It was in English, in color, using real actors, had good writing, entertained the public, was shown in theaters people actually go to, was in pretty much every city in the country, and wasn't filmed in Austin, Texas. That's pretty much a recipe for the world's worst movie in GringoTex' eyes.
You had to ruin my morning. Everytime she pulled out that little writing pad I wanted to reach through the tv screen grab it and tell her to stop writing and start talkin.
It also was narrated by a kind, wise ol' black folk, contained a ridiculous scene in which a prison population is moved by an aria from an opera (puh-leeze), and most importantly, was totally morally simplistic (Tim Robbins's character just had to be innocent all along, eh?). Seriously, if Robbins had actually off-ed his wife, the movie would have been 1000 times more complex than it was. God forbid it should contain even the tiniest hint of a challenge for the audience. I wouldn't say it was the worst film ever, though. For that to be true, it would have had to include a scene involving a poor black choir singing "Amazing Grace." It did, however, include a scene in which the corrupt law enforcement officer shoots himself right before he himself is arrested.
Huh. I've watched that movie a hundred times and never once saw the part where they say he was innocent.
What are you talking about? Joyce . . . maudlin?!?! I don't consider retellings of Homer crass. However, when a film attempts a comic re-telling of that epic, and the filmmakers and seemingly every critic on the planet have collective amnesia regarding the fact that this has been done before, that I find annoying. Seriously, Ulysses is only, I don't know, the most famous work of English-language literature of the 20th Century. Joyce at least incorporated Homer in a meaningful way. As for Derek Walcott (I assume that's who you're talking about), IIRC, he won the Nobel before his Homer project. You completely misread what I wrote. If Guy Ritchie released a musical version of Romeo & Juliet, set in Los Angeles, involving Crips and Bloods, and featuring a soundtrack by 50 Cent and Madonna, and no one in the project acknowledged that it had been done before, wouldn't you be annoyed?
This movie makes me want to end it all...i have been forced to watch this movie a number of times it ranks along side Nazis and Mackems in my hate list....it ofcourse...
I'd respond to this but I don't post in threads like this. Especially never in the Arsenal fan off-topic sub-forum, which I'm surprised to hear actually exists. But if I did respond to this I'd draw your attention to the intential irony of my initial post, which makes me very clever. Cleverer than Albert Einstein and his sister, combined. Which, incidentally is a disgusting thought but might make for an interesting movie, depending on the director. On the other hand, I might just give you a straight answer. I'm not sure the worst movie of all time actually exists, given the number of variables we'd have to take into account (technical advances, cultural epochs, etc). For example, while Plan 9 from Outer Space is a very bad film in many respects it's a least an example of the immense freedom that obtained at an earlier period in American filmmaking. So I'm not sure that, if "the worst movie ever" exists, it exists due to its shortcomings as a film, per se, rather than for instance because of the deleterious effects it's had on subsequent films (The Matrix, eg: a bad film but not technically the worst, certainly, but it's financial success has lowered the bar enormously) or even on the world at large (e.g., Triumph of the Will: a brilliant documentary made in the service of a completely evil cause). Or maybe we should consider a film as a failure only if we take into account its potential to have been better? Anyway, I were to post in a thread like this you'd see the problem. If I were to begin posting in a thread like this I'd quickly bore even myself into a terminal stupor. So I read everybody's comments and laugh at the funny ones, but as a public service I never ever post in threads like this. Well that and the fact that I might just waste my entire lunchtime for no good reason. Dammit.
Sneaky. And I was about to post how the Einstein and his sister idea sounded like a Peter Greenaway film and use that to make a tricky segue into the only film I've ever walked out of, Greenaway's Baby of Macon, which is described on his website like this: But now I've seen the whited out portion of your post and realized the futility of it all. Guess I'll go have lunch.
I almost cheered when the piano won. I also got to ruin the ending for a feminazi co-worker. That was ********ing glorious.
I watched Dodgeball for about 20 minutes. Some funny bits, no doubt. But Ben Stiller. The character is so arch and clueless that anything that goes on around him, other than a safe falling out of the sky on his head, is far too subtle. I was embarrassed watching both him and Vince Vaughn. Was there a point to the movie? Was it about Nike vs Adidas? Forgive me, I'm reaching. I can't believe that any self-respecting critic liked it.
Absolutely! Ever read 'Portrait of an artist as a young man' or 'The Dubliners'? Meaningful to who, you? I think you'll find plenty of opinions (not just the collectively memory challenged critics) that are quite comfortable with how the Coen boys made use of this Greek Epic? The most famous work in ELL of the 20thC is Harry Potter and the Philosopher's/Saucerer's Stone! Fame is not the same thing as quality and there were many great works of literature in the 20thC. This just seems like more evidence of the pseudo-elitist snobbery that you appear to be harbour? I think you'll find that his nobel prize was for a body of work not just the Homer stuff? I threw this in to give you pause to think about the bredth of work inspired by Homer, with the suggestion that your polarised response could use a little re-thinking? I didn't misread you, I thought you were just talking nonsense! Do you know how many versions of 'Hamlet' preceded Shakespeare's (not sure about R&J, but, I think this is a borrowed narrative too)? The movie of West Side Story is not a definitive piece of work! So much so that Bernstein went into the studio with Kiri Te Kanawa and Jose Carrerras to produce something more along the operatic lines that he had originally envisioned; and even that was flawed because he was never happy with Carreras and would probably have liked to do the whole thing a 3rd time! And who says that Baz didn't acknowledge a debt of artist inspiration from WSS? Dude you're talking rubbish! Have a point of view, don't like these movies, fair enough, but, please spare us the little superior lecture about, Homer, Joyce, West Side Story and the nature of high artistic creativity! Sometimes the aesthetic is sacrificed in order to make something more accessible to a wider audience. Perhaps Homer would be pleased that his work lives on and that the Coen Brothers were able to bring his story/ideas to an audience who might never otherwise engage them? Anyway, along with many other people, I just like the movie for itself, who cares if it's Homer or Homer Simpson, you don't like it - nuff said!!!
I remember having to go see the Notebook in the cinexplex in Union Square with a girl. I lost the will to live.
I hope thats "almost" lost the will to live, coz, yeah, ghosts cant type. I dont think. Then again how would I know I guess. Maybe they can.