So since I just posted this what bad films do you watch
- Thread starter GOIU
- Start date
Point Break
I used to be that way with Point Break, but for some reason only with the last half. I have seen that half maybe a dozen times, I have never seen much of the first half. I would just stumble upon it and watch. Now I pretty much hate the movie for some reason.
Batman The Movie is my candidate. I like camp, and Adam West's Batman was perfect.
Also a couple John Wayne westerns, Rio Bravo and The Sons of Kate Elder.
I used to be that way with Point Break, but for some reason only with the last half. I have seen that half maybe a dozen times, I have never seen much of the first half. I would just stumble upon it and watch. Now I pretty much hate the movie for some reason.
Batman The Movie is my candidate. I like camp, and Adam West's Batman was perfect.
Also a couple John Wayne westerns, Rio Bravo and The Sons of Kate Elder.
When I read your subject line . . .
that's the movie that immediately came to mind. One of the bad-ass follow-ons from Billy Jack . . .
. . . which brings to mind another one of the great lines of American film: "I'm gonna take this right foot, and whump you on that right side of your face. . . and you know what? There's not a damn thing you can do about it."
This post was edited on 2/22 10:54 AM by Sope Creek
Nice form on the kick, too . . .
that's the movie that immediately came to mind. One of the bad-ass follow-ons from Billy Jack . . .
. . . which brings to mind another one of the great lines of American film: "I'm gonna take this right foot, and whump you on that right side of your face. . . and you know what? There's not a damn thing you can do about it."
This post was edited on 2/22 10:54 AM by Sope Creek
Nice form on the kick, too . . .
I wasn't predicting you . . .
I was just admitting common ground.
I think Roadhouse is just one of those guy things . . .
. . . as for the DVD, I ain't askin' any questions . . . .
I was just admitting common ground.
I think Roadhouse is just one of those guy things . . .
. . . as for the DVD, I ain't askin' any questions . . . .
Lundgren trivia
He is a chemical engineer with an IQ north of 160.
and this like you haven't seen him.
He is a chemical engineer with an IQ north of 160.
and this like you haven't seen him.
Jurassic Park
Is objectively a pretty bad film, but is so much fun to watch, if I catch it while flipping around, I'll almost always stop.
Is objectively a pretty bad film, but is so much fun to watch, if I catch it while flipping around, I'll almost always stop.
Huh?
I'm curious what makes you think that the original Jurassic Park was, in any objective way, a "pretty bad film."
I'm not sure I'd put it in Spielberg's top 5 (but, then, that's a pretty lofty list). And I agree with you that it's fun to watch. But, generally speaking, I thought it was terrific.
I'm curious what makes you think that the original Jurassic Park was, in any objective way, a "pretty bad film."
I'm not sure I'd put it in Spielberg's top 5 (but, then, that's a pretty lofty list). And I agree with you that it's fun to watch. But, generally speaking, I thought it was terrific.
Horrible screenplay.
They tried to adapt too much of the novel*, which made the plot convoluted and made individual points out-of-place (if you hadn't read the book, how insanely ridiculous would that scene about the egg shells and frog DNA be? it would seem to be inserted out of nowhere).
The acting and directing weren't terrible, but couldn't overcome the writing. And they weren't great, either. Laura Dern overacted, Sam Neill underacted, and Jeff Goldblum was... well, just another Jeff Goldblum clone. I know he has acting chops, so why do directors insist on turning all of his characters into the same person?
Oh, and speaking of Laura Dern, her character vacillated between smart protagonist and idiot damsel in distress like flipping a coin. That wasn't her fault. More bad writing, and directing mistakes, too. But then, love him or hate him (and I do love him), Spielberg has always had a love affair with cliche.
The special effects and music were wonderful. It certainly wasn't all bad.
goat
* Crichton was involved, so I wonder if that wasn't partially his fault. Novelists sometimes hate it when movies leave out parts of their books, without understanding that, for the movie to tell the entire story, it would have to be 8 hours long.
They tried to adapt too much of the novel*, which made the plot convoluted and made individual points out-of-place (if you hadn't read the book, how insanely ridiculous would that scene about the egg shells and frog DNA be? it would seem to be inserted out of nowhere).
The acting and directing weren't terrible, but couldn't overcome the writing. And they weren't great, either. Laura Dern overacted, Sam Neill underacted, and Jeff Goldblum was... well, just another Jeff Goldblum clone. I know he has acting chops, so why do directors insist on turning all of his characters into the same person?
Oh, and speaking of Laura Dern, her character vacillated between smart protagonist and idiot damsel in distress like flipping a coin. That wasn't her fault. More bad writing, and directing mistakes, too. But then, love him or hate him (and I do love him), Spielberg has always had a love affair with cliche.
The special effects and music were wonderful. It certainly wasn't all bad.
goat
* Crichton was involved, so I wonder if that wasn't partially his fault. Novelists sometimes hate it when movies leave out parts of their books, without understanding that, for the movie to tell the entire story, it would have to be 8 hours long.
