What was the WORST movie you've ever seen?

[roddglenn]

lol yes I've stayed clear of that one so far, although I was curious. I shall keep my curiosity at bay!

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by BookStop

Ok- I just watched The Producers, with Uma Thurmon, Matthew Broderick, and Nathan Lane.

Dunno bout this but the original Mel Brooks film with Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder is a comedy classic.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by ravenus

Dunno bout this but the original Mel Brooks film with Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder is a comedy classic.

Remember, Ravenus, this is the Modern Hollywood, where the words "originality" and "classic" are considered profanity of a most profound sort.

[kyektulu]

A few dire films I have seen lately are:

Lost In Translation... stupid and uncomprehendable, whats the point...

Creep... English Film, dont waste your time with it.

House OF Wax... what can I say, another inane teeny slasher flick, and what makes it even worse it involves the spoilt, useless brat Paris Hilton...

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by kyektulu

House OF Wax... what can I say, another inane teeny slasher flick, and what makes it even worse it involves the spoilt, useless brat Paris Hilton...

The pity of it is, that Paris is one of the bright points of the film. Great set design, too. Absolutely ludicrous and a truly stupendously dumb idea, but nice looking. Then again, I suppose those two items go well together, don't they???

[steve12553]

Originally Posted by kyektulu

House OF Wax... what can I say, another inane teeny slasher flick, and what makes it even worse it involves the spoilt, useless brat Paris Hilton...

The original House of Wax was a wonderful, gimicky, Vincent Price, 3-D classic that I was really impressed with as a child. I couldn't consider watching a remake. I actually got a chance to see it in 3-D with the glasses and all.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by steve12553

The original House of Wax was a wonderful, gimicky, Vincent Price, 3-D classic that I was really impressed with as a child. I couldn't consider watching a remake. I actually got a chance to see it in 3-D with the glasses and all.

Well ... yes and no. The Vincent Price was itself a remake of a 1932 film with Lionel Atwill and Fay Wray, titled Mystery of the Wax Museum, one of the early two-tone technicolor films, and the only good thing about the new House of Wax is that when it came out on DVD you could buy a 2-for-1 package that also included the original Mystery film. I've seen it more than once, and it remains quite good. In some ways, it is better than the later Warner Bros. remake with Price (though I grew up on that one, have seen it twice in 3-D and have enormous fondness for the film). They're both somewhat campy melodrama (in fact, they toned it down a bit for the remake, as one of the assistants in the original was a serious junkie rather than a drunk), but Michael Curtiz directed the original, and his work is always worth seeing.

[Nesacat]

The Hollywood version of Dark Water with Julianne Moore was simply awful. I'd seen the original Japanese version and really liked it. The movie was sombre, dark and creepy and like Call of Cthulhu was very simply done, with nothing spectacular in the way of special effects. It also had a clean, simple plot. The remake absolutely failed to capture the 'creep' factor and got all embroiled in trying to explain everything that was happening and in doing so lost the 'fear factor'.

The Cave was just plain bad. I have a very soft spot for B-grade movies, especially if they have monsters, over-sized animals or some element of the supernatural in them. I picked up The Cave because it sounded sort of Lovecraftian, with creatures of some lind living in a subterranean cave. They had a good idea and it could have been a good movie but it ended up being one of those things with a group of pretty people and a race to see how many get killed along the way.

The Snake King was bad but the giant five-headed serpent was pretty well done and since this time around the snake survives, I'm pretty alright about it. Otherwise it was the usual sort of thing. Something's found in a forest and of course it offers the possibility of immortality. Everyone goes rushing off into the forest and gets killed off. Only this time, the forest wins the day. That was the movie's saving grace.

[steve12553]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

Well ... yes and no. The Vincent Price was itself a remake of a 1932 film with Lionel Atwill and Fay Wray, titled Mystery of the Wax Museum, one of the early two-tone technicolor films, and the only good thing about the new House of Wax is that when it came out on DVD you could buy a 2-for-1 package that also included the original Mystery film. I've seen it more than once, and it remains quite good. In some ways, it is better than the later Warner Bros. remake with Price (though I grew up on that one, have seen it twice in 3-D and have enormous fondness for the film). They're both somewhat campy melodrama (in fact, they toned it down a bit for the remake, as one of the assistants in the original was a serious junkie rather than a drunk), but Michael Curtiz directed the original, and his work is always worth seeing.

You left off the part about Carolyn Jones (Morticia Addams) and Charles Buchinski (Bronson) having minor parts in the films (50's House of Wax). Your right about the earlier version too. I had forgotten that although I've yet to see it.

[roddglenn]

Originally Posted by kyektulu

A few dire films I have seen lately are:

Lost In Translation... stupid and uncomprehendable, whats the point...

Creep... English Film, dont waste your time with it.

House OF Wax... what can I say, another inane teeny slasher flick, and what makes it even worse it involves the spoilt, useless brat Paris Hilton...

How could you dislike Lost in Translation???? I thought it was a beautiflly crafted film with superb performances from Bill Murray and Scarlett Johanssen and a very good story and script. The point was a friendship blossoming between two strangers stranded in a foreign land that they didn't understand and bridging gaps between age and background. I couldn't fault it myself, but horses for courses, I guess.

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by roddglenn

How could you dislike Lost in Translation????

Haven't seen the film but couldn't resist this PJ...maybe it was..."Lost in Translation" for the disgruntled viewer

[steve12553]

Originally Posted by ravenus

Haven't seen the film but couldn't resist this PJ...maybe it was..."Lost in Translation" for the disgruntled viewer

Half the room just groaned.

[Niolani]

Yeah, I saw The Cave as well, 2 weekends ago, pretty pathetic when it had seemed so promising.
I looked up some list that's linked to this website somewhere of the worst movies, and funnily enough, I've seen most of them. I can't believe some of the dross i've forced myself to watch!
Once when babysitting I was forced to watch Spy Kids 3D, I had to watch it without the glasses as my eyes can't deal with them, between that and the plot it was absolute torture! Shame on you Sylvester Stallone, how could you sink that low?

[BookStop]

I rented Twins Effect 2 assuming, as one never should, that it would have the same quirky, comedic action of Twins Effect (also called Vampire Effect). It didn't. Tsk, tsk, tsk. (although, Jackie Chan's son, Jacie, has the same sweet-faced charm as his father)

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by steve12553

You left off the part about Carolyn Jones (Morticia Addams) and Charles Buchinski (Bronson) having minor parts in the films (50's House of Wax). Your right about the earlier version too. I had forgotten that although I've yet to see it.

Yeah, well, it didn't seem important to what I was saying (though I've always had a bit of a thing about Carolyn Jones, I must admit) and besides, if I said it all -- not that I don't sometimes at least seem to try -- what would anyone else have to say.

Ouch! Hey! no throwing sharp objects! There have to be some ground rules, you know....