Episode III, and the worst movies I’ve paid to see
The opening roll-up sequence for Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is now available on starwars.com, along with the roll-ups for all of the other episodes. It looks promising, I have to admit — much less confusing than the "taxation of trade routes" of Episode I. I still fear that this movie will stink, but I am drawn to see it nonetheless, moth-like.
I was thinking this morning about the worst movie I’d ever paid good money to see. It’s a tough battle — I’ve seen some crappers. Though I’ve seen many of the poopers on the IMDB worst list, I haven’t paid for them. Most of bad movies that have robbed me of cash have been big-budget productions, where the lure of the big screen action sucked me in. To wit:
1. Godzilla. I saw this one opening night in NYC. They gave out little celluloid pieces of the original film stock as souvenirs. After the movie we burned them in a quiet ceremony,and I cursed Matthew Broderick’s film career forever, and Emmerich is a swear word.
2. Daredevil. I think I saw this one opening night as well — as a comic fanboy I could not resist, although I knew that Ben Affleck cannot act his way out of a paper bag. Alas, I was unprepared for its suckiness.
3. Star Trek: Generations. The death of Kirk — the first on-screen appearance of the TNG crew — how bad could it be? BAD. Don’t they have interior lighting in the future?
4. Ishtar. I don’t know why I paid to see this one, but it sounded like a good idea at the time. I imagine that Warren Beatty said something similar after producing this dud. Elaine May, the writer, has a good pedigree otherwise…. Oh Elaine, what happened?
5. Waterworld. Ouch. Poor Kevin Costner, convincing us that he could act, only to unleash a deluge of crapitude the world had never seen. Many careers were ruined by that flood of poo. Only recently, via Napoleon Dynamite, has Tina Majorino redeemed herself in my eyes.
So, KBers… confession time: worst movies you’ve paid to see?
I’ve seen 4 movies on that IMDB list, two of them because I’m a good mom. (I cannot express what hell it was to sit through the Pokemon movie–even worse than the Power Rangers.)
I liked Daredevil ok. And Generations as well.
I think the worst movie I’ve ever paid to see was one I actually walked out on. The Cook the Thief His Wife & Her Lover. I would’ve demanded my money back if it hadn’t been a double feature and I’d already watched the first movie.
Comment by Susan Malmrose — January 27, 2005 @ 11:57 am
Susan, I’ve seen lots of those movies (including Turbo: the Power Rangers Movie and Pokemon), but they haven’t robbed my wallet — just my brain.
Comment by Steve Evans — January 27, 2005 @ 12:02 pm
Sorry, disagree about Ishtar. Though not the greatest or funniest comedy in the world, it’s far from the worst (As Beatty is wresting with the disguised Isabelle Adjani, he suddenly intones, “Are these… breasts?”
And by the way, were you 5 years old when that movie came out?
Comment by D. Fletcher — January 27, 2005 @ 12:12 pm
Hey, Ishtar isn’t bad on it’s own merits; it’s bad for wasted potentiality.
Ishtar was 1987, I believe — I was 15.
Comment by Steve Evans — January 27, 2005 @ 12:20 pm
I’ve seen ten of the movies in the current IMDb Bottom 100 (and own four of them).
Funny. The list used to be more movies that were deservedly obscure and cheap, not so much the big-budget bombs. I chalk that up to the fact that most of the people voting don’t know what a REALLY bad movie is. They go about their blissful lives, dissing some unambitious blockbuster-wannabe at the multiplex, heedless of the incredible sanity-robbing travesties that have been perpetrated in the name of cinema…
(Somebody stop me before I go into fullblown Lovecraft Narrator Mode.)
Comment by Nathan — January 27, 2005 @ 12:28 pm
I’ve only seen one on that IMDB list: Leonard Part 6, and that was years ago. I try to educate myself as best as I can before I spend $20 (two in New York) to see a movie. As far as worst I’ve paid money for, I’m still thinking…
Comment by Rusty — January 27, 2005 @ 12:29 pm
Do rentals count? Cuz I also turned off Sliding Doors.
There was a tv station in Seattle that had some late night weekend show that featured really, really bad movies. I mean, beyond awesomely bad. And I’m pretty sure the night I caught it, they were showing the worst movie ever made. It was some 60’s sci fi horror thing, with a guy in a big long robe who somehow had mental control over a bunch of scantily clad women. There was another woman who was defing him, so he made the women he had power over kill her. They put her on this altar and killed her by scratching at her clothes.
I really, really wish I’d caught the name of that movie.
D., have you ever seen a movie called The Swimmer?
Comment by Susan Malmrose — January 27, 2005 @ 12:30 pm
Susan, that movie sounds like Manos, the Hands of Fate — a popular bad hit. It is also one of the best Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes ever.
Comment by Steve Evans — January 27, 2005 @ 12:34 pm
Just bought Sliding Doors on DVD — I LOVE that movie, and I think it might be a great musical.
I’ve seen the Swimmer — Burt Lancaster movie, where he goes home from work by swimming through all the pools in the neighborhood, and examines his life? I don’t remember liking it much, but I don’t remember hating it. I saw it at BYU.
By the way, how do you get to the IMDB’s 100 worst movie list? I don’t see a link anywhere…
Comment by D. Fletcher — January 27, 2005 @ 12:35 pm
Nathan — you’re right, of course, that the IMDB list isn’t THAT bad — it contains mostly box-office bombs. But there are different criteria for “badness”, and for me the worst offender is one that squanders a lot of money and talent. Some Ed Wood movie is in a different category altogether, as are the Leprechaun series.
Comment by Steve Evans — January 27, 2005 @ 12:36 pm
There’s something odd about Kulturblog today — everything is underlined (in my Safari browser).
I found the link. The thing about these lists is, these are movies that were voted on. Somebody didn’t like The Cat in the Hat, and voted on it for that list. But The Cat in the Hat may be boring and stupid, but it isn’t as terrible as some unheard of movie, the one that didn’t make it to the theater.
My vote for the worst movie of all time: You Light Up My Life.
Comment by D. Fletcher — January 27, 2005 @ 12:39 pm
D.’ here’s a link.
Now, I noticed I have yet to hear a confessional out of you — time to fess up to the worst.
Comment by Steve Evans — January 27, 2005 @ 12:39 pm
Sliding Doors was a fine movie. Nothing to write home about, but better than Bounce, and I didn’t mind that movie either.
Comment by Bryce I — January 27, 2005 @ 12:42 pm
Lost Horizon (musical with songs by Burt Bacharach) may be the big budget stinker of all time. I movie I saw when I was 15 or so, and actually liked, though I now get how truly horrible it is.
Comment by D. Fletcher — January 27, 2005 @ 12:46 pm
By the way, Episodes I and II are both quite terrible movies. In fact, though overall I recognize an achievement, Star Wars itself is pretty ordinary filmmaking. Only IV and V have much redeeming value, mostly in the comedy of Harrison Ford.
Comment by D. Fletcher — January 27, 2005 @ 12:55 pm
D., yes, both Eps. I and I are terrible movies. But in terms of their design and production value, they’re tough to beat. They’re both visually stunning and very, very well made.
But as the saying goes, you can’t polish a turd.
Comment by Steve Evans — January 27, 2005 @ 1:13 pm
That’s a fun list at IMDB. I had no idea there was a Superman IV, or a Double Dragon movie, or a Mannequin sequel. I didn’t pay to see any of them. The worst movies I have paid to see are Meet Joe Black, something starring Martin Lawrence as a burglar (don’t really remember, we walked out), Episode I (fell asleep halfway through), something starring Jennifer Aniston and Kevin Bacon, and the Mel Brooks’ classic, Dracula: Dead and Loving It.
Comment by Greg — January 27, 2005 @ 1:34 pm
You never saw The Quest For Peace? Arguably the third best Superman movie!
Comment by Steve Evans — January 27, 2005 @ 1:39 pm
And now that I’ve been reminded of it on another thread, I have to add Men At Work to my list.
Comment by Greg — January 27, 2005 @ 1:44 pm
Greg, Men at Work was far from a classic, but you must admit it had some pretty funny moments.
Comment by Steve Evans — January 27, 2005 @ 1:48 pm
An interesting alternative to the game of listing the worst movies, is listing the worst movies that were heralded as good at the time. For instance, which is the worst movie to win the Best Picture Oscar?
My vote: The Greatest Show On Earth, a horribly melodramatic circus movie with Jimmy Stewart and Bette Hutton, directed by Cecil B. DeMille, from 1952.
Comment by D. Fletcher — January 27, 2005 @ 1:49 pm
D., that one’s easy: Forrest Gump.
Comment by Steve Evans — January 27, 2005 @ 1:49 pm
Dances With Wolves? Driving Miss Daisy? I’ve never made it through Gladiator, but it was not particularly impressive to me.
Comment by Greg — January 27, 2005 @ 1:55 pm
Nah, those are all pretty good (except Gladiator).
I like Forrest Gump. It’s a lot better movie than … Braveheart or Gladiator.
Comment by D. Fletcher — January 27, 2005 @ 1:59 pm
Hrm. I’d forgotten about Gladiator. But I still rank Forrest Gump with the worst.
Comment by Steve Evans — January 27, 2005 @ 2:01 pm
I loved Forrest Gump at the time, don’t know if I’d enjoy it as much now. Braveheart was awesome. “They’ll never take…OUR FREEDOM!”
Comment by Susan Malmrose — January 27, 2005 @ 2:03 pm
Did Titanic win any awards? I never saw it, and hopefully never will.
Comment by Susan Malmrose — January 27, 2005 @ 2:05 pm
Titantic won plenty of awards — too many, to be sure — but it wasn’t so bad as to be ranked with Gladiator and Forrest Gump.
Comment by Steve Evans — January 27, 2005 @ 2:07 pm
D., Could you really sit down and watch three hours of Dances With Wolves?? To me, that movie is a fantasy about what would happen if a cool, sensitive guy from 1990 went back in time to hang out with Indians. And lucky for him, there happens to be a white girl in the tribe, and they fall in love, of course, mainly because they are both white. It is pretty, though, and better than most westerns.
Comment by Greg — January 27, 2005 @ 2:18 pm
AI: Artificial Intelligence and Titus (starring Anthony Hopkins) were the two worst movies I ever paid to see in a theater. Both were painful to watch.
Comment by NFlanders — January 27, 2005 @ 2:18 pm
I’m not crazy about Dances, particularly the pompous endless music, but there is something about it I like … the Indians, as people with brains and manners. I haven’t really seen this in a movie before. These realistic Native Americans actually have a sense of humor.
But I agree, the story itself is full of blarney.
By the way, I own on DVD — Forrest Gump, Driving Miss Daisy, Dances With Wolves, Titanic. I do not own Braveheart, American Beauty, Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, etc.
Titus was gory, but it’s Shakespeare.
AI is very flawed, particularly towards to end, but as an experiment, I loved it. I own the DVD and I’ve watched it many times. The music is particularly satisfying.
Comment by D. Fletcher — January 27, 2005 @ 2:24 pm
I truly enjoyed Dances With Wolves when I first saw it, but it’s a long one to sit through again, Two Socks notwithstanding.
A.I. is a very, very divisive movie. I liked it, but I can see why many people hate it.
Comment by Steve Evans — January 27, 2005 @ 2:25 pm
I think OUT OF AFRICA is pure boredom. GLADIATOR and BRAVEHEART both have their flaws, but D. Fletcher is right, none of them compare to the disaster of THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH. I didn’t like GIGI either, and was pretty appalled by CIMARRON, but you have to go way back to see that one.
And incidentally, I am way too ashamed to mention the worst movies I’ve paid good money to see.
Comment by Brian G — January 27, 2005 @ 2:27 pm
I can’t remember much of Dances With Wolves except that I was pretty impressed with the actress in it, and it’s killing me that I can’t remember her name.
What was wrong with A Beautiful Mind? It was disturbing for me, because I have a lot of mentally ill people in my family, including both of my sisters, and it was hard to get a glimpse of what it’s like for them.
Comment by Susan Malmrose — January 27, 2005 @ 2:28 pm
Oh, Brian? You’re barking up the wrong tree when you criticize Gigi in my presence.
Comment by D. Fletcher — January 27, 2005 @ 2:29 pm
Maybe I don’t get it D. and you can enlighten me. It freaks me out when that French guy sings about liking little girls.
Comment by Brian G — January 27, 2005 @ 2:32 pm
A Beautiful Mind rang very false to me, though I thought it was well-acted. One notable detail left out of the movie is that John Nash had many homosexual encounters with male students, in the bathrooms, classrooms and library of Princeton. This is the reason his wife originally left him.
Comment by D. Fletcher — January 27, 2005 @ 2:33 pm
Come on Brian, fess up — we won’t judge you.
Susan, the woman you’re thinking of is Mary McDonnell, who currently has a lead role in the highly-praised revamping of Battlestar Galactica.
Comment by Steve Evans — January 27, 2005 @ 2:36 pm
LOL, Brian, I agree that the lyrics to that song, “Thank Heavens for Little Girls (who grow up in the most delightful way)” were … unfortunate. But Chevalier isn’t the leading character at all.
Gigi is about a woman’s natural morality transforming the man who loves her. It’s a wonderful story, very nuanced, and told with great style and beauty. And the movie’s design is breathtaking (Minnelli was a painter). Gigi’s got some flaws, but it’s terrific, intelligent entertainment.
Comment by D. Fletcher — January 27, 2005 @ 2:36 pm
By the way, OUT OF AFRICA is indeed, pure boredom bordering on catatonia.
Comment by D. Fletcher — January 27, 2005 @ 2:45 pm
I’m glad we agree on OUT OF AFRICA. Maybe, I’ll give GIGI another shot. Now that I’m older I might appreciate it more, but I’ll probably fast forward through “Thank Heaven, for Little Girls.” It gives me the willies.
But not nearly as many as willies as the fact I paid good money to see FRIDAY THE 13TH PART VIII: JASON TAKES MANHATTAN.
(Ahhhhhh! I can’t believe I said it. I can’t bear the shame.)
Comment by Brian G — January 27, 2005 @ 3:02 pm
Ouch. Well, it could’ve been worse, Brian. Not sure exactly how, but it could’ve been worse.
Comment by Steve Evans — January 27, 2005 @ 3:06 pm
Yes, AI has to be up there as one of the most painful movies (at least the second half, I wanted to start yelling for the movie to end… END DAMMIT!!!). I realized what the worst movie I’ve paid to see is, Circle of Friends. Oh, that was dreadful.
Comment by Rusty — January 27, 2005 @ 3:10 pm
Brian, I also paid to see Jason Takes Manhattan in the theater, but it was everything I was hoping for and expecting. Much better than Halloween Five, which I saw in the theater around the same time.
Comment by Greg — January 27, 2005 @ 3:18 pm
While we’re going off about stuff we don’t like, I’m gonna tick everyone off and say I can’t stand mafia movies or tv shows. It’s a principle thing with me–can’t stand that they glorify that kind of lifestyle. You can say that it makes for great drama, the conflicts and struggles the characters go through, etc. I think it’s just laziness. Of course a story about the mob is going to be dramatic. Sort of like how most television dramas are cop or hospital shows. What’s the challenge in that?
It’s a personal pet peeve of mine and I’m not exactly reasonable about it.
If drama has to be life or death, I’d like to see a tv drama about a poor family living in the inner city. Real stuff that actually goes on. The teenage daughter has a boyfriend whose mother moved to another state and left him to live in a crack house. A neighbor who spends her son’s 13th birthday in a bar, while her older teenage son is getting drunk with his gang buddies and shooting out street lamps. The legless Vietnam vet who hangs out on the street corner, bumming cigarettes, and the old man in the kidnapper van who drives around the neighborhood looking for whores (and they’re all over the place). The kid who gets shot at at a bus stop in Chinatown because he’s black, and then has to go through another danger zone in his own neighborhood just to get home. He swears at age 14 he’ll never join the gang…and three years later, does. And all the good, honest people who live in the ghetto that you never hear about.
A bit of a tangent there…
Comment by Susan Malmrose — January 27, 2005 @ 3:20 pm
Susan, I just bought the Warner Brothers Gangster Collection (DVDs). And it has 6 of the greatest Hollywood gangster movies, which I highly recommend to you and everyone. Watch Angels with Dirty Faces, with its very shocking and moving ending, or Petrified Forest, or White Heat — AYEAH! They’re all really terrific.
Comment by D. Fletcher — January 27, 2005 @ 3:25 pm
Hmmm…. I’ll see your Jason Takes Manhattan, and raise you a Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors. Ugh.
Comment by Steve Evans — January 27, 2005 @ 3:39 pm
Greg,
We must truly be kindred spirits. However, JASON TAKES MANHATTAN is truly a nadir in the Friday the 13th oeuvre. It doesn’t hold a candle to FRIDAY THE 13TH IV: THE FINAL CHAPTER which was certainly the apex, containing Crispin Glover, those twins, and Corey Feldman shaving his head in order to go mano a mano with Jason.
Comment by Brian G — January 27, 2005 @ 3:45 pm
Brian,
If The Final Chapter featured an exploding head, then I could go along with you.
Comment by Greg — January 27, 2005 @ 3:47 pm
Sheesh, I paid to see quite a few of the IMDB’s worst: Battlefield Earth, Speed 2, Mannequin (sequel), Rollerball, and Teen Wolf Too. I’m surprised Supernova with Lou Diamond Phillips didn’t make the list. As someone else pointed out already, many of the worst simply aren’t on the list. I suggest Bleeders or The Clown at Midnight as two really terrible movies.
Comment by SFW — January 27, 2005 @ 4:21 pm
I have to disagree with a few unfavorites. I love out of africa…one of my favorites. I love the Meryl Streep character, and it’s just a very pretty movie. Also, I really really liked Titus. yes, it’s gory, and yes it’s a little bit obscure even for shakespeare, but every single shot in that movie is a work of art. It is the finest example of horrible beauty that I can think of. Very very interesting piece. (The only thing I didn’t like was that I was actually eating a cold cut sandwich when the final bad son/meat pie scene was shown, and I still get a little squicky thinking about it….)
Comment by Karen — January 27, 2005 @ 4:42 pm
ughhhh… Battlefield Earth!! Wow.
Comment by Steve Evans — January 27, 2005 @ 5:35 pm
I think Postman beats out both Dances with Wolves and Waterworld for the worst Kevin Costner movie, if only for the scene when as part of the plot he’s supposed to be a really bad actor doing a really lousy monologue, and, of course, it’s utterly indistinguishable from every other string of words he’s ever uttered in front of a camera.
Postman was so bad I almost rented it just to show my wife how exquisitely bad it was.
Comment by Jeremy — January 27, 2005 @ 8:02 pm
Poor Kevin Costner, one day no one will remember FIELD OF DREAMS, BULL DURHAM, or THE UNTOUCHABLES.
Comment by Brian G — January 27, 2005 @ 8:11 pm
No, we’ll still remember those movies, BG, but gosh he needs to stop blowing it.
Comment by Steve Evans — January 27, 2005 @ 8:15 pm
From the IMDB list, I’ve rented Rollerball (it sounded like a good idea at the time), and also seen Robocop 3. And I’ve seen a few on HBO, like Speed 2.
As far as other bad movies, The Postman is really, really awful, and very much deserves to be on the worst-list.
Also, the topic of bad movies in general reminds me of a girl I dated who (1) was a little unbalanced, and (2) had horrible taste in movies (perhaps the two are related?) — during a few short months of dating her, I was dragged to (and paid for, alas) a string of bad-to-awful movies starting with How to Make an American Quilt and ending with (shudder) Powder (an incomprehensible mess involving Jeff Goldblum and a bizarre albino kid).
Comment by Kaimi — January 28, 2005 @ 12:59 am
A.I. is the only movie I’ve ever seen where I was DYING for the experience to end.
SUPERMAN IV is the only movie that has caused me to approach the theatre staff and inquire as to whether there was something wrong with their copy of the film. I swear some of the scenes were actually edited out of order in that piece of trash.
If you ever happen to locate METALSTORM: THE DESTRUCTION OF JARED SYN in your video store (you probably won’t), make sure and give it a rent. You will experience a cinematic abyss unlike any you’ve yet encountered.
I paid full price to see SORORITY BOYS in the theatre. Nuff said.
Aaron b
Comment by Aaron Brown — January 28, 2005 @ 3:59 am
I loved Powder.
Comment by Susan Malmrose — January 28, 2005 @ 11:51 am
I thought AI was an idea-film and found a lot of aspects of it interesting. Truly it was the movie that refused to end but that’s a DVD I’d consider purchasing if my wife hadn’t exercised her spousal veto power.
Comment by danithew — January 28, 2005 @ 12:01 pm
By the way, almost as a rule I won’t see bad movies in the theater. I read a lot of reviews before I’ll see a flick and that usually prevents the wasted money.
But I do occasionally see awful movies on DVD. I saw Daredevil, the Hulk, Hellboy and Dodgeball on video. None really offered much and were a basically a waste of time. Two I saw because I was a longtime fan of Marvel comics, so I felt obligated to give them a try. I believe Hellboy was based on a comic so I gave that one a try as well. I was hoping Dodgeball would be funny and honestly afterwards I just had this yucky feeling inside.
Sometimes the movie industry is really cheating us all. There have been at least three or four occasions in the past couple of years where I walked into a video rental store and then walked out emptyhanded. I don’t even bother looking at old movies in these stores anymore, so maybe that explains part of why that is happening.
Comment by danithew — January 28, 2005 @ 12:11 pm
Bleeders isn’t THAT bad. It’s not even the worst film I’ve seen this month.
Comment by Nathan — January 28, 2005 @ 12:19 pm
Titanic IMO is the worst “best picture”, winning eleven oscars, I believe. Fortunately we didn’t have to pay to see it in the theater. A friend bought the tickets as a gift.
I agree with D. about Gigi - delightful.
Comment by Jack — January 28, 2005 @ 6:32 pm
Here is a truly shameful confession to make you all feel better–I paid to see Dying Young (Cameron Scott, Julia Roberts) *4 times* in the theater. I also cried every time. And yes, I was old enough to know better.
Comment by Kristine — January 29, 2005 @ 10:03 am
I can forgive you for seeing Dying Young. But FOUR times?? Wow. Well, I paid to see Wrath of Khan five times, but that’s a different beast.
Comment by Steve Evans — January 29, 2005 @ 10:15 am
Dying Young came out at a time when I was strictly avoiding movies with death in them, otherwise I’m sure I’d have seen it a couple times, Kristine. I go in for tearjerkers a lot.
One that nearly killed me was When a Man Loves a Woman, with Meg Ryan and Andy Garcia. I saw it at the dollar theater. Every single scene was a huge emotional wringer. I went in expecting something sweet, and came out completely exhausted from trying not to bawl my head off the entire movie, haha.
Comment by Susan Malmrose — January 29, 2005 @ 12:24 pm
Steve,
Being a Star Trek fan I can understand putting up the money to see “The Wrath of Khan” in the theater. I have to see anything “Star Trek” simply because it’s Star Trek even though most of the movies are lousy. ‘The same with Star Wars even though episodes IV & V are the only ones I care for.
That said, I will say that “The Wrath of Khan” is my favorite of all the Star Trek movies. It was a real treat the first time I saw it - which was while I was on my mission in Venezuela Back in ‘82. I saw it on beta at the home of a wealthy american family during P day. (Of course, I can’t use “P day” as an excuse for every movie I saw while on my mission)
Comment by Jack — January 31, 2005 @ 9:45 am
We spent the weekend watching a bunch of movies based on Arthurian legends: Knights of the Round Table, The Sword in the Stone (animated), Camelot, Excalibur, First Knight, and finally, the recent King Arthur.
Excalibur is by far the best of the them, though Camelot has a superlative performance by Vanessa Redgrave, and some winning songs. First Knight isn’t terrible, if you can stand the costumes and Richard Gere (I can’t), but King Arthur is so loathsome and boring and mismanaged it made me tremble for the future of cinema. In case you might rent it just for the great sex scenes, don’t bother — there aren’t any.
Comment by D. Fletcher — January 31, 2005 @ 10:04 am
The problem with Camelot (the movie) is Joshua Logan - the director. Never saw Excalibur, but I’ll take your word for it since I can’t think of any other great Arthur movies.
Comment by Jack — January 31, 2005 @ 2:24 pm
The problem with Camelot isn’t the director (although I don’t think he’s very good, overall) but a tone problem and too much story. The songs/lyrics are slightly satirical in tone, lightly spoofing the characters (as in “C’est moi” and “The Simple Joys of Maidenhood”), and they simply don’t work in a serious movie. The creators of integrated musicals became their own worst enemy when these musicals were filmed. Vanessa Redgrave is a very profound, very subtle and truthful actress, and she says everything with a simple look. But here, she follows everything she has to say in a look, by a song with words that are now redundant, “I loved you once in silence.”
Comment by D. Fletcher — January 31, 2005 @ 3:55 pm
D., You’re right about V. Redgrave - wonderful actress. But I think the problem still has to do with the direction. You say: “The creators of integrated musicals became their own worst enemy when these musicals were filmed”. Perhaps, but I tend to think that some film directors tried too hard to make them into “films”. Or better said, they tried to convert the material into film literature, which I think is a mistake. I think you’re correct in pointing out a redundant quality. However, I think that quality has more to do with a director who was at odds with the material and exerting himself upon it by virtue of the film media.
Comment by Jack — January 31, 2005 @ 6:37 pm
I’m late.
Dances With Wolves–anyone ever see Costner’s full four-hour cut of that movie? It’s been on TV a few times. You can see the good movie which might have been struggling to get out. I thought Dances was ok when I saw it in the theater; like most people, upon reflection I found the overly simplistic way in which Costner’s character discovers the wisdom of the red man and integrates into the tribe cloyingly liberal. But in the longer version, especially in the first 90 minutes or so, there’s a lot of spooky, unresolved stuff which complicates and deepens the story. The world of the frontier, and of Native Americans, comes off as stranger, more violent and unpredictable; people are killed and disappear, the isolated fort he’s sent to seems like a foreign land, and Costner’s character seems more unnerved than in the theatrical version by the prospect of leaving civilization behind. Of course, in the end it’s still a simplistic story, and one I don’t care for. But credit Costner for having some serious vision, even if he didn’t have the guts to highlight the murkier themes in his story.
Out of Africa–I’ve never understood way so many people dump on this movie. It’s a torrid, overwrought romance, perfectly suited to its setting (the Africa of late 19th-century European imagination, of course, where everything is blood and sweat and danger and heat and passion and beauty). Meryl Streep’s Isak Denison perfectly captures the idea of control lurking in every love story, while Robert Redford’s character just as thoroughly embodies the narcissism inherent in every love affair. Taming the wilderness, remaining free, etc., etc., etc. It holds together wonderfully. And Streep and Redford were hot together–not in a steaming Bogart/Bacall sort of way (they’re both far too formalistic and surface-conscious actors for that to be the case), but in the way they got the heat into their words. Heavy-handed? Yeah, nothing subtle about that movie. But a great Hollywood romance, nonetheless.
Star Trek: Generations–one of the better Star Trek movies, in my opinion. Why? The first 20 minutes, after which the movie loses almost all momentum (as well as coherence). Look, anyone who likes ST does so out of some weird combination of being a sci-fi fan and having a geeky enthusiasm for these characters. Which movies gave you both of these? Well, the much-maligned Star Trek: The Motion Picture did; often boring to watch, yes, but probably the truest Roddenberry-ST story out of all the movies. Wrath of Khan gave it to us. And so did the the beginnings of Generations, with a realistically aged Kirk, Chekov and Scotty, reluctantly (or not so reluctantly!) slipping back into their old roles when confronted with a genuinely menacing and mysterious science-fiction invention (which the rest of the movie promptly made boring). Plus there was a ton of sly humor in those first minutes, up to and including the casting: I mean, what does it tell us about Star Fleet when we realize that Cameron has been made a captain? Clearly, something’s gone amiss.
Comment by Russell Arben Fox — February 3, 2005 @ 8:02 am
Great to have you back, Russell, even if you are smoking crack about ST:Gen.
I liked Motion Picture, if only for the corny scenes between the female Kojak and Reverend Camden from 7th Heaven: “V’Ger must bond with its creator, Kirk-Unit!”
But when I saw Cameron at the helm, I knew the movie was bound for disaster. It was soooo all over the place, and had weird set design and weird effects. Everything about it was chaotic and random. Maybe that’s why you liked it. But Wrath of Khan cannot be defeated.
Comment by Steve Evans — February 3, 2005 @ 11:09 am
“But Wrath of Khan cannot be defeated.”
Agreed. Sadly however, I read your comment as prophetic in nature and not mere hind-sight.
Comment by Jack — February 3, 2005 @ 1:10 pm
“It was soooo all over the place, and had weird set design and weird effects.”
But not for the first 20-25 minutes; everything about that segment of the film worked like a charm, beginning with the wonderful opening visual of the bottle of champagne floating through space, on its way to smash against the hull of the brand-spanking new Enterprise NCC1701-B. Can a 20-minute prologue save an otherwise mediocre movie? When my expectations are as low as they are for Star Trek movies, it can.
Comment by Russell Arben Fox — February 3, 2005 @ 1:22 pm
“Can a 20-minute prologue save an otherwise mediocre movie?”
It didn’t work for Swordfish, which had a great beginning before descending into insanity.
By the way, Russell, you must engage this thread: worst movie you’ve paid to see?
Comment by Steve Evans — February 3, 2005 @ 1:37 pm
Never saw Swordfish, though I downloaded…er, never mind.
“By the way, Russell, you must engage this thread: worst movie you’ve paid to see?”
Toss up between Superman III and Made in America. The latter is a horrible “comedy” starring Whoopi Goldberg and Ted Danson, made back when they were an item. It also featured a young Will Smith. Avoid at all costs.
Comment by Russell Arben Fox — February 3, 2005 @ 1:48 pm
It didn’t work for “The Temple of Doom” either.
Comment by Jack — February 3, 2005 @ 1:49 pm
I also paid for Superman III, but I cannot hate it like I ought, for Metropolis is actually downtown Calgary, my hometown.
Otherwise, Superman III = Superpoop.
Comment by Steve Evans — February 3, 2005 @ 2:07 pm
I didn’t mind Powder when I saw it 10 years ago, but I obviously was not aware of the director’s troubling past. I think it would taint the movie experience for me now.
I really liked the opening scene of Titus; it was very unexpectedly arty, but it was just downhill from there. I know it may be half Shakespeare’s fault, but I still thought it was a repellant movie.
I have a feeling that AI is still going on in the theater where I saw it. More aliens have arrived and Haley Joel Osment is still just sitting there, and sitting there, and sitting there…
Comment by NFlanders — February 5, 2005 @ 11:43 pm