What's the worst movie you've ever seen?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Actually no I didn't for all of them, by about the fourth or fifth installment I was downloading alot and refused to pay for that crap. Thanks for reminding me. Although I'm not sure what your non-point is.
 
oh...and anyone who said Crash needs a taste implant IMO.

I imagine it tastes just like ham... a big fist sized portion of ham

I'd probably also leave the word 'pretentious' out of the discussion when defending Crash
 
I'd probably also leave the word 'pretentious' out of the discussion when defending Crash

I'm not defending Crash, it's in no need of any defense. Only a minority here and in real life hated it. The majority of moviegoers scored it an A, followed closely by B for a total of about 76% approval, with only something like 19-24% of the ratings falling at or below C. It won awards in pretty much every industry show/demographic on earth, and deservedly so. It's understandable and expected that some were made uncomfortable by it, it's uncomfortable subject matter. :shrug:
 
A Crash we can all agree on:

45727_3.jpg


:lol:

(I don't think he showed up again until Boston Legal, did he?)
 
Yeah Crash was painful for me. I liked the concept but it was executed horribly. I actually HATE Paul Haggis. With James Bond they had the book Casino Royale to keep the movie in check. As soon as Quantum Solace was made you can see the lame script tendencies get through.

I think this review of Crash covers it for me.

Movie Review - Crash (2005) - eFilmCritic

“Crash,” meanwhile, makes no room for such things as character development. It is too concerned with talking down to us, taking the audience for morons, assuming that the only way to deliver a Very Important Message is to deliver characters that are not anything more than vague stereotypes. I do not even recall the characters’ names. All I remember is that we met Bigot Cop, Nice Cop, Obnoxious White Lady, Uptight Politician, White-Hating Thug, Non-White-Hating Thug, and so on, and so on. These characters are so embarrassingly generic and superficial that you might wonder why Haggis just didn’t cast the Village People instead. Ah, look, it’s Leather Biker Guy, and he’s mad at Gay Sailor. With Matt Dillon as the Indian Chief!

***​

And so we get a collection of underdeveloped characters who talk in ways very few people actually do - the gimmick being that these characters have no filters, and so they immediately say what an ordinary person, hiding his prejudices under the guise of decency and manners, would only be thinking.

***​

While Terrence Howard, Larenz Tate, and rapper Ludacris do the best they can with such limp material, the rest of the performers are shrill and unwatchable. Dillon, Sandra Bullock, Ryan Phillippe, and Brendan Fraser look like they’re reading from cue cards, while the consistently horrible Thandie Newton’s wretched overacting threatens to take the film into a level of camp that would be hilarious if it weren’t so dismal.

***​

And with only blank templates instead of interesting characters filling up the plot, there’s no real reason to become involved with this ever-growing human tangle.

***​

Haggis struggles to invent new ways of manipulating the audience, and in one instance, he backs himself into an impossible corner. You see, in one scene, we’re led to believe that a character has been shot. We even get the slo-mo and the sweeping music and the angst and grief and et cetera. And we’re told - no, commanded - to feel the loss. But then he reveals that there was a misfire, the character is in fact unharmed. Meaning, of course, that Haggis wants to have a Big Dramatic Moment without having to follow through in dealing with the emotional weight of it.

***​

There is also the matter of yet another character suddenly getting injured, for no real reason than to have that character get injured, surprising the viewer and getting a quick gasp moment. This scene and the barely-there follow-up it (barely) requires have nothing to do with the plot, nothing to do with the development of anything, and yet it is here. Why? So Haggis can pull one more shock from the audience. It’s cheap and pointless and quite ridiculous. (As is the entire out-of-nowhere subplot about the Asian slaves, and the goofy showdown between a beleaguered Terrence Howard and the LAPD - which, of course, ends in a way no actual showdown would ever end, ever, ever, ever - and… well, you get the idea.)

***​

Backtracking to that final shot of the fender bender. This last jokey bit happens solely because we are told in a lengthy (and very, very, very serious) opening monologue that because modern living keeps us apart, “we miss that touch so much, that we crash into each other, just so we can feel something.” This is that Very Important Message of the movie, that lack of contact has developed withdrawn personalities that feed off of prejudices. It is the kind of thing that sounds all serious and profound on the surface, but there’s absolutely nothing underneath. It’s a sentiment that’s as shallow as the film that features it. For all its posturing and scheming and false fronts, “Crash” is unbearably empty.
 
I'm not defending Crash, it's in no need of any defense. Only a minority here and in real life hated it. The majority of moviegoers scored it an A, followed closely by B for a total of about 76% approval, with only something like 19-24% of the ratings falling at or below C. It won awards in pretty much every industry show/demographic on earth, and deservedly so. It's understandable and expected that some were made uncomfortable by it, it's uncomfortable subject matter. :shrug:

Couldn't you apply the above to the LOTR films, especially the 3rd? I mean, if you're going to use public opinion to support your opinion, what do you have to say about public opinion as applied towards films you claim to be some of the worst of all-time?

On Rotten Tomatoes, which measures critical response, the three films score a 92, 96 and 94% respectively. These are formidable numbers. Crash attains a respectable 75%

On Metacritic, which also measures critical response, the 3 score a 92, 88 and 94 respectively. Formidable as well. Crash garners a 69 here.

On IMDB.com, which measures fan response, The Fellowship of the ring is currently ranked as the 20th greatest film of all time. The Two Towers is currently ranked as the 29th greatest film of all time. The Return of the King is currently ranked as 11th greatest film of all time. Crash is currently ranked as the 207th greatest film of all time. Again, this is fan ranking, though to be fair, we're talking about a few hundred thousand people at best here.

As far as how the films grossed:

Fellowship of the Ring - $870,761,744 world wide
The Two Towers - $925,282,504 world wide
The Return of the King - $1,119,110,941 world wide
Crash - $98,410,061 world wide

Lastly, the trilogy racked up 30 Academy Award nominations, winning 17, both records for film trilogies.....including a best picture win for Return of the King, which is a remarkable achievement when one considers the Oscars history with such films. Crash of course was also a best picture winner.

I'm not sure if critical response or public response or box office totals or awards really translate into anything outside of a vague measuring stick, but, I figured it was fair to mention the above since the seal was broken already on utilizing such information.

For the record, I am a huge fan of the LOTR series, a huge fan of the Harry Potter series and not at all a fan of Crash. However, despite not liking Crash, I'd have a hard time calling it the worst film I've ever seen, that seems like a stretch to me.

That all being said, my tastes are reasonably eclectic and can handle gritty realism as easily as escapist fantasy. I've room for both and everything in-between in my film and book consumption.
 
However, despite not liking Crash, I'd have a hard time calling it the worst film I've ever seen, that seems like a stretch to me.

Well (and not to discount all the other stats you wrote by merely quoting that one paragraph above) this is kindof what I meant. I can see people disliking Crash. I can see it being heavy-handed to them, I can seem them wishing the characters were given more depth, etc etc on we go, and to a certain extent I agree, it could have been better. And I'm not calling it one of my favorites. I guess I had the biggest problem with ranking it in amongst the Worst Movie Ever category, because truly it isn't even one of the top 10 worst movies ever, by any stretch of the definition of taste. There are some good performances in the movie, and that alone usually makes me give a movie a chance. (Howard was better in Hustle and Flow however (IMO)).

I agree with you on my inclusion of LOTR and for that matter Harry Potter, it was a bit much. I guess I was exaggerating, because they aren't truly the worst movies I've ever seen. That list is pretty big actually (I'm pretty hard on movies generally), and they don't belong in it. I just didn't like them that much.

I did fall asleep during LOTR though, honest. ;)
 
This guy makes a convincing case on Star Wars Phantom Menace. Though I actually like this movie but it's hard to after seeing this lengthy review. I actually agree with him on the "running fast" part and how a key scene at the end would require a fast running but Obi Wan doesn't.

This is just part 1. The total is 70 min :yikes: Though it was entertaining even with the Silence of the Lambs voiceover and interruptions.

YouTube - Star Wars: The Phantom Menace Review (Part 1 of 7)
 
One could argue that the distance he needed to cover was too short, and that the "fast running" in that situation would have sent him flying right into Qui-Gon, Darth Maul, that deep pit, etc.

Most of these points are funny to hear, but are rather nitpicky.
 
Well the first time they don't even know the shields are there. The second time he's trying to catch up to Qui-Gon, and that distance isn't very far. If that power makes him rocket forward, it's too close to wildly plow forward, especially when Qui-Gon isn't expecting it or looking behind him. When they use the force run earlier in the film, they do it together as a team.
 
Crash sucked.

I own the extended boxed set of LOTR and watch the whole series once a year, all the way through, while drinking beer from a tin tankard.
 
Well the first time they don't even know the shields are there. The second time he's trying to catch up to Qui-Gon, and that distance isn't very far. If that power makes him rocket forward, it's too close to wildly plow forward, especially when Qui-Gon isn't expecting it or looking behind him. When they use the force run earlier in the film, they do it together as a team.

The force just like Gandalf's powers are used when advancing plot and not used when inconvenient. Just about every action movie has this problem. How do you make superheros with some vulnerability? They know that most people won't question it since they are following the characters and general plot. They could easily make him run around Qui-Gon but again it's not important to the story.

I like the series because it shows a fall of the roman republic story in a sci-fi background.
 
I can't hate any movie that pushes Sandra Bullock down a flight of stairs by the power of her character's racism. That's retardedly awesome.
 
Hell, I don't think anyone's listed any Lynch film yet. That's got to be some sort of record.

Wait for my brother, Baron.
 
Back
Top Bottom