I will concede that movies that freely admit to not even pretending to take themselves seriously have their place. At some point though, dumb is simply dumb. It’s not clever, there’s no deeper message, it’s not even that original.
You find whatever value in that film you deem appropriate. I just don’t see it, IMHO.
Foir example,. Dude Where’s My Car.
OTOH, Snowpiercer, I admit I don’t understand why people like it.
In the middle, The Matrix. Espeically the last two.
Better example: LIFE OF BRIAN - Anyone (including the people who made it) trying to take that movie seriously is missing the point. That doesn’t mean the movie isn’t brilliant.
As for the Matrix: The first was a solid and original thriller with a thought provoking concept and a fantastic execution. The second. …was a bit like reading the menu in a Scottish restaurant. Over boiled and under seasoned, just nothing clever or interesting about it and probably helped by alcohol. I think the third one gave me cancer. As always, YMMV.
The first sentence in the Wikipedia article for this film reads " Tiptoes (also known as Tiny Tiptoes ) is a 2003 American comedy-drama film written and directed by Matthew Bright, in what is, to date, his last film." I can’t imagine why.
Allow me to explain how it got greenlit:
| Directed by | Jeremy Saville |
|---|---|
| Produced by | Jeremy Saville |
| Written by | Jeremy Saville |
| Starring | * Jeremy Saville |
Basically, Jeremy Saville greenlit the movie because Jeremy Saville paid for it to be made.
What are more of the good or at least successful movies that thinking about it you’d wonder how anyone took the chance on it?
Especially ones that don’t have the track record of the projects driving forces, be it the writer, the star’s draw power, or the director’s successes previously, to explain the willingness.
Star Wars. I win. 
I mean, really? The original script was even more hackneyed than the one they shot. American Graffiti wasn’t that big a hit.
My original examples were. movies with such ludicrous scenarios that they only got made BECAUSE OF those attached to it. Here’s the pitch for Frankie & Alice: “Blah blah blah Halle Berry blah stripper bl–” And for Tiptoes: Yadda yadda Gary Oldman yadda Matthew Mcconaughey ya–"
Uh no?
Specifically looking for ones that DON’T have that reason of being “only got made BECAUSE OF those attached to it” … that got made without that obvious explanation of Halle Barry or whoever.
It was nominated for Best Picture. It cost only $777K to make and returned $115M at the domestic box. Pretty dang good profit margin. Lucas had enough cred to get a space fantasy harking back to the old SF movie serials lit. Wouldn’t have without American Graffiti just before.
10 min video, can’t be real right?
When I heard they were making a movie based on a Disneyland ride I certainly wondered who would have put up real money. Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl? Who is going to see that?
But you were right about The Haunted Mansion…
…
eta: hmmm, Jordan Peele, horror movie, It’s A Small World…
[quote="chela]
10 min video, can’t be real right?[/quote]
Oh, it’s real alright. Expertly filmed and directed, of course, but yeah, there is a breed of drivers that have been doing those things for some time. Best example I can cite is this clip from the BBC Top Gear show with Ken Block (who is referenced in your film): Top Gear S23 Extended Cut | Matt LeBlanc, Ken Block, & the Hoonicorn - YouTube
Yeah, those videos don’t make me say “That CAN’T possibly be real!” They’re amazing, but pretty standard “hooning”.
Great word. I was looking at sporty cars, and there was one cool VW GTI… but it soon became obvious it’d been owned by a young, irresponsible driver. Mechanic friend said "Yeah, you don’t want to put money into a car that’s been pre-hooned…"
That’s the point sometimes. Not everything has to be deep smart clever original to be enjoyed.
If you don’t like entertainment without some philosophical message hidden deep within the witty dialogue, that’s fine. Just understand that just because you don’t like something, that doesn’t negate the value or merit of it.
One I’ve wondered about: THE PRODUCERS. “Hi, I’m Mel Brooks; I’ve never directed before. And this is Gene Wilder; he’s never been in a movie before. I’ve now written my first-ever movie screenplay; my pitch is this: someone like you gives someone like me money to pay a director and an actor and a writer, and pay for costumes and publicity and all that other stuff; except it’s all meant as a scam, where you — sorry, someone like you — will lose money if it flops as quickly as expected; for that to make sense, the production has to be so awful that audiences would plausibly walk out during the musical number, thus parting a fool and his money. I take checks made out to ‘cash’.”
I was going to say Brown Bunny, but like another film above it was written, produced and directed by one person: Vincent Gallo. And it starred. . .Vincent Gallo. Roger Ebert called it the worst film to ever be shown at Cannes.
This is why this guy is on my Death Pool list. And this is some of the safer shit he does.
Who approved [the stunts in] “Steamboat Bill”, for that matter? A house collapses on a guy? What were they planning to do if the first take didn’t work quite right?
I know that comment is made in the spirit of the meta funny of it, and it is, but from what I can find out it was indeed a tough sell. Brooks at that point was well established, from Show of Shows to Get Smart to a successful show on Broadway. He had connections even if his only movie directorial experience was an award winning animated short. Per wiki