The SDMB Stupid, Stupid Movie Awards

[Seven]

I had the television on the other night and Face/Off came on. I caught this movie years ago and never thought much about it. This time around I watched a few scenes as I read SDMB and Slashdot. I was blown away by how stupid this movie really is.

First, the acting sucks. I think in some movies Nick Case can carry himself well enough. That said this is the third of his triple whammy bad movie run (The Rock, Con Air, Face/Off) so by now he's had a crash course in crap acting - crapting?. How about I just say Nick Cage is hit or miss when it comes to movies.

This movie is hard to watch because of his bad acting/overacting. Half the time he just seems out of place. Travolta pulled off the part of Troy better then Cage did - and Cage was supposed to be Troy.

Second, when is this movie supposed to take place? The present? The future? Most of the movie seems to take place in the present. The cars, houses, guns; most style seems to be current. Then they throw in the future jail scenes and the medical room of the future complete with lasers that grow ears in a Pyrex dish. Let's not forget the lasers that heal wounds. Granted they have to create some of these elements to explain how they pull a face off one guy and stick it on another.

I do like the one line a doctor says about face transplants. He credits the "advances in anti-inflammatories". Forget about anti-rejection medication. It's all about inflamation. :smack:

There's also the scene where the FBI got a data disk with bomb blueprints on it (or something like that). It's a zip disk. A ZIP DISK? Even 1990's The Adventures of Ford Fairlane knew to put data on a CD. But in 1997's Face/Off, where you can grow ears in cookware, a 100mb zip disk is good enough for all your data needs.

Third, the super creepy face wipe thing John Travolta likes to do to people. Who does this ever?

You know, I could go on all night.

I nominate Face/Off for the Overacting, Sci-Fi movie too lazy to be proper Sci-Fi, SDMB Stupid, Stupid Movie Award.

What is your pick for the SDMB Stupid, Stupid Movie Award? Why?

[lissener]

I loved Face/Off. In fact, I also loved ConAir and The Rock. But I liked Face/Off the best, of those three.

[Sublight]

I loved those three as well, but the stories are still waaay off in fantasy land.

I nominate The Day After Tomorrow and The Core.

[Smeghead]

Disaster movies tend to fit into this category. I nominate Armageddon and Day After Tomorrow.

[Dunderman]

Signs (http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=signs).

[Cerowyn]

Don't we have enough of these threads that are inevitably doomed to degenerate into posters battering each other with their subjective preferences? So, you don't like a couple of movies that did well at the box office, and apparently can't cope with the idea that other people actually liked them. Learn to live with disappointment.

[RealityChuck]

Lifetime Achievement Award, Stupidest movie of all time: Alien.

See here for its testimonial (http://www.sff.net/people/rothman/alien.htm).

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Lifetime Achievement Award, Stupidest movie of all time: Alien.

See here for its testimonial (http://www.sff.net/people/rothman/alien.htm).

Why doesn't his tagline "Schenectady's Leading Science Fiction Writer" fill me with awe?

[RealityChuck]

Why doesn't his tagline "Schenectady's Leading Science Fiction Writer" fill me with awe?Because you don't understand the meaning of the word "irony."

It's interesting that you'd rather pull an ad hominem attack on a minor joke: is it because you can't refute the essay itself?

[tdn]

I've seen more bad movies in the past year than I can remember, but I'll stick with my old favorite The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

My favorite parts:

When a criminal is running away, Sean Connery is about to shoot him, but can't see without his glasses. So he takes the time to put his glasses on, then takes aim... while looking over tops of what are apparently reading glasses.

Captain Nemo's enormous submarine, at least 300 feet long anf 5 stories high, navigating the narrow canals of Venice.

The brand spankin' new, freshly built in the past 3 months fortress. Complete with cobwebs and long-forgotten secret passageways.

Face/Off? Bah.

[Albert Rose]

Great essay, Chuck.
I think Mr. Blue Sky was making a joke, rather than a personal attack on the world's most beloved sci-fi writer/movie critic.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Because you don't understand the meaning of the word "irony."

It's interesting that you'd rather pull an ad hominem attack on a minor joke: is it because you can't refute the essay itself?


I know irony. What I saw was the work of a hack.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Because you don't understand the meaning of the word "irony."

It's interesting that you'd rather pull an ad hominem attack on a minor joke: is it because you can't refute the essay itself?


So, he didn't like Alien. Why should I care?

[Dewey Finn]

Uh, if you don't care whether someone liked a particular movie, why are you even reading this thread? Isn't the whole point to identify movies we feel are stupid, and explain why?

[Biffy the Elephant Shrew]

Lifetime Achievement Award, Stupidest movie of all time: Alien.

See here for its testimonial (http://www.sff.net/people/rothman/alien.htm).
All those objections to the logic of the movie and he doesn't even question the alien's enormous increase in mass between the chestburster scene and its first meal?

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Uh, if you don't care whether someone liked a particular movie, why are you even reading this thread? Isn't the whole point to identify movies we feel are stupid, and explain why?


Well, I like Alien, so I was curious to see another person's viewpoint. It is possible for someone to dislike a movie and present it in a humorous way. This was not one of those moments.

Of course, Alien had plot holes big enough to fly the Nostromo through, it didn't detract from my viewing pleasure.

You could substitute nearly any blockbuster and find hole after hole after hole. Show me a perfectly executed movie.

[Albert Rose]

Okay, I was wrong.

[Dunderman]

I find most of the essay on Alien to be unconvincing. Plenty of spoilers below, so be warned.

First of, it was incredibly stupid to let the alien aboard. Ripley showed one of the few bits of intelligence by refusing to let Kane inside. The others outside were pretty dumb to insist she does so. But Ash lets him in. That action was so incredibly stupid it was impossible to believe. (I know it was explained later, but by then it was way too late.)
So, the "plot hole" is explained. Then what's the problem with it? It's not a plot hole anymore.

Furthermore, even if Ash had been human this is not beyond human fallibility. Ripley's the hardass stickler for the rules, Ash is the guy who can't bear leaving his comrades. That wouldn't be implausible at all, and this explanation doesn't even have to come into play as there is a better one later in the film.
OK, we all know Evil Corporation, Inc. are only interested in profits and has absolutely no regard for human life; it's written into their prospectus. So they don't care about the crew.

But what about the millions of tons of ore? That's got to be valuable. And they'd risk that? Why?
I don't see how they're really risking the ore. Remember, they didn't know about the aliens beforehand. Ash made sure to bring a specimen on board because he's programmed to do so, nor because he's programmed to get that specific alien.
Why not just send a ship consisting of people who are prepared for the alien?
Because they can't be prepared for it, they don't know what it is.
And, wouldn't you know, Parker and Lambert run into the alien. Parker is carrying a weapon. So what does he do when faced with the alien?

Nothing.

Oh, there's some shouting about telling Lambert to get out of the way (though if she had an IQ of a plant, would have figured this out). But anyone with any brains would shoot first and hope their partner knew enough to get out of the line of fire. Granted, Lambert probably doesn't have enough sense to get out of the way of gunfire, but still.
Lambert freezes in terror, like many of us would, and Parker doesn't have the presence of mind or the coldbloodedness to shoot straight through Lambert. Not implausible at all.
losing millions of tons of cargo. Is Evil Corporation, Inc. going to dock her pay?
Maybe. If so, that happens after this film and the fact doesn't alter this film at all, so why even bring it up?

In short, I'm severely unimpressed.

Now, there are a couple of holes in Alien. Rothman brings up one: simply let the air out of the ship, especially after the alien has entered the ducts. Yep, I'll grant that one and I wish someone would have mentioned it, and a reason they don't do it, in the movie.

Rothman also has a problem with no-one telling Dallas which way the alien is coming from, and he not asking. Sure, I'll grant that one too, but it feels like a minor deal and wouldn't have affected the movie anyway. Dallas would still be alien food.

I have one plot hole to bring up that Rothman missed: the alien manages to increase in mass, apparently without consuming anything. Either the fully-grown alien is incredibly light (and it doesn't seem to be), or it magiced extra mass from another dimension, or it looted an onboard food store, which seems the most likely alternative but should have been mentioned.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

This whole thing is my fault. After reading the first line of Rothman's review:


Now I don't care much for modern horror films.

I should have stopped reading. The review strikes me as the kind of thing someone (anyone, really) would write about anything whose popularity the writer doesn't understand, but must see for himself.

I'll even overlook this line:


Oh, and to set the self-destruct mechanism (note that this is easier to stop than to stop.

Proofread much, Mr. Rothman?

[CalMeacham]

I gotta agree on Alien -- and I've said so many times before. It's a somewhat confused picture, and if you look at the early concepts and sketches you can see that they were playing around with a lot of different ideas, and didn't quite figure ot which ones to completely kerep and which ones to jettison.

Alien gets big points for getting Giger to do the alien and other design. Without him, I think this film wouldn't even be remembered. The original sketches, pre-Giger, weren't terifically memorable. Ridley Scotyt is a helluva good director, but Scott's alien made that movie.


The actions of the people are incredibly stupid at several points. I can't work up enough sympathy for them, and the rules of good design, good science, and common sense are violated too often. I simply can't watch the film with pleasure.

If you want to see the same idea done earlier, but more satisfyingly, get hold of It! The Terror from Beyond Space, written by SF writer Jerome Bixby. I'm convinced O'Bannon, Schuster, et al. strip-mined this low0budget 1950's film for Alien. It! has its own problems (I simply can't bel;ieve an expedition to Mars carrying guns -- although Robinson Crusoe on Mars has the same idioocy; also, in this film people are using up that precious oxygen by smoking, too), but it's much better than most 50's films and more conbincing than Alien.

[Darkhold]

Now, there are a couple of holes in Alien. Rothman brings up one: simply let the air out of the ship, especially after the alien has entered the ducts. Yep, I'll grant that one and I wish someone would have mentioned it, and a reason they don't do it, in the movie.What bugs me about that part of the essay is earlier he even says Though I did find the fact they were smoking cigarettes extremely jarring. It's not like there's plenty of air in space.So even he realizes there could be a simple explanation for it (air is rare in space and they might not have enough to spare) plus dozens of other possibilities such as the ship not being able to survive a massive depressurization anyway or that there's no way to vent the air in that manner.

[Troy McClure SF]

Copied from my LJ after a rewatching of The Day After Tomorrow...

What I forgot from my movie round-up was that I watched The Day After Tomorrow again recently. It's a heartwarming story in which a meteorologist (who looks like Harrison Ford after a three-week bender) strives to reach his son, who is stranded several hundred snow-covered miles away in the NYC library. Daddy makes this daunting trek from Philadelphia even though he's not a doctor, survivalist, engineer, or anything else that could be useful. And he didn't bring a giant snowplow or truck or even one of those hand-warmer things you get at Walgreens for three bucks. Nor a big stash of food, or firewood, or a radio, or a fucking bat and ball. And as this trek was the focus of the fucking movie, I have no choice but to officially add TDAT to my Worst Movies Evar list.

Jurassic Park III
Bring It On
Josie and the Pussycats
The Day After Tomorrow (which edges out BIO for the dumbest name, as well)

(I'm just going to ignore the whack-me-over-the-head "message" that was more sanctimonious than every episode of TNG put together... much like I did with JatP. I'll also ignore the fact that Jake Gilyhoosy looks like a depressed Muppet.)

I mean, seriously, what the hell was Dennis Quaid going to do?

DQ: "So, heya son, I made it all the way here from Philadelphia, despite being near death the entire time, and even losing one of my colleagues on the way, but here I am!"

JG: "Great, dad, did you bring us food or firewood or weapons or warm clothing or clean water or blankets or a satellite phone or a survival guide or a snow shovel or a Swiss Army Knife?"

DQ: "Well, er, no..."

JG: "Yay! One more mouth to feed with no benefit whatsoever! Great fucking idea!"

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

So, the "plot hole" is explained. Then what's the problem with it? It's not a plot hole anymore.
Exactly, and it's the mark of a bad audience to demand immediate explanations of all points, instead of being able to let explanations unfold organically. I despise it when filmmakers don't trust the audience to survive in confusion for part of the film (and Dark City was therefore nearly ruined for me by the initial exposition).

Now, there are a couple of holes in Alien. Rothman brings up one: simply let the air out of the ship, especially after the alien has entered the ducts. Yep, I'll grant that one and I wish someone would have mentioned it, and a reason they don't do it, in the movie.
As just mentioned, if they let the air out, they won't have anything to breathe, either. I don't recall any sign that they had inexhaustible supplies of air. (Smoking doesn't destroy air, of course: it just converts oxygen into carbon dioxide, and presumably a life-support system could convert it back).

Rothman also has a problem with no-one telling Dallas which way the alien is coming from, and he not asking. Sure, I'll grant that one too
Wasn't he in an intersection? If so, how do you tell him which way the critter's coming from, without knowing which way he's facing? I'm sure they could have figured it out, given time; but that's not an easy explanation to offer on the spur of the moment.

The change in mass issue seems legit, though.

Daniel

[Dunderman]

Exactly, and it's the mark of a bad audience to demand immediate explanations of all points, instead of being able to let explanations unfold organically. I despise it when filmmakers don't trust the audience to survive in confusion for part of the film (and Dark City was therefore nearly ruined for me by the initial exposition).
Oh yeah, that's the shitties piece of introduction voiceover ever done. I was lucky enough to accidentally start watching the movie right after it the first time I saw it. I can't imagine how much worse the movie must seem to the people who don't.
As just mentioned, if they let the air out, they won't have anything to breathe, either.
Whoops, forgot to mention the crucial bit: Get your arses back into suspended animation, then let the air out. I'm sure Mother could handle it.
Wasn't he in an intersection? If so, how do you tell him which way the critter's coming from, without knowing which way he's facing? I'm sure they could have figured it out, given time; but that's not an easy explanation to offer on the spur of the moment.
Good point, he was just a blip to them. Presumably, they've seen the way the blip's moving, though.
The change in mass issue seems legit, though.
I choose to believe that the alien raided a food store, but it should have been mentioned.

[Darkhold]

Exactly, and it's the mark of a bad audience to demand immediate explanations of all points, instead of being able to let explanations unfold organically. I despise it when filmmakers don't trust the audience to survive in confusion for part of the film (and Dark City was therefore nearly ruined for me by the initial exposition).First time I saw Dark City I missed the very beginning I came in just as he was waking up in the bathtub. Wow I was totally enthralled by the movie the twists turns and surprises. So when I bought the DVD I was totally shocked by the intro. Now when I show it to people I fast forward over the beginning and tell them just to trust me.

[Weirddave]

Now, guys, RealityChuck is an actual published author, that means his opinion has more weight than ours (you do realize he wrote that review, don't you? Kinda disingenuous to link to your own work without letting people know that it's you, innit?). I'm sure that nobody could go to the bargain bin at Goodwill and pick up one of his books and proceed to nitpick a half a dozen minor plot inconsistencies to death. Nope. No way that could happen. :dubious:

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Now, guys, RealityChuck is an actual published author, that means his opinion has more weight than ours (you do realize he wrote that review, don't you? Kinda disingenuous to link to your own work without letting people know that it's you, innit?). I'm sure that nobody could go to the bargain bin at Goodwill and pick up one of his books and proceed to nitpick a half a dozen minor plot inconsistencies to death. Nope. No way that could happen. :dubious:


[Johnny Carson]I did not know that![/jc]

I am stunned. Seriously. That's pathetic.

[kingpengvin]

Because you don't understand the meaning of the word "irony."

It's interesting that you'd rather pull an ad hominem attack on a minor joke: is it because you can't refute the essay itself?

Yeah because if you want to do a real ad hominem attack you could have used the quote :

Ripley goes to rescue the cat. Oh, and to set the self-destruct mechanism (note that this is easier to stop than to stop. Wouldn't you design it the other way around?)

:D

However I think the main problem is that the writer completely misses the point of the film. And more importantly doesn't seem to understand perfectly normal irrational human reactions to stress.

Characters don't die because their are just a bunch of idiots. they die because they make very human mistakes when it comes between saving their skins or aiding a fellow crew member. Lambert (sorry the annoying Lambert) is useless but why wouldn't she be? She is trained to navigate a frieghter... that's it. When stress come she folds up and never recovers.

Regarding The Spring loaded Cat bit: The charcter becomes less tense because the sudden fright was a release of tension. Next time you watch a horror movie you can see that in action. There could be two cheap frights in a row but they come quick because the first always breaks the tension. Once you have a scream the tension breaks and must either be built up all over again or paid off quickly.

Yeah there are some plot holes and some things that don't make sense when you really think about it, but Aliem was more about Atmosphere and character than logic. Hell all horror movies are just that illogical and irrtional because that is what fear is.

Now you may dislike the film but to rank it with the likes of Face off or say Battlefield earth is just plain stupid. The movie ranks quite highly in many circles and by film makers for a reason.

[Dunderman]

Now, guys, RealityChuck is an actual published author, that means his opinion has more weight than ours (you do realize he wrote that review, don't you? Kinda disingenuous to link to your own work without letting people know that it's you, innit?).
I had no clue. That's really lame.

[lissener]

Yes, Alien would have been a MUCH better movie if it had been about people always doing exactly the right thing, at the right time, for the right reasons. If they'da only done what Chuck woulda had them do, we coulda spent the rest of the movie watching them quietly fill out the paperwork. Certainly no plot holes in that scenario.

Maybe he can fix Vertigo for us, too; that movie didn't make a lot of sense either. Or Citizen Kane: if Kane had just explained what he meant by "rosebud," we never woulda had to sit around and wait for the other guy to figure it out.

[want2know]

I've seen more bad movies in the past year than I can remember, but I'll stick with my old favorite The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

My favorite parts:

When a criminal is running away, Sean Connery is about to shoot him, but can't see without his glasses. So he takes the time to put his glasses on, then takes aim... while looking over tops of what are apparently reading glasses.

Captain Nemo's enormous submarine, at least 300 feet long anf 5 stories high, navigating the narrow canals of Venice.

The brand spankin' new, freshly built in the past 3 months fortress. Complete with cobwebs and long-forgotten secret passageways.

Face/Off? Bah.
Before I get to my picks, I would like to say something. I have read several negative posts recently (not to mention all the bad reviews) about The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen . Granted, it was kinda silly in parts (as most action pictures tend to be), but I truly enjoyed it. By nature, action films are chock full of improbable scenarios (or am I being too cynical to think that one rumpled explorer with a cheesy hat couldn't possibly take on half the German army?); the key to escapist fare is to get past the improbabilities and just be entertained -- I know I was by the IJ movies and LOEG. The appeal for LOEG for me was this: here is an action-adventure film for people who actually read books ! And, if it got a person who doesn't to pick one up and read it, more power to that film!

Now, for some truly stupid movies:
Me, Myself and Irene--Granted, some people may think that Jim Carrey movies in general fit this award: however, since he has made some that are actually pretty good, this one goes to the top of the list of the ones that aren't. One stupid premise after another!
Communion--Could anything be more asinine than the book? Sadly, yes.
Rhinestone--Screenwriter: "Dolly Parton teaches a NY cabdriver to be a country singer--and Sylvester Stallone plays the cabdriver!" Studio Chief: "I had jello today..."
Poison Ivy--Where was the Humane Society when that poor dog was being subjected to Sara Gilbert and Drew Barrymore's acting?
Now maybe we can get off the Alien debate and go after the real offenders!:dubious:

[Albert Rose]

...you do realize he wrote that review, don't you? Kinda disingenuous to link to your own work without letting people know that it's you, innit...I figured it out, but only because I already knew that RealityChuck was (is) a published sci-fi author. I wasn't bothered by his linking to his website.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I did not realize that Reality was linking to his own essay, but i don't think he was especially disingenuous about it, either. His post about ad hominems definitely had me confused.

In any case, let me just say I don't find his essay remotely convincing.

Stupidest movies? Soldier was so bad it passed into good and back into bad again. My favorite scene was early in the movie in which stoned-out-of-their-gourd soldiers duckwalk through a Hee Haw set, pointing toy guns and shouting "Blammo!" at extras whenever the extras jump up from the cardboard "houses." Or at least that's how I remember it. The production values weren't exactly top-notch.

And Contact was a manipulative movie about an interesting premise; ultimately, though, it lacked the courage to maintain ambiguity, and took the coward's way out in a hoary chestnut of a cliche that left my mouth tasting like I'd just drunk spoiled milk.

Daniel

[Marley23]

Exactly, and it's the mark of a bad audience to demand immediate explanations of all points, instead of being able to let explanations unfold organically.
That's true sometimes. On the other hand, if it's something so obvious and glaring that it makes the audience wonder "hey, what happened?" or "why didn't they do that," the filmmaker has done something wrong, and explaning it an hour later might not help.

[Gangster Octopus]

Alien is not a science fiction movie, it is a monster movie, it is a horror movie and it is a very successful one at that.

[lissener]

Before I get to my picks, I would like to say something. I have read several negative posts recently (not to mention all the bad reviews) about The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen . Granted, it was kinda silly in parts (as most action pictures tend to be), but I truly enjoyed it. By nature, action films are chock full of improbable scenarios (or am I being too cynical to think that one rumpled explorer with a cheesy hat couldn't possibly take on half the German army?) . . .The difference is in Raiders the implausibility is in human behavior; in how an ordinary person responds to an extraordinary situation. The implausibilities in League were implausibilities of the laws of physics (at least the ones that ruined it for me). Implausible behavior is far more, well, plausible, than a submarine the size of the Titanic stealthily lurking in Venetian shadows.

That's the main problem with Chuck's "critique" of Alien: most of his objections are with how people react in extraordinary circumstances. Hell, practically every film noir ever made is about people making bad decisions and being unable to escape the consequences. If you could dismiss every film that ever has a character do something dumb, that wouldn't leave you with much in your Netflix queue. I'm unable to come up with even one title.

[teela brown]

How timely! I just suffered through Van Helsing this weekend; bits and pieces of it, anyway. I couldn't bring myself to watch the whole thing, but I did return to it occasionally because I recognized David Wenham in a monk get-up, and I love David Wenham.

What a crapfest. There are very few movies that make me laugh at their sheer badness, but this was one. Especially when that lamebrain (I have no idea who the actor was) did his ridiculous Bela Lugosi accent!

[vivalostwages]

I nominate The Deep End. From the very beginning, Someone does Something Stupid. Then it continues, and so on, and so forth.
I vaguely recall the main character dragging some dead body off to a freakin' shallow area of the lake, and that's dumb enough in itself if you wish to hide such a thing. Then she realizes that she needs something that is on the body, so she goes back to retrieve it, and.....Oh, never mind. It's too stupid to continue writing about.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Starship Troopers was horrible. Pointless, gratuitous, violent twaddle. The book was light years better than that tripe.

[Harborwolf]

I have to add my vote to The Day After Tommorow. Why? Because the end of the world just wasn't bad enough. They had to add wolves. :rolleyes:

I'll nominate the movie Solo starring Mario Van Peebles. I will say upfront that I have not seen the movie. Why am I nominating a movie that I haven't seen? Because of one line.

To set this up, Mario Van Peebles plays some sort of robot/cyborg killing machine that gains a conscience and goes goody rogue midway through the movie. At some point in the movie, a techy sort of character gives us this reason as to why Solo is no longer following orders.

"Killing makes Solo feel bad."

It makes him feel bad? That was the best line they could come up with?

[MacSpon]

Is there anything good to be said about the film Dungeons and Dragons?

[NoClueBoy]

Might as well add in the odd numbered Star Trek movies.

I hated Powder. I kept waiting for the Fly to eat him, but he never did. :(

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Is there anything good to be said about the film Dungeons and Dragons?

They didn't make a sequel?

[Umlaut du Fromage]

Lifetime Achievement Award, Stupidest movie of all time: Alien.


If anyone is qualified to judge stupid science fiction, it's you. (http://www.sfreviews.net/staroamer.html)

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

They didn't make a sequel?
Keep trying (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0406728/).

That's true sometimes. On the other hand, if it's something so obvious and glaring that it makes the audience wonder "hey, what happened?" or "why didn't they do that," the filmmaker has done something wrong, and explaning it an hour later might not help.
I guess I disagree: I usually enjoy it when a director makes me ask such questions. It builds my anticipation. Of course, if the director never answers the questions, then I'm really disappointed. But making me ask them is not a bad thing to do.

Daniel

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

If anyone is qualified to judge stupid science fiction, it's you. (http://www.sfreviews.net/staroamer.html)This is really harsh and unnecessary. You know about the Pit, right? You want to pit him, please do it there and don't use this thread to be so vicious.

Daniel

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Keep trying (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0406728/).

:smack:

Ummm, you aren't required by law to own a copy?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

:smack:

Ummm, you aren't required by law to own a copy?
I thought you mean t me personally, and I was like, Hey, I'm not THAT much of a dork!

But yeah, you're right: that's something good about the movie.

Daniel

[saoirse]

I have to add my vote to The Day After Tommorow. Why? Because the end of the world just wasn't bad enough. They had to add wolves. rolleyes

A me too here. Whenever I see a satellite image of a storm on tv now, I say, "It's drawing air directly from the troposphere."

[Snooooopy]

Starship Troopers was horrible. Pointless, gratuitous, violent twaddle. The book was light years better than that tripe.

I saw that on TV this weekend. It was very limp.

[Merijeek]

Is there anything good to be said about the film Dungeons and Dragons?

Umm...Thora Birch is adorable in a chainmail outfit?

-Joe

[C K Dexter Haven]

::: Moderator pounds gavel for attention::: > WHAM! WHAM! WHAM!! <

This is NOT the forum for personal attacks against members. I'm not sure exactly who started it, but it's stopping NOW. If you feel that someone else has made a personal attack, do NOT respond in kind, but instead report their post to the Moderator.

[lissener]

Starship Troopers was horrible. Pointless, gratuitous, violent twaddle. The book was light years better than that tripe.
I don't want to hijack this thread, so I don't want to get all into it and shit, but for the benefit of any lurkers who are reading this thread I wanted to present one quiet voice of defense for what I think is a brilliant movie.

While I respect Doors's opinion, you'll find if you look further afield that it does not necessarily represent the universal consensus regarding this film. Many serious people have found a great deal of value in Starship Troopers as political satire; perhaps one of the nastiest and most compelling satire of fascism and warmongering that's ever been made. It's up there with Dr. Strangelove, for me, as satire of the modern war machine. It was inspired by WWII propaganda films--German as well as American--and its central theme is that "war makes fascists of us all."

It does depart, thematically, from Heinlein's novel, which for many people is a bone of great contention. Personally, I think it's a rare achievement: a film that satirizes its source material while remaining pretty true to the original, albeit mostly in superficial ways. In any case it's certainly not very reverent of Heinlein's novel; one of its satirical targets is the kind of super-patriotic, military-infused SF of the cold war era, of which Heinlein's Starship Troopers is a shining example.

See it and decide for yourself, if you haven't.

Your experience of ST is likely to be deepened by a passing familiarity with the propaganda films that Leni Riefenstahl made for Adolf Hitler, and such gungho wartime American films as The Story of G.I. Joe and The Battle of Midway. But once you're willing to accept the premise that it's a satire (vet in a wheelchair, missing both legs and an arm, enthusiastically, to incoming recruits: "The military made me the man I am today!"), such knowledge of previous films is unnecessary.

But as Doors' post indicates, it's a movie that hits different people in different ways.

[Seven]

I was 50/50 on Starship Troopers. I loved the propaganda aspect (the kids stomping bugs) but other bigs bothered me like the love triangle bit.

[lissener]

I was 50/50 on Starship Troopers. I loved the propaganda aspect (the kids stomping bugs) but other bigs bothered me like the love triangle bit.From one of my lifetime top ten movies, Sullivan's Travels (http://onfilm.chicagoreader.com/movies/capsules/11703_SULLIVANS_TRAVELS):

Policeman at Beverly Hills station: How does the girl fit into the story?
John L. Sullivan: There's always a girl in the story. What's the matter, don't you go to the movies?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I remember when I saw ST, I loved it until about halfway through, when it felt as though it had forgotten that it was a satire and started seriously icking me out. Maybe it didn't forget, though: maybe it just went too wholeheartedly into satire mode for my tastes. I'll see it again one day.

In any case, it had some pretty huge plausibility holes in it, IIRC, which are difficult to explain as satire. On the other hand, the book ST was one of the worst books I've ever read (Asimov's The Stars, Like Dust ties for first place), so I considered the movie a marked improvement over the source :).

Naturally, de gustibus and all.
Daniel

[Scissorjack]

Is there anything good to be said about the film Dungeons and Dragons?

It made those who saw it realise just how bad LotR could have been. And I guess it kept Jeremy Irons in gin and tonics for a while.

[Dunderman]

I love Starship Troopers through and through, but I can't see how even if you hate it you'd think it belongs on the list of stupid stupid movies. OK, it's a bit strange that "rebuilding" casualties (like they do to Rico) is routine and at the same time he is reported dead and Ibanez is surprised when he turns up again, but apart from that, what is there?

[Omniscient]

Starship Troopers isn't a good movie or a bad movie IMHO. I appreciate the satire aspects of the film, and while I'm not up to speed on Heinlen's book, it certainly got the message across. It also was a fun and somewhat exciting action/SFX bonanza. However one simply must accept the undeniable facts that Dina Meyers, Casper Van Dien, Denise Richards and Doogie Hauser have leading roles on this film. That fact alone makes it impossible to be a "good" movie, though with the combination of politics with popcorn-flick action it does have redeeming qualities.

Now, if you want to talk about a really stupid, stupid movie lets consider Shark Tale (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0307453/). Now, this isn't a hopeless movie with a hopeless cast, it's has a very famous voice cast and was done by the Dreamworks people who typically are competent.

The script for this movie must seem retarded even to it's pre-adolecent audience. The cliches come at warp speed, and it doesn't so much parody other crappy mob movies just weakly imitates them with practically the same dialogue. The "sit down" scene was a direct rip off of Analyze This scene right down to the actors. Of course there are the typical love interest cliches including a Jessica Rabbit knock-off voiced by Angelina Jolie. The faux-hip hop slang is excrisiating to listen to, and the coup de grace is the finale in which these mob sharks get the rapper treatment and are shown in a stupid dance/rap montage wearing gold chains and what not. Think about that, Robert DeNiro, Jack Black, Michael Imperioli, Vincent Pastore and Peter Falk rapping........

Worst Movie Ever, I don't care that it's a animated film for kids, it makes Finding Nemo look like Goodfellas and Lion King look like Citizen Kane

[Dunderman]

However one simply must accept the undeniable facts that Dina Meyers, Casper Van Dien, Denise Richards and Doogie Hauser have leading roles on this film. That fact alone makes it impossible to be a "good" movie, though with the combination of politics with popcorn-flick action it does have redeeming qualities.
Michael Ironside also has a leading role in it, which gives it a powerful push upward. I don't think Dina Meyer is a bad actress either, and it certainly doesn't hurt that she's just about the hottest thing I've ever seen.

[singular1]

Now, if you want to talk about a really stupid, stupid movie lets consider Shark Tale (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0307453/). Now, this isn't a hopeless movie with a hopeless cast, it's has a very famous voice cast and was done by the Dreamworks people who typically are competent.

Worst Movie Ever, I don't care that it's a animated film for kids, it makes Finding Nemo look like Goodfellas and Lion King look like Citizen Kane

Let's not forget that they never look like they're underwater! And they all look like they have scoliosis! Gawd, I hated this movie - and I live for animated mivies!

[Green Bean]

Alien is not a science fiction movie, it is a monster movie, it is a horror movie and it is a very successful one at that.I agree completely. It may be in a "science fiction" setting, but it's a horror movie.

To me, the element that made it so brilliant was the timing. Kingpengvin touched on this in his post, but I'll offer an example. (forgive me if I have the details wrong. It's been forever since I've seen it.) At one point, the Tom Skerrit character was descending a ladder. You knew the alien was going to get him at the bottom. You get tenser and tenser as he goes down. His feet are on the ground. Boom...wait. The alien didn't get him. He looks around. You relax. He's safe. BOOM! The alien gets him! :eek:

The movie did stuff like that all the way through. It didn't just spring the scary stuff when you weren't expecting it. It sprang the scary stuff when you were sure it wouldn't happen.

Troy McClure: What's wrong with Bring it On?

[Mr. Blue Sky]

At one point, the Tom Skerrit character was descending a ladder. You knew the alien was going to get him at the bottom. You get tenser and tenser as he goes down. His feet are on the ground. Boom...wait. The alien didn't get him. He looks around. You relax. He's safe. BOOM! The alien gets him! :eek:

What happened was cut from the theatrical print, but can be seen on the DVD:

Skerritt is seen plastered to the wall in the landing gear section of the ship. He's been "impregnated" by the alien. Ripley shows up and he begs her to kill him. She does.

[Tapioca Dextrin]

Is there anything good to be said about the film Dungeons and Dragons?


Well, it's light years ahead of the sequel (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0406728/).

[NoClueBoy]

But as Doors' post indicates, it's a movie that hits different people in different ways.


A person can "get" everything you said about this movie and STILL not like it.

Taste is taste.

----------------------------



I feel strangely compelled to list another movie that some people view as genius and genre breaking but just plain annoyed others:

Blair Witch Project

[phungi]

in what may be a controversial offering, I nominate Million Dollar Baby.


there were so many weak plot lines in this film.. we never know why his daughter refuses to open his letters, what happened in their relationship, or if she is even alive... Clint's character is a vapid man with little commitment to his friends, and he basically walks out on his closest friend in a selfish escape that really has no explanation... to eat pie in a diner? oh, we should assume he bought the place, puhlease! friggin right-to-die euthanasia bullshit story masquerading as a boxing film... the portrayal of a C1/C2 quad was totally unrealistic, and they should be ashamed for inaccurate medical fact writing... the not-as-good-as-in-Shawshank-Redemption Morgan Freeman narrative, and those damn horse teeth... oh, right, I can run away and eat pie and it will all be better...

[Small Clanger]

There is not a single thing that makes any sense in Alien vs Predator. Nothing.

It's insultingly stupid. I think there's a posting on this board where someone gave it a proper kicking. Maybe I'll link to it later.

[Khadaji]

The problem with this sort of thread is it prompts people to respond to defend a movie they like. I am sometimes tempted to do so myself.

Having said that, I'm sure there will be people wanting to defend Donnie Darko. But for me it was one of the biggest steaming piles of dull that I have ever seen.

[Dunderman]

The problem with this sort of thread is it prompts people to respond to defend a movie they like. I am sometimes tempted to do so myself.

Having said that, I'm sure there will be people wanting to defend Donnie Darko. But for me it was one of the biggest steaming piles of dull that I have ever seen.
I think the thread is veering off its original aim. We're not talking about bad movies, we're talking about stupid movies. You may have disliked Donnie Darko, but I doubt you'd call it stupid.

[archmichael]

Troy McClure: What's wrong with Bring it On?Yeah! What's wrong with Bring It On.

All I know is that when you come back to explain yourself, YOU BETTER BRING IT. :D

[Small Clanger]

Couldn't find the link but this is the text (my bolding)
. . . with Alien vs. Predator. The entire setup was bad. Really bad. Painfully, insultingly stupid.

Once the movie stopped insisting on explaining every damn thing in exhaustive detail, (bear in mind that the detail made absolutely no sense and was deeply stupid on O, so many levels) and the extraneous characters who were the source of the exhaustive, stupid detail finally got cleared out of the way, it settled down into a bland but inoffensive movie about butt-kicking, which is all it really should have been in the first place.

What this movie really needs is for somebody to chop off the first 45 minutes to get rid of the insultingly moronic backstory and the completely ineffective attempt to build tension, and replace it, preferably with more butt-kicking.Never mind the Alien's unexplained increase in mass in Alien, in this film the Aliens go from egg/face-hugger to chest-burster to full size in minutes.

[Troy McClure SF]

Oh, it's already been broughted!

Honestly, folks, I watched BIO once at a friend's house a few years ago (for two hours, in 1960?), and all I remember is that despite having Kirsten Dunst and Eliza Dushku in cheerleading outfits the whole movie, I still hated it. Can't remember specifics any more, and I'm not ready to give it another shot yet.

[NoClueBoy]

Couldn't find the link but this is the text (my bolding)
Never mind the Alien's unexplained increase in mass in Alien, in this film the Aliens go from egg/face-hugger to chest-burster to full size in minutes.


Steroids, man, steroids.


Explains their surly 'tude, too.

[FatBaldGuy]

I'm surprised that no one has nominated The Net, one of Sandra Bullock's more forgettable efforts.

All through the movie the bad guys are busy removing all trace of poor Sandra's existence from computer databases, so that she has no drivers license, credit cards, etc., but at the very end she uploads a virus from a floppy disc to the bad guys' computer, and all of her missing records are instantly returned.

Where's that pukey smiley when you really need it?

[Green Bean]

The problem with this sort of thread is it prompts people to respond to defend a movie they like. I am sometimes tempted to do so myself.
I don't see that as a problem. That's what makes this an interesting discussion instead of an exercise in list-making. It's only a problem when people go overboard in attacking and defending their favorite movies and directors.

Troy: Give Bring it On another try. I thought it would be idiotic, myself, but it's actually become a favorite. Why? I dunno. It's still a movie about cheerleaders. But it cracks me up every time.

[Troy McClure SF]

I will admit I've gone from hating to loving a movie- Mars Attacks!, to be specific. But I've also watched others and had my previous opinions confirmed.

[Corii]

Starship Troopers was horrible. Pointless, gratuitous, violent twaddle. The book was light years better than that tripe.

I thought that it was a pretty funny movie. I laughed a lot - was that wrong? Should I not have done that?

[lissener]

. . . one simply must accept the undeniable facts that Dina Meyers, Casper Van Dien, Denise Richards and Doogie Hauser have leading roles on this film. . . .They're cartoon characters. The director cast those actors very carefully, specifically because they ARE cartoon characters. He uses bad actors intentionally sometimes, just like John Waters does. Even Hitchcock sometimes very carefully chose stiff, polished, unemotive actresses when he was going for an archetype rather than an authentic human being. (Tippi Hedren? Doris Day? Kim Novak?)

In order for ST to work as a fake propaganda film, it's very important that the actors are exactly the kind of actors you'd find in a REAL propaganda film. Think of those silly educational films some of us had to watch as kids, which were very similar stylistically to some of the WWII-era propaganda films the director was riffing on. Stiff, bad actors, more convincing as cardboard cutouts than as actual human beings.

[lissener]

I thought that it was a pretty funny movie. I laughed a lot - was that wrong? Should I not have done that?
The novel it was based on was not a comedy; some fans of the novel are offended that the director of the movie seemed to be laughing at Heinlein. Which he was, so they have a right to be offended. Fans of the novel went to the movie expecting to re-experience what they loved about the book, but instead found themselves being rudely raspberried by the director.

Although, to be fair, I'm way better at telling you why I DO like the movie than I would be at telling you why someone else DOESN'T like it. Just distilling past discussions. In any case, there's no accounting for first impressions. There are plenty of movies that I was just in the wrong frame of mind when I saw them, or something, and they just hit me wrong. Movies that I'm "supposed" to like, but for whatever reasons of personal taste, just don't.

[Mr. Goob]

House of 10,000 Corpses was both bad and stupid. I watched it to the end waiting for something, anything worthwhile to happen. I like silly slasher flicks but this wasn't even good at that.

No redeeming qualities at all.

[Sailboat]

Starship Troopers was horrible. Pointless, gratuitous, violent twaddle. The book was light years better than that tripe.

Twaddle even by the standards of someone casually interested in military action. The supposedly sophisticated warriors in this sci-fi future don't seem to understand basic principles of cover or fire-and-movement -- and the entire Bug horde would have been defeated by a couple of mortar squads, if anyone in the future understood artillery.

Sailboat

[mazinger_z]

I was going to post "What's wrong with Bring it on!," but I see that others have already beaten me to that question. Fine. So, I'll post this:

Left Hand of Dorkness, what's wrong with Contact? I liked that movie a lot. If you want to talk manipulative, let's talk The Sixth Sense. However, despite that, I still felt that it was pretty good.

For the OP:

Somebody already mentioned The Net as most stupid. It doesn't get any stupider than that. D&D, while bad, wasn't stupid bad. Unless of course, you're arguing that you would've role played it different in your campaign. ;)

[lissener]

Twaddle even by the standards of someone casually interested in military action. The supposedly sophisticated warriors in this sci-fi future don't seem to understand basic principles of cover or fire-and-movement -- and the entire Bug horde would have been defeated by a couple of mortar squads, if anyone in the future understood artillery.Bingo.

[Rashak Mani]

I loved Face-Off ! Great action movie... and the acting wasn't as bad as you make it out to be...

As for Stupid, Stupid Movie... I felt cheated, offended and treated like a sucker after seeing the Episode 3 of Star Wars. Some of the silliest dialogues, scripts and character motivations ever.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Left Hand of Dorkness, what's wrong with Contact? I liked that movie a lot. If you want to talk manipulative, let's talk The Sixth Sense. However, despite that, I still felt that it was pretty good.
I'll put this in spoilers, but meanwhile we should decide whether unboxed spoilers are appropriate in this thread. And meanwhile I'll point out that even half a glass of wine REALLY impacts my typing ability: I'm having to retype just about every other word here. Or maybe it's the mac and cheese.

Remember the scene where the little girl is trying to send a shortwave message to her dead mom? It even had the tiny little violin playing. It was so maudlin that I started laughing. Ridiculous stuff!

And the best thing about the movie was going to be the religious ambiguity at the end: the scientist had discovered faith, and discovered how difficult it could be. But then they ruined it, by telling you that there was evidence to back up her faith; at that point, it's no longer faith, and the movie loses its greatest potential impact. It's as if, in Romeo and Juliet, Juliet decides in the third act that Romeo's an asshole and gets together with some other guy, and that's the end.

Daniel

[lissener]

Left Hand of Dorkness, what's wrong with Contact? I, too, hated Contact. A lot.

[MacSpon]

Well, it's light years ahead of the sequel (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0406728/).
Huh ... I'd never even heard of that one. Though the comments on IMDB tend to suggest that the sequel may, in fact, be light years ahead of the original. A rare occurrence, if true. :)

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Huh ... I'd never even heard of that one. Though the comments on IMDB tend to suggest that the sequel may, in fact, be light years ahead of the original. A rare occurrence, if true. :)
I believe it was straight to DVD, and a lot of gamers preferred it to the original--which is like saying that a lot of gamers preferred it to having a bec-de-ranseur-glaivarme swung at them and having to figure out the weapon speed if they're wearing splint mail in first edition.

Daniel

[lissener]

I believe it was straight to DVD, and a lot of gamers preferred it to the original--which is like saying that a lot of gamers preferred it to having a bec-de-ranseur-glaivarme swung at them and having to figure out the weapon speed if they're wearing splint mail in first edition.

Daniel
It was on the SciFi channel last week; I assumed it as a "SciFi Channel Original," so of course I stayed away in a drove.

[BooBoo316]

Is there anything good to be said about the film Dungeons and Dragons?

Well, the mage chick was kinda hot and Jeremy Irons overacting at an Olympic level is always good for a chuckle.

[Little Bird]

I will admit I've gone from hating to loving a movie- Mars Attacks!, to be specific. But I've also watched others and had my previous opinions confirmed.
Honestly, I can't figure out why people don't like Mars Attacks! Do you guys not realize it's a parody? :confused:

[Merijeek]

Honestly, I can't figure out why people don't like Mars Attacks! Do you guys not realize it's a parody? :confused:

Just because something is a parody doesn't make it good or enjoyable.

-Joe

[lissener]

Just because something is a parody doesn't make it good or enjoyable.

-Joe
Definitely. Mars Attacks! is hilarious, but a bit uneven.

[Seven]

I feel strangely compelled to list another movie that some people view as genius and genre breaking but just plain annoyed others:

Blair Witch Project

Oh man. That movie bugged the hell out of me.

I could watch the audio commentary on the DVD though. It's funny to listen to the directors talk about how they messed with the actors to get the reactions.

[NDP]

Honestly, I can't figure out why people don't like Mars Attacks! Do you guys not realize it's a parody? :confused:
I knew it was. In fact, that's the main reason why I was so disappointed with it. Parodies are supposed to be funny. At best, Mars Attacks! had barely enough funny stuff in it for a middling five-minute sketch on SNL. Unfortunately, it was nearly two hours long.

Anyway, if we're talking stupid movies, I often wondered why my brain didn't melt and trickle out my ears while I was watching Con Air.

[Talon Karrde]

in what may be a controversial offering, I nominate Million Dollar Baby.


there were so many weak plot lines in this film.. we never know why his daughter refuses to open his letters, what happened in their relationship, or if she is even alive... Clint's character is a vapid man with little commitment to his friends, and he basically walks out on his closest friend in a selfish escape that really has no explanation... to eat pie in a diner? oh, we should assume he bought the place, puhlease! friggin right-to-die euthanasia bullshit story masquerading as a boxing film... the portrayal of a C1/C2 quad was totally unrealistic, and they should be ashamed for inaccurate medical fact writing... the not-as-good-as-in-Shawshank-Redemption Morgan Freeman narrative, and those damn horse teeth... oh, right, I can run away and eat pie and it will all be better...

1. Not knowing about his relationship with his daughter isn't a weak plot line.
2. Yes, going to the diner was a retreat. Even though he killed the protagonist, he still wasn't sure it was the right thing to do and was burdened with guilt. Sometimes that can end friendships.
3. I never felt that it was a political movie. It was a personal story that happens to have a controversial element. Again, the movie never says that her death was the best outcome.

[Harborwolf]

Honestly, I can't figure out why people don't like Mars Attacks! Do you guys not realize it's a parody? :confused:
How can you not realize that it's a parody. They practically beat you over the head with it in every scene.

I don't think it's a stupid movie, but it's a really obvious movie.

[Scissorjack]

How can you not realize that it's a parody. They practically beat you over the head with it in every scene.

That doesn't excuse it from not having a plot. Or wasting good actors. Or the ridiculous "Hey, kids, isn't old people's music stupid? It's so stupid it kills Martians! Hah hah hah hah! Here's an "ironic" Tom Jones song to end with so you can feel even more smugly hip. Now fuck off and buy the toys."

[C K Dexter Haven]

The problem with this sort of thread is it prompts people to respond to defend a movie they like. MOderator Speaketh: Well, we ought to keep on topic, but a little digression like that is fine. You just need to remember that this is about the arts and entertainment, which means it's a matter of taste. "Fact" and "truth" only come into play in certain types of discussion, like whether Clark Gable or Jimmy Stewart played the lead in GONE WITH THE WIND. When it's a matter of taste, something can connect with one person and not with another, and both points of view are legitimate. Therefore discussion must remain polite and well-mannered, as per my post above. Each person's taste is different, and that's OK, and discussion about the whys and wherefores of someone else's taste may give you insights into your own, or into the world, or whatever.

In short, discussions remain polite. (Yes, I said this a few posts earlier, and no, no one has offended since. I'm watching.)

[Khadaji]

I think the thread is veering off its original aim. We're not talking about bad movies, we're talking about stupid movies. You may have disliked Donnie Darko, but I doubt you'd call it stupid.
No, when I saw it I thought "My god this is stupid!" It may not be stupid in the same way as many of the others, but yes, I found it to be stupid. And dull. And pointless. And an amazing waste of my time.

[Dunderman]

No, when I saw it I thought "My god this is stupid!" It may not be stupid in the same way as many of the others, but yes, I found it to be stupid.
Elaborate?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

That doesn't excuse it from not having a plot. Or wasting good actors. Or the ridiculous "Hey, kids, isn't old people's music stupid? It's so stupid it kills Martians! Hah hah hah hah! Here's an "ironic" Tom Jones song to end with so you can feel even more smugly hip. Now fuck off and buy the toys."
Well, a disclaimer: I saw it on a first date with a woman I really liked, so that may have colored my impressions of it.

That said, I didn't get that it was mocking old people's music so much as it was suggesting that one particular song had a really weird vocal quality to it that sorta sounded like a science-fiction weapon noise. Were I the singer (I forget who the singer was), I would've been pretty tickled at their use of the song: it was good-natured teasing, not smug mocking.

That was one of the least pretentious movies I've ever seen. Yeah, it was dumb in places, and at its best it just rose to inspired zaniness, but it had some great moments (DO NOT RUN! WE ARE YOUR FRIENDS!)

Daniel

[Omniscient]

My take on Mars Attacks! is that it was a campy parody that was done in by the insistant desire to pack as many cameos and cross-type characterizations as possible into it. This movie could have been funnier if it didn't drag on so often with pointless exposition and extraneous scenes.

In any case I feel that it doesn't deserve an award like the OP opines because it's intended to be stupid, nominating Mars Attacks! would be like nominating a Naked Gun or Hot Shots movie.

They're cartoon characters. The director cast those actors very carefully, specifically because they ARE cartoon characters. He uses bad actors intentionally sometimes, just like John Waters does. Even Hitchcock sometimes very carefully chose stiff, polished, unemotive actresses when he was going for an archetype rather than an authentic human being. (Tippi Hedren? Doris Day? Kim Novak?)

Wheeeeew, that's a bit of a stretch for me. Sounds like an after-the-fact revision to excuse the casting. Granted I never read the book, but the movie as a whole didn't play as a propoganda film in it's entirety. If thats what was intended, it wasn't executed very well IMHO. Were those "cartoon" characters were used in the recruitment/propoganda clips within the movie I'd agree, but if the argument is the whole film being a propoganda film of sorts they really let the screenplay get away from the goal.


I will however agree that Starship Troopers doesn't deserve to share the green room with Shark Tale, that cartoon is in a class of it's own for it's work on the dumbening of America.

[Ellis Dee]

Well, reading about Starship Troopers here reminds me of that other Verhoven crapfest Showgirls. I don't know if I'd classify it as the stupidest movie ever, as the stupidity of it was only a peripheral aspect of its sucktitude.

More on topic, I've got two doozies to add, and they both involve the most perfectly bad actress to ever contaminate celluloid: Tara Reid. They are Van Wilder, which was painfully stupid, and My Boss's Daughter, which was impossibly stupid.

Seriously, I was in shock from how bad they were, and it was the sheer stupidity of them that made them so bad.

[lissener]

Wheeeeew, that's a bit of a stretch for me. Sounds like an after-the-fact revision to excuse the casting. Granted I never read the book, but the movie as a whole didn't play as a propoganda film in it's entirety. If thats what was intended, it wasn't executed very well IMHO. Were those "cartoon" characters were used in the recruitment/propoganda clips within the movie I'd agree, but if the argument is the whole film being a propoganda film of sorts they really let the screenplay get away from the goal. Well, that was the specific intention. The screenwriter and director tried to imagine a propaganda film as made by a future fascist-military government. Their intent was to take what they saw as serious political issues in modern day America, extrapolate and exaggerate them into a future society, and then make a film from that imagined perspective. The movie itself is "from the future," not just its subject matter. Whether or not they pulled it of is, of course, open to debate. (Eternal, ongoing, neverending, contentious debate. Which of course I love. :cool: )

In other words, director's commentary on a DVD can be extremely enlightening. With ST, the commentary is a running conversation between the director and the screenwriter. I don't think I've ever heard the director defend his choice of "bad" actors, but I've heard explain exactly the qualities he was casting for, which often amounts to the same thing. And again, it's something we accept without fuss from John Waters and Alfred Hitchcock, but they don't piss people off as much, so there's that.

[lissener]

Well, reading about Starship Troopers here reminds me of that other Verhoven crapfest Showgirls. I don't know if I'd classify it as the stupidest movie ever, as the stupidity of it was only a peripheral aspect of its sucktitude. . . .The reassessment (http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=1171), which I predicted in these pages, continues apace.

Don't worry, I'll keep you posted. :cool:

[mks57]

Venting the ship's atmosphere to space isn't an "obvious" way to kill the alien. There's a good chance that it would cause severe damage to the ship. Your average electronics device depends on the presence of gravity and an atmosphere to provide adequate cooling. Hard drives will suffer catastrophic damage in a vacuum. Sealed containers may burst. Liquids and lubricants may boil off or evaporate. Electrolytic capacitors will out-gas and fail.

[mazinger_z]

LHOD, I'm not looking to argue, I was just curious, so I'll make this quick and dirty: I'll concede the first point, and I typically frown upon stuff like that, see Titantic. (Don't even get me started. You will see a rant that burns with the heat of a thousand suns). The second point has merit, but it overlooks the fact that that little tidbit, iirc, isn't necessarily revealed to the public, and, on it's face, is highly inconclusive. If this happened IRL, the SMDB would explode. :) (or should that be :( )

[mazinger_z]

Huh, I think I just realized that I automatically supress bad memories to the point of non-existence. Put my vote down for Titantic. And, just so that we get this out of the way, I will preemptively answer: Why yes, my heart is a souless, black pit of a void.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

The Shape Of Things To Come (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079894/#comment) (1979) was a steaming pile of poo.

Appearing a couple-three years after Star Wars, you'd have though somebody would have realized!...but no. Spaceships with glowing engines, the lightbulbs in the engines clearly visible. :smack: Cheesy robots. And spacesuits with helmets made from plastic Baggies. :smack: :smack:



And lets not get started on G.I.N.O. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120685/).

Trashy sci-fi produces the ripest cheese.

[lissener]

Huh, I think I just realized that I automatically supress bad memories to the point of non-existence. Put my vote down for Titantic. And, just so that we get this out of the way, I will preemptively answer: Why yes, my heart is a souless, black pit of a void.
Titanic has one of the lamest "plots" in the history of cinema, and some of the worst writing and acting ever. Ever. DiCaprio is the only one who even attempted to find a real human being within his character, which unfortunately made it look like he was acting in a different movie; everyone else was content to become the crap they were wallowing in. But I saw it twice for the sheer spectacle of the final hour.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

LHOD, I'm not looking to argue, I was just curious, so I'll make this quick and dirty: I'll concede the first point, and I typically frown upon stuff like that, see Titantic. (Don't even get me started. You will see a rant that burns with the heat of a thousand suns). The second point has merit, but it overlooks the fact that that little tidbit, iirc, isn't necessarily revealed to the public, and, on it's face, is highly inconclusive. If this happened IRL, the SMDB would explode. :) (or should that be :( )Uh, what post are you responding to? :confused:

Daniel

[Merijeek]

Well, reading about Starship Troopers here reminds me of that other Verhoven crapfest Showgirls. I don't know if I'd classify it as the stupidest movie ever, as the stupidity of it was only a peripheral aspect of its sucktitude.


I have seen the future and it looks like the past...

Still, Showgirls provided me with a topless Berkley and an actress that few can agree on her attractiveness (Gershon).

-Joe

[C K Dexter Haven]

Weirddave: you are goddam fuckin' OUT OF LINE, and you goddam well know it.

This is an Official Warning, and your last one on this particular topic.

What you posted was about as deliberately provocative as any troll that I've ever seen, and was baiting a particular member besides.

I have moved the offensive thread out of sight.

Wake up, and stop being a jackass, or you're gonna be suspended so fast it'll make your head spin.

You may detect that my normally calm, quiet, polite tone is not present in this note. That's because your offense is WAY the fuck over the edge, and you knew it when you typed it.

[Omniscient]

Well, that was the specific intention. The screenwriter and director tried to imagine a propaganda film as made by a future fascist-military government. Their intent was to take what they saw as serious political issues in modern day America, extrapolate and exaggerate them into a future society, and then make a film from that imagined perspective. The movie itself is "from the future," not just its subject matter. Whether or not they pulled it of is, of course, open to debate. (Eternal, ongoing, neverending, contentious debate. Which of course I love. :cool: )


If that was the goal, I can accept the craptastic acting, but I think it opens up a different critisism. If this was supposed to be a futuristic propoganda film then it makes no sense to have all the supposed family sentimentality and love interests. It portrays several scenes as being sad and/or tragic which is incongruous in a propoganda film. To include the characters grief and the family strife is head scratchingly out of place. I'd argue that Verhoven compromised his goals and vision in those regards, and the end result is instead of a propoganda film just a uneven, at best, and bad, at worst, movie.

Even though we disagree on the quality of the movie, I will agree that Starship Troopers is a long ways from the winning the Stupid Prize. Even if you hate the movie with a passion, you have to conceed that much of the "bad" aspects of it were intentional, much like Mars Attacks!. It just can't be compared with the simmering retardedness of films that were intended to be serious and/or literally taken yet fail with such a force as to make you question if it were monkeys or humans thats greenlighted it.

[Omniscient]

More on topic, I've got two doozies to add, and they both involve the most perfectly bad actress to ever contaminate celluloid: Tara Reid. They are Van Wilder, which was painfully stupid, and My Boss's Daughter, which was impossibly stupid.


Whoa, whoa, whoa. Now, you won't catch me defending Tara Reid's acting ability (though she is pretty fun to look at), nor will you see me trumpet the virtues of My Boss's Daughter, but I will be damned if I sit here and listen to someone defame Van Wilder in this way.

Van Wilder is immensely quotable and contains some first rate T & A, at the very least. I applaud a movie that's capable of combining flavors of Animal House, Ferris Bueller's Day Off with a dash of Parker Lewis Can't Lose. This is a DVD I proudly own and rewatch whilst drinking booze.

[Snooooopy]

If that was the goal, I can accept the craptastic acting, but I think it opens up a different critisism. If this was supposed to be a futuristic propoganda film then it makes no sense to have all the supposed family sentimentality and love interests. It portrays several scenes as being sad and/or tragic which is incongruous in a propoganda film. To include the characters grief and the family strife is head scratchingly out of place.

I also can't see why a propaganda film would admit to its audience that the good guys bungled so badly, as the humans did in underestimating the capacity of the bugs to fight back.

Verhoeven could have picked up a few pointers from NFL Films, which managed to make a 3-13 Tampa Bay Buccaneers team look like a bunch of real ass-kickers thanks to judicious editing.

[Manduck]

I can only guess that the reason that nobody has mentioned Stayin' Alive yet is because I'm the only one who's seen it. This is a movie that doesn't realize that it's protagonist is actually the bad guy, so that in the end when he gets the girl and the lead in the Broadway show, it isn't a happy ending, it's a travesty! In an intelligent movie he would have been attacked by wild dogs and killed.

[Dr. Rieux]

My favorite line from the Rolling Stone review of Starship Troopers:
"Ed Neumeiers script bears about as much resemblance to Heinlein's novel as Showgirls does to Art."

[OtakuLoki]

My personal bete noir is Pearl Harbor.

First off, let's talk about the plot in general terms, and how that affected the movie. Any movie titled Pearl Harbor, one might think would focus on, say, the attack on 7 December, 1941. Instead in a three hour long schmaltz-fest they spend barely one half hour showing the attack, and even less than that on the clean up or recovery. They go almost directly from the attack, and the burning ships on Battleship Row to planning the Doolittle raid.

Then, let's consider this: in a movie about a naval attack, they make the three main characters all Army personnel? WTF? And much of the time they actually do spend on the actual attack, they have the Army Air Corps pilots whacking the Nip fighters. Like that is particularly representative of the attack, itself?

Now, for the specifics...

The love triangle isn't really something I can fault them for. Having a plot without individuals to hang it on, and a romance within that, isn't really going to fly.

But, lord love a duck!, why couldn't they set up the triangle with more sense? The one pilot (Sorry after four years, the names of the various characters have finally been leeched out of my brain.) who'd gone to the UK to fight in the Blitz gets shot down in the channel, and everyone assumes he was killed. At the time of the crash, the audience is shown the image of the White Cliffs of Dover as the canopy gets flooded. So he's within sight of the frigging island. But he turns up alive because he was rescued by the flaming French Resistance? WTF? The whole of the romantic tension of the second two thirds of the movie hinges on this. That the French Resistance would pick up a Brit pilot and then choose to take the pilot back to Occupied France to help him recuperate, instead of putting him ashore in the UK, when the frigging cliffs are right over there! In what way is this a rational decision? Let's see, a one-time smuggling trip, when you're already far enough across the Channel that any SS man who knew of it would have you shot on general principles, or bringing the airman back, who will involve even more members of the Resistance in caring for and hiding him. And will require another penetration of German Security to get him back to the Allies, anyways?

Then, when the flyboy does show up alive, he's given leave to go catch up with his fiancee, but prevented from sending a telegram? Army censorship rules are harsh, but that's particularly nonsensical.

Then there's using a B-25 as a frigging strafing plane? With the turret guns fired by the pilot? First, IIRC, the B-25's used on the Doolittle Raid were so concerned about takeoff weight I think that all small arms were taken off the airframes. I might be wrong about that, and don't care to spend the time it would take to check one way or the other. But the B-25 was a crewed plane, not a single pilot fighter. All the small arms were fired by seperate people.

<mutter mutter> Stupid, stupid, stupid movie.

(Yes, it's my hobby horse, dammit, and I'll keep riding it til it drops dead! :p)

[Terrifel]

Saw, starring Cary Elwes and Danny Glover. I just ran across this little gem the other day, and was so impressed that I felt compelled to mention it here. It's a fairly low budget effort compared to some of the other films listed in this thread, but nonetheless succeeds in achieving a remarkable level of dumbness. The filmmakers have managed to assemble an extraordinary number of movie cliches in their attempt to simultaneously rip off every successful action-suspense film of the past decade or so. The result comes across as the hobbled, developmentally impaired crack baby of The Usual Suspects and Seven, abandoned in the wild and raised by the idiot savant from Cube.

The movie features an off-the-rack Movie-style Psychotic Serial Killer, complete with quirky modus operandi, who gads about in various idiotic costumes and taunts his victims via the now-standard Distorted Phone Voice. Despite the fact that he maintains several hidden lairs and constructs excruciatingly convoluted deathtraps, he easily manages to evade capture due to his quasi-omniscient powers, frankly unbelievable luck, and the fortunate circumstance that everybody else in the movie is dumber than rocks. The movie's crowning glory is its conclusion, which features a revelation fully as astounding as your average Scooby-Doo episode. It's not so much a twist ending as it is a severe sprain. Please do not reveal the shocking secret of Saw. It turns out that the killer is ]Merv Griffin. Well, not really, but it makes about as much sense.

This movie also establishes the curious fact that, if you turn the lights out, people can not hear you.

As luck would have it, word on the street is that Saw II is out in theaters Friday. I'm there, seventh row center. Can the sequel recapture the magic of the original? Will people be able to hear it in the dark? We'll see.

[lissener]

If that was the goal, I can accept the craptastic acting, but I think it opens up a different critisism. If this was supposed to be a futuristic propoganda film then it makes no sense to have all the supposed family sentimentality and love interests. It portrays several scenes as being sad and/or tragic which is incongruous in a propoganda film. To include the characters grief and the family strife is head scratchingly out of place. I'd argue that Verhoven compromised his goals and vision in those regards, and the end result is instead of a propoganda film just a uneven, at best, and bad, at worst, movie.That was the starting point; the perspective. It wasn't an exercise in consistency for consistency's sake; that was how the tone was adopted. Those aspects you mention would be perfectly valid in a commercial propaganda film--like all the Andrews Sisters movies; Mrs. Miniver; things like that. There were a lot of pro-war movies made in Hollywood DURING the war. John Wayne, Clark Gable, Judy Garland, Greer Garson, et al., all made their share of very gungho, patriotic "Buy Bonds!" movies in 1941-1945. Hollywood did its share to keep the home fires burning. I suspect that was more what Verhoeven had in mind, rather than the more straight-forwardly didactic propaganda films produced by the military.

[fessie]

lissener, I thought ST reminded me a lot of Who Framed Roger Rabbit?. Perhaps just b/c of the outrageous cruelty towards anthropormophized characters & the political subtext (which pretty blatant - is that what everyone keeps getting their undies in a bunch about?). Both films disturbed me mightily; I never did finish Roger Rabbit.

Now, for a stupid, stupid movie -- Rocky IV. By far the worst movie that I didn't walk out of (wasn't my idea to go in the first place). I doubt that one'll have any defenders.

The Life of David Gale was nauseatingly awful.

Pretty Woman[i] was stupid, but full of pretty people. [i]My Best Friend's Wedding was even worse.

Air Force One was really, really stupid - isn't that the one where Harrison Ford is hanging onto a rope dangling out of the back of an airplane? And the one plane blows up right next to the other one, without sending it to the ground? Who thinks up this stuff?

[lissener]

lissener, I thought ST reminded me a lot of Who Framed Roger Rabbit?. Perhaps just b/c of the outrageous cruelty towards anthropormophized characters & the political subtext (which pretty blatant - is that what everyone keeps getting their undies in a bunch about?). . . .Yes, usually. Some people don't agree that there is a political subtext; that it's just a straightforward SF action flick. I think it's pretty blatant too, but not everyone agrees.

[Hilarity N. Suze]

Three pages and no one has mentioned C.H.U.D.? Was there a rule that it had to be a recent movie?

Of course I had the advantage of watching this movie for the first time at a screening hosted by its screenwriter, Parnell Hall, who very kindly pointed out all the hilarious inconsistencies as they happened onscreen. Still, I think its basic stupidity would have shone through regardless.

[Seven]

Saw.....The result comes across as the hobbled, developmentally impaired crack baby of The Usual Suspects and Seven, abandoned in the wild and raised by the idiot savant from Cube.


This is what I had in mind when I started this thread. Good stuff!

[want2know]

One more post about Mars Attacks! :

I liked this film--a lot! How can you not love a movie where Jack Nicholson plays the President of the United States? But in all the previous posts, no one has mentioned that the end is a direct rip-off from Attack of the Killer Tomatoes ! For me, that was the one disappointment in an otherwise entertaining film.

Another good category of "worst movies"--the "I"m-supposed-to-care -about-this-character?" film. From this point of view, I nominate The Doors and The Wall .

Not even counting the fact that, IMHO, Val Kilmer is possibly the worst actor to ever curse a movie screen, self-destruction elicits absolutely no sympathy from this quarter. The same argument applies for The Wall --on top of the fact that it probably never should have been filmed in the first place. And, if that wasn't enough, BOB-FREAKING-GELDOF???? EWWWWWW!!!

BTW, I am a huge fan of both The Doors and Pink Floyd--some things should just be heard and not seen.

[Dunderman]

Not even counting the fact that, IMHO, Val Kilmer is possibly the worst actor to ever curse a movie screen
Huh? Excuse me while I pick my jaw off the floor. I haven't seen The Doors, but he's been good in everything I've seen him in, and he was downright perfect in Tombstone. He even manages to come off good in crap like Alexander and The Saint.

[Dewey Finn]

You want dumb? How about Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace? I haven't seen either since the 1980's, but they were both pretty stupid.

[Robot Arm]

fessie, what is the political subtext of Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

[Smeghead]

Huh? Excuse me while I pick my jaw off the floor. I haven't seen The Doors, but he's been good in everything I've seen him in, and he was downright perfect in Tombstone. He even manages to come off good in crap like Alexander and The Saint.
Not to mention Top Secret. :D

[Corii]

My personal bete noir is Pearl Harbor.



I guess Pearl Harbor sucked, just a little bit more than I miss you.

I vote for Wedding Crashers as the stupidest movie I've seen this year; it bored me almost to sleep. I felt like I was watching the same formula that I had seen 10 times before.

[Dunderman]

Not to mention Top Secret. :D
I'd say that without the smiley.

[NDP]

fessie, what is the political subtext of Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
Roger Rabbit is a broadly comic companion piece to Chinatown. While the latter was a neo-film noir mystery that dealt with the underhanded mechanizations involved in bringing water to the Los Angeles Basin (mainly by stealing from the Owens Valley), Who Framed Roger Rabbit? is a neo-film noir mystery parody about the underhanded mechanizations involved in the construction of LA's freeway network after WWII. Basically, like in the movie, LA used to have an extensive streetcar and public transportation system until the 1940's when it was dismantled in favor of buses and the freeways that exist now. The reason why this was done is because GM-- acting through a bus company it had holdings in--and the oil companies got together to buy out and dismantle public transportation systems throughout the U.S. so they could replace the streetcars and trolleys with buses and get more people to buy more cars and use more gasoline. Los Angeles was the most famous (infamous?) example of this plan.

(Of course, this is an historical conspiracy theory. I'm sure you can find sources disputing the existence of this plan.)

[tracer]

I nominate The Day After Tomorrow and The Core.
And you're not the only one. Intuitor's "Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics" page names The Core as the worst movie physics movie of all time (http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/core.html).

[Corii]

The reason why this was done is because GM-- acting through a bus company it had holdings in--and the oil companies got together to buy out and dismantle public transportation systems throughout the U.S. so they could replace the streetcars and trolleys with buses and get more people to buy more cars and use more gasoline. Los Angeles was the most famous (infamous?) example of this plan.



Cecil on that very subject (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_335.html)

[Robot Arm]

(Of course, this is an historical conspiracy theory. I'm sure you can find sources disputing the existence of this plan.)Well, there is one (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_335.html) that springs to mind.

And I don't know how much of that is subtext.

[TwoTrouts]

Some really stupid movies in thia thread, plus some ggod movies getting trashed...


My vote: Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home Who the hell thought up this one? Send the crew back in time to save the whales? It was all just an excuse to run up a few jokes about the future interacting with the past (done much better with Back to the Future!). I was a big fan of the original Star Trek, but stood and "booed"at the end of this one in the theater!

[kidchameleon]

Highlander Endgame. I couldn't even follow it. I rented it and did not finish it. That has never happened. Even ignoring the horrible continuity problems of all Higlander sequils, I was lost, lost, lost.

And I defend Val Kilmer and Ryan Reynolds as really fun to watch, no matter what they are in.

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

I've seen more bad movies in the past year than I can remember, but I'll stick with my old favorite The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.The scene that did it for me was when the submarine is attacked (or hits something. I forget) and the immense command room is suddenly thrown into disarray, with sirens blaring, etc. two of the random sailors in the room go over, set the big war room table thing back up and replace the pieces and then return to stand near the wall.

Uhm, hello? Don't they have, like, battle stations to go to or something?

"In the event of an attack, you guys stay here and make sure all the furniture is put back in order."

I agree that The Day After Tomorrow is incredibly stupid, but I love it anyway. I've seen it three or four times, and each time I have a blast. And I liked Saw.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

And you're not the only one. Intuitor's "Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics" page names The Core as the worst movie physics movie of all time (http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/core.html).
Hm. I've never seen the movie, but I'm on a D&D-based messageboard where the scriptwriter hangs out sometimes, and from the way he talked about the movie, he had a blast writing it and really, really didn't give a shit about the physics. For him, it was an exercise in high-camp, pulpitudinous scifi, the kind of thing that it would be fun to play through. I get the impression that criticizing its geophysics is a little like criticizing the biological science in The Mummy Returns.

Daniel

[NDP]

Well, there is one (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_335.html) that springs to mind.

And I don't know how much of that is subtext.
If you're looking for more subtext in Roger Rabbit, there's also the fact the "toons" rarely mix with flesh-and-blood humans outside of the studio and live in their own seperate (i.e., segregated) community--Toontown. There are even "toons" who try to break out of this pen-and-ink ghetto by "passing" as regular people.

[Seven]

...and from the way he talked about the movie, he had a blast writing it and really, really didn't give a shit about the physics.

No. Really?

I think the only scientific fact they got correct in the movie is when you drop something it ends up on the floor.

[ouryL]

I had the television on the other night and Face/Off came on. I caught this movie years ago and never thought much about it. This time around I watched a few scenes as I read SDMB and Slashdot. I was blown away by how stupid this movie really is.

First, the acting sucks. I think in some movies Nick Case can carry himself well enough. That said this is the third of his triple whammy bad movie run (The Rock, Con Air, Face/Off) so by now he's had a crash course in crap acting - crapting?. How about I just say Nick Cage is hit or miss when it comes to movies.

This movie is hard to watch because of his bad acting/overacting. Half the time he just seems out of place. Travolta pulled off the part of Troy better then Cage did - and Cage was supposed to be Troy.

Second, when is this movie supposed to take place? The present? The future? Most of the movie seems to take place in the present. The cars, houses, guns; most style seems to be current. Then they throw in the future jail scenes and the medical room of the future complete with lasers that grow ears in a Pyrex dish. Let's not forget the lasers that heal wounds. Granted they have to create some of these elements to explain how they pull a face off one guy and stick it on another.

I do like the one line a doctor says about face transplants. He credits the "advances in anti-inflammatories". Forget about anti-rejection medication. It's all about inflamation. :smack:

There's also the scene where the FBI got a data disk with bomb blueprints on it (or something like that). It's a zip disk. A ZIP DISK? Even 1990's The Adventures of Ford Fairlane knew to put data on a CD. But in 1997's Face/Off, where you can grow ears in cookware, a 100mb zip disk is good enough for all your data needs.

Third, the super creepy face wipe thing John Travolta likes to do to people. Who does this ever?

You know, I could go on all night.

I nominate Face/Off for the Overacting, Sci-Fi movie too lazy to be proper Sci-Fi, SDMB Stupid, Stupid Movie Award.

What is your pick for the SDMB Stupid, Stupid Movie Award? Why?

The Con["Put down the bunny"]Air scene made my jaw drop!! :eek:

[fessie]

If you're looking for more subtext in Roger Rabbit, there's also the fact the "toons" rarely mix with flesh-and-blood humans outside of the studio and live in their own seperate (i.e., segregated) community--Toontown. There are even "toons" who try to break out of this pen-and-ink ghetto by "passing" as regular people.

That's what I was thinking of - it's been forever since I saw the film, and I didn't manage to finish it. Didn't strike me as a "kiddie movie" at all.

[Dunderman]

There are even "toons" who try to break out of this pen-and-ink ghetto by "passing" as regular people.
I don't remember that bit. Was it in the book or the movie?

[NDP]

I don't remember that bit. Was it in the book or the movie?
I haven't read the book but in the movie it turns out that Judge Doom, who was behind the whole plot to build the freeway that would wipe out Toontown, is really a Toon who disguised himself as a human. In addition to the obvious monetary gain, it's implied that Doom wanted to literally erase Toontown from existence because it would effectively conceal his background once and for all (in other words, Doom was an extremely self-loathing Toon).

[HPL]

I saw that on TV this weekend. It was very limp.

Never watch the made-for-TV sequel then. I liked ST for the cheese value, but the sequel didn't even have that to fall back on.

[HPL]

Is there anything good to be said about the film Dungeons and Dragons?

Well, the thieves maze sequence I rememeber enjoying, and the dragon fight.

Too bad I had already seen them in two much better movies, namely Raiders of the lost Ark and Return fo the Jedi.

[HPL]

There is not a single thing that makes any sense in Alien vs Predator. Nothing.

It's insultingly stupid. I think there's a posting on this board where someone gave it a proper kicking. Maybe I'll link to it later.

On the bright side, it's short and fast paced, and decently entertaining.

Though it's hard to tell if I liked it or it was just far better then the Vagina Monolouges, which I had been forced to sit through earlier that evening.

[HPL]

I nominate The Deep End. From the very beginning, Someone does Something Stupid. Then it continues, and so on, and so forth.
I vaguely recall the main character dragging some dead body off to a freakin' shallow area of the lake, and that's dumb enough in itself if you wish to hide such a thing. Then she realizes that she needs something that is on the body, so she goes back to retrieve it, and.....Oh, never mind. It's too stupid to continue writing about.

I tried watching that. One of the few movies I cut off before the end because I just couldn't take it anyone.

[HPL]

House of 10,000 Corpses was both bad and stupid. I watched it to the end waiting for something, anything worthwhile to happen. I like silly slasher flicks but this wasn't even good at that.

No redeeming qualities at all.

What? You didn't like the incredibly bizarre stuff at the end with the wierd people in the bunny suits? Or that took the bunny suits?

I can't remember, actually. I did give it some points for the bizarre "WTF" value.

[lissener]

I tried watching that. One of the few movies I cut off before the end because I just couldn't take it anyone.
Well to be fair, The Deep End was about people getting sucked into the consequences of doing stupid things; very much in keeping with the tradition of hardcore film noir. Not that TDE was noir, just sayin; it has a great deal of highly respected precedent in that area. Transpose it from Lake Tahoe (IIRC) to the rain drenched streets of nocturnal Manhattan, and you couldn't probly get any noirier. (Ever seen Detour? If you can't sit through TDE, trust me; don't rent Detour.)

[HPL]

You want dumb? How about Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace? I haven't seen either since the 1980's, but they were both pretty stupid.

I don't remember much of Superman III, other then the fact the borg scene at the end scared me as a kid. Superman IV is not worth watching even while drunk. Or High. Or Drunk high.

It just pisses in the face of fans of the first two movies. And now that I think of it, Superman does act like a big Dick in the film.

"I'm taking away all your nukes, wether you want me to or not!" Good idea supes, because unilateral action againest the first world is always a good idea.

[kidchameleon]

Never watch the made-for-TV sequel then. I liked ST for the cheese value, but the sequel didn't even have that to fall back on.

It did have T&A, though...

[Dunderman]

I haven't read the book but in the movie it turns out that Judge Doom, who was behind the whole plot to build the freeway that would wipe out Toontown, is really a Toon who disguised himself as a human. In addition to the obvious monetary gain, it's implied that Doom wanted to literally erase Toontown from existence because it would effectively conceal his background once and for all (in other words, Doom was an extremely self-loathing Toon).
Ah. That wasn't my interpretation of his motives, so I didn't think about him when I read that.

[RikWriter]

While I respect Doors's opinion, you'll find if you look further afield that it does not necessarily represent the universal consensus regarding this film.

It does, however, represent the majority opinion.

[Terrifel]

I understand that the movie Stargate has gone on to inspire a fairly well-regarded TV show, the dumbness level of which I am unable to comment on as I have never seen any episodes. However, it's certainly fair to say that the original film was very, very stupid indeed. It achieves extreme stupidity almost immediately by building its central premise around Von Daniken's Ancient Astronauts theory, and then amazingly proceeds to get even stupider. Although the plot centers around a mysterious artifact presumed to have come from outer space, it takes decades before anyone suspects that the constellation-resembling inscriptions around its perimeter might be intended to represent constellations. Once activated, the gadget creates a gateway to another planet. At this point, one of two scenarios would seem to be likely:

1. Since the stargate has been inactive for thousands of years, the civilization that created it is probably deader than disco by now, and therefore presents no danger. But, if not, then:

2. The civilization clearly already had technology that vastly outstripped ours when the stargate was created, and has now had several dozen centuries to advance even further.

In either case, the safest and most prudent course of action is obviously to send a dozen heavily armed soldiers through the gate, toting a portable nuclear bomb.

Fortunately, however, the strike team has an infallible escape option, as established by a conversation between the team commander and the mop-headed archaeologist before going through the gate (I'm paraphrasing here):

COMMANDER: So you're sure you'll be able to send us back?

ARCHAEOLOGIST: Oh, absolutely. No question about it.

COMMANDER: You're completely certain?

ARCHAEOLOGIST: Yes. I can send us back, guaranteed.

(LATER)

COMMANDER: The mission is screwed! Send us back!

ARCHAEOLOGIST: What? ...Oh, you were asking if I could send us back from here! I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about something else. Ah, well then I guess when I said "yes" all those times I should have actually said "no."

COMMANDER: (SETS ARCHAEOLOGIST ON FIRE)*

*Note: I may have just imagined this part.

[Manduck]

Stargate - good catch. I forgot about that one. Did you notice that the bad guys' most fearsome weapon is a stick that you point at someone, then about 15 seconds later it fires and kills the victim. Totally useless against somebody who takes any kind of evasive action like say for instance, stepping to one side. Luckily, though, nobody ever does.

[HPL]

Final Destination. For those who haven't seen it, a bunch of teenagers are going on a plane to paris. One of them has a vision of their horrible, firely death and manages to get him and a couple other students kicked off the plane. While they're bawling him out for ruining their trip, the plane explodes not long after takeoff. This part actually did freak me out when I saw it. Too bad it didn't end there.

Well, it turns out that they were supposed to die, and having thwarted Deaths design, Death is hunting them down one by one. This is when the movie goes from being scary and promising to downright idiotic.

Okay, a rather dubious premise. I would think that if death had a plan for you, you would not be able to escape it.

What makes it worse is that the execution is done in the most stupid way possible. Apparently death cannot stop them from getting off the plane, and doesn't even bother trying to kill them until a year or so has passed. And then Death has to go in a certain order and wait at least a couple hours before attempts.

And even more baffling, Death is unable to kill them simply by stopping their hearts, or having them stumble and break open their skulls on the pavement, or have a rock fall from the sky and smush them. No. Death apparently must rely on a series of needlessy complex rube goldberg devices.

So the message of the movie is: It's more dangerous to piss off the mafia then to piss off Death. The mafia will shoot you in the eye or put a bomb in your car or ambush you at a tollbooth. Death, on the other hand, is singularly incapable of cutting your break lines.

I actually walked out of the movie the first time I saw it because I felt it was so damn stupid. This was after I pissed off my sister, who was watching as well, by pointing this all out.

It doesn't help that this is basically your average collection of teenage stereotypes who deserve to die anyway, so you feel no sympathy for them at all.

[Seven]

I would agree with Stargate if I followed the story but I was far too busy drooling over Mili Avital to bother.

She looked damn hot in that movie.

[Terrifel]

Stargate - good catch. I forgot about that one. Did you notice that the bad guys' most fearsome weapon is a stick that you point at someone, then about 15 seconds later it fires and kills the victim. Totally useless against somebody who takes any kind of evasive action like say for instance, stepping to one side. Luckily, though, nobody ever does.It is kind of curious how, no matter what manifest design deficiencies or needlessly intricate activation requirements that Movie Alien technology displays, it somehow always works perfectly every time. You never encounter any scenes, for example, where the aliens try to activate their doomsday weapon, but the remote detonator won't function, so one of the aliens has to crawl down a ventilation shaft and cut either the red or the blue wire to set the thing off. That sort of thing only seems to happen to humans, for some reason.

This may explain why so many rock-stupid spacefaring alien races are encountered in these sorts of movies: they have naturally evolved to take advantage of Stupid Movie Physics, so they can instinctively create flawlessly operational spaceships and death rays and such despite being dumber than dirt.

In Stargate, I think it would have been cool if the researchers finally decipher the impossibly complex alien code, prop the artifact up on the platform, punch in the activation sequence, then watch as the gadget makes a hideous grinding noise and belches smoke from all its seams. Then a panel pops off and a bunch of sand pours out. The researchers all sort of look at each other and slap their foreheads and say, "What the hell were we thinking? This thing has been buried in the desert for thousands of years, and we expected it to work perfectly the first time? What kind of idiots are we?"

[vivalostwages]

I couldn't get past the first ten minutes of Judge Dredd. Was the rest of it as stupid as it appeared to be?

[lissener]

I couldn't get past the first ten minutes of Judge Dredd. Was the rest of it as stupid as it appeared to be?
Judge Dredd cracked me up. I'd watch it again.

[Ellis Dee]

I just saw and would like to add Cat Woman to the list.

If it weren't for Battlefield Earth, I'd say Cat Woman was the worst movie ever made.

[Seven]

I couldn't get past the first ten minutes of Judge Dredd. Was the rest of it as stupid as it appeared to be?

I only made it 5 minutes longer then you did so I wouldn't know.

[Dunderman]

I couldn't get past the first ten minutes of Judge Dredd. Was the rest of it as stupid as it appeared to be?
Yes.

[Terrifel]

I couldn't get past the first ten minutes of Judge Dredd. Was the rest of it as stupid as it appeared to be?Honestly, I don't think that it was. Granted, I haven't seen the movie since it came out in theaters, but I remember walking out thinking that it was actually the best comic-book movie I'd seen in ages (which, admittedly, wasn't saying much at the time). On the other hand, I was never deeply enough into the Thatcher-Era British punk scene to appreciate whatever appeal the 2000 AD incarnation of Dredd had. The few issues I read all featured the exact same setup: a skeezy lowlife of some sort comes up with a scam based on an implausible premise or device, briefly causes havoc among the citizens of Mega-City One, at which point Dredd swoops in, beats the tar out of them, and slaps them in the Iso-cubes. Ostensibly all this was razor-sharp, boundary-transgressing satire, but all I ever saw was a guy in stupidly huge Doc Martens and a potentially unfortunate scalp condition from never doffing his hat.

While many elements of the movie were indeed extremely daft, they weren't unreasonably so by comics standards. I had no emotional investment in the character, so I wasn't scandalized beyond measure when Dredd took his hat off or grew a first name, and I thought the casting of Stallone was perfect-- his film career having been based on unilaterally violent stereotypes, it was amusing to see him in a role that toyed with that image even while embracing it. Jurgen Prochnow essayed a fine, understated supporting role, retaining his dignity remarkably well given his surroundings. Even Rob Schneider was ultimately tolerable as the sidekick-- this is easily the least annoying role I've ever seen him in, and his little mocking impression of Stallone was memorably hilarious. Some of the scenes were surprisingly effective, especially the stark ritual where deposed Judges are exiled into the wasteland, armed only with a gun, a flag, and a Bible-looking Book of Law. The effects were quite impressive in general, from the Mega-City One cityscape to the makeup of the No Man's Land mutants.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie and think it gets an undeservedly bad rap. I fully concede, though, that as a catchphrase "I knew you'd say that" doesn't really do the character justice. So to speak.

[Merijeek]

I couldn't get past the first ten minutes of Judge Dredd. Was the rest of it as stupid as it appeared to be?

Did you see "Demolition Man"? If so, they're the same movie. They just have different costumes - and one has lots of Taco Bell product placement and one doesn't.

-Joe