PDA

View Full Version : Opposite Thread! WORST movie you've seen in the past 3 years



Zane C.
08-13-2010, 12:22 AM
Inspired by Dominic's thread (thanks, Dominic!), to get the other side of the spectrum and have balance and all that good stuff, what is the WORST movie you've seen in the last three years?

For me, it's a tie: Shyamlan's THE HAPPENING (Crappening...) and SHUTTER ISLAND. Couldn't stand either one of these, really. I was beyond disappointed that Scorcese made SHUTTER ISLAND, as I found it a predictable bore, and THE HAPPENING fell flat on account of its crap acting and non-realized story.

Next?!!! :D

John K
08-13-2010, 01:12 AM
Ironically, I was thinking about posting SHUTTER in the other thread. I was riveted from start to finish. My initial viewing was from a projection booth, and on the couple occasions I had to start other shows, I was literally running down the length of the booth a full tilt both ways, trying to keep myself from missing precious seconds.

I've seen some putrid SOV stuff - SLICE OF TERROR, VAPID SHALLOW MODELS MUST DIE...things that barely even qualify as movies. On the Hollywood side, hmmm...I found ROBIN HOOD nigh unendurable. I know there's plenty more, but I often try to wash the bad from my brain. I saw about 10 minutes of RETURN OF THE BOOGEYMAN before turning it off, but if I'd watched that through, it too would surely have made the list...

Marshall Crist
08-13-2010, 01:19 AM
Couldn't finish RUN FATBOY RUN, but I've Netflixed way worse (forgettable and forgotten) SOV garbage.

John K
08-13-2010, 04:24 AM
All right, an actual survey of the netflix queue. One-stars (and five, for that matter) are quite rare for me, so these should actually be nigh-unwatchable or wildly offensive somehow...

American Psycho 2, Voodoo Black Exorcist, Devil Hunter (Franco), Cannibals (Franco again), Darwin Awards, Das Komabrutalle Duell, Devil's Rejects, The Forest, Funny Man, In the Name of the King - A Dungeon Seige Tale, Old Dogs (saw at from projection booth, out of perverse curiosity), Sex & the City 2 (ditto), Why Did I Get Married Too? (ditto again), Valentine's Day (once more), White Chicks (I was forced to watch this), Wizard of Gore (remake)

Dominic D
08-13-2010, 05:41 AM
I watched Mansion of the Living Dead the other day. I love Uncle Jess but sometimes he doesn't make it easy.

Paul A J Lewis
08-13-2010, 06:15 AM
At the pictures? Easily THE LOSERS, a bloody fucking mess of a film.

CarterStevens
08-13-2010, 06:28 AM
I have to agree on SHUTTER ISLAND. Had to fight to keep from going to sleep in the theater and then was sorry I did.

Troy Howarth
08-13-2010, 07:25 AM
Shutter Island is one of my favorites of the last three years.

Want a BAD movie? Try checking out the first Twilight. The second one was better, but it still sucked. But the first one is one of the worst I've ever seen in a theatre.

Jocke_A
08-13-2010, 07:33 AM
I have a high tolerance for crap but the spanish sov Blind dead "tribute" Graveyard of the dead has to be the most inept piece of "filmmaking" ever released on a dvd. There is nothing, absolutely nothing in it worth spending one second with it.

Jason Lee
08-13-2010, 09:58 AM
Not counting the millions of crap S-O-V stuff I have endured.......

TRANSFORMERS 2...dollar-for-dollar the dumbest , crappiest, badly acted, plot-hole-filled garbage I have seen for a while...(except fro the effects of course..)

gotta go with TWILIGHT too....

Clive Smith
08-13-2010, 10:33 AM
I hated SPLICE so much, my hands are shaking just typing this. How the fuck did that get in to cinemas?

Keith B.
08-13-2010, 10:39 AM
I gotta agree with SHUTTER ISLAND, though the fact that I had read the book beforehand was responsible for killing off any suspense or interest.

Jon Houghton
08-13-2010, 10:44 AM
Abar: Black Superman--I LOVE blaxploitation with a passion but this was so godawful it made the Dolemite films look like Oscar winners by comparison. hands down THE worst blaxploitation movie I have ever seen.

Devils Island Lovers(Jess Franco)--I have done my best to erase this movie from my memory. I seem to remember it almost coming across as a "PG-13" W.I.P. movie.

The Last Airbender 3D--I only saw the first 30 mins of it for free at work while waiting for the rain to stop and I haven't been that fucking bored in a long time. a total CGI induced snoozefest.

Troy Howarth
08-13-2010, 10:48 AM
I gotta agree with SHUTTER ISLAND, though the fact that I had read the book beforehand was responsible for killing off any suspense or interest.

I read the book ahead of time, too, and it only killed suspense if one was looking for the specific twists that were "hidden" in plain sight anyway... the REAL twist at the end is not in the book, and it adds a whole 'nother layer to the film.

Troy Howarth
08-13-2010, 10:50 AM
Devils Island Lovers(Jess Franco)--I have done my best to erase this movie from my memory. I seem to remember it almost coming across as a "PG-13" W.I.P. movie.


I think that's one of his best WIP films. I guess if one needs to have it sleazy and graphic it may be seen as dull... but I liked it a lot.

Keith B.
08-13-2010, 10:52 AM
I read the book ahead of time, too, and it only killed suspense if one was looking for the specific twists that were "hidden" in plain sight anyway... the REAL twist at the end is not in the book, and it adds a whole 'nother layer to the film.

The REAL twist? Jeez, now I gotta see it again, cause I never finished watching it the first time!

Jon Houghton
08-13-2010, 10:54 AM
I think that's one of his best WIP films. I guess if one needs to have it sleazy and graphic it may be seen as dull... but I liked it a lot.

I don't always have to have it sleazy and graphic(just 99.9% of the time). I really enjoyed the 40s WIP movie Caged! a whole lot, and it is not the least bit sleazy or graphic. not sure what it was with this one. I know I was expecting a sleazefest, so maybe if I give it another chance I will feel differently.

Troy Howarth
08-13-2010, 10:55 AM
The REAL twist? Jeez, now I gotta see it again, cause I never finished watching it the first time!

It's always good to finish a film before criticizing it one way or the other, IMO.

Joshua Axelrad
08-13-2010, 10:56 AM
An old film, but still awful-"Red Desert" by Antonioni. You know a movie is bad when the lead character is suicidal and you're praying for her to follow through.

Troy Howarth
08-13-2010, 10:58 AM
I have to smile at that... I wouldn't say it's a bad film, but Antonioni's brand of cinema simply doesn't connect with me at all.

Erik S.
08-13-2010, 11:11 AM
As far as the supposedly "good" movies go, Sean Penn's INTO THE WILD and David Lynch's INLAND EMPIRE were almost unbearable.

Both movies show that allowing some directors complete freedom isn't always a good thing.

Matt Kiesner
08-13-2010, 11:56 AM
Thanks to Netflix, I too watch a lot of streaming SOV crap. Of all the turds I've skimmed off the streaming cesspool, Gone The Way of Flesh (2007) was the worst. It bills itself as extreme psycho-sexual horror and it does contain such scenes, but they are handled poorly, filmed with minimal competence and no F/X budget. What really irked me was that the film is actually a promo video for this bland, neo-rockabilly, Social Distortion-wannabe band. I generally detest any revved up rockabilly and this band is particularly unspectacular. The premise is that their music fuels the violence and chaos, but during the gigs at a dive bar, there is about a dozen audience members. That means that this band put out a casting call to its fans saying "Come to Scuzzy's and be in our movie," and only a handful of people show up. Very telling!

I also wonder why the band decided to promote themselves with a torture-porn horror film, since most dudes start bands to get girls. Frankly, I don't see the advantage with aligning one's band with a graphic video of murdered women to increase their fan base. Especially if you're the kind of band that wears retro blazers and sings about getting girls, which describes the band in the film. None of this is by accident, since the band's frontman was also the co-director. Maybe he's just an weird dude with lousy taste in music?

Besides all the awful music used to pad this 57 minute long movie, the script shows no understanding of rational human behavior. My favorite is how cavalier the dive bar owner is towards someone murdering women in his bar. As someone who goes to dive bars to watch punk rock bands, I know from personal experience that the owners of rock'n'roll dives are very sensitive to the law, because no one at city hall is going to shed a tear if a dive bar gets closed due to code enforcement. But details like that would add realism to what is essentially a graphically violent egotistical fantasy.

Keith B.
08-13-2010, 12:05 PM
INTO THE WILD would have been better if it were about an hour shorter. The problem is with the script, which tended to take the smallest detail from the book and flesh it out, with not always good results. For instance, the love interest story with Kristen Stewart, which was literally one small paragraph in the book and became a 15-20 minute subplot in the movie.

Andrew Ellis
08-13-2010, 12:31 PM
Yeah, if you don't have a "love interest" in a Hollywood movie, people might think the character is gay or weird or something. But, hey, if it wasn't for that would we have Kristen Stewart and "Twilight"? (actually we probably still would). I didn't mind "Into the Wild" actually.

It wasn't worst in the sense of being technically incompetent or anything, but I really hated "Closer". First, Mike Nichols is an incredibly overrated director and I never would have seen it if I'd known he directed it. Second, I wanted beat all the characters to death with a baseball bat they were so despicable. Third, (with a few exceptions), it bugs me when movie dialogue is written like a play. Fourth, a lot of people complained about Natalie Portman playing a non-stripping stripper, but that was just more salt in my wounds. Worst of all though, I actually went to see it in a theater in Ireland with a date when the dollar was down against the Euro, so god knows how much money I wasted watching that piece of crap. I'm normally very good about not watching movies I'm totally gonna hate, but I screwed up royally there. . .

Jonathan Douglas
08-13-2010, 12:50 PM
Not the one with Leo on the island, have no desire to see that one, but the SHUTTER remake was just a war to get through and they just rarely ever work do they those Hollywood versions. Can't think of one that really did. Just as terrible was Woody Allen's VICKY CHRISTINA BARCELONA with its two dumb leading girls, pretty much since MATCH POINT it's not been good for him.

Troy Howarth
08-13-2010, 01:30 PM
I'd say Match Point is one of the few Allen films I unreservedly enjoyed.

Troy Howarth
08-13-2010, 01:31 PM
Yeah, if you don't have a "love interest" in a Hollywood movie, people might think the character is gay or weird or something. But, hey, if it wasn't for that would we have Kristen Stewart and "Twilight"? (actually we probably still would). I didn't mind "Into the Wild" actually.

It wasn't worst in the sense of being technically incompetent or anything, but I really hated "Closer". First, Mike Nichols is an incredibly overrated director and I never would have seen it if I'd known he directed it. Second, I wanted beat all the characters to death with a baseball bat they were so despicable. Third, (with a few exceptions), it bugs me when movie dialogue is written like a play. Fourth, a lot of people complained about Natalie Portman playing a non-stripping stripper, but that was just more salt in my wounds. Worst of all though, I actually went to see it in a theater in Ireland with a date when the dollar was down against the Euro, so god knows how much money I wasted watching that piece of crap. I'm normally very good about not watching movies I'm totally gonna hate, but I screwed up royally there. . .

I've never really understood the appeal of Nichols' work, myself. I don't see any kind of real signature or style to his work - he's not a bad director, and he's good with actors, but I've just never understood what's supposed to be so wonderful about him.

Guillaume P
08-13-2010, 01:36 PM
INCEPTION,at least its first half,was a quite painful experience...:o:p

Gary Banks
08-13-2010, 01:56 PM
Thanks to Netflix here are just a few abominations from this year alone:

SEARCH FOR THE BEAST-Filmed in Alabama. I think Bigfoot buttfucked someone in this and that would be the highlight. Guaranteed to at least cause intermittent flatulence,spastic twitches and an addiction to the fast forward button. I would suggest for those of stern
willpower who may want to view this to watch it with the tv set off.

ADDIO ZIO TOM-Some folks liked it. I wanted to kick the filmmakers in the nuts.

KILLER KILLER-Stupid stupid.

I AM OMEGA/MONSTER/AVH-They all sucked. Trust me.

DEVIL GIRL-Even after watching this I still don't know what was going on. It was like taking a couple of bites out of a hot dog and noticing there were veins in it.

All of those made me wanna do this( give it a little time and turn up the sound) :

http://www.tomandjerryonline.com/sounds/Tjscream1.wav

RichardDoyle
08-13-2010, 04:32 PM
I gotta say, if something like "Shutter Island" or "Red Desert" is the WORST thing you've seen in 3 years, you live a very charmed life.

Mine has to be "Mama Dracula". It was ... painful.

RichardDoyle
08-13-2010, 04:35 PM
I've never really understood the appeal of Nichols' work, myself. I don't see any kind of real signature or style to his work - he's not a bad director, and he's good with actors, but I've just never understood what's supposed to be so wonderful about him.

I think Nichols seemed a lot more impressive during his early career when his track record was so good. In retrospect, I'd say he had great actors and great material going for him. Any solidly competent director could make really good films out of those projects.

Zane C.
08-13-2010, 04:50 PM
I gotta say, if something like "Shutter Island" or "Red Desert" is the WORST thing you've seen in 3 years, you live a very charmed life.


I wouldn't say I lived a "charmed life", I just think that SHUTTER ISLAND was a complete and utter disappointment to me as a viewer. I've seen equally bad films over the last three years, but this one is at the top of the heap for me.

I find a lot of people overstating the quality of things these days, SI case in point for me. It was a mediocre film that people raved about. With a distinct lack of "cinematic masterpieces" or even good films in the current era, people tend to champion mediocre films as great works of art so as to almost "fill the gap".

Now don't get me wrong, I love Scorcese's work, and I think he's one of the most important American directors ever, but the film just didn't resonate with me, and in his hands, this film COULD have been better. In fact, I'm surprised he made the film, to be honest. Had anyone else made the film, it would have been glossed over and not given much credit.

Just my opinion, but SI is my "worst" pick. Feel free to disagree!

Matthew BB
08-13-2010, 05:26 PM
My pick is either De Palma's THE BLACK DAHLIA or whichever FEAST film I saw.

Paul Crest
08-13-2010, 06:04 PM
Marmaduke. :( A Serbian Film. :mad:

Jonathan Douglas
08-13-2010, 06:23 PM
I find a lot of people overstating the quality of things these days, SI case in point for me. It was a mediocre film that people raved about. With a distinct lack of "cinematic masterpieces" or even good films in the current era, people tend to champion mediocre films as great works of art so as to almost "fill the gap".

Now don't get me wrong, I love Scorcese's work, and I think he's one of the most important American directors ever, but the film just didn't resonate with me, and in his hands, this film COULD have been better. In fact, I'm surprised he made the film, to be honest. Had anyone else made the film, it would have been glossed over and not given much credit.


Can't speak for SI (though suspect I'd agree) but couldn't agree more with the general analysis of overstating quality of the mediocre and filling the gap, a scenario reminding me of diving for pearls in an oil slick or something. I have seen few better examples than the Craig Bond mania, but it's an unpopular stand to hold. A big problem is a tendency to glossiness, less of that would give us at least normal looking films again that don't look like mass produced products for superficial supermarket commercials. Not even a decade ago much was different and not a soul thought of 3-D, but know it's not going to be different with the current state of filmmaking affairs and business opinions of the industry.

John K
08-13-2010, 06:41 PM
At the pictures? Easily THE LOSERS, a bloody fucking mess of a film.

Oh, forgot about this one. Yes, it was quite terrible.

Also forgot LAST AIRBENDER. What a disaster. JONAH HEX was a monstrosity as well, but it was so lurchingly, awkwardly put together that I can't terribly blame it, because it seemed like a total hatchet job.

Thomas D.
08-13-2010, 07:05 PM
The Happening, off the top of my head. I did smile during Marky Mark's speech before being chased by the wind, a sub-moronic variation on "there must be a rational explanation for all of this!".

Troy Howarth
08-13-2010, 07:24 PM
I wouldn't say I lived a "charmed life", I just think that SHUTTER ISLAND was a complete and utter disappointment to me as a viewer. I've seen equally bad films over the last three years, but this one is at the top of the heap for me.

I find a lot of people overstating the quality of things these days, SI case in point for me. It was a mediocre film that people raved about. With a distinct lack of "cinematic masterpieces" or even good films in the current era, people tend to champion mediocre films as great works of art so as to almost "fill the gap".

Now don't get me wrong, I love Scorcese's work, and I think he's one of the most important American directors ever, but the film just didn't resonate with me, and in his hands, this film COULD have been better. In fact, I'm surprised he made the film, to be honest. Had anyone else made the film, it would have been glossed over and not given much credit.

Just my opinion, but SI is my "worst" pick. Feel free to disagree!

I do - and I will. Look, I'm not overstating anything when I say I love the film and think it's close to being a masterpiece... I'm merely giving my honest opinion, just like you are. I also find a lot of fault with the whole "if somebody else would have made this" crap - sorry, but that irks me as it implies a Pavlovian response on the part of those who liked the film.

Troy Howarth
08-13-2010, 07:25 PM
Can't speak for SI (though suspect I'd agree) but couldn't agree more with the general analysis of overstating quality of the mediocre and filling the gap, a scenario reminding me of diving for pearls in an oil slick or something. I have seen few better examples than the Craig Bond mania, but it's an unpopular stand to hold. A big problem is a tendency to glossiness, less of that would give us at least normal looking films again that don't look like mass produced products for superficial supermarket commercials. Not even a decade ago much was different and not a soul thought of 3-D, but know it's not going to be different with the current state of filmmaking affairs and business opinions of the industry.

Your metaphor is lost on me... so basically you're arguing that people are being dishonest when they express a positive opinion on something you don't like? One could just as easily say that you're just trying to buck convention by being dishonest and expressing contempt for the same films. Neither scenario is fair.

Troy Howarth
08-13-2010, 07:26 PM
I think Nichols seemed a lot more impressive during his early career when his track record was so good. In retrospect, I'd say he had great actors and great material going for him. Any solidly competent director could make really good films out of those projects.

I'd be inclined to agree. I'm not even that keen on his older stuff, to be honest. I never quite understood the appeal of The Graduate, for example. It's a good movie and all, but... I don't know - I don't see what's supposed to be so wonderful about it.

Zane C.
08-13-2010, 08:23 PM
I do - and I will. Look, I'm not overstating anything when I say I love the film and think it's close to being a masterpiece... I'm merely giving my honest opinion, just like you are. I also find a lot of fault with the whole "if somebody else would have made this" crap - sorry, but that irks me as it implies a Pavlovian response on the part of those who liked the film.

...and I completely understand that, Troy. You're completely entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. I encourage healthy debate.

As for the "if someone else would have made it" argument, can you honestly say that this film would have gotten the accolades it did had it not been Scorcese at the helm? Personally, I don't think so.

I don't expect people to like something just because it's Scorcese's work, or any other director's work for that matter - films, as with all art, should be judged on their own merit, and on an individual basis, not by whose name is attached. Content shouldn't be overshadowed by perception. I don't see how this is insulting to people who liked the film, nor would I denegrate people watching the films to the level of a salivating dog by comparison. I think that's a bit of an overstatement.

However, whether you want to admit it or not, people visualize or subconciously expect something from directors, and as people, we all have biases and preconceived notions about things. No exception here. People see the name "Scorcese" attached to this and expect a certain something. This film fell short, but he got a pass anyway, and people rallied around the film regardless.

And let's be honest here, as great of a director as Scorcese is, people have given him a pass for the last while, post-Oscar win. Yes, he finally won an Oscar, but no, not everything he does after that will be gold. This is hard for some people to accept.

And this is from a Scorcese fan.

Troy Howarth
08-13-2010, 08:45 PM
"As for the "if someone else would have made it" argument, can you honestly say that this film would have gotten the accolades it did had it not been Scorcese at the helm? Personally, I don't think so."

It's pointless to get into theoreticals like this, as ultimately you're convinced that it reinforces your point of view whereas I'm convinced that's an easy cop out argument. No offense, but you can use this argument for ANY purpose with ANY film. It doesn't hold water for me. I could just as easily say that you'd like the film if David Lynch had made it.

"I don't expect people to like something just because it's Scorcese's work, or any other director's work for that matter - films, as with all art, should be judged on their own merit, and on an individual basis, not by whose name is attached. Content shouldn't be overshadowed by perception. I don't see how this is insulting to people who liked the film, nor would I denegrate people watching the films to the level of a salivating dog by comparison. I think that's a bit of an overstatement. "

You don't see how implying that people only like the film because they're so biased about the director could be seen as insulting or denigrating? It seems to me perhaps you don't intend it to sound that harsh, but that is what the suggestion implies.

"However, whether you want to admit it or not, people visualize or subconciously expect something from directors, and as people, we all have biases and preconceived notions about things. No exception here. People see the name "Scorcese" attached to this and expect a certain something. This film fell short, but he got a pass anyway, and people rallied around the film regardless."

I don't have to "admit" anything. The problem with your argument is that it's couched in terminology that implies that I - and others who loved the film - are somehow in denial. It's just as easy to say that, by your logic, people were TOO HARSH on the film because of their own exaggerated expectations with regards to Scorsese's name being attached.

"And let's be honest here, as great of a director as Scorcese is, people have given him a pass for the last while, post-Oscar win. Yes, he finally won an Oscar, but no, not everything he does after that will be gold. This is hard for some people to accept."

How is that being honest? Once again, you're on the attack because you didn't like the film and thus you're convinced that people are only praising it because it's his film. This is a ludicrous assumption, IMO. Now, if that's your opinion - you're entitled to it; but my not agreeing with it is hardly the same thing as being dishonest about it. This is his first post-Oscar film - it got predominantly good reviews, but it was also trashed by a lot of folks. This has been true of all of his recent work, in fact. Nobody in the course of this discussion - least of all me - have suggested that "everything he does after that will be gold." Where are you getting this from? I love the man's work, but I'm not prepared to fall all over myself praising him if I think he's stumbled and made a bad film. "This is hard for people to accept?" What - the fact that you think the film was crap, so therefore it must be crap in factual terms? Yes, I guess that is pretty hard for me to accept.

Dominic D
08-13-2010, 10:28 PM
My pick is either De Palma's THE BLACK DAHLIA or whichever FEAST film I saw.

I forgot about The Black Dahlia. That really did suck.

Richard R.
08-14-2010, 12:21 AM
The Asylum PRINCESS OF MARS.

I wasn't expecting much at all. I would have been happy and entertained with it as a Sci-Fi barbarian
B-movie if it was about as good, as, say, a particularly mediocre episode of the BEASTMASTER TV series, or any low-budget Italian fantasy movie from the 80's. But this dark, slow, stinkbomb was just absolute unwatchable dogshit. Unwatchable.

Long ago a weird friend of mine had a bootleg of some oddball pony-fetish video that Traci Lords made at the begining of her XXX career, with Traci being forced to act like a horse while bound in various contraptions and gagged with a bit. Traci Lords looked more humiliated, pissed-off, and tired of life in PRINCESS than she did in that video. No joke.

Zane C.
08-14-2010, 01:24 AM
"As for the "if someone else would have made it" argument, can you honestly say that this film would have gotten the accolades it did had it not been Scorcese at the helm? Personally, I don't think so."

It's pointless to get into theoreticals like this, as ultimately you're convinced that it reinforces your point of view whereas I'm convinced that's an easy cop out argument. No offense, but you can use this argument for ANY purpose with ANY film. It doesn't hold water for me. I could just as easily say that you'd like the film if David Lynch had made it.

"I don't expect people to like something just because it's Scorcese's work, or any other director's work for that matter - films, as with all art, should be judged on their own merit, and on an individual basis, not by whose name is attached. Content shouldn't be overshadowed by perception. I don't see how this is insulting to people who liked the film, nor would I denegrate people watching the films to the level of a salivating dog by comparison. I think that's a bit of an overstatement. "

You don't see how implying that people only like the film because they're so biased about the director could be seen as insulting or denigrating? It seems to me perhaps you don't intend it to sound that harsh, but that is what the suggestion implies.

"However, whether you want to admit it or not, people visualize or subconciously expect something from directors, and as people, we all have biases and preconceived notions about things. No exception here. People see the name "Scorcese" attached to this and expect a certain something. This film fell short, but he got a pass anyway, and people rallied around the film regardless."

I don't have to "admit" anything. The problem with your argument is that it's couched in terminology that implies that I - and others who loved the film - are somehow in denial. It's just as easy to say that, by your logic, people were TOO HARSH on the film because of their own exaggerated expectations with regards to Scorsese's name being attached.

"And let's be honest here, as great of a director as Scorcese is, people have given him a pass for the last while, post-Oscar win. Yes, he finally won an Oscar, but no, not everything he does after that will be gold. This is hard for some people to accept."

How is that being honest? Once again, you're on the attack because you didn't like the film and thus you're convinced that people are only praising it because it's his film. This is a ludicrous assumption, IMO. Now, if that's your opinion - you're entitled to it; but my not agreeing with it is hardly the same thing as being dishonest about it. This is his first post-Oscar film - it got predominantly good reviews, but it was also trashed by a lot of folks. This has been true of all of his recent work, in fact. Nobody in the course of this discussion - least of all me - have suggested that "everything he does after that will be gold." Where are you getting this from? I love the man's work, but I'm not prepared to fall all over myself praising him if I think he's stumbled and made a bad film. "This is hard for people to accept?" What - the fact that you think the film was crap, so therefore it must be crap in factual terms? Yes, I guess that is pretty hard for me to accept.

All interesting points, Troy.

I find it amusing, though, that me expressing my opinion on the film has set off such a reaction...

As far as my "if someone else made the film" being a cop out, I don't think it is; if a rookie director helmed this thing, for example, they would have gotten hammered. You yourself said that some reviews were good, some bad. It's rather naive to think that Scorcese's name and legacy don't play into the equation somewhat when people review the film. There's enough critics out there that like Scorcese that gave this a positive review to bump this past the point of having half of them like it, and half of them not like it. Scorcese's past work and legacy affords him a modicum of respect, either outwardly or inherently from many critics.

And as much as I like David Lynch's work with certain films, he would have done a poor job with this, IMO.

And denying that people have biases with directors? That's a pretty tough one to argue. I frankly don't see how that's insulting - it's truthful. People have biases and opinions about everything - whether they admit to it or not. It's simply a case of people being forthright about it.

I also don't think you're in denial, Troy. You have your opinion, I have mine. I think, and I think many people would agree, that SHUTTER ISLAND is not the high-water mark of Scorcese's career, ie. not his best work. Still, many people got behind it with the knowledge it wasn't his best work. If you loved the film, great. If not, that's fine too. I think it's a safe assumption, though, to say that SI is not top drawer Scorcese, and people got behind it, no?

I'm also intrigued that you think I'm "on the attack"...once again, I'm simply stating my opinion. I make no bones about not liking the film whatsoever. I in no way said YOU were dishonest, Troy, I am referring to the OPINION held by many that Scorcese's work, post-Oscar, has not been stellar. Indeed, how you turn that into a personal attack baffles me. It was an attempt to outline the opinion of many about this film, as mentioned.

As well, did I say anyone HERE said "anything after this will be gold"? No. I said this as a general statement, and again, you get defensive.

Finally, it is hard for some to accept that a director they like may have made a less than excellent film. I don't remember saying this was a fact, Troy. Again, it is OPINION. Feel free to disagree.

Adam L
08-14-2010, 03:29 AM
Yeah, so none of you saw Phantom Punch (http://www.regrettablesincerity.com/?p=2728).

Eric B
08-14-2010, 03:58 AM
If I had to pick one that I saw at a theater it would be AVATAR.

Justin Farley
08-14-2010, 04:01 AM
Snake People. I don't bore easily, but this one was so dull that it nearly turned my brain to mush.

Also horrendous - Shrooms, Playgirl Killer, Cardiac Arrest and Sting of Death.

Patrick B.
08-14-2010, 05:21 AM
Sex and the City and Sex and the City 2?

Eric B
08-14-2010, 05:30 AM
I haven't watched a bad movie in ages...absolutely ages...

Werner Von Wallenrod
08-14-2010, 08:57 AM
I work at a store that rents DVDs, so I see movies I ordinarily would never watch and wind up hating all the time. Too many to try to list.

But here are a few recent ones:
The Book of Eli
Eagle Eye
Max Payne
The Box
Wanted
Bruno

Ian Jane
08-14-2010, 09:58 AM
I just watched Beatdown last night, with Rudy Youngblood and Danny Trejo. I didn't have high hopes going in but figured an MMA inspired Fight Club rip off with nudity and violence would at least be passable entertainment. I was wrong. Very wrong.

This is the worst film I've seen in recent memory.

Chad Haden
08-14-2010, 10:13 AM
Just Add Water or Running With Scissors

Jon Houghton
08-14-2010, 10:17 AM
THE absolute worst film I have seen in the last 3 years would be The Weather Man with Nicolas "I can't act" Cage. It was before my girlfriend and I met and I was trying to get laid by watching it. Not only was the movie horrible, but the chick was a prude and I didn't get anything but blue balls and 95 minutes of my life stolen

Troy Howarth
08-14-2010, 12:14 PM
"I find it amusing, though, that me expressing my opinion on the film has set off such a reaction..."

Nothing amusing about it, really - you've made provocative statements, so it has provoked a response; it's in the order of things.

"As far as my "if someone else made the film" being a cop out, I don't think it is; if a rookie director helmed this thing, for example, they would have gotten hammered. You yourself said that some reviews were good, some bad. It's rather naive to think that Scorcese's name and legacy don't play into the equation somewhat when people review the film. There's enough critics out there that like Scorcese that gave this a positive review to bump this past the point of having half of them like it, and half of them not like it. Scorcese's past work and legacy affords him a modicum of respect, either outwardly or inherently from many critics. "

That may be true with some critics, but it is not true of all. Some critics have never liked a Scorsese film and have found themselves gravitating towards his recent work. Others have disliked it all. There are no absolutes here.

"And as much as I like David Lynch's work with certain films, he would have done a poor job with this, IMO. "

Right - and I'd say the same of Scorsese. I doubt I will ever rewatch The Color of Money, for example. But how do you know Lynch would have done a poor job with this - that's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

"And denying that people have biases with directors? That's a pretty tough one to argue. I frankly don't see how that's insulting - it's truthful. People have biases and opinions about everything - whether they admit to it or not. It's simply a case of people being forthright about it. "

You're right that people have biases, but you seem to think that they control people - and I do not. I'm not a mindless drone who goes apeshit every time a director I like makes a film; I take the films on an individual basis... some I love, some I hate. I love Scorsese's work, but I'm not afraid to be forthright about it when he strikes out. Nobody's perfect.

"I also don't think you're in denial, Troy. You have your opinion, I have mine. I think, and I think many people would agree, that SHUTTER ISLAND is not the high-water mark of Scorcese's career, ie. not his best work. Still, many people got behind it with the knowledge it wasn't his best work. If you loved the film, great. If not, that's fine too. I think it's a safe assumption, though, to say that SI is not top drawer Scorcese, and people got behind it, no? "

No offense, but why would I care whether "many people would agree that Shutter Island is not the high-water mark of Scorsese's career?" Honestly, that's taking comfort in numbers and I'm not so insecure in my own opinion that I'd need to point to others agreeing with me. I don't think it's his best film, either. ONE of his best, sure, but not in the absolute top five or so.

"I'm also intrigued that you think I'm "on the attack"...once again, I'm simply stating my opinion. I make no bones about not liking the film whatsoever. I in no way said YOU were dishonest, Troy, I am referring to the OPINION held by many that Scorcese's work, post-Oscar, has not been stellar. Indeed, how you turn that into a personal attack baffles me. It was an attempt to outline the opinion of many about this film, as mentioned. "

I think you're being a bit coy here, to be honest. Look at what you've written - you've suggested that people are only making apologies, that they are just blindly praising a bad film, etc. If I were to suggest this about a film you love I doubt you'd be thrilled with it, either. You made statements designed to get a response, and you were successful. I don't like the suggestion of some of what you're saying, so I'm disagreeing. This is what discussion is about.

"As well, did I say anyone HERE said "anything after this will be gold"? No. I said this as a general statement, and again, you get defensive. "

Then why make the statement? You made it because you thought it needed to be said, so I responded... it sounds to me like YOU are the one getting defensive... more and more as your post goes on, I'm noticing. It's easy to say something as a generalization and then say "Well, of course, I don't mean anybody here" - you may well be telling the truth, or you may be embarassed by what you said and are trying to cover up for it. Since you say you didn't mean it to imply anybody here, I'll take your word for it.

"Finally, it is hard for some to accept that a director they like may have made a less than excellent film. I don't remember saying this was a fact, Troy. Again, it is OPINION. Feel free to disagree."

See... you're very reasonable for how many paragraphs then you totally shoot yourself in the foot with this. I don't have a hard time "accepting" anything, Zack. If I though SI sucked, I would say so. It seems to me that you're having a harder time accepting my OPINION that it's a great film without having to construct some elaborate theory about it. As you say - feel free to disagree, I'm OK with that. I'm merely reacting to what's being said, and believe it or not I'm not taking it all that personally....

John G.
08-14-2010, 12:38 PM
I pretty muched stopped going to see modern horror films because of how disappointed I've been in them. WOLF CREEK, for instance; strong buzz, medium expectations. Film starts out with some stellar photography early on and then it just degenerates into shit... depressing, slow, stupid characters - what a miserable film.

John G.
08-14-2010, 12:40 PM
Speaking of miserable films, MARTYRS was pretty wretched (although early scenes were good, come to think of it)... and, of course, Aja is dependable for shit.

I sat through one of the latter SAW movies... 5 I think. That might be the worst.

Roland Joffe's CAPTIVITY is pretty terrible too.

Troy Howarth
08-14-2010, 12:43 PM
I think the era we're in is something of a backlash against the PG-13 horror era of the 90s... alas, they've pretty much kept a lot of the negatives while going overboard in the gore and sadism departments. What I miss are horror films made for adults. How many genre films these days focus on mature characters acting like real human beings? The tide started to change in that regard in the 60s - you can see it creeping in via the Hammer horror films, even, where they went from having mature protagonists to younger couples - but it has reached a point where it's become absolutely de rigeur. That's what is nice about films like Shutter Island or The Wolf Man - like them or not, they're clearly not aimed at the teeny bopper crowd.

Alex K.
08-14-2010, 12:46 PM
Meet the Spartans.

Vincent Pereira
08-14-2010, 12:53 PM
...

I find a lot of people overstating the quality of things these days, SI case in point for me. It was a mediocre film that people raved about. With a distinct lack of "cinematic masterpieces" or even good films in the current era, people tend to champion mediocre films as great works of art so as to almost "fill the gap"...

I'm sorry, but just because your opinion differs from somebody else's, that doesn't make it fact that the person who you disagree with is "overstating". I legitimately loved SHUTTER ISLAND, I think it's wonderful filmmaking and riveting storytelling. This is not "overstatement", this is my legitimate reaction to the film. I know others disagree and I'm fine with that, but I'm not about to accuse them of having some agenda or being "wrong" just because they don't share the same opinion of the work that I do.

Vincent

Vincent Pereira
08-14-2010, 12:58 PM
...As for the "if someone else would have made it" argument, can you honestly say that this film would have gotten the accolades it did had it not been Scorcese at the helm? Personally, I don't think so... People see the name "Scorcese" attached to this and expect a certain something. This film fell short, but he got a pass anyway, and people rallied around the film regardless...

Your argument loses water in light of the fact that there were plenty of folks who attacked SHUTTER ISLAND as being somehow "beneath" Scorsese because it's a mere thriller. I saw that thrown around a lot- that the film was "good" but "beneath" Scorsese.

Vincent

Vincent Pereira
08-14-2010, 01:04 PM
Two worst I can think of are THE HAPPENING and TRANSFORMERS 2.

Vincent

Troy Howarth
08-14-2010, 01:13 PM
I'm sorry, but just because your opinion differs from somebody else's, that doesn't make it fact that the person who you disagree with is "overstating". I legitimately loved SHUTTER ISLAND, I think it's wonderful filmmaking and riveting storytelling. This is not "overstatement", this is my legitimate reaction to the film. I know others disagree and I'm fine with that, but I'm not about to accuse them of having some agenda or being "wrong" just because they don't share the same opinion of the work that I do.

Vincent

Thank you - you managed to say what I was getting at in about half the time!

Troy Howarth
08-14-2010, 01:14 PM
Your argument loses water in light of the fact that there were plenty of folks who attacked SHUTTER ISLAND as being somehow "beneath" Scorsese because it's a mere thriller. I saw that thrown around a lot- that the film was "good" but "beneath" Scorsese.

Vincent

Which is total snobbery, of course. Fortunately Scorsese himself didn't view this as an issue - he wanted to do a full blown horror film, since he loves the genre, and he did it honestly, without apologizing for it.

John G.
08-14-2010, 01:17 PM
I wish I could legitimately love SHUTTER ISLAND... love the setting, the direction and the visuals, but IMO the movie becomes too literal in its climax, too willing to "spell it out" for the viewer, which is a real pet peeve of mine (and on a chalk board no less!). Still, it's a very good movie and I hope that Scorsese revisits the genre again.

I can't believe I'm saying this but I actually prefer CAPE FEAR to it.. that movie gets silly in its climax, but it seems to embrace its excesses, if that makes any sense... also, I used to kind of hate it, so I may come around to SHUTTER ISLAND in a few years.

Troy Howarth
08-14-2010, 01:25 PM
I like aspects of Cape Fear, but for me it really is too silly and over the top... plus there's Juliette Lewis to contend with.

Zane C.
08-14-2010, 02:22 PM
"I find it amusing, though, that me expressing my opinion on the film has set off such a reaction..."

Nothing amusing about it, really - you've made provocative statements, so it has provoked a response; it's in the order of things.

"As far as my "if someone else made the film" being a cop out, I don't think it is; if a rookie director helmed this thing, for example, they would have gotten hammered. You yourself said that some reviews were good, some bad. It's rather naive to think that Scorcese's name and legacy don't play into the equation somewhat when people review the film. There's enough critics out there that like Scorcese that gave this a positive review to bump this past the point of having half of them like it, and half of them not like it. Scorcese's past work and legacy affords him a modicum of respect, either outwardly or inherently from many critics. "

That may be true with some critics, but it is not true of all. Some critics have never liked a Scorsese film and have found themselves gravitating towards his recent work. Others have disliked it all. There are no absolutes here.

"And as much as I like David Lynch's work with certain films, he would have done a poor job with this, IMO. "

Right - and I'd say the same of Scorsese. I doubt I will ever rewatch The Color of Money, for example. But how do you know Lynch would have done a poor job with this - that's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

"And denying that people have biases with directors? That's a pretty tough one to argue. I frankly don't see how that's insulting - it's truthful. People have biases and opinions about everything - whether they admit to it or not. It's simply a case of people being forthright about it. "

You're right that people have biases, but you seem to think that they control people - and I do not. I'm not a mindless drone who goes apeshit every time a director I like makes a film; I take the films on an individual basis... some I love, some I hate. I love Scorsese's work, but I'm not afraid to be forthright about it when he strikes out. Nobody's perfect.

"I also don't think you're in denial, Troy. You have your opinion, I have mine. I think, and I think many people would agree, that SHUTTER ISLAND is not the high-water mark of Scorcese's career, ie. not his best work. Still, many people got behind it with the knowledge it wasn't his best work. If you loved the film, great. If not, that's fine too. I think it's a safe assumption, though, to say that SI is not top drawer Scorcese, and people got behind it, no? "

No offense, but why would I care whether "many people would agree that Shutter Island is not the high-water mark of Scorsese's career?" Honestly, that's taking comfort in numbers and I'm not so insecure in my own opinion that I'd need to point to others agreeing with me. I don't think it's his best film, either. ONE of his best, sure, but not in the absolute top five or so.

"I'm also intrigued that you think I'm "on the attack"...once again, I'm simply stating my opinion. I make no bones about not liking the film whatsoever. I in no way said YOU were dishonest, Troy, I am referring to the OPINION held by many that Scorcese's work, post-Oscar, has not been stellar. Indeed, how you turn that into a personal attack baffles me. It was an attempt to outline the opinion of many about this film, as mentioned. "

I think you're being a bit coy here, to be honest. Look at what you've written - you've suggested that people are only making apologies, that they are just blindly praising a bad film, etc. If I were to suggest this about a film you love I doubt you'd be thrilled with it, either. You made statements designed to get a response, and you were successful. I don't like the suggestion of some of what you're saying, so I'm disagreeing. This is what discussion is about.

"As well, did I say anyone HERE said "anything after this will be gold"? No. I said this as a general statement, and again, you get defensive. "

Then why make the statement? You made it because you thought it needed to be said, so I responded... it sounds to me like YOU are the one getting defensive... more and more as your post goes on, I'm noticing. It's easy to say something as a generalization and then say "Well, of course, I don't mean anybody here" - you may well be telling the truth, or you may be embarassed by what you said and are trying to cover up for it. Since you say you didn't mean it to imply anybody here, I'll take your word for it.

"Finally, it is hard for some to accept that a director they like may have made a less than excellent film. I don't remember saying this was a fact, Troy. Again, it is OPINION. Feel free to disagree."

See... you're very reasonable for how many paragraphs then you totally shoot yourself in the foot with this. I don't have a hard time "accepting" anything, Zack. If I though SI sucked, I would say so. It seems to me that you're having a harder time accepting my OPINION that it's a great film without having to construct some elaborate theory about it. As you say - feel free to disagree, I'm OK with that. I'm merely reacting to what's being said, and believe it or not I'm not taking it all that personally....

It seems we're going round and round here, Troy.

I know you like the film and will defend it, and I don't like the film and defend that statement as well. Clearly, that's well documented here.

Reading through this post, I again wonder why you insist on trying to make it look like I think you are a "drone", or as you have said in a previous post, "Pavlovian". Where I am saying that people have biases and aiming for the middle ground of acknowledging that everyone has notions about something, you go right for the other end of the spectrum, and try to make it seem that I give you and other viewers no credit for being intelligent. Trying to make it into a "straw man" argument and make it look like I'm calling viewers idiots is clever, I'll give you that, but not where I was intending to go. I mean, I've already explained what I meant by bias, but alas, it fell flat.

Leading to my next point, whether you acknowledge that others don't consider SI some of Scorcese's best work or not is a moot point; there ARE other people out there who don't like the film. You can be as secure or insecure about your own opinion as you like - that doesn't mean that there aren't other opinions around. And frankly, if I was the only one in a group of people who didn't like a film (and I've been there before), it wouldn't bother me to be the lone dissenting opinion, either. The implication is that I need a "group" of people to validate my opinion, which I don't, as like you say, I am secure enough in voicing my own opinion about the film. Again, a clever tactic to attempt to discredit someone else's opinion, but that's cool...we're discussing and debating.

And as far as you mentioning if people blindly praised a film I love, would I have a problem with it,? Well, I probably wouldn't. Want to know why? Because it's their opinion! You seem to think that I have a need in the course of this discussion to have everyone agree with me on the subject, which I don't. My ego isn't that big, thank you very much. But again, we get to that area of painting someone into an extreme to discredit their opinion. Again, all those people that like the film, great. Those that don't? Great as well. It's not like I'm on a crusade to have people hate SHUTTER ISLAND here. I didn't like it, said so, and here we are. You didn't agree, rebutted, and forward we move.

As well, the "gold" statement. Why would I be embarassed about that? I simply said that I had said no one here said that. I stand behind the statement, so really, I don't need a patronizing statement like "I'll take your word for it". Thanks, but no.

Lastly, my final paragraph, where I apparently fly off into left field and "shoot myself in the foot" leads me to question if you ARE taking this seriously, Troy, which it seems you are, even though you claim you are not. I accept that - you like the film. I have no problem accepting that you like the film. CLEARLY, you like the film! It's just interesting to me that from my earliest posts on this film in this thread, which were rather short and to the point, you launched back a rather large response, which of course you are completely entitled to, and here we are. Constructive debate, yes? But don't act like you're not taking it personally.

...and by the way, my name is Zane, not Zack. :D

Zane C.
08-14-2010, 02:25 PM
I'm sorry, but just because your opinion differs from somebody else's, that doesn't make it fact that the person who you disagree with is "overstating". I legitimately loved SHUTTER ISLAND, I think it's wonderful filmmaking and riveting storytelling. This is not "overstatement", this is my legitimate reaction to the film. I know others disagree and I'm fine with that, but I'm not about to accuse them of having some agenda or being "wrong" just because they don't share the same opinion of the work that I do.

Vincent

Again, we go through the issue of me not having to have everyone agree with me. FANTASTIC that you loved the film, I do not. I don't feel the need to have everyone agree. Opinion is a wonderful thing, is it not?

Marshall Crist
08-14-2010, 02:37 PM
Opinion is a wonderful thing, is it not?

Clearly not.

I kid.

Vincent Pereira
08-14-2010, 02:42 PM
Again, we go through the issue of me not having to have everyone agree with me. FANTASTIC that you loved the film, I do not. I don't feel the need to have everyone agree. Opinion is a wonderful thing, is it not?

My words are there for folks to read, and I never said you're not entitled to dislike SHUTTER ISLAND. Rather, I flat out say that other folks are entitled to dislike it just as much as I like it and I'm fine with that. You opened this can of worms when you suggested that the only reason people like the film is because of who directed it. You're the one who is suggesting that other folks opinions are somehow invalid, not I.

Vincent

Zane C.
08-14-2010, 03:00 PM
My words are there for folks to read, and I never said you're not entitled to dislike SHUTTER ISLAND. Rather, I flat out say that other folks are entitled to dislike it just as much as I like it and I'm fine with that. You opened this can of worms when you suggested that the only reason people like the film is because of who directed it. You're the one who is suggesting that other folks opinions are somehow invalid, not I.

Vincent

Well, I'm not saying that other peoples' opinions are invalid, I'm just saying that people may have a bias toward the film because of who directed it.

Again, my opinion.

paul h.
08-14-2010, 03:03 PM
I forgot about The Black Dahlia. That really did suck.

There was that one very inspired stairway sequence (which seemed like an Argento "tribute", really), but it was hardly enough to redeem the entire project.

TRANSFORMERS 2 would probably top my worst recent list. I haven't bothered with THE HAPPENING yet, which might just edge in to the top spot.

Troy Howarth
08-14-2010, 05:02 PM
Well, I'm not saying that other peoples' opinions are invalid, I'm just saying that people may have a bias toward the film because of who directed it.

Again, my opinion.

And again, if you want to say that - you're going to insult people. I don't see why you don't seem to understand this. (And no, I'm not saying you're stupid - I'm just genuinely puzzled by the need to keep restating a point of view that you claim isn't meant to be any kind of a criticism towards those with a different point of view.) Can't you just accept that some people love it for reasons other than that and stop bringing that particular theory into it? It seems to me that's the only real issue of contention here.

Troy Howarth
08-14-2010, 05:05 PM
It seems we're going round and round here, Troy.

I know you like the film and will defend it, and I don't like the film and defend that statement as well. Clearly, that's well documented here.

Reading through this post, I again wonder why you insist on trying to make it look like I think you are a "drone", or as you have said in a previous post, "Pavlovian". Where I am saying that people have biases and aiming for the middle ground of acknowledging that everyone has notions about something, you go right for the other end of the spectrum, and try to make it seem that I give you and other viewers no credit for being intelligent. Trying to make it into a "straw man" argument and make it look like I'm calling viewers idiots is clever, I'll give you that, but not where I was intending to go. I mean, I've already explained what I meant by bias, but alas, it fell flat.

Leading to my next point, whether you acknowledge that others don't consider SI some of Scorcese's best work or not is a moot point; there ARE other people out there who don't like the film. You can be as secure or insecure about your own opinion as you like - that doesn't mean that there aren't other opinions around. And frankly, if I was the only one in a group of people who didn't like a film (and I've been there before), it wouldn't bother me to be the lone dissenting opinion, either. The implication is that I need a "group" of people to validate my opinion, which I don't, as like you say, I am secure enough in voicing my own opinion about the film. Again, a clever tactic to attempt to discredit someone else's opinion, but that's cool...we're discussing and debating.

And as far as you mentioning if people blindly praised a film I love, would I have a problem with it,? Well, I probably wouldn't. Want to know why? Because it's their opinion! You seem to think that I have a need in the course of this discussion to have everyone agree with me on the subject, which I don't. My ego isn't that big, thank you very much. But again, we get to that area of painting someone into an extreme to discredit their opinion. Again, all those people that like the film, great. Those that don't? Great as well. It's not like I'm on a crusade to have people hate SHUTTER ISLAND here. I didn't like it, said so, and here we are. You didn't agree, rebutted, and forward we move.

As well, the "gold" statement. Why would I be embarassed about that? I simply said that I had said no one here said that. I stand behind the statement, so really, I don't need a patronizing statement like "I'll take your word for it". Thanks, but no.

Lastly, my final paragraph, where I apparently fly off into left field and "shoot myself in the foot" leads me to question if you ARE taking this seriously, Troy, which it seems you are, even though you claim you are not. I accept that - you like the film. I have no problem accepting that you like the film. CLEARLY, you like the film! It's just interesting to me that from my earliest posts on this film in this thread, which were rather short and to the point, you launched back a rather large response, which of course you are completely entitled to, and here we are. Constructive debate, yes? But don't act like you're not taking it personally.

...and by the way, my name is Zane, not Zack. :D

Anybody with a brain in their head Zack - :D - will react when it's suggested that their honest opinion is somehow down soley to being blindly biased. You're the one who keeps hinting at this, even if you're not always explicitly stating it. Point is, if you want to say you hate the film - that's great; more power to you. But do not think that you can take a veiled swipe at people who are expressing their own sincere counter point and not rile them up in the process.

I'm quite baffled, however, by your "point" about whether other people like the film or not... I've said all throughout this that everybody is entitled to their opinion. If a million people think the film is crap, that doesn't alter my take on it. If a million people love it, it doesn't make me feel any better about my own stance. Personal opinion is just that - personal opinion. So, quite honestly, I think you're getting rather muddled up here. The issue was never your dislike of the film - that's your opinion and I respect it as such. Rather it was the rather sweeping way you dismissed the opposing point of view - you know, the one you're kind of trying to stand up for in this post in a round about way - by saying it is born out of simple bias.

And while it may appear to you that I'm taking this all too personally, I can tell you I've remained quite calm in typing all these posts... so you're wrong there, sorry. You can accuse me of being patronizing if you like, but it seems to me that you're the one who was being rather rude and presumptuous in the first place. But I get it - you stand by your statements and don't feel the need to try and understand where I'm coming from. That's OK with me.

Troy Howarth
08-14-2010, 05:10 PM
Again, we go through the issue of me not having to have everyone agree with me. FANTASTIC that you loved the film, I do not. I don't feel the need to have everyone agree. Opinion is a wonderful thing, is it not?

Now who is being condescending? :D Look, opinion is not under attack here - if we all agreed on things all the time, how boring would that be? The issue is rather a matter of expressing an opinion without denigrating the other point of view. You will no doubt reply that you're not denigrating those of us who love the film - to that I say you're being coy, evasive and clever about trying to avoid the real issue. If you had simply said "I think Shutter Island is a piece of shit, so it gets my vote" or whatever... that's fine. I can't argue that because, as you say, that's your honest opinion. No problem there.

Zane C.
08-14-2010, 05:32 PM
And again, if you want to say that - you're going to insult people. I don't see why you don't seem to understand this. (And no, I'm not saying you're stupid - I'm just genuinely puzzled by the need to keep restating a point of view that you claim isn't meant to be any kind of a criticism towards those with a different point of view.) Can't you just accept that some people love it for reasons other than that and stop bringing that particular theory into it? It seems to me that's the only real issue of contention here.

In that case, Troy, I'm sorry your feelings were hurt. :rolleyes:Opinions sometimes do insult people.

I'M puzzled why you need to keep questioning why I'm restating a point - I've repeated myself a few times to point out I don't need everyone to agree, but that seems to not be getting through to you. Thus, the repetition.

Zane C.
08-14-2010, 05:37 PM
Now who is being condescending? :D Look, opinion is not under attack here - if we all agreed on things all the time, how boring would that be? The issue is rather a matter of expressing an opinion without denigrating the other point of view. You will no doubt reply that you're not denigrating those of us who love the film - to that I say you're being coy, evasive and clever about trying to avoid the real issue. If you had simply said "I think Shutter Island is a piece of shit, so it gets my vote" or whatever... that's fine. I can't argue that because, as you say, that's your honest opinion. No problem there.

Why respond to a post not directed at you, Troy? I'm sure Vincent can write a response back.

I also love how in another post you call me presumptuous, them lay this one on me. A tad hypocritical, no? Thanks, but I don't need someone to second guess what I'm going to say. If that makes you feel like you have the better argument here, by all means, do it to validate your own feelings on it. Just don't try to make it seem like you have it all figured out when you don't.

As you would say, I'm not a "drone".

Also allow me point out that I will not call SHUTTER ISLAND "a piece of shit", and stoop to that level. True, I don't care for the film, but I have pointed out, ad nauseum why. I'm not going to jump at the bait on that one.

Emanuele Sheriff
08-14-2010, 05:40 PM
As for my selection for worst film of last 3 years it would have to be Run,Fat Boy,Run. My God I was so embarrassed for Simon Pegg when I saw it. It actually got some good reviews here in the UK largely, I suspect, because Pegg is much-loved. The script is unbelievebly formulaic and the "humour" non-existent. As for David Schwimmer- he should think about getting back IN FRONTof the camera ASAP and forget directing as he doesn't have the talent for it.

p.s.-sorry if this flick may be a bit older than 3 years.

Zane C.
08-14-2010, 05:45 PM
Anybody with a brain in their head Zack - :D - will react when it's suggested that their honest opinion is somehow down soley to being blindly biased. You're the one who keeps hinting at this, even if you're not always explicitly stating it. Point is, if you want to say you hate the film - that's great; more power to you. But do not think that you can take a veiled swipe at people who are expressing their own sincere counter point and not rile them up in the process.

I'm quite baffled, however, by your "point" about whether other people like the film or not... I've said all throughout this that everybody is entitled to their opinion. If a million people think the film is crap, that doesn't alter my take on it. If a million people love it, it doesn't make me feel any better about my own stance. Personal opinion is just that - personal opinion. So, quite honestly, I think you're getting rather muddled up here. The issue was never your dislike of the film - that's your opinion and I respect it as such. Rather it was the rather sweeping way you dismissed the opposing point of view - you know, the one you're kind of trying to stand up for in this post in a round about way - by saying it is born out of simple bias.

And while it may appear to you that I'm taking this all too personally, I can tell you I've remained quite calm in typing all these posts... so you're wrong there, sorry. You can accuse me of being patronizing if you like, but it seems to me that you're the one who was being rather rude and presumptuous in the first place. But I get it - you stand by your statements and don't feel the need to try and understand where I'm coming from. That's OK with me.

"Veiled Swipes"? I don't think I've veiled anything in this thread.

This last passage is also a kicker - I'm being "rude and presumptuous" for expressing an opinion?

I've TRIED to see where you're coming from, Troy, but it just seems you don't care for my opposing opinion on the film (and I really don't care at this point), but if you need to make it seem like "I'm not trying to see where you're coming from", then fine. Attempt to paint me with that brush.

You've tried tactics to try and get a rise out of me, and ultimately, you haven't.

In the end, I'm going to agree to disagree with you.

Troy Howarth
08-14-2010, 09:13 PM
I wasn't aware you were psychic, Zane... tell me: what else am I "trying to do?" :D Look, I've been enjoying this back and forth but clearly you're taking it too much to heart. To put it another way, the horse, if not dead, is in mortal danger of expiring. I'll be happy to agree to disagree...

Troy Howarth
08-14-2010, 09:15 PM
Why respond to a post not directed at you, Troy? I'm sure Vincent can write a response back.

I also love how in another post you call me presumptuous, them lay this one on me. A tad hypocritical, no? Thanks, but I don't need someone to second guess what I'm going to say. If that makes you feel like you have the better argument here, by all means, do it to validate your own feelings on it. Just don't try to make it seem like you have it all figured out when you don't.

As you would say, I'm not a "drone".

Also allow me point out that I will not call SHUTTER ISLAND "a piece of shit", and stoop to that level. True, I don't care for the film, but I have pointed out, ad nauseum why. I'm not going to jump at the bait on that one.

I wasn't aware I wasn't allowed to respond to posts not directed at me. Thanks for clarifying! But yes, Vincent will no doubt reply if he wishes to do so - he might find all of this rather dull, however, and opt to skip it; I don't blame him if that's the case. (I didn't notice this post before I wrote my last one - I was beginning to feel bad, thinking perhaps you're just taking me too seriously... my mistake, that.)

Eric B
08-14-2010, 09:29 PM
The worst movie on DVD I've seen in the last 3 years is THE PRODIGAL (1955).

Troy Howarth
08-14-2010, 09:30 PM
Another piss poor one I suffered through comes to mind: Babylon AD.

Zane C.
08-14-2010, 09:31 PM
I wasn't aware you were psychic, Zane... tell me: what else am I "trying to do?" :D Look, I've been enjoying this back and forth but clearly you're taking it too much to heart. To put it another way, the horse, if not dead, is in mortal danger of expiring. I'll be happy to agree to disagree...

Well, I'm not psychic, Troy, nor do I claim to be (except that I thought SI was predictable about 20 minutes in, but that hardly classifies me as psychic) , I was just pointing out that you indeed feel that you need to second guess what I was saying...let's call it say...presumptuous.

Your latest attempt at trying to be witty and cheeky is coming off as rather pathetic, actually. As in the "oh, let's make things look silly" variety, which, I must say, you excel at.

And yes, the figurative horse is on its last legs, indeed in "mortal danger of expiring", and trying to make my point is growing tiresome.

Zane C.
08-14-2010, 09:38 PM
I wasn't aware I wasn't allowed to respond to posts not directed at me. Thanks for clarifying! But yes, Vincent will no doubt reply if he wishes to do so - he might find all of this rather dull, however, and opt to skip it; I don't blame him if that's the case. (I didn't notice this post before I wrote my last one - I was beginning to feel bad, thinking perhaps you're just taking me too seriously... my mistake, that.)

Feel free to respond, Troy! After all, it is a free country, although it seems having a dissenting opinion in this particular thread is troublesome! It's not surprising you jumped in on this one, but hey, I could always hope, right?

As far as anyone finding this thread dull, that's their business...how about we leave it up to them? I would hate to put words in people's mouths.

With that, it's been fun, and I'm done with this thread. :D

Just so you don't think I'm going away "mad", I have come away with another point of view in terms of this film, and perhaps some time down the road I may give it another view. Until that time, I'm happy with the opinion of the film I have reached.

Yours in not taking this too seriously,

Zane

Troy Howarth
08-14-2010, 09:38 PM
The only thing more tiresome than my wit at this point is your rather desperate attempts to undermine everything I'm saying with sarcasm. I'll be the bigger man and say that if I was disrespectful towards you, I apologize. Beyond that, there's not much else to be said.

Troy Howarth
08-14-2010, 09:41 PM
"Feel free to respond, Troy! After all, it is a free country, although it seems having a dissenting opinion in this particular thread is troublesome! It's not surprising you jumped in on this one, but hey, I could always hope, right? "

So you would rather if I don't reply to your threads? In all honesty, if that is what you want, I'll be happy to oblige. Sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, I'm just making sure I'm clear, that's all.

"As far as anyone finding this thread dull, that's their business...how about we leave it up to them? I would hate to put words in people's mouths. "

'Twas never my intention to put words into anyone's mouths... for all I know all this back and forth may be the height of excitement for others to read. Who knows... one can only hope.

"With that, it's been fun, and I'm done with this thread. :D

Just so you don't think I'm going away "mad", I have come away with another point of view in terms of this film, and perhaps some time down the road I may give it another view. Until that time, I'm happy with the opinion of the film I have reached."

I wasn't aware anything productive had been reached so far as that was concerned - ie. your take on the film - nor was it my intention to get you to like the film. If you do grow to like it, however, that's fine by me, too.

Jason Lee
08-14-2010, 09:55 PM
Watched another one....

SURBURBAN GIRL (Sarah Michelle Geller VS Alec Baldwin).....

A new subgenre was created with this movie...a ROMANTIC COMEDY that contains NO ROMANCE and NO COMEDY!!

(BTW not my choice to watch..the other half thought it looked good!)

Steven Millan
08-14-2010, 10:03 PM
These are the last three films that I feel are the worst I've seen in three years...

* UNIVERSAL SOLDIER:REGENERATION

* Rob Zombie's HALLOWEEN 2 (a virtually on-screen exploding trainwreck)

* ALL THE BOYS LOVE MANDY LANE (caught this mess on a torrent site)



Speaking of Rob Zombie,he ought to just dump his BLOB redux and get Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino to help him get WEREWOLF WOMEN OF THE SS made into a full length film(since they've got good relations with the Weinstein Bros.),which is the movie everyone wants to see RZ do next(which is an impossible reality to see happen).

cworkman
08-14-2010, 11:08 PM
I wish I could legitimately love SHUTTER ISLAND... love the setting, the direction and the visuals, but IMO the movie becomes too literal in its climax, too willing to "spell it out" for the viewer, which is a real pet peeve of mine (and on a chalk board no less!). Still, it's a very good movie and I hope that Scorsese revisits the genre again.

I can't believe I'm saying this but I actually prefer CAPE FEAR to it.. that movie gets silly in its climax, but it seems to embrace its excesses, if that makes any sense... also, I used to kind of hate it, so I may come around to SHUTTER ISLAND in a few years.

The worst thing about CAPE FEAR - which SHUTTER ISLAND thankfully does not have and is therefore superior - is Juliett Lewis. Ugh!

cworkman
08-14-2010, 11:25 PM
Reading back through all these posts about SHUTTER ISLAND (which I happen to like very much), I didn't get the impression that Zane was implying that ALL people who like it do so only because of who directed it. Only that - and I think he was making a generalization here that applies to all beloved film directors out there - that there is and will always be a camp who likes something someone does just because that someone did it.

Case in point: Hammer fans and Universal fans. There are people out there who love Hammer Films so much that they like EVERYTHING the company did. While most of us are smart enough to know that they were a company that made good and bad product like any other, there are rabid fans who like it all and insist that it's all great. Same with Universal.

And the same with directors, whether they be Martin Scorsese, Clint Eastwood, John Ford, Terence Fisher, Roger Corman, James Whale, Dario Argento, Lucio Fulci, Stephen Spielberg, David Cronenberg, David Lynch... you know it. His point is valid, but I think it got lost somewhere along the way as more and more discussion was built up around it. Again, he was saying that there will always be a camp who likes EVERYTHING someone does, whether it's good or bad, but that doesn't mean that everyone who likes that person or production falls into that camp! Or even that the majority of them do.

That said, I agree with Gargo's contention that the finale of SI is just a little too cut and dried. That's probably my only complaint about it.

cworkman
08-14-2010, 11:27 PM
These are the last three films that I feel are the worst I've seen in three years...

* UNIVERSAL SOLDIER:REGENERATION

* Rob Zombie's HALLOWEEN 2 (a virtually on-screen exploding trainwreck)

* ALL THE BOYS LOVE MANDY LANE (caught this mess on a torrent site)



Speaking of Rob Zombie,he ought to just dump his BLOB redux and get Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino to help him get WEREWOLF WOMEN OF THE SS made into a full length film(since they've got good relations with the Weinstein Bros.),which is the movie everyone wants to see RZ do next(which is an impossible reality to see happen).

If Rob Zombie is allowed to write it, WEREWOLF WOMEN OF THE SS will turn out to be crap like everything else he's done. He's got a great eye, he's a very strong visualist, but please God (or Satan, if you please), don't let him sit down at the word processor...

Vincent Pereira
08-15-2010, 03:07 AM
Reading back through all these posts about SHUTTER ISLAND (which I happen to like very much), I didn't get the impression that Zane was implying that ALL people who like it do so only because of who directed it....

Except that Zane wrote, and I quote,

"I find a lot of people overstating the quality of things these days, SI case in point for me. It was a mediocre film that people raved about. With a distinct lack of "cinematic masterpieces" or even good films in the current era, people tend to champion mediocre films as great works of art so as to almost "fill the gap"... Had anyone else made the film, it would have been glossed over and not given much credit...People see the name "Scorcese" attached to this and expect a certain something. This film fell short, but he got a pass anyway, and people rallied around the film regardless. And let's be honest here, as great of a director as Scorcese is, people have given him a pass for the last while, post-Oscar win... if a rookie director helmed this thing, for example, they would have gotten hammered...

Those are rather bold, definitive statements claiming that SHUTTER ISLAND would have been "hammered', for example, had another director made the exact same film.

Also, Zane claims that Scorsese has been "given a pass for the last while, post-Oscar win"- an odd statement, since his Oscar win was for THE DEPARTED, which was exactly ONE FILM prior to SHUTTER RISLAND...

I find it funny that Zane continues to act like his opinion is being unfairly attacked, when the entire argument that led to this debate was due to his attack on the opinions of folks who liked SHUTTER ISLAND. This entire 'controversy' has been born out of the fact that Zane tried to argue that the only reason anybody liked SHUTTER ISLAND was because it was directed by Scorsese. I don't give a rat's fuck how many people love or hate this film or any other, I form my opinion based on the film itself and nothing else, and I respect others who have formed opinions- even contrary to mine- as well. By the same token, I do not feel the need to justify my own personal opinions by contriving elaborate theories as to why others might disagree with my opinions like Zane has.

Vincent

Randy Thomas G
08-15-2010, 03:15 AM
In the theatre, probably TRANSFORMERS, although I haven't seen T2 yet, which is supposed to be even worse.

Jason Lee
08-15-2010, 09:37 AM
In the theatre, probably TRANSFORMERS, although I haven't seen T2 yet, which is supposed to be even worse.

Dont go there man...It IS worse....seems hard to believe, but it is..there are even TWO Jar-JAr Binks robots in there ON TOP of all the other crap...think about THAT!!

Hey!!..I liked UNIVERSAL SOLDIER REGENERATION!!!:(

Aaron G
08-15-2010, 09:50 AM
THE ROAD was truly fucking awful, and if i saw John Hillcoat in the street I'd kick him in the arse and tell him to stop being the most pretentious film-maker on the planet.

Adrian J.
08-15-2010, 11:08 AM
Some which instantly come to mind;

1] Philosophy Of A Knife [like some dodgy goth Unit 731 wank fantasy, made by an infantile hack,truly awful ! ]

2] Inglorious BasTURDS [like It says in the title, It's a floater,time to pull the chain !]

3] Slumdog Millionaire [sorry,i know many people liked it,but frankly I was bored]

4] Any of those interchangable horror remakes ['Last House On the Left' etc.........truly crap with a capital C ]

cworkman
08-15-2010, 11:52 AM
Except that Zane wrote, and I quote,

"I find a lot of people overstating the quality of things these days, SI case in point for me. It was a mediocre film that people raved about. With a distinct lack of "cinematic masterpieces" or even good films in the current era, people tend to champion mediocre films as great works of art so as to almost "fill the gap"... Had anyone else made the film, it would have been glossed over and not given much credit...People see the name "Scorcese" attached to this and expect a certain something. This film fell short, but he got a pass anyway, and people rallied around the film regardless. And let's be honest here, as great of a director as Scorcese is, people have given him a pass for the last while, post-Oscar win... if a rookie director helmed this thing, for example, they would have gotten hammered...

Those are rather bold, definitive statements claiming that SHUTTER ISLAND would have been "hammered', for example, had another director made the exact same film.

Also, Zane claims that Scorsese has been "given a pass for the last while, post-Oscar win"- an odd statement, since his Oscar win was for THE DEPARTED, which was exactly ONE FILM prior to SHUTTER RISLAND...

I find it funny that Zane continues to act like his opinion is being unfairly attacked, when the entire argument that led to this debate was due to his attack on the opinions of folks who liked SHUTTER ISLAND. This entire 'controversy' has been born out of the fact that Zane tried to argue that the only reason anybody liked SHUTTER ISLAND was because it was directed by Scorsese. I don't give a rat's fuck how many people love or hate this film or any other, I form my opinion based on the film itself and nothing else, and I respect others who have formed opinions- even contrary to mine- as well. By the same token, I do not feel the need to justify my own personal opinions by contriving elaborate theories as to why others might disagree with my opinions like Zane has.

Vincent

Vincent, he pulled back from his blanket statements and stated directly that he wasn't implying that this was true of the people who post on these boards.

People ARE allowed to have dissenting opinions, even if we disagree with them. And that includes generalized opinions. So what if he stated that he believed that the film would have been hammered had someone else directed it. That's what he believes, based on his own world experiences, observations, and view; you feel differently. There's nothing wrong with either opinion; and because it's just that (an opinion), it's impossible for him to prove his feeling is true, just as it's impossible for you to do the same with yours.

cworkman
08-15-2010, 11:53 AM
TRANSFORMERS 2 is one of the first films I've EVER seen. There is nothing entertaining about it at all; it's just boring, boring, boring.

THE ROAD is almost as bad. Very dull script, visuals, etc. The story's been done ten thousand times, which is okay if you can find some way to bring something new to it, but nobody does that here.

Troy Howarth
08-15-2010, 01:00 PM
Except that Zane wrote, and I quote,

"I find a lot of people overstating the quality of things these days, SI case in point for me. It was a mediocre film that people raved about. With a distinct lack of "cinematic masterpieces" or even good films in the current era, people tend to champion mediocre films as great works of art so as to almost "fill the gap"... Had anyone else made the film, it would have been glossed over and not given much credit...People see the name "Scorcese" attached to this and expect a certain something. This film fell short, but he got a pass anyway, and people rallied around the film regardless. And let's be honest here, as great of a director as Scorcese is, people have given him a pass for the last while, post-Oscar win... if a rookie director helmed this thing, for example, they would have gotten hammered...

Those are rather bold, definitive statements claiming that SHUTTER ISLAND would have been "hammered', for example, had another director made the exact same film.

Also, Zane claims that Scorsese has been "given a pass for the last while, post-Oscar win"- an odd statement, since his Oscar win was for THE DEPARTED, which was exactly ONE FILM prior to SHUTTER RISLAND...

I find it funny that Zane continues to act like his opinion is being unfairly attacked, when the entire argument that led to this debate was due to his attack on the opinions of folks who liked SHUTTER ISLAND. This entire 'controversy' has been born out of the fact that Zane tried to argue that the only reason anybody liked SHUTTER ISLAND was because it was directed by Scorsese. I don't give a rat's fuck how many people love or hate this film or any other, I form my opinion based on the film itself and nothing else, and I respect others who have formed opinions- even contrary to mine- as well. By the same token, I do not feel the need to justify my own personal opinions by contriving elaborate theories as to why others might disagree with my opinions like Zane has.

Vincent

Those were my objections, exactly. I don't have a personal reason for engaging in this back and forth with Zane except that I took exception with what you're alluding to. He's free to dislike the film and trash it as much as he likes; it's a free country and all that sort of thing. That was never the issue of contention.

Troy Howarth
08-15-2010, 01:02 PM
Vincent, he pulled back from his blanket statements and stated directly that he wasn't implying that this was true of the people who post on these boards.

People ARE allowed to have dissenting opinions, even if we disagree with them. And that includes generalized opinions. So what if he stated that he believed that the film would have been hammered had someone else directed it. That's what he believes, based on his own world experiences, observations, and view; you feel differently. There's nothing wrong with either opinion; and because it's just that (an opinion), it's impossible for him to prove his feeling is true, just as it's impossible for you to do the same with yours.

Honestly I'm surprised to hear you say this, as you, like me, have objected on many occasions - and argued very vigorously - when people have suggested that you blindly defend Fisher's work, for example.

But whatever - this whole thing has gotten terribly tiresome by now, and I already said I was done with this, so I'm going back on my word by posting about it again. Onwards and upwards....

cworkman
08-15-2010, 01:24 PM
I don't recall anyone suggesting that I blindly defend Fisher's work, especially given that I've trashed soooooooo much of it at various times for various reasons. (HORROR OF DRACULA, BRIDES OF DRACULA, THE EARTH DIES SCREAMING, MAN BAIT, THREE STOPS TO MURDER, THE BLACK GLOVE, RACE FOR LIFE, THE MAN WHO COULD CHEAT DEATH, SWORD OF SHERWOOD FOREST, SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE DEADLY NECKLACE, and NIGHT OF THE BIG HEAT, for instance.)

Now, if someone did come on say such a thing, he or she would obviously not be privy to the facts and would making such a statement out of ignorance.

Zane, on the other hand, vociferously stated that he did NOT see the people on these boards as being guilty of this. So, while his initial statement implied that he did, he later clarified that to say that he didn't. I just think we were being a bit hard on the guy, and from there the whole conversation escalated. (And I'm not condemning anyone for that escalation, because I've too often escalated things in the past for whatever reasons.)

Troy Howarth
08-15-2010, 01:26 PM
I do recall such a thing, Chris - certainly on the SS boards, for example. But no matter - I recall it and if you don't then so much the better. I take full responsibility for things getting heated with Zane, and I've already apologized, so it's best to just let this go already, I suppose.

cworkman
08-15-2010, 01:32 PM
I think you may be referring to a conversation I had with Ken Hanke, and he very well have made such a point, I don't recall (God, I don't think we've posted on that site in close to ten years). If he did, he would have been wrong to do so, because I recall really lambasting BRIDES OF DRACULA on those very boards, and he was very much a part of that conversation. Anyway, I imagine that if he were on these boards, that view would have softened.

Troy Howarth
08-15-2010, 01:37 PM
I've no doubt there were more conversations than just that, and I know for a fact you've brought this argument up many times in more recent times, but I'll let it go... it's a dead issue, so far as I'm concerned.

cworkman
08-15-2010, 01:57 PM
Well, this board IS searchable.

On a different note and back to SHUTTER ISLAND, I was at the library yesterday and they had a copy of the book on which it's based for sale, so I picked it up. Now I just have to find time to read it. I just finished reading LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, which, despite being translated by someone who simply doesn't know English grammar, was excellent. Now I want to watch the original film again as well as see LET ME IN to compare them. If Reeve's has made too many changes from the book, he may ruin his film. We'll just have to wait and see.

Troy Howarth
08-15-2010, 02:08 PM
SI is very faithful to the book, but it makes a key change at the end which improves it dramatically.

cworkman
08-15-2010, 09:04 PM
I'm looking forward to reading it... as soon as I get the other books I've bought recently read. (Right now I'm reading Oliver Butterworth's classic 1954 children's novel THE ENORMOUS EGG. Unfortunately, Little Brown decided to hire a new artist rather than use Neave Parker's striking original artwork.)

Paul Crest
08-16-2010, 05:00 AM
*click* Note to newbie self - Don't argue with Mr. Howarth - *click*

Troy Howarth
08-16-2010, 07:15 AM
I'm really not as bad as all that. :(

Jonathan Douglas
08-16-2010, 07:22 AM
Oh, yes you are. :D

Troy Howarth
08-16-2010, 07:24 AM
Oh you shut up - and don't dare cross me again or I'll bit your 'ead off! :D (But honestly though, I hope Paul doesn't think I'm some sort of monster... the conversation in question got out of hand, but I'd say there was bad behavior on both sides.)

Jonathan Douglas
08-16-2010, 07:27 AM
I'll be good, or I trust you'll remind me when I'm not. ;)

Ehren H.
08-16-2010, 12:38 PM
I agree with many choices in here, and I disagree with some, but that's the nature of all this.

I've kind of stopped seeing new movies for the most part, I got sick of feeling like I wasted money so I mainly watch older films, but, somehow, I still see some of the new stuff.

Without a doubt, not only the worst movie of recent years, but the WORST movie of all time is Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. A hugely popular character, a returning cast, the original director, a HUGE budget and THAT'S ALL THEY COULD COME UP WITH?!?!?! I still get mad knowing I paid money at a theater to see that movie. I can't believe I contributed financially to that kind of behavior.

Jonathan D. Cox
08-18-2010, 02:29 AM
John Turturro's ROMANCE AND CIGARETTES. I turned it off less than a half in.

Magnus Wersen
08-18-2010, 04:35 AM
Neil Marshall's Centurion. I found it dull, uninteresting and it had the worst CGI gore I've ever seen. Total crap!

Bill M
08-18-2010, 08:43 AM
toss up between Avatar and Benjamin Button

RichardDoyle
08-18-2010, 05:22 PM
I wouldn't say I lived a "charmed life", I just think that SHUTTER ISLAND was a complete and utter disappointment to me as a viewer. I've seen equally bad films over the last three years, but this one is at the top of the heap for me.

I find a lot of people overstating the quality of things these days, SI case in point for me. It was a mediocre film that people raved about. With a distinct lack of "cinematic masterpieces" or even good films in the current era, people tend to champion mediocre films as great works of art so as to almost "fill the gap".

Now don't get me wrong, I love Scorcese's work, and I think he's one of the most important American directors ever, but the film just didn't resonate with me, and in his hands, this film COULD have been better. In fact, I'm surprised he made the film, to be honest. Had anyone else made the film, it would have been glossed over and not given much credit.

Just my opinion, but SI is my "worst" pick. Feel free to disagree!

About once a month I see films where the basic elements of film making like acting and editing fail completely. They are utterly dismal, incompetent efforts. "Shutter Island" is no where near this level of awfulness ... so yeah, if its the WORST thing you've seen, you really haven't seen many bad films at all in the last 3 years.

Mark Nelson
08-18-2010, 09:37 PM
FURRY VENGEANCE.

Holy fuck.

Shane K
08-18-2010, 09:40 PM
Blood Cult, tied for first place with The Girlfriend Experience.

cworkman
08-19-2010, 12:18 AM
FURRY VENGEANCE.

Holy fuck.

You actually watched this in the first place??? What's wrong with you???:(

Marshall Crist
08-19-2010, 12:33 AM
FURRY VENGEANCE.

Holy fuck.

I always get "plushies" and "furries" mixed up. Maybe I should get that shit straightened out and make a "movie" called PLUSHIE VENGENANCE, but have it be good.

Ryan B
08-19-2010, 12:15 PM
The Wicker Man (remake) + Whatever Twilight I was forced to see.

John K
08-19-2010, 03:53 PM
Blood Cult

With ya here - this movie is boring beyond boring.

Jon Houghton
08-19-2010, 04:09 PM
Das Kommabrutalle Duelle(or however the fuck you spell it). absolutely the WORST splatter movie I have ever seen. The gore was horribly amateurish and the "chain saw" fight consisted of a TOY chain saw. PLEASE DON'T WATCH THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT!!! I BEG YOU!!! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!

Darcy Parker
08-21-2010, 01:20 PM
The absolute worst thing I have seen in the last 3 years would have to be the first three minutes of Kevin Smith's infamous turd Cop Out. My wife and I decided to watch it out of morbid curiosity, and that was as much as we could take. For perspective, we actually finished From Dusk Til Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money.

Vincent Pereira
08-21-2010, 07:59 PM
You actually watched this in the first place??? What's wrong with you???:(

I plan to watch FURRY VENGEANCE, simply because there is a Ferret in it.

Vincent

Vincent Pereira
08-21-2010, 08:03 PM
The absolute worst thing I have seen in the last 3 years would have to be the first three minutes of Kevin Smith's infamous turd Cop Out. My wife and I decided to watch it out of morbid curiosity, and that was as much as we could take. For perspective, we actually finished From Dusk Til Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money.

Is COP OUT really "infamous"? Anyway, in Kevin's defense, it's the only film he directed that he didn't write. I still haven't seen the full film, all I have to go on is the rough assembly of footage (when it was still called A COUPLE OF DICKS and with black slugs between scenes not yet shot) that I saw when I visited the set last summer, but I was amused by what I saw, especially the Sean William Scott scenes. I guess I have to see the finished movie now.

Vincent

J. Martinez
08-22-2010, 12:16 AM
The Hangover - Didn't get to see it at the movies so by the time I saw it at home, I saw it with high hopes and with everybody saying that it was one of the funniest movies ever, well I didn't laugh once, just a few giggles but nothing more.

Death Note 1 and 2 - I liked the anime series but as for the movies they were both very horribly acted.

High Kick Girl - My friend blind bought this movie, horrible acting and horrible action, it was really bad that my friend and me were laughing so much by how bad it was.

2012
Transformers 2.

Vincent Pereira
08-22-2010, 07:18 PM
The Hangover - Didn't get to see it at the movies so by the time I saw it at home, I saw it with high hopes and with everybody saying that it was one of the funniest movies ever, well I didn't laugh once, just a few giggles but nothing more...

Agree. I watched this on Blu-ray and think I chuckled lightly two or maybe three times. I don't know why folks think this is so good.

Vincent

Marshall Crist
08-22-2010, 09:33 PM
Some guy at work was all up my ass to see this. Sounds like I missed nothing.

Paul Casey
08-22-2010, 09:45 PM
Maybe he was just looking for his wristwatch.

Marshall Crist
08-22-2010, 10:04 PM
Paul, that just doesn't even make sense.

Paul Casey
08-22-2010, 10:49 PM
Class ring?

John K
08-22-2010, 11:09 PM
I think it's a very funny film, for what it's worth. Seeing it with an audience probably helps.

Chris Kewley
08-22-2010, 11:18 PM
Paul, that just doesn't even make sense.

I don't know, I pictured Christopher Walken there for a second!!

Mark Nelson
08-22-2010, 11:20 PM
I first saw THE HANGOVER with zero expectations, knowing nothing about it, and wound up having a great time. It might be a case for some folks of hearing other people blow themselves over how it's the greatest comedy ever, and then when you watch it the film fails to meet the sky-high praise other have heaped upon it.

paul h.
08-22-2010, 11:47 PM
I think it's a very funny film, for what it's worth. Seeing it with an audience probably helps.

The same could be said of BLAZING SADDLES.


I have not yet seen THE HANGOVER, so consider my comments as such.

Vincent Pereira
08-23-2010, 12:13 AM
I first saw THE HANGOVER with zero expectations, knowing nothing about it, and wound up having a great time. It might be a case for some folks of hearing other people blow themselves over how it's the greatest comedy ever, and then when you watch it the film fails to meet the sky-high praise other have heaped upon it.

I understand that phenomenon- i.e., something is SO HYPED that it can never live up to expectations- but in THE HANGOVER's case it wasn't that for me. It wasn't that it "didn't live up to the hype" in my case, it was that the film literally just barely made me laugh two or maybe three times. Another big-hit, 'hyped' comedy was TROPIC THUNDER, and like THE HANGOVER I watched that well after it's initial release on Blu-ray so I was well aware of the hype, but unlike my reaction to THE HANGOVER, I agreed with the TROPIC THUNDER hype. Not THAT'S a funny fuckin' movie!

Vincent

Ryan B
08-24-2010, 10:01 AM
I forgot about the Hangover. It was so bad I gave my FRIENDs copy away. Yeeesh

Ian Z.
08-24-2010, 01:59 PM
I understand that phenomenon- i.e., something is SO HYPED that it can never live up to expectations- but in THE HANGOVER's case it wasn't that for me. It wasn't that it "didn't live up to the hype" in my case, it was that the film literally just barely made me laugh two or maybe three times. Another big-hit, 'hyped' comedy was TROPIC THUNDER, and like THE HANGOVER I watched that well after it's initial release on Blu-ray so I was well aware of the hype, but unlike my reaction to THE HANGOVER, I agreed with the TROPIC THUNDER hype. Not THAT'S a funny fuckin' movie!

Just to prove that what is "funny" is subjective, I went into both films with no expectations and found THE HANGOVER very funny while TROPIC THUNDER was perhaps one of the dumbest, most unfunny comedies I have ever seen.

What tickles one man's funny bone obviously won't tickle 'em all. Although interestingly enough, most people seem to agree on BLAZING SADDLES and MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL, so sometimes funny is just too damn funny.

Blake L.
08-24-2010, 03:15 PM
Just to prove that what is "funny" is subjective, I went into both films with no expectations and found THE HANGOVER very funny while TROPIC THUNDER was perhaps one of the dumbest, most unfunny comedies I have ever seen.

What tickles one man's funny bone obviously won't tickle 'em all. Although interestingly enough, most people seem to agree on BLAZING SADDLES and MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL, so sometimes funny is just too damn funny.

My wife and I had that experience with The Wedding Crashers. We didn't hate it, but it was underwhelming enough that we never finished watching it.

Ian F
08-24-2010, 04:59 PM
Juno.

I really can't think of anything that bad otherwise. I generally try and avoid seeing stuff that I would hate.

Steven Millan
08-24-2010, 05:06 PM
Just to prove that what is "funny" is subjective, I went into both films with no expectations and found THE HANGOVER very funny while TROPIC THUNDER was perhaps one of the dumbest, most unfunny comedies I have ever seen.

What tickles one man's funny bone obviously won't tickle 'em all. Although interestingly enough, most people seem to agree on BLAZING SADDLES and MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL, so sometimes funny is just too damn funny.


THE HANGOVER and TROPIC THUNDER are both definitely no match for MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL.

paul h.
08-24-2010, 05:07 PM
What tickles one man's funny bone obviously won't tickle 'em all. Although interestingly enough, most people seem to agree on BLAZING SADDLES and MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL, so sometimes funny is just too damn funny.

My point was really that these films are much funnier when seen with a large audience instead of alone at home, or in almost empty theater.

Randy Thomas G
08-25-2010, 05:25 AM
Most modern American comedies are very disappointing for me, there's usually two or three good laughs a loads of dead stretches.

The problem is that the art of the script in comedy has been lost, everyone just does a bunch of hit-or-miss skits (probably inspired by Monty Python, Blazing Saddles, Airplane and early Woody Allen, but nowhere near as funny). At least Apatow's films try for more than that but so far the only film of his that works for me the majority of the time is Knocked Up.

I'm not usually one of those 'they don't make good movies anymore' young fogeys but in terms of English-language comedies give me the 40s screwball classics or Young Frankenstein anytime.

Troy Howarth
08-25-2010, 07:22 AM
One of the most awkward cinematic experiences I can recall is seeing Monty Python and the Holy Grail with a group of people - I was one of maybe two or three people who laughed at the damn thing. Python is by no means beloved by all - I know a lot of people who simply think their stuff is too stupid for words.

In terms of recent comedies, I laughed my ass off at Tropic Thunder and Step Brothers, but I found The Wedding Crashers to be a total bore.

Daniel S.S.
08-25-2010, 08:15 AM
One of the most awkward cinematic experiences I can recall is seeing Monty Python and the Holy Grail with a group of people - I was one of maybe two or three people who laughed at the damn thing. Python is by no means beloved by all - I know a lot of people who simply think their stuff is too stupid for words.

We could have the making of a new thread here, re: the subjective element of comedies.

Every now and again I come across someone who states, usually with a sneer on their face, that they don't like Monty Python and I admit I never quite think of them the same way.


My point was really that these films are much funnier when seen with a large audience instead of alone at home, or in almost empty theater.

I'm reminded of when I saw the first Naked Gun movie. A friend was visiting from Hawaii and we went into Manhattan to see The Cramps but the show was canceled. Looking for something to do we stumbled across Naked Gun and so watched in a packed, downtown theater. There was so much raucous laughter you missed many lines and it was one of the greatest movie going experiences of my life.

A few days later my friend and I decided to see it again, this time in a suburban multiplex with maybe five other people in the theater. Dead silence virtually the whole time.

Troy Howarth
08-25-2010, 08:53 AM
Beauty and humor HAVE to be about the most subjective things of all. I was thinking of the Naked Gun movies, too - they crack me up, but there again, I know people who think they're too dumb to bother with.