OK
Postman was such a bad/silly story, no way it could have been good with any other actors. Maybe if it was rewritten.
Mask Of Zorro SUCKED… One of the only reason why it hands down sucked, was because there was this action sequence where a wick/rope to TNT, or some sort of explosives, was lit somehow. Instead of just cutting the fvcking LONG wick/rope, they all scramble to get people in the area to safety. I’ve never seen anything so STUPID.
(Btw, I don’t know how that Zorro scene actually played out… it was a long time ago, but all I remember was how STUPID it was. It may have been a trail of flamable liquid leading up to explosive… but it COULD have been prevented. I can’t tollerate such CRAPERY)
I’d say Battlefield Earth is a special case, since it was made as a religious act. The principals involved who are Scientologists couldn’t allow themselves to be aware of how stupid it was, or to make changes, lest they commit heresy. Morons.
In a few cases, a truly bad movie has been an incredible money-maker. Armageddon lurches to mind. (Maybe it would help if John McTiernan duct-taped Michael Bay to a chair and told him how to direct an action sequence. Maybe not.) It all comes down to money, and sometimes I think movies are deliberately dumbed-down so that they’ll translate more easily in the international market.
> For another opinion, check out John Gregory Dunne’s “Monster”
> about he and his wife’s work turning the life of Jessica Savitch
> (the TV reporter who died in a drug-related auto accident)
> into “Tune In Tomorrow.”
You’re thinking of the film Up Close & Personal. Tune in Tomorrow was a completely different film.
Some bad movies are made because Kevin Kostner thinks he’s an actor and probably has someone with influence by the balls (literally, but gently ). How else do you explain Waterworld and Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves? Waterworld suffered the added disadvantage of featuring Dennis Hopper, one of the worst actors ever.
I think it’s very simple–they thought they were making a good movie. Ed Wood, Jr., really thought every film he made was a classic.
On the flip side, some people think that the movie they are in/made is awful, and it turns out to be a classic( or at least good). Burt Reynolds was convinced that “Boogie Nights” was a flop and would destroy his career. I guess that Oscar nomination changed his mind.
Really, it’s all relative. I’m sure there’s someone out there that thinks “Waterworld” is the best picture ever…
I think you’re only partly right here. The key is, people are more likely to see these films. But I daresay that independant filmmakers suck much more than any studio, on the whole. But these guys rarely, if ever, get their bad films into the theatre’s - you won’t even hear about them.
If I recall corrctly, they did. A stray gunshot (though I want to know the odds on that hit) reignited it. BY this time they’d already stated the evacuation and the wick was too hard to get at.
Yes, but none of you have explained the Coleman Francis films yet! (and i saw American Godzilla-named giant Iguana, but felt ripped off. Especially when it became Jurassic park in the middle!!)
). How else do you explain Waterworld and Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves? Waterworld suffered the added disadvantage of featuring Dennis Hopper, one of the worst actors ever.