i say films, you say movie. someone should have said no to both.

this isn't necessarily a worse films thread because some of my choices recieved either some critical acclaim or some financial success (read: justification) for their pathetic existences. the realization that some of these films should not have been made comes, ofcourse, ex post facto, but today we're not behaving like vampires sucking the silliness out of life. producers asked the same question would arrive at a different list for economic reasons.

to set the highly subjective tone, here goes:

- godfather 3 - coppolla lost his muse and he couldn't accept it so he mangled the godfather legacy.
- the phantom menace - lucas lost his muse and he couldn't accept it so he mangled the star wars legacy.

no wonder these two hang around each other so much.

more serious choices:

- nixon (1995) - i like a little conspiracy-dabbling to lighten the mood every so often, but never - ever - would i expect anyone to film their feverish delusions and fob it off as a real possibility - even remotely real - thereby sapping what joy a little paranoia can foster and needlessly revealing to the whole earth how much of a ideological sicko oliver stone plainly is.

- the exorcist (1973) - no, i did not pick this because it spawned (now) three horrendous sequels - although its a reason i can always fall back on - but because it gave legitimacy to medieval christian superstitions to the detriment of both the catholic institution and to the public good. science education is suffering in this country. a sizeable portion of our wonderful populace still believes in the biblical account of creation, the influence of satan, and other hoary nonsense. these beliefs are not innocuous. the people who hold them are very active in propogating them to the point where they are not only intrusive but even cause harm to the quality of our science education. the exorcist is a glamorization that stokes the fears of people who should be better left dormant.

Well syg, while I am a strong believer in science, I am sorry to hear you believe in the ridiculous notion of evolution. Have some species ADAPTED to their environments throughout history? Yes. But NOTHING happens without God. Check out John Clayton on the web. He is a scientist, and was an atheist who set out to disprove the Bible, and instead found proof that only God could have created the earth. ANYWAY, we probably shouldn't get started on that in here. I just couldn't let those silly comments you made go unanswered. As for films that should never have been made...the first one that comes to mind is

Battlefield Earth

What, exactly, Travolta was thinking here, besides his devotion to the ridiculous "religion" of scientology, is beyond me. That film should be banned, if only because it could actually make people regress in knowledge after seeing it.

Boy, I'm just all about offending people today aren't I.

Shame on you Jackie! Don't you remember the fun we had with Battlefield Earth?

For those of you who don't know, Jackie and I used to host a movie news and reviews show called Film Forum on a local channel back in college. Battlefield Earth was one of the movies that we reviewed. When we watched it we had a blast, because sometimes a movie can be so bad, that it becomes fun to watch. B.E. took the cake. I remember saying on the show that people should get together in big groups and watch this if they had nothing better to do. Who knows, maybe it could spark your own private Mystery Science Theater.

Speaking of science, I'm going to have to agree with what Jackie said on science and creation. Nothing happens without God my man. Whatyasay we stick to films though?

As far as films that should never have been made?

Dreamcatcher- Don't get me wrong, I like King. I just rarely like his films because directors hardly ever get it right. Lawrence Kasdan really screwed the pooch on this one though. I love Kings books because he is truly a master of dialogue. I just hate to see it getting mucked (yes 'mucked') up by bad moviemaking.

Ahhh...good times. We did see some pretty bad flicks. But Battlefield was the best of the worst (or should I say most fun?). Some other movies that were simply unnecessary were:

Super Mario Bros. and
Spice World

Most of the time, I think it's pretty safe to say that movies should never be spun off of video games or musical groups/singers. Others of note in this silly group are

Street Fighter and
Cool as Ice (Vanilla Ice in an Oscar performance)

One movie that, despite some funny songs, was just plain offensive and I wish I would have walked out on:
South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut

I'm going to reply about "The Exorcist." It was based on an actual incident. You don't have to believe in demons or Catholicism to believe that people may suffer from serious "illnesses" which may be "treated" by "shock." There's nothing in "The Exorcist", film or novel, which would ever convert a non-believer. It's only a movie, but it is often misunderstood because it's a movie about faith and love, and the fact that doubt can eat away at both. That's really all I have to say about that. The film is open to interpretation. The priests believe in demonic possession and the power of exorcism, so they are able to SEE the evil. Others in the film (doctors, scientists, the non-religious) don't SEE the same thing and may interpret what happens in a different way. "The Exorcist" can be taken as a "freak show", if you wish, but that means that you're missing the entire point of the film, which certainly is not to proselytize, but to scare you in a thoughtful way. (I definitely think it should have been X-rated at the time.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark f:
I'm going to reply about "The Exorcist." It was based on an actual incident. You don't have to believe in demons or Catholicism to believe that people may suffer from serious "illnesses" which may be "treated" by "shock." There's nothing in "The Exorcist", film or novel, which would ever convert a non-believer. It's only a movie, but it is often misunderstood because it's a movie about faith and love, and the fact that doubt can eat away at both. That's really all I have to say about that. The film is open to interpretation. The priests believe in demonic possession and the power of exorcism, so they are able to SEE the evil. Others in the film (doctors, scientists, the non-religious) don't SEE the same thing and may interpret what happens in a different way. "The Exorcist" can be taken as a "freak show", if you wish, but that means that you're missing the entire point of the film, which certainly is not to proselytize, but to scare you in a thoughtful way. (I definitely think it should have been X-rated at the time.)

---

my concern is not about the possibility some non-believer will turn street preacher after viewing the exorcist. for all i know, that may happened, its just unreasonable to dwell upon it. the concern lies with the already devout. they are the ones who are emboldened by the popularization of their most closeted beliefs to proselytize their insanities across a wider medium. these people are the ones who should be blithely tolerated and beaten back by science professionals every time they stick their heads above ground. hollywood glamorizations never help and with this issue the harm they could cause hits at a critical national issue.

the film does not overtly proselytize, nor does it need to. you overlook its central premise that centers on the 'conversion' of one father karas, from a troubled secularized priest into a devout old-schooler who sacrifices himself as penitence for his wayward materialism. so the meaning is there. its just plays second-fiddle to the noise and flash of linda blair's demonic fits.

That sounds similar to the problem with horror films, with the Christian, right wing, studio heads putting out many horror films with the usual gruesome deaths of free thinkers, while the faithful, moronic, virgin survives. Does this mean most horror films should never have been made?
Personally, I think it's sad that films like Battlefield Earth, Stargate and Alien vs. Predator, present a different historical account of mankind's origins only to ridicule(which I suspect is orchestrated and perpetuated, purposefully by that same Christian right), while some might believe the hokeyness of the Exorcist. I think the ridiculousness of films like the Exorcist and Battlefield Earth is pretty obvious, but without movies showing contrary opinions and beliefs to these we just end up with more Scientologists and old school, fundamentalist Christians. How long have we been searching for a missing link? To quote Dan Bern "There is no missing link, because aliens came and fucked the monkeys, they fucked the monkeys!"
Books of alternative ideas on our historical origins as a species and society have been proliferating in the past few decades, yet we never see those concepts presented as a realistic possibility in the movies or even on the "we don't Discover" channel(which is again controlled by the Christian right). That's because organized religion, similar to paper money, is a tool of the elite to keep the masses docile, ignorant and afraid. They don't want the masses to think for themselves, they want them to buy into the idea that there is a higher power, because they(organized religion) are in control of the belief system of that higher power. That's why there are so many different versions of the Bible, to confuse the masses. Scientists and historical realists need to take a larger role in the media in order to combat this. No one ever mentions that the Old Testament states from God's mouth that there are other God's such as Ba'al during the time of our one Christian God's vocal prescence on Earth, and that they are false gods and that he/she/it is the only one, true God. Organized religions want you to believe in the one god universe, not one god above other gods strictly appearing during a certain point in our history. That might empower or provoke fear among the masses, two things that would harm their monetary and theological control over modern society.
So, in conclusion to my ranting, we need to see other viewpoints in movies/film/tv that differ from the standard fare presented to us by the establishment. Hopefully there are young people out there writing scripts and developing ideas for movies that have a basis in science and history, and studios somewhere willing to take the chance on them. I'm not going to say that any particular movie should never have been made, just that are a lot of movies that still need to be made to create a thoughtful balance.

Also, John Clayton is a moron and calling him a scientist is like calling your 8th grade science teacher a scientist. Big difference. The guy answers questions with questions to come to his rationalizations. I don't expect humans to be able to understand the origins of the universe, I do expect that we can understand our own history and origins.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Smenkharon,

Have you actually LISTENED to John Clayton's arguments, or do you just feel it necessary to call him a moron because you are so blinded by your own ignorance? That's the problem with most arguments these days is that they don't want to hear the other side, they just try to beat it back with their mindless rhetoric. I do feel sorry for people that may be under the influence of some "higher power" that is telling them what to believe. Organizations like this have distorted the Bible and want to keep people from reading it so they can dictate to the masses what they should believe. People need to read the Bible themselves and answer to only one being...GOD. If you want to pidgeonhole people that have strict morals and beliefs and call them the "Christian right" (which you should look at again, because it's better than being the liberal wrong) than I guess I would have to fall in that catogory because I feel I have to stand up for things like life (which for some reason has become as useless to some as a bug on the wall). And where does that leave everyone else? The atheist left? I don't think so. But you will have to answer for your actions someday.
I apologize, we should not have gotten into this discussion in this public forum. But sometimes, things need to be said.
In conclusion, do I think we should have to endure the sillyness of such films as Battlefield Earth? Yes. And if for no other reason than to see how silly it actually is.

Okay, one and all, feel free to continue the dialogue, but not here. General Discussion awaits you. In the short life of these forums, it's already been host to several political arguments, so it's just waiting for a good religious dust up. Besides with all of the baseball talk, it's starting to smell like a locker room.

As regards the topic at hand. I suggest The Crow. It wasn't a great movie, but not awful either. My objection has to do with the source material. The original comic was a very personal reaction to a terrible happening in one man's life. Any cathartic value was bound to be lost on the way to the screen and leave only a gratuitously ugly, violent story in its wake, which it did.

Now Playing: Clarinet Trio No. 1 "Voyage of the Spirit" Rick Sowash (perf. Trio les Gavottes)

Thanks for the advice Linn, and I apologize for contributing to the mayhem. as for the Crow, I guess I'll have to disagree with you only because I felt it was such a great vehicle for Brandon Lee to get out from under the martial arts cloud that was stuck over his head (although he did have great reason to under such a cloud). I would have to say that the following Crow films were unnecessary and seemed to detract from Lee's legacy.

I think this topic strays into the "bad movie" area, which is why I have avoided it until now, because I think I've come up with one movie that fits this category, and that would be...

CASINO by Martin Scorecese

One of the funniest and truest things I ever read someone write about this movie is that it should have been called: "Goodfellas 2" The picture was very very similar to Goodfellas, which I think was an excellent picture. Casino, broke absolutely no new ground. If this had come out without Goodfellas, I think it would have gotten better reviews. But again, we had already seen this film before.

Now, I think that Joe Pesci as this scary enforcer was incredibly miscast. How tall is this guy...like 5 ft. 6 inches? Who's going to be scared of that guy in real life?

Of course, many legitimate sequels shouldn't have been made, as well as remakes, but I will leave those examples to others at this time.

According to IMDB, Pesci is 5'5", but I don't really believe them. They say that Danny DeVito is 5'1", and I would have guessed about 4'6"! Anyway, anyone who wants to think that they are "safe" from a smaller person is just waiting to get their ass kicked, or, at least, shoved somewhere very messy that none of their relatives will be able to extradite them from without making an embarrassing news item all over the place.

The main thing that "Casino" did was tell some people that Sharon Stone could act. I thought that was evident from "Total Recall" and "Basic Instinct."

quote:

---

Originally posted by asc85:
I think this topic strays into the "bad movie" area, which is why I have avoided it until now, because I think I've come up with one movie that fits this category, and that would be...

CASINO by Martin Scorecese

One of the funniest and truest things I ever read someone write about this movie is that it should have been called: "Goodfellas 2" The picture was very very similar to Goodfellas, which I think was an excellent picture. Casino, broke absolutely no new ground. If this had come out without Goodfellas, I think it would have gotten better reviews. But again, we had already seen this film before.

Now, I think that Joe Pesci as this scary enforcer was incredibly miscast. How tall is this guy...like 5 ft. 6 inches? Who's going to be scared of that guy in real life?

Of course, many legitimate sequels shouldn't have been made, as well as remakes, but I will leave those examples to others at this time.

---

ARGH! This is painful! I have seen Casino (an imperfect film) several times. While I can see your point here, DeNiro, Pesci, Harvey Keitel, et al are part of Scorsese's "repertory group;" they are in many of his movies. Scorsese also has done several films on Italian-Americans (including a very early one called "Italian-American," which featured his mom making spaghetti sauce) and mobsters. You probably know how he grew up in Little Italy and all that. Goodfellas (currently my #1 favorite movie) is a true story based on a book by Nicholas Pellegi. It examines how utterly compelling it is to have the power (and related perks) that come from being "connected."
Casino, on the other hand, while it does involve some of the very same mob folk from Goodfellas ("back home"), is as much a story about the relationship between DeNiro and Sharon Stone as it is about gangsters, which is kind of unusual for a Scorsese film (to address a relationship, that is, not to make a movie about gangsters <g>. It is primarily the story of the decline and fall of the mob's influence in Las Vegas. The scenes that show how Vegas works (the payoffs, the scams, the punishments) are fascinating to me, and I love how he shows everyone watching everyone else ("and the eye in the sky watches us all'). It's far from an ideal film, somewhat too long, and it seems to be more like two separate movies grafted together. However, Pesci is shown to be totally sociopathic, which can make ANYONE dangerous no matter what their size.

Mystic River. A complete waste of film.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MovieFan47:
Mystic River. A complete waste of film.

---

the more i reflect on the whole plot, the less i care for it. excellent performances can hide a weak narrative and i accept that under certain conditions. but this film's story was asking alot for the viewer to buy into the unspoken confusion created by two different murders that screamed for a reconciliation.

: : :: : spoiler alert : :: :


the confusion isn't credible. the murder committed by tim robbins should have put enough pressure on him to connect the dots and make an effort to clear his name from coming up as a suspect in the muder of his best friend's daughter. some pressure, any pressure, should have moved him to say something to someone early enough to stave off any false connections that would've proven doubly harmful to him regardless how he looked at it. the good possibility is there and it was intentionally ignored.

quote:

---

Dreamcatcher- Don't get me wrong, I like King. I just rarely like his films because directors hardly ever get it right. Lawrence Kasdan really screwed the pooch on this one though. I love Kings books because he is truly a master of dialogue. I just hate to see it getting mucked (yes 'mucked') up by bad moviemaking.

---

I read Dreamcatcher and loved it...I watched the movie and thought that it was okay. It is kind of interesting. Although the movie is cliche Good vs. Evil I like the idea of Duddits killing Mr. Gray. Thats just me

I'm glad someone has taken a stab at deflateing the reputation of "Mystic River". I didn't object to it being largly mindless twaddle, what I didn't like about it was that it was just plain BORING.
However, thats someone elses pick. My pick is "Forrest Gump". Talk about a film with qestionable politics. This movie, to me is nothing more than suger-coated right wing clap-trap. Tow the party line, and God will look after you. Stray from the path, and you can look forward to all kinds of horrors.

I completely agree that "Mystic River" was boring. It was a 90-minute Warner Bros. James Cagney/Humphrey Bogart almost B-flick padded out 45 minutes with delusions of grandeur and one of the most-obvious "non-plots" ever. (no, I didn't read the novel; I hope to hell it was ten times better than the film!)

As far as "Forrest Gump" goes, it seems to be one of the easiest targets which everyone attacks, but there is a major difference. It's NOT boring, plus Tom Hanks, Gary Sinise and Mykelti Williamson are great (way better than any trinity you can pick from "Mystic River"), and the film is not only humorous, but a technologically-awesome and good history lesson for those who have no clue. Don't look down on a film which entertainingly teaches U.S. history to the "unknowings", even if it is superficial.

Firstly,I'm not from the U.S.,so I don't give a fat rats clacker about some conservatives twisted view of its history.
Secondly, the idea of morphing a character into existing newsreel footage is not original. Woody Allen did it in "Zelig", a much superior film.
I not only look down on this rubbish, I crap on it from a great height. That is my prerogative.

Spun: It's like watching an hour and a half long music video with no music. It's was impossible to care about any of the characters and the attempts at humour were pointlessly vulgur.

My vote also has to go to about every Jennifer Lopez and Sandra Bullock film excluding The Cell, Out Of Sight, and Demolition Man (I am a sucker for bad action films occasionally...at least it had Denis Leary!). Miss Congeniality was soooooooooooo painful and I can't remember the name of it but the J. Lo / Affleck flick where they were hitmen looking after an unbelievable handicap made me sick.