Bad Movies You Liked

Mercurius · Jul 21, 2019

monsmord said:
Conan the Destroyer. I am not proud.

My problem with the Destroyer is that The Barbarian was actually a really good movie, one of the best fantasy flicks ever made - a true classic. It was as if with the sequel they remembered the era and they made just another silly 80s fantasy movie, in the vein of Krull, Beastmaster, and Sword & Sorcerer.

But yeah, it is kind of fun.

ccs · Jul 21, 2019

Mercurius said:
My problem with the Destroyer is that The Barbarian was actually a really good movie, one of the best fantasy flicks ever made - a true classic. It was as if with the sequel they remembered the era and they made just another silly 80s fantasy movie, in the vein of Krull, Beastmaster, and Sword & Sorcerer.

But yeah, it is kind of fun.

It's like they took D&D and made a movie out of it....

ccs · Jul 21, 2019

Zardnaar said:
Bad being movies that flopped, underperformed at the box office or were critically panned like most of the Transformers franchise.

So you don't really want to know what bad movies I like.
You want ones that fit one, or both, of 2 arbitrary criteria (critics opinions - wich don't phase me at all, & $).

Ok, here's 3.
*Hamlet (1996, Kenneth Branagh)
Critics liked it.
IMDB says it cost 18M & it's US take was a bit shy of 4.5M. I don't know what it's global take ended up being, but I seriously doubt it made $. The un-cut version (wich is the only cut you should be watching as this was meant to be an unabridged version put on screen) clocks at 4h & some minutes. And theatres HATE eating up that much screen time for something that'll draw so few viewers. And if you're not a Shakespeare fan I bet you don't want to sit through even the "short" cut of this (2.5 hrs)....
So obviously it was a failure, right?
Wrong. It's purpose seems to be Award season bait + a continuation of Branaghs love of the Bards work. I don't think it was even a concern if it made a dime. Award wise it won 9/24 it was nominated for (but not stuff anyone outside the industry cares much about)
It's also a really good version of Hamlet. You can sit there with the play in one hand & virtually read along. And it's presented in plain English & set in a clean, bight, polished, 19th century Europe - making both it easy to watch and easy to listen to.

*Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom
Looks like it made a good chunk of $ for it's time. (and more since) Critics score is only a 57. Not hated, but no real love.
But this is far from a bad movie, just not loved by the critics.
For me Raiders & Temple are tied. I love them both. Then Crusade.

*Stardust (2007)
Ok with the critics, for whatever that's worth. But looks like it only made 1/2 it's budget back here in the US. And by a year later the rest of the world had pushed it to about double its budget. That makes it a bad movie in your book doesn't it?

Zardnaar · Jul 21, 2019

ccs said:
So you don't really want to know what bad movies I like.
You want ones that fit one, or both, of 2 arbitrary criteria (critics opinions - wich don't phase me at all, & $).

Ok, here's 3.
*Hamlet (1996, Kenneth Branagh)
Critics liked it.
IMDB says it cost 18M & it's US take was a bit shy of 4.5M. I don't know what it's global take ended up being, but I seriously doubt it made $. The un-cut version (wich is the only cut you should be watching as this was meant to be an unabridged version put on screen) clocks at 4h & some minutes. And theatres HATE eating up that much screen time for something that'll draw so few viewers. And if you're not a Shakespeare fan I bet you don't want to sit through even the "short" cut of this (2.5 hrs)....
So obviously it was a failure, right?
Wrong. It's purpose seems to be Award season bait + a continuation of Branaghs love of the Bards work. I don't think it was even a concern if it made a dime. Award wise it won 9/24 it was nominated for (but not stuff anyone outside the industry cares much about)
It's also a really good version of Hamlet. You can sit there with the play in one hand & virtually read along. And it's presented in plain English & set in a clean, bight, polished, 19th century Europe - making both it easy to watch and easy to listen to.

*Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom
Looks like it made a good chunk of $ for it's time. (and more since) Critics score is only a 57. Not hated, but no real love.
But this is far from a bad movie, just not loved by the critics.
For me Raiders & Temple are tied. I love them both. Then Crusade.

*Stardust (2007)
Ok with the critics, for whatever that's worth. But looks like it only made 1/2 it's budget back here in the US. And by a year later the rest of the world had pushed it to about double its budget. That makes it a bad movie in your book doesn't it?

It's fine basically post whatever. Its just things like Transformers that made a boat load of money but aren't really good as such.

ccs · Jul 21, 2019

Zardnaar said:
It's fine basically post whatever. Its just things like Transformers that made a boat load of money but aren't really good as such.

Hey, I'm just pointing out that your standards of bad don't make much sense. Especially your obsession with how much $ a movie makes.

I mean if you actually want to know a bad movie I like I'll point you to Plan 9 from Outer Space.
It's the gold standard of bad acting, bad writing, bad plot, & bad technical.
Or the unreleased 1994 Fantastic Four movie by Roger Corman. (Terrible, but oddly still better than the most recent FF effort)
I'm also entertained by a great amount of the 70s-80s sci-fi shlock (again, thank God for Roger Corman!

) that I can stream via Amazon. Well worth my Prime membership fee!

trappedslider · Jul 22, 2019

ccs said:
Hey, I'm just pointing out that your standards of bad don't make much sense. Especially your obsession with how much $ a movie makes.

I mean if you actually want to know a bad movie I like I'll point you to Plan 9 from Outer Space.
It's the gold standard of bad acting, bad writing, bad plot, & bad technical.
Or the unreleased 1994 Fantastic Four movie by Roger Corman. (Terrible, but oddly still better than the most recent FF effort)
I'm also entertained by a great amount of the 70s-80s sci-fi shlock (again, thank God for Roger Corman! ) that I can stream via Amazon. Well worth my Prime membership fee!

oh you said that you like nvm you left out the Star Wars Holiday special https://xkcd.com/653/ and Hobgoblins.....*shudders*

ccs · Jul 22, 2019

trappedslider said:
oh you said that you like nvm you left out the Star Wars Holiday special https://xkcd.com/653/ and Hobgoblins.....*shudders*

Well yeah. The thread, though having some flawed criteria for what constitutes bad, is about stuff you like.
The SW Holiday Special:
1) Isn't a movie. It's a TV show.
2) Unlike P9, it brings zero amount of entertainment for its awfulness. You can laugh & marvel at P9. The SWHS? Nope.

Hobgoblins. Hmm. Never heard of it. The (cess)pool of bad movies is vast & deep though, so I'm sure there's all sorts of stuff I've somehow missed.

Imaculata · Jul 22, 2019

And here I thought I would be alone in liking Masters of the Universe. The soundtrack is amazing too, and Frank Langetta is having such a great time as the villain.

trappedslider · Jul 22, 2019

ccs said:
Hobgoblins. Hmm. Never heard of it. The (cess)pool of bad movies is vast & deep though, so I'm sure there's all sorts of stuff I've somehow missed.

[video=youtube;o0fhewrzBRM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0fhewrzBRM[/video] I'm sorry.....the only way i've seen this movie was MST3K and it came close driving them insane

Raunalyn · Jul 22, 2019

Mercurius said:
My problem with the Destroyer is that The Barbarian was actually a really good movie, one of the best fantasy flicks ever made - a true classic. It was as if with the sequel they remembered the era and they made just another silly 80s fantasy movie, in the vein of Krull, Beastmaster, and Sword & Sorcerer.

But yeah, it is kind of fun.

My problem was the uber-cheesy make-up/special effects. And the fact that it did not have the incredible Basil Poledouris for the soundtrack (it had a cheesy knock off that did a poor job of trying to sound like Basil Poledouris).

It wasn't great, but it was fun.