[quote]Bauer97 wrote:
I’m sorry, but any movie mentioned in this thread is Citizen Kane material compared to “Freddie Got Fingered”…[/quote]
That’s the only time I’ve ever walked out and asked for my money back.
It wasn’t even a movie. It was just a bunch of bullshit scenes cut with a meat cleaver and thrown together.
Eyes Wide Shut was also excruciating.
[quote]larryb wrote:
“Unbreakable” was liked by many critics, but I thought it was terrible. Each time it seems the movie is coming to an end, it goes on for another ten minutes for no apparent reason. My wife (then girlfriend) and I walked out of it. I found out later that we only missed the last ten minutes, but who could tell?[/quote]
I thought unbreakable was great. Be Cool is still the worst movie of all time.
As a motorsporst fan who knows a bit about the sport - Days of Thunder sucked and Driven was even worse !
aleator
“Virus” w/ Curtis and Sutherland.
[quote]simon-hecubus wrote:
This jibe is not directed at you alone, but I see many on this thread equating slow moving movies with bad movies. I put it to you that your attention span is simply too short.
Lost in Translation, 2001, and Unbreakable are just a few examples of movies that ask you to sit quietly and let things unfold.[/quote]
My problem with Unbreakable is not that it’s slow moving. Some of my favorite movies are slow moving. I just thought it was over-dramatic, with very little underneath except for clever but uninteresting foreshadowing and allusions. For the whole movie I had the feeling I was waiting for something, and whatever that something was, it never came.
“It’s Pat! The movie!”
-For those who don’t know, Pat is a person, nobody can figure out if it is a man or woman. AWFUL MOVIE. But Quentin T did help produce it, go figure.
[quote]larryb wrote:
simon-hecubus wrote:
This jibe is not directed at you alone, but I see many on this thread equating slow moving movies with bad movies. I put it to you that your attention span is simply too short.
Lost in Translation, 2001, and Unbreakable are just a few examples of movies that ask you to sit quietly and let things unfold.
My problem with Unbreakable is not that it’s slow moving. Some of my favorite movies are slow moving. I just thought it was over-dramatic, with very little underneath except for clever but uninteresting foreshadowing and allusions. For the whole movie I had the feeling I was waiting for something, and whatever that something was, it never came.[/quote]
Exactly. The “surprise” at the end was even more predictable than the Sixth Sense.
It is so obvious what is happening. Watching it drag out for the obvious surprise is painful.
[quote]simon-hecubus wrote:
tinybutmighty wrote:
Lost In Translation. Unwatchable.
Lost in Translation, 2001, and Unbreakable are just a few examples of movies that ask you to sit quietly and let things unfold.
Just because someone’s not getting shot every 10 minutes or the camera angle isn’t changing every 2 seconds, doesn’t mean it’s a bad movie. Action = Good, Slow = Bad is a lame arguement.
That’s my soapbox talk to what I call the “VH-1 Attention Span” crew.
Scott
[/quote]
Umm…people, Scarlett Johansson was in Lost In Translation…those few seconds of bliss in the beginning…with the ass…and the panties, mmmm tasty.
[quote]colonelquack wrote:
Sorry, worst movie ever was Troll II.
…Though, I saw on Something Awful that there’s actually a Troll III. Makes me want to find it to see if it’s worse.[/quote]
aHAHAHAHA, I saw that movie too…it was fuckin horrible
So I’m an ignoramus with a short attention span…I still feel cheated out of 2 hours of my life!
[quote]simon-hecubus wrote:
tinybutmighty wrote:
Lost In Translation. Unwatchable.
This jibe is not directed at you alone, but I see many on this thread equating slow moving movies with bad movies. I put it to you that your attention span is simply too short.
Lost in Translation, 2001, and Unbreakable are just a few examples of movies that ask you to sit quietly and let things unfold.
Just because someone’s not getting shot every 10 minutes or the camera angle isn’t changing every 2 seconds, doesn’t mean it’s a bad movie. Action = Good, Slow = Bad is a lame arguement.
That’s my soapbox talk to what I call the “VH-1 Attention Span” crew.
Scott
[/quote]
Action= good sometimes, Slow = good sometimes, “Lost in Translation” = pointless.
That’s my answer to the “pompous movie critic” crew.
Now i’m gonna go watch Sam L. blow some people up. heh, heh, heh
[quote]escot4 wrote:
Mission to Mars.
Did anyone else sit through that crap?[/quote]
I did, but only because I was on a plane. An 8-hour flight. 
About Schmidt
Some people love it but I just didnt get it at all.
[quote]TheWookie wrote:
How about any movie by M Knight Shamalamadingdong?[/quote]
Issue one: M. Night Shyamalan’s movies. They’re all good ideas, but they take those ideas and hit you over the head with them repeatedly.
One I’d forgotten about and I’m a bit surprised it hasn’t been brought up yet (unless I missed it)…
Dumb and Dumberer. Worst movie I’ve ever seen. I had to ask myself repeatedly who the hell the people are giving the green light on garbage like that.
I completly forgot about It’s Pat, that is a fine level of shit that you have brought up sir.
[quote]simon-hecubus wrote:
ggarrett wrote:
I have to second the notion that anything Uwe Boll is by far the worst crap ever to be made.
A. Are you a member of the Everything-Uwe-Boll-does-is-a-POS club? There’s a whole section on the Bloodrayne DVD extras talkingh about that.
[/quote]
I am not a member of a club, but I have seen Bloodrayne, Alone in the Dark, House of the Dead and Heart of America. They are all POSes.
[quote]
B. It wasn’t good, but it wasn’t THAT bad (as anti-UB flamers would have you believe). The gore effects were pretty fun. Sure Michelle Rodriguez’ accent comes and goes. Sure Michael Madsen was a bad casting choice for a S&S movie. But there is WAY WAY WAY worse crap out there than this one…
[/quote] I am a bad horror movie buff, I like them bad (thats right I kinda liked Troll and Troll 2, even Leprachaun in the Hood). The gore in this movie was crap, it made the blood spraying in Kill Bill look tame and natural. I will say this, I think he might be getting better, the quality better than his previous work but that in no way redeems the huge turd that is this movie. And yes, there are worse, like House of the Dead and Alone in the Dark.
[quote]
C. I only see a handful of movies at the theatre each year, but at least 2-3 a week on video. What would make you think that this was a theatre movie and not a wait-for-the-video movie? It has “video” written all over it.
Comic Book blockbusters, Bruce Willis, Denzel, and Oscar nominees — these are the movies you go pay $10-15 (incl food & drink) to go see.[/quote]
Ohh…to hit a few questions.
Yes I have seen the Mangler and the Mangler 2 (couldn’t help myself, I dig King stories).
And I fell asleep in Titanic.
It’s taken me this long to remember, but isn’t Freddie Got Fingered the one where the guy takes a shot and it turns into a flight across the Atlantic?
Hey, that movie was bizarre, but it wasn’t bad like some of the other bad stuff being tossed around here.
[quote]vroom wrote:
It’s taken me this long to remember, but isn’t Freddie Got Fingered the one where the guy takes a shot and it turns into a flight across the Atlantic?
Hey, that movie was bizarre, but it wasn’t bad like some of the other bad stuff being tossed around here.[/quote]
No, that’s not Freddie Got Fingered.
What you just described sounds like an absolutely amazing cinematic masterpiece compared to Freddie Got Fingered…
Transporter 2.
The Transporter was cool litlle movie, but the director drank too much robotussin during Transporter 2.
My opinion is that the worst movie ever award goes to:
Zoolander