I used to watch anything. I loved going to the cinema; it didnt matter what film I went to. Just loved the experience. And I was always of the opinion that there was no film that was THAT bad you couldnt get some enjoyment out of it. So I’d go see critically panned movies, and usually get some form of “So bad its good” enjoyment.
Until Stealth.
So bad, it made me want to puke in my popcorn.
Since then, I cant enjoy a Bad movie.
Hated Doom.
Hated Dukes of Hazzard.
I know, these are crap movies, but since that one total shitpile, I cant get my live and let live policy back up and running. And I was kinda looking forward to Underworld: Evolution. Ah well.
Does anyone here like “SBIG” movies?
Where do they draw the line?
Just how bad is too bad?
I think the ultimate example of a “so bad it’s good” movie is Six String Samurai, an extremely low-budget action movie with a samurai Buddy Holly traveling across the post-nuclear American desert wastelands, on his way to the kingdom of “Lost Vegas,” sword-fighting with random gangs of villains and wailing on his guitar along the way. It has some neat visuals, fun ideas, and a killer soundtrack by the Red Elvises, but it is in no way a “good” movie.
Movies that I’ll argue are GOOD, rather than “so bad they’re good”:
Army of Darkness
The Transporter
The 40-Year-Old Virgin
Mystery Men
Iron Monkey
Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle
With the exception of Doom, which was so crappy it wasn’t even fun, I tend to enjoy SBIG movies, but I find myself with less and less time to devote to watching them.
I do - in a couple of weeks, I’ll be making another pilgrimmage to an annual 24-hour B-movie festival. In my opinion, there’s no such thing as “too bad.” The question is “what kind of bad is it?” If it gets boring, it’s no fun. If the movie tries to do something (be dramatic, be funny, etc.) and fails, that can be a lot of fun.
I haven’t seen Doom or Dukes of Hazzard, but I’m not surprised you didn’t enjoy them. I doubt they had any ambitions beyond earning cashola for the studio. The first Underworld movie, on the other hand, thought it could be an arty, Goth, exciting, dramatic Romeo-and-Juliet story with vampires and werewolves. It totally failed at that, and the CGI sucked. So you could laugh your way through it, as did my viewing companions, who really expected it to be good. I still can’t believe they’re making a sequel.
I don’t think that’s much of an argument, most reviewers would agree with you. IIRC, RottenTomatos had it as the best reviewed movie of the year at the point when it came out. It’s since dropped to the #58 movie of 2005, but still held up w/ an impressive 84%, a few spots higher even than Batman Begins. Cite
Now, if you want to talk about movies that are so bad they’re bad - I offer you Elizabethtown. I saw it at a $2 theater and wanted my $2 back when I was done.
I just read the BloodRayne rotten tomatoes page and that sounds likes it might cross over the line of SBIG to SBIS. I think the last movie I watched that crossed that line was the Tom Green movie (Freddy Got Fingered I think it was called?). That was pretty awful.
Also, what’s up with all the Google ads having the same thing? Did Jesus Exist? Did Jesus make a really bad movie?
I’m not sure this qualifies as SBIG. I think bad and a terrible disappointment is more apt. I remember liking at the time the TV series Then Came Bronson starring Michael Parks. It was in that period where the guy (or guys) on some sort of road quest went tooling around the country having adventures. There was Route 66 with two guys in a Corvette and TCB on a motorcycle. It must have been the mood of the times but that sort of thing was appealing then.
Anyway, Speed network showed the original movie last week and I TiVo’d it thinking it would be a neat trip down memory lane. Early Martin Sheen and close to the first Bonnie Bedelia in a quasi-adult role. Exotic Pacific Coast highways scenery. Cool music.
Pure dreck. Mindless, pointless and dull. Even the skin shots of Bonnie were dull. Michael Parks was great in Kill Bill 1 & 2 with two different roles and he’s been passable in other things. But the TCB work (at least this movie) was beyond silly.
I’ve never believed in the concept of “so bad it’s good” - if a movie is good, it’s good and if it’s bad, it’s bad. I think a lot of people just say “so bad it’s good” to describe that’s mindless but entertaining. I figure if you liked Catwoman or Gigli or Van Helsing, just come out and admit it - not every movie is going to be Les Enfants du Paradis.
That’s true. But if you’re enjoying the movie because it’s so poorly written, or badly acted, or implausible, cheesy, or what-have-you, then it’s not in the same category as ‘mindless but entertaining,’ where you might be enjoying it in spite of those things.
