The stupidest movie ever!

[ssampier]

I must suck, but I like a lot of movies that people say are the worst:

Hollow Man
Willow

Middle of the Pack - not good, but not the worse

Blair Witch 2
I, Robot
Wing Commander


Stinkers, bottom of the barrel

Avengers
The Blair Witch Project
Dungeons & Dragons
Mortal Kombat (2? they all seem the same to me)
The Post Man
Speed and Speed 2:Cruise Control
Water World
Wild Wild West
any movie with Steven Seagal

I'm just glad that I didn't waste my time or brain-cells on Gili or From Justin to Kelly

 

[Mallus]

Just as in a symbolic logic mapping of an argument, if the premisies are weak or flawed, then the conclusion will be as well. That's the problem with robot sentience in the Matrix sequels.

Maybe this hijackish stuff about robot sentience and the nature of story belong in a new thread, but I gotta disagree with the above.

Metaphors don't have premises and they don't operate like logical arguments. They don't prove anything.

 

[drnuncheon]

Getting back to the original topic:

"Invincible", starring Billy Zane as a bald fallen angel who suffers a change of heart and trains a group of four walking cliches from all walks of life to be mystical warriors, so they can stand around and watch as he defeats the main bad guy. There is a particularly inexplicable scene where Zane discusses philosophy while riding a bike.

In a fountain.

Mel Gibson and Jet Li should be embarassed to have their names associated with this.

J

 

[Felix]

I could refute you point by point, but it's already been done far better by greater minds.

Don't sell yourself short, man! Give 'er a try!

Watch the sequels with the Wilber/West commentary, it will make much more sense.

Fair enough.

Oh, and by the way, to call them sequels is inaccurate- they're an integral part of a single script that the Wachowskis divided up- they wrote the whole thing in 1996... so they weren't just tacked on...

Thbbbbt. So were Empire and Jedi, and they're still sequels. Not that I said they were tacked-on, just that they weren't any good. If I did, then I misspoke.

Oh, and it might have been a load, but my post lacks a string of smiley-faces.

Maybe this hijackish stuff about robot sentience and the nature of story belong in a new thread...

I agree.

See you there.

 

[D+1]

I was forgetting one:

Wild Wild West.

Not even Salma Hayek's butt saved this one...

WHAT? Selma Hayek's butt can save anything - although it had a very difficult time saving Once Upon A Time In Mexico, which if not for the 60 seconds of Selma screentime would have been an absolute waste.

 

[shady]

Worst movie I've ever seen in a cinema - Santa Claus with Dudley Moore. Followed closely by Dudley Moore in Arthur (nominated for screenwriting Oscars, just to show you what an oscar is worth). I have a policy these days - the Moore rule - that after 2 spectacular strikes I actively avoid a particular actor. Chevy Chase and Dan Ackroyd, come on down.

Worst movie I've seen recently on DVD. Dreamcatcher. And I've seen some bad ones. I am still trying to work out why the villain from another galaxy has an upper class English accent, apparently it isn't in the book. And, still reeling from the incredibly dumb ending, I looked at the DVD's alternative ending. It's dumber.

The only good thing about it is an interview with Stephen King. It starts with a caption "Stephen King has just sat through the Dreamcatcher movie for the first time". Momentarily, he sits slack-jawed, like the audience in the Producers trying to make sense of Springtime for Hitler.

I tend to buy DVDs to watch on my laptop on long plane rides. In this case I sat thinking that a porno DVD would have been a less embarassing purchase.

 

[Thanee]

Except it was the "philosophy part" that was the entire point of the movies, and if you...

...didn't like it...

..., that's not the fault of the directors.

Of course it's the fault of the directors, who else's fault could it possibly be!?

They made this piece of junk to deliver their philosophical message that no one (well, except you, and maybe a few others ) wants to hear.

I wanted to see the story continue not see them throw the whole story away for their oh so interesting philosophical and metaphorical blabber.

And even if so... they could at least have made the rest somewhat reasonable and logical and not just as stupid as it was.

Altho, that wouldn't really have helped either... they ruined it from the start.

Tragedy!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Tyler Do'Urden]

...didn't like it...



Of course it's the fault of the directors, who else's fault could it possibly be!?

They made this piece of junk to deliver their philosophical message that no one (well, except you, and maybe a few others ) wants to hear.

I wanted to see the story continue not see them throw the whole story away for their oh so interesting philosophical and metaphorical blabber.

And even if so... they could at least have made the rest somewhat reasonable and logical and not just as stupid as it was.

Altho, that wouldn't really have helped either... they ruined it from the start.

Tragedy!

Just because you didn't understand it doesn't make it their fault, it makes it your fault for not understanding it. You might not understand Hegel either- that's not Hegel's fault, that's yours. And if you understood the references and what they were getting at, it was reasonable and logical, and anything but stupid. They didn't ruin it from the start- you're just too ignorant to get it.

 

[Thanee]

Well, if you don't get it...

Bye
Thanee

 

[Harold as a Verb]

Possibly... The movie poster had this young girl (the one who doesn't speak), holding an adult-sized shepherd's staff, with a blue hood pulled tightly over her face. I thought "Hey, maybe it's like Dragonslayer"!

First time I ever fast-forwarded through a movie. I stopped only when there were dialogs, and after 20 minutes I was done...

Vigil?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088355/

(It was a New Zealand movie.)