Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Worst movie you've ever seen?


Recommended Posts

> {quote:title=AddisonDeWitless wrote:}{quote}

>

> Which brings me to my candidate: 1997's Titanic.

>

>

> Dear love above me do I despise this film from the pit of my stomach. Bad acting, bad writing, bad characters- all bad enough to put it in a league with the worst of the worst of big studio HOLLYWOOD dreck...But what *really steamed my beans* was how boldly innacurate the film is with regard to many historical aspects of the actual sinking; there are some cases where they *outright lie about the actions of real people.* They portray an actual petty officer on the ship as taking bribes: no evidence of that. None at all.

>

>

> And then you factor in the fact that it takes an *actual tragedy* , misrepresents and exploits and belittles it by including this utterly inane love story at the heart...ugh!

>

>

> And Phillip Seymour Hoffman and throwing the f***ing necklace overboard at the end and BILLY ZANE!!!!! there is so much wrong with this movie, I have other things to do today but trust me, I could be here a while.

>

>

> So take all those factors and multiply it by the worldwide hysteria, MEDIA SATURATION and INEXPLICABLE CRITICAL RAVES that accompanied this STUPID, OVERLONG, BLOATED AMATEUR NIGHT IN DIXIELAND VENTURE OF A MOVIE and it rates as low a score as Monster-a-Go-Go in my book.

>

> Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Oct 28, 2012 12:46 PM

> ps- and Cameron's acceptance speech...

>

Addison! I love you! You are truly a kindred spirit!! The Titanic is one of my favorite topics, so naturally I hate the film. I keep running into people who love this movie and I think "WHY?!!!!!?" So much horribly wrong with it, like how basically this movie is a fanfiction and Jack and Rose are "merry sues" (or "mary sues"?) who in reality wouldn't have ever been listened to. Then of course all the historical problems, like the fact tht Jack couldn't just walk around the 1st class dining area in a tux and blend in because everyone in that room knew everyone else (1st class was a very tightly knit circle) or the fact that they never could have spoken to each other because 3rd class couldn't even get up to 1st class area. And then of course it's wrong so much not even historically, but scientifically too, like the fact that J&R would have been sucked under the boat had they really left the boat when they did (shouldn't have been too hard to research that--that's why lifeboats didn't go back at first, they were afraid to get sucked under!), or that they would have died from being waist deep in the freezing water as long as they had. Maybe if he'd done a LITTLE research or had someone else write it or not directed his first draft...

 

Anyway, I could go on all day, so I'll stop there. A NIGHT TO REMEMBER is the only true Titanic movie to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a drama; no, let me reword it: a MELODRAMA, for apparently the actual sinking wasn't dramatic enough.

 

My biggest problem with the movie happened when Jack and Rose went below decks four times!, in that frigid water (28 degrees in the ocean; could have warmed only to 35-40 in the ship) up to their chests during the sinking. The first time would have been difficult enough, but to run around in those cold clothes for another 60+ minutes in 45 degree air temperatures was too much for me to accept.

 

Also: see how cruel Rose was.. Jack could have fit; it would have just taken balance, like boarding a canoe.

epkahk.png

 

*SNAP!*

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been watching a festival of classic bad films on the new Directv channel called Cinemoi (pronounced cine-mwa).

 

This is promoted as a French movie channel, but all movies I've seen on it so far have been either British or American, and one Italian film, all with English sound tracks. And these are some of the worst modern movies ever made. So much so that I generally don't watch the full movie, just a few minutes of each one.

 

One of the worst of the worst is THE CHASE, made in 1966 with these names in the cast:

 

Marlon Brando ... Sheriff Calder

Jane Fonda ... Anna Reeves

Robert Redford ... Charlie 'Bubber' Reeves

E.G. Marshall ... Val Rogers

Angie Dickinson ... Ruby Calder

Janice Rule ... Emily Stewart

Miriam Hopkins ... Mrs. Reeves

Martha Hyer ... Mary Fuller

Richard Bradford ... Damon Fuller

Robert Duvall ... Edwin Stewart

James Fox ... Jason 'Jake' Rogers

Diana Hyland ... Elizabeth Rogers

Henry Hull ... Briggs

Jocelyn Brando ... Mrs. Briggs

Katherine Walsh ... Verna Dee

 

Bad script, stupid story, bad acting, etc., etc.

 

Did I put Miriam Hopkins name in the list? Yes I did.

 

If you see her in it, you'll ask yourself, "Why oh why did she allow herself to appear in this awful movie."

 

In fact, I think every cast member should ask themselves this same question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

<Also: see how cruel Rose was.. Jack could have fit; it would have just taken balance, like boarding a canoe.>

 

 

 

 

 

I always wondered about that, too. Cameron has been laughing his way all the way to the bank.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}I like 'The Chase' a great deal. Very entertaining movie.

 

I like it too. Quite a good film TCM showed it a few months back. It's rated 7.2 on the IMDb, so we're not the only ones who like it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=AddisonDeWitless wrote:}{quote}

>

> Which brings me to my candidate: 1997's Titanic.

>

> Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Oct 28, 2012 12:46 PM

>

> ps- and Cameron's acceptance speech...

>

I happen to really enjoy TITANIC...but I would have more of a negative opinion of AVATAR. Technically amazing, but overall the story is nothing new at all (let's mess with the primitive aliens...done so many times on Star Trek) and I think its popularity is vastly OVERRATED. I have watched it once and have no idea if I'll ever watch it again, because it simply didn't click with me. I'll never understand how that movie made as much money as it did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The movie I just changed the channel from, "First Men In The Moon". The only thing missing are Amazon women. They had the gaul to make this in 1964?

 

Queen Victoria should have given a speech similiar to JFK's saying Our goal before the end of the decade is to put bloody idiots on the moon and NOT returning them safely to the Earth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}Well, well, you must be a "pretty ascertaining viewer" too. :)

 

I don't think that anyone has ever called me "pretty," but, yes, I HAVE ascertained that I am, indeed, a "viewer." :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Count me as another AddisonDeWitless fan!

 

>You may already know this but Cissy Cameron is Cameron Mitchell's daughter in real life! She also married Reb Brown after the film wrapped. I have no idea if they're still together.

 

Apparently they are. Looking at IMDB there is a great photo of them at the 2011 Capt America premiere, both looking just great!

 

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1287961600/nm0030203

 

Really, he's 64 years old, she's gotta be about the same. He was invited as he was the original Capt America-sweet!

Daddy Cameron Mitchell was in a TON of roles, and Reb is pretty active himself. Cissy sort of dropped out of acting-too bad!

I think they have a lot of talent, obvious when you see Space Mutiny, their (& Law's) talent carried it. It was the writing and editing that ruined that movie.

 

>I don't watch movies made nowadays for the most part, but used to. Every year there was some movie that went over total gangbusters, that everyone loved and raved over while I stood alone in the corner grumbling about how sh***y I thought it was.

 

I'm standing in the corner right there next to you.

 

>although I didn't hate Pulp Fiction, I just didn't see what the big honkin' deal was

 

Exactly. In the plethora of crappy movies, when one is simply entertaining, it's touted a masterpiece.

 

>In 1999 it was American Beauty.

 

Oh no, worse. It was My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

 

>Which brings me to my candidate: 1997's Titanic.

 

AHA! I'd already given up, never seen it. Never seen Avatar either. I like your reasons for hating it too.

 

It just kind of shows you how influential the "common experience" of seeing a movie in a theater with others can be. Most "blockbusters" are just average movies, but are elevated way beyond that in the public's mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, yes , *yes,* the constant emerging of the leads in freezing cold water below deck in the sinking ship which- for some reason- doesn't seem bother them...in fact they seem to find the waist-deep, twelve degree seawater refreshing, *yes, yes.* How could I forget that?

 

Yes, that bothers me as well.

 

Another standard for Worst Evuh that Titanic meets: a post-mortem discussion of everything that is wrong with the film can come surprisingly close to equaling the length of the movie itself. And with Titanic, that is saying something.

 

IE: ...and the Picassos, and the axe-and-the-handcuffs, and the Italian-uh sterotyp-uh character, and there are issues with all the female characters not being realistic, and I HATE how Molly Brown gets told to sit down and shut up by the rude sailor on the lifeboat *and she takes it and she DOES*- and that's it *????? I don't think that's what happened in real life, James Cameron. And even if it was, THAT was the one thing you chose NOT TO EMBELLISH about the event? REALLY, James Cameron?* Do you just HATE women that much? Really?

 

I have to stop now, because really I could go on for longer than it actually took the real Titanic to sink.

 

Yes, A Night to Remember is *so the best.* It was directed by Roy Ward Baker- a sort of British Robert Aldrich (check out his resume, he did all kinds of different stuff.) I'd give it the alernate Oscar for Best Picture of 1958 were it not for Touch of Evil.

 

The 1953 version is pretty decent- another fictional account plopped in amid the real tragedy, but not in an obnoxious, stupefyingly inept way, and it's got a good, well-directed finale. It's inn-teresting that the only Oscar for which I believe it was nominated was BEST SCREENPLAY, WHICH IT WON. (That's about the only thing the 1997 version was not nominated for- they had to draw a line somewhere, for decency's sake.)

 

I think it would've been fabulous if Barbara Stanwyck had taken the anchor in her teeth and towed the sinking ship in to port.

 

But if we're talking cruise-ship disaster movies, nothing beats Juggernaut from 1974(?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

A local movie critic once commented that people love it when a movie review is funny. And that it's very hard to write a funny review of a good movie.

 

 

 

Sometimes it seems to be the case here. Regardless of anyone being in agreement or not.

 

 

 

The scathing treatment of 1997's *Titanic* illustrates the prejudice of the "classic" film enthusiast. Why, for instance, be so derogatory about the historical, story and technical flaws in Cameron's film while not mentioning the same level of story, fact and technical flaws in the 1950's movie with Stanwyck and Webb? Cameron at least enjoyed being aware that the ship broke up before entirely sinking, something actual survivors never mentioned, and nobody else could have known since seeing the wreckage wasn't possible until it was found some 80 years afterwards.

 

 

 

In Cameron's film, lifeboat survivor's are shown being rescued by the Carpathia. No such rescue is shown in the older version.

 

 

 

That Leonardo and Kate survive splashing through all that freezing water is marginally believable due to the fact that many shows on various cable channels( Discovery, History, Bio etc.) are rife with true stories of people who have survived situations that scientifically indicate it should have been otherwise.

 

 

 

Kate and Leo DID get sucked down with the ship. So did many others who managed to get back to the surface. One survivor account I read concerned a man, a survivor of the sinking, who lived for a time near a major league baseball stadium and broke into cold sweats everytime the crowd cheered loudly at a game. He said the sound reminded him of all the screaming and yelling by those in lifejackets left in the water made. It was that many people and that loud.

 

 

 

No, normally Jack by himself woudn't have gotten away with wandering about in first class in a tux. But as a guest of another first class passenger(Molly Brown), they would have reluctantly put up with it.

 

 

 

Many of the rich and powerful men on board actually DID, after seeing their wives safely on lifeboats, retire back inside with brandy and cigars to meet their fate "as gentlemen"( I know that nobody here has challenged that, but some folks I know did.).

 

 

 

What was great about the Cameron movie was the scope the disaster, largely due to very well done effects, was given that displayed the frightening nature of the ordeal. The size of the ship's rear end rising out of the ocean compared to the minute size of the people in the water was chilling. The scene where the ship, as would be seen from high up in the air, appearing to be a speck on the ocean while firing rockets whose reports sounded like small firecrackers drove home how futile that effort must have been. All in all, everything in the movie that happened AFTER striking the iceberg was done very well. You just had to be willing to sit through all the SOAP OPERA before then.

 

 

 

Sepiatone

 

Edited by: Sepiatone on Oct 29, 2012 2:50 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

While I appreciate how you feel about the film, the bad writing makes it hard to take seriously & get involved in the story without constant eye rolling. And I know Cameron used 1997 state of the art special effects, it was still amazingly fake looking.

 

All that said, I don't hate it. I'm mostly indifferent about it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Sepiatone wrote:}{quote}The scathing treatment of 1997's *Titanic* illustrates the prejudice of the "classic" film enthusiast.

Really? Is that the whole of why you believe classic film lovers hate it? I love classic film and I don't "hate" the movie. I don't think it's worthy of all its attention, but I don't hate it.

 

The one thing I hate is the incessant "JACK!" shouting throughout most of the film. I once sat down and actually counted them. It was over 100, but unfortunately I didn't keep the record. I sure wish I had.

 

James Cameron is a not a great director. His focus is mainly on visual aspects, rather than actual writing or content.

 

The believability is of no concern for me, but when I saw A Night to Remember for the first time, my husband and I were stunned by the near identical film. It spoke volumes on Cameron's innovative abilities. It is my opinion that his only contribution to the film industry, with Titanic, Avatar, etc., is new technology. That's about it.

 

It has nothing at all to do with being prejudiced.

 

Just my opinion, of course, which probably doesn't matter anyway. :P I'm very opinionated like that. However, I do respect your opinon. Hopefully it doesn't sound otherwise.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Sepiatone wrote:}{quote}

>

>

>

>

> The scathing treatment of 1997's *Titanic* illustrates the prejudice of the "classic" film enthusiast. Why, for instance, be so derogatory about the historical, story and technical flaws in Cameron's film while not mentioning the same level of story, fact and technical flaws in the 1950's movie with Stanwyck and Webb?

>

See, the thing is, I love many recent movies--I adore them. I own many of them.

 

The other thing is that I hate the 1997 TITANIC because I consider it to be a bad and pretentious movie that in no way lives up to what it could have been, and is written badly. That's my own personal opinion, though.

 

And finally, I hate that 1950s TITANIC, too. Hate it. So there goes your argument.

 

I'm just kidding about your argument, by the way, it just sounded funny. I totally understand what you mean, and I do agree, that we forgive a lot of cheeziness, incorrect science, historical inaccuracy, and bad acting/writing/filmmaking in classic movies. The problem with comparing the classics with the "moderns" is that most of the mediocre to really bad old movies have had time to fall off the planet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was much younger I saw the 1950s *Titanic* on tv, but I was bored stiff with the drama, wanting them to just get on with it so I could watch the boat sink at the end... ;)

 

With the 1997 version, I thought the special effects were pretty good (regarding the sinking), but I don't much like the acting/drama with the leads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...