Worst good movie you ever saw
- Thread starter Lone Clone
- Start date
I’ve been a freak since a youngster at how the hell directors do it and watched more of that than the movies themselves. Scorsese can mix Coppola, Kubrick, Ford, Stone and Tony Scott and make something for everyone. I’ll never look forward to watching a movie once he’s gone. I just watch his movies over and over. Clint Eastwood is the most underrated director of all time. I’m out.
I love Casino and Goodfellas, but if you knock The Godfather, I'm going to beat you with a trash can like Sonny did to Carlo.
Slumdog Millionaire has to be the worst best picture winner of the last 20+ years. I watched it once and have never had a desire to watch any part of it again.
I really liked Slumdog Millionaire.
I didn't hate it but I had to watch Bridges of Madison County four times to see it all. I kept falling asleep.
Clockwork orange. Godfather. Apocalypse now. 2001 space odyssey
we’ve got some real dumb fugs up in here
too much fluoride in the water
we’ve got some real dumb fugs up in here
too much fluoride in the water
Avatar was a terrible movie for us. I went with a few people and we all agreed it sucked.
Last edited:
I liked that movie. You must have Starz were they showed it for 2 months. Nothing wrong with that movie at all.
The English Patient. It won 9 academy awards and holds an 85% rating on RT. It was 2 hours and 42 minutes long, but to me it felt like 7 hours.
Agreed hollyweird envirotrash
In reality Costner would have been scalped and dismembered
Fake history
Last edited:
You apparently didn't watch the movie Crash. It feels more like a made for TV movie. How the hell that film won best picture is beyond me.
Same for Out of Africa. My wife (no pic) went to see it at the theater twice before we were married. Fell asleep both times. I'd never seen it so we rented it back when Blockbuster was still a thing.
Yep, we both fell asleep before the halfway point. I stil have no idea what it's about but I know what to watch if I've got a little insomnia.
No way. I too can watch the entire trilogy in one sitting. There's an extended version of the entire trilogy that mixes up the scenes in a different order that really adds to the telling if the story. Excellent.
It depends on the movie. I do make a distinction between a "film" and a "movie". I tend to lean towards the side of wanting movies as an escape for 2 hours, but I did enjoy movies like Spotlight, The Shape of Water, etc. Sometimes too, film directors will make a movie to show how awesome they are.
Here's a question for you - which do you think is better, a movie that truly goes for it and wants to be great (for example, Jupiter Ascending, or Valerian) but falls flat on its face, or a movie that knows what it is (most of the recent Fast and Furious movies), is aware of itself and just goes to have fun?
There is no "trilogy". There is Godfather one and two, then there is a pile of garbage quickly thrown together to make money called GF3. Pacino turned into a bad over-actor as he aged, hes a parody of himself.
Saw this on a first date and it was so bad that we never went out again....
Wow, I would not have expected the last sentence to follow what came before.
To me, that reads like:
"The best steakhouse in the world is Peter Luger, which combines the best aspect of St. Elmo, Jess and Jims, and Keens. Arbys is the most underrated."
The companion narrative within this thread separates movie-goers into action/dramatic films and films that are technically innovative and tell complicated stories with subtle story lines, etc.
This film based on a novel by Michael Ondaatje is clearly in the second camp. With multiple characters each with his or her own story, and set during the end of WWII, this does require some effort to watch. WWII did not end cleanly; there were messes every place where soldiers ever walked. This one is set initially in North Africa and then in Italy as the English army chased the German army North. Mysterious histories, complicated love stories, vague motives, and on and on. Additionally, the story is not told in chronological order, featuring flashbacks, and lots of doubling back, and then doubling back again.
I just read the Roger Ebert review (23 years after the fact) and learned a few things that I missed when I saw the movie in 1997. He considers the movie a feat by the writer/director and even more of a feat by the producer.
Here is the last paragraph of his review:
"... Producers are not always creative contributors to films, but the producer of “The English Patient,” Saul Zaentz, is in a class by himself. Working independently, he buys important literary properties (“One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest,” “Amadeus,” “The Unbearable Lightness of Being,” “At Play in the Fields of the Lord”) and savors their difficulties. Here he has created with Minghella a film that does what a great novel can do: Hold your attention the first time through with its story, and then force you to think back through everything you thought you'd learned, after it is revealed what the story is *really* about.
Last edited:
Sadly, I agree. GF3 is so cringy. I started watching it recently and turned it off.
I was incorrect in my earlier post, the extended director's cut combined film was if GF1 & GF2. They rearranged the scenes and mixed the two films together. It was excellent.
I love a movie that is self aware. The more the cast is in on the joke the better. Two movies I can point to like that are Harold and Kumar go to White Castle and Hot Tub Time Machine. Both are the dumbest concepts for a movie, but the casts know that and still put on excellent comedic performances. These are guilty pleasure movies to me.
Similar threads
