such things. I guess Ayer chose to fictionalize his characters because in reality they weren't hardcore enough to satisfy whatever front Ayer is desperately trying to maintain in his cos-bro fatigues.


tl; dr - The worst films in my view are those films which are competently and professionally made, consistently receive middling to mildly amusing reviews, and tacitly promote (rather than examine) such toxic, selfish, sadistic, consumerist self-flattering dogma that is embedded in the kind of cruelty that only a first-world leisure-class can believe they can afford. The number of films that fall into this cynical category of entertainment goes well beyind typical war films, from The Purge to Precious, normalizing and even encouraging our cruelest presumptions of other human beings.



The trick is not minding
Some of the worst American films are guilty of this kind of propaganda, recently including that spate of films that were specifically presenting a normalization, at the very least a rationalization, of torture (Taken, Inglorious Basterds, Zero Dark Thirty) all at the same time that it was discovered that the US military had been secretly engaging in this illegal and immoral program. By now, likely more Americans are under the belief that torture is neither illegal nor immoral, and there's no substantial controversy over this shift in national conscience.


Among the worst of this worst is Fury, a film that includes the one-sided portrayal with dehumanized Nazis mixed in some distastefully sadistic fabrications of the side the film was attempting to glamorize. We see cold-blooded executions used as a masculine rite of passage, and if that weren't clear enough, it's followed up by the more explicit masculine rite of passage of sex with female plunder, under the subtle coercion of an implied gun barrel. Things like torture and rape occur in most, maybe all, war settings where morality becomes a liability. Fury perhaps exaggerates the normality of such incidents (one historian has estimated that only 1/3rd of allied soldiers witnessed an extrajudicial execution, far fewer participating), but what's insidious is that the film isn't interested in examining the human implications of such behavior, but instead in championing it as a masculine (or national?) prerogative, and this may be due to the fact that David Ayer is one of the more sociopathic filmmakers over the past decade (a decade that was more than a little sociopathically competitive), and such an attitude wouldn't be unusual in the kind of filmmaker who "also pushed the cast to physically spar each other, leading to black eyes and bloody noses". Ayer didn't "get" Fight Club apparently, and films like Fury are an abomination to the likes of soldiers like Lafayette G. Pool, the real life "war daddy" that Pitt's commander is based on, a man who never was witnessed or accused of mistreating a POW or plucking the locally bereaved, in fact his reputation is exactly the opposite of such things. I guess Ayer chose to fictionalize his characters because in reality they weren't hardcore enough to satisfy whatever front Ayer is desperately trying to maintain in his cos-bro fatigues.


tl; dr - The worst films in my view are those films which are competently and professionally made, consistently receive middling to mildly amusing reviews, and tacitly promote (rather than examine) such toxic, selfish, sadistic, consumerist self-flattering dogma that is embedded in the kind of cruelty that only a first-world leisure-class can believe they can afford. The number of films that fall into this cynical category of entertainment goes well beyind typical war films, from The Purge to Precious, normalizing and even encouraging our cruelest presumptions of other human beings.
I remember watching Fury, and while I actually enjoyed it, I couldn’t help shaking my head during that particular scene involving Pitt and the POW.
Did you like the film itself, outside of those depictions?



...Among the worst of this worst is Fury, a film that includes the one-sided portrayal with dehumanized Nazis mixed in some distastefully sadistic fabrications of the side the film was attempting to glamorize. We see cold-blooded executions used as a masculine rite of passage, and if that weren't clear enough, it's followed up by the more explicit masculine rite of passage of sex with female plunder, under the subtle coercion of an implied gun barrel. Things like torture and rape occur in most, maybe all, war settings where morality becomes a liability.
...
I hated Fury and gave it a
This is condensed, the full review is on MoFo.


Fury (2014
Fury has been called a realistic war film. Nothing could be further from the truth. Fury works as a thrilling, action adventure film but don't look for reality. As Fury is about WWII, it needed to have a realistic story and action, but with director/writer David Ayer, realism is out the window.

What we get with Fury is American soldiers portrayed as blood thirsty savages, while the Nazi's are stumbling idiots, who can't seem to shoot straight. The first scene starts with a surrealist looking battlefield, among the smoke and darkness of night lay the smoldering ruins of many destroyed tanks. Out of a tank pops the hero, Brad Pitt locked in hand to hand combat with a German soldier. Pitt takes his fighting knife in hand and thrust it into the forehead of the German. Very video game like...That scene tells you what you need to know about the next 2 hours and 14 minutes.


One of the most disturbing scenes was when the young Norman was forced to murder a German prisoner who had surrendered and was begging for his life. Wardaddy (Brad Pitt) forces poor Norman to murder the prisoner. Not only does Wardaddy terrorize the new guy, so does the rest of the tank crew. I expected to see this conflict come to a boiling point, that would have been interesting...but no, latter on this becomes a buddy film and all pass wrongs are some how forgotten.


The end scene is stupefied. The lone Sherman tank is driving down a road when it hits a land mine, blowing it's track off. The tank is stranded. The young guy Norman is sent to a top of a hill as a look out. He spots a battalion of 200-300 Waffen SS soldiers marching towards the tank, many of them are caring Panzerfaust anti-tank rocket launchers.


Do the SS use their anti tank bazookas before reaching the tank that blocks their path, no. Do they take cover and send a few men to examine the tank, no. Instead they happily march up to the tank so that the Americans can mow them down, like shooting fish in the barrel.

Did I mention the scene with the face of a dead solder laying on the tank sidewall. Yes, it was a slice of a face with a nose and eyeball, just laying there. Or how about the scene where they go into a German town, battle...then start dancing, drinking and partying in the street...But wait, no one cleared the buildings of enemy snipers.




I've kind of been skimming through this discussion, but the portrayal of the Nazis in Come and See worked for me. I don't know that unrealistic is the word I'd use to describe them, but I do find their depiction rather surreal. Throughout the barn massacre, a female Nazi is seen eating lobster, a Nazi is seen running around with his pants down, a midget Nazi is shown, and another Nazi has a pet monkey, Also, as CR mentioned, some of the acting is over-the-top. It's important to note, however, that the Nazis in Come and See are based on the Dirlewanger Brigade, which wasn't a disciplined military unit. It was mainly made up of army rejects and criminals (rapists and murderers, mainly) and a large part of what they did was massacring entire villages. I don't know that the surreal scenes I listed up above went on in real life, but what I like about them is that they reflect the real-life savagery of the Nazis.
__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd



Also, I just checked my IMDb profile, and I've yet to give any film a 1/10 rating.



I originally gave two films a 1/10: Tintorera and Faces of Death. A few months ago though, I decided that my rating was a bit too harsh, so I decided to bump them up to a 2/10.




I remember watching that at sleepovers. A faux suburban snuff film for slumber parties; a test to see who would crack, cry, or have nightmares. Not unlike kids pretending not to mind the taste of cigarettes. When I was a kid, that was the most hardcore thing ever. Today, it almost seems innocent.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Here are all my 2s (my six worst-rated movies.)

Birdemic: Shock and Terror
Cauldron: Baptism of Blood
Secret Desires
The Hellcats
Eegah
Manos: The Hands of Fate
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



I deeply despise Fahrenheit 9/11. Which is a shame because, as manipulative and deceptive as some of Moore's other films can sometimes be, I still think both Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine are both pretty great films. And I even liked a lot of his television show (whatever that was called)



Not to interrupt the latest debate (as usual) but I couldn't help but be reminded of another film that did what @Citizen Rules described from Come And See (1985)...

The film was The Patriot (2000) - which, as a film was quite engaging and well-done with a notable cast, but as an account of history was completely off the mark!

I hate when historical films decide to change the facts just to make it more dramatic, violent or action-packed ala Pearl Harbor (2001)!

There's a scene in The Patriot where English soldiers trap American colonists in a church, bar the doors and burn everyone alive inside (including elderly folks, men, women & children).

Granted, some of the Red Coats are depicted as appalled and not okay with this atrocity, but their head officer who orders the massacre (the movie's villain) delights in it.

The remarkable part is no such thing ever happened. While the Revolutionary War had it's atrocities and bloody battles, nothing even remotely like this ever occurred and it was a gross exaggeration to cast the British as such sadistic villains so that the so-called "bad guys" were really really bad just to try to rally the audience against them!



Well, this thread escalated quickly. How can we go back to discussing Master of Disguise and Jack and Jill now?


Anyway, these are films I've rated
on Letterboxd
  • Battlefield Earth
  • Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan
  • Agent F.O.X.
  • Cujo
  • Geostorm
  • Last House on the Left
  • X-Men: The Last Stand
  • The Human Centipede 3
  • Silver Linings Playbook
  • A Good Day to Die Hard
  • Speed 2: Cruise Control
  • Transformers
  • The Crow: City of Angels

Also, I don't have them rated on Letterboxd, but I do remember this DeNiro/Murphy triumvirate of 15 Minutes, Showtime, and Holy Man to be quite bad.
__________________
Check out my podcast: The Movie Loot!



I remember watching Fury, and while I actually enjoyed it, I couldn’t help shaking my head during that particular scene involving Pitt and the POW.
Urgh, I thought the "love scene" was so much worse, because they tried to play it like it totally wasn't rape. Like maybe she's really into it, and not because of that loaded rifle sitting on the table pointed in her direction. I bet the incels had a field day with the psychology there.



Did you like the film itself, outside of those depictions?
I understand that the schematics of the tank battles were quite realistic, and likely the best representation of such combat in a movie. But I was way too sour by that point.


Oh man. I liked Cujo and Love Silver Linings Playbook
Yeah, Cujo hate baffles me. It's not a great film, but it's so far from the worst of King's adaptations that I can't really grasp it. It's not as bad as Children of the Corn or Thinner or something. And I think Thief may just have an unrequited crush on J-Law, and he's all "Nuh-uh!" and yet there they are. Sitting in a tree.



Speaking of Cujo (1983) - Danny Pintauro (also of Who's the Boss fame) was my neighbor.

Not next door neighbor, but he lived down the street and I'd stop to talk to him as I walked home from my school bus stop during high school. (I was in high school and Danny was just this cute little blond kid - just a year or two prior to his starring in Cujo. I'm 12 years older than he is).

I remember they had a rock garden out front and everyday I passed, Danny would try to sell me a rock. So we'd have this silly conversation where I'd ask why I should pay for a rock when there were thousands (decorative white stone) all over and I could just pick one up when he wasn't there. His answer was, "Well, this one is for sale and I'm selling it!"



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.
What are movies that in your opinion, are not worth anyone's time? Have Mofoers ever done a "hall of shame" type deal?

Modern Problems (1981) - I think it's the only movie I've seen that I ever walked out of the theater before it ended.
__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.



The trick is not minding
Urgh, I thought the "love scene" was so much worse, because they tried to play it like it totally wasn't rape. Like maybe she's really into it, and not because of that loaded rifle sitting on the table pointed in her direction. I bet the incels had a field day with the psychology there.
It’s been awhile, but I remember her being in an impossible decision there as well.



[/quote] I understand that the schematics of the tank battles were quite realistic, and likely the best representation of such combat in a movie. But I was way too sour by that point. [/quote]
Easily the best part of the film.



[/quote] Yeah, Cujo hate baffles me. It's not a great film, but it's so far from the worst of King's adaptations that I can't really grasp it. It's not as bad as Children of the Corn or Thinner or something. And I think Thief may just have an unrequited crush on J-Law, and he's all "Nuh-uh!" and yet there they are. Sitting in a tree.[/quote]

Yeah, granted it not as good as, say, Christine or Carrie, but I enjoyed it for what is was.
And Thief can continue to hate on her. More J-Law fo’ me.
Which reminds me….I still need to watch Mother! 😑

Edit: totally messed up separating the quotes on my iPhone but oh well.



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.
These are movies that for whatever reason I rated
or less.


The Cannonball Run 9/26/16
by Citizen Rules
If you want a mind numbing movie about racing, that has the slowest/worst racing scenes in a race car movie, then here you go.

I love The Cannonball Run. It's not a great movie, but it's a lot of fun.



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.
These are the worst films I have ever seen: (in alphabetical order)

American Orpheus (1992)
Bad News Bears (2005)
Candy (1968)
Chairman of the Board (1998)
Halloween: Resurrection (2002)
The Kinky Coaches and the Pom Pom Pussycats (1981)
The Guatemalan Handshake (2006)
The Lobster (2015)
Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966)
Themroc (1973)

I watched The Lobster (2015) because it got some good reviews here on MoFo. I hated it.