~Worst Movie You Have Ever Seen~

[mudwhistle]

I never saw the passion of the christ, nor plan to. I couldn't bear to see what He went thru any more than I can look at abused animals. Just can't.

You need to watch it at least once.....but bring lots of Kleenex.

 

[mudwhistle]

The fact it could be 60 minutes shorter and improve the pacing. It suffers the same flaw as ST:TMP in that it is a very slow, boring special effects freakout in now dated special effects. The acting is average. The cinematography is... well Kubrick, which isn't that great. Other than that, it's less exciting than the book, which is actually worse in many ways save the philosophical intricacies it introduced to Science Fiction. An hour to get to the plot, and then another hour in which you wished it was over leaving you with the sense you just dropped bad acid with that ending.

I think that Kubrick deliberately used a slow pace to emphasize the advancements mankind made from his discovery of weapons to space flight. Kubrick LOVED tracking shots. You can see this in Paths of Glory and Spartacus. But he used them with a master's hand in 2001.

Remember that when it debuted, 2001 had no computer generated effects. That mankind had not even seen the whole of the earth at once from space. The movie was groundbreaking in this regard.

The ending was intended to be interpreted by the viewer as a metamorphosis from one state of conciseness to another. Something each viewer has to resolve on his own.

And the subtle message not to mess too far with the capabilities of artificial intelligence was there with "Hal" calling all the shots. What was the other movie in the 60's(??) with two supercomputers absorbing all of the other's memory, and eventually merging and able to control humans?

Colossus: The Forbin Project

 

[mudwhistle]

Next time I'm in the mood for two hours of gratuitous violence, I'll rent a Tarrantino film.

At least he knows how to do it right.

At least you can learn different ways of using fuck in a sentence.

I'm not exactly sure what someone expects when they pay a ticket to watch a movie called "The Passion of the Christ". Why would the Passion be a biography? Again it comes down to laziness and a lack of understanding of the English language...and perhaps ignorance of history as well.

Passion.....love Christ had for us. Sacrifice, grace, redemption, rebirth, salvation, etc.

 

[mudwhistle]

At least you can learn different ways of using fuck in a sentence.

I'm not exactly sure what someone expects when they pay a ticket to watch a movie called "The Passion of the Christ". Why would the Passion be a biography? Again it comes down to laziness and a lack of understanding of the English language...and perhaps ignorance of history as well.

Yeah, I guess a few minutes of biographical info would have gotten in the way of the gratuitous, slow motion blood spurts and beatings.

God forbid someone learn a little something along the way.

The only thing Mel Gibson wanted to focus on was Jesus's last day on Earth. Because he spent the entire movie doing it he showed every facet of it including what happened to the people that loved him, those who came in contact with him that final day, how it changed their lives. I thought it was at times horrific and at other times very touching. I was just glad when it was over. It was nerve wracking.

 

[Cuyo]

The Mel Gibson two-hour torture fest aka "The Passion of the Christ" is high on my list of worst movies ever.

I call it the Jesus Chainsaw Massacre. What a crapfest! Here's a hint to Mr. Gibson: slow motion is best used sparingly or only if you happen to be Sam Peckinpah.

If Gibson had spent a bit more time on the background of the life of Jesus and how he got to where he was and less time on the slow-mo blood spurts, it may have been and OK film.

I didn't know anymore about the life of JC after I saw it than I did before.

It's a snuff film.

 

[idb]

I never saw the passion of the christ, nor plan to. I couldn't bear to see what He went thru any more than I can look at abused animals. Just can't.

You need to watch it at least once.....but bring lots of Kleenex.

I enjoyed it...but I didn't quite get that excited!!!

 

[mudwhistle]

I never saw the passion of the christ, nor plan to. I couldn't bear to see what He went thru any more than I can look at abused animals. Just can't.

You need to watch it at least once.....but bring lots of Kleenex.

I enjoyed it...but I didn't quite get that excited!!!

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

I saw it in the movie theater and it was almost unbearable.

If a big guy like me broke down imagine what a woman would do.

 

[idb]

You need to watch it at least once.....but bring lots of Kleenex.

I enjoyed it...but I didn't quite get that excited!!!

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

I saw it in the movie theater and it was almost unbearable.

If a big guy like me broke down imagine what a woman would do.

'Passion' indeed...

 

[Dabs]

I can't watch Passion, my son has tried several times to get me to sit and watch, and I refuse.
He already told me about the flogging, and that did it for me, I won't watch it...I loathe violence, can't stand it...it makes me a nervous wreck, so I sure as hell don't need to sit and watch somebody being beaten to death~
I was a beaten child, I remember what it felt like to be whipped with a belt or a tree limb or a leather strap or a man's fist and the pain was unbearable.
I don't watch anything that has violence, if someone gets beaten up in a movie, I leave the room~

 

[Big Fitz]

Great film.

I loved the whole "Heart of Darkness" trope. I saw "Redux" too. They could have lost the whole "French" thing. Glad it didn't make it to the final cut.

Okay, cool. I actually like all three movies (the 2 you mentioned and Apocalypse Now).

I suspect you are also a fan of "Born on the Fourth of July", "The Deerhunter" and possibly "First Blood" as well.

Guilty.

And?

Just confirming a suspicion.

It was. Thanks.

 

[idb]

'Michael' with John Travolta was excruciating to my eyes.

 

[mudwhistle]

'Michael' with John Travolta was excruciating to my eyes.

As an actor John Travolta sure can dance.

 

[idb]

'Michael' with John Travolta was excruciating to my eyes.

As an actor John Travolta sure can dance.

I quite like the re-invention of him since Pulp Fiction.

 

[Nosmo King]

The fact it could be 60 minutes shorter and improve the pacing. It suffers the same flaw as ST:TMP in that it is a very slow, boring special effects freakout in now dated special effects. The acting is average. The cinematography is... well Kubrick, which isn't that great. Other than that, it's less exciting than the book, which is actually worse in many ways save the philosophical intricacies it introduced to Science Fiction. An hour to get to the plot, and then another hour in which you wished it was over leaving you with the sense you just dropped bad acid with that ending.

I think that Kubrick deliberately used a slow pace to emphasize the advancements mankind made from his discovery of weapons to space flight. Kubrick LOVED tracking shots. You can see this in Paths of Glory and Spartacus. But he used them with a master's hand in 2001.

Remember that when it debuted, 2001 had no computer generated effects. That mankind had not even seen the whole of the earth at once from space. The movie was groundbreaking in this regard.

The ending was intended to be interpreted by the viewer as a metamorphosis from one state of conciseness to another. Something each viewer has to resolve on his own.

And the subtle message not to mess too far with the capabilities of artificial intelligence was there with "Hal" calling all the shots. What was the other movie in the 60's(??) with two supercomputers absorbing all of the other's memory, and eventually merging and able to control humans?

I can't recall one with two super computers. But there were other insane computer/robot/technology flicks. Like 1975 Westworld with Yul Brynner. The Stepford Wives (I should get that one for my collection). And later in the 1980s War Games with Dabney Coleman and Matthew Broderick.

All pretty bad movies considering the competition at the time.

 

[Political Junky]

"Blue Skies Again" 1983, by far the worst.

 

[Shooter]

Oh. Almost forgot another God-awful movie that every copy of should be burned. The Ringer. Absolutely terrible.

 

[MaggieMae]

I think that Kubrick deliberately used a slow pace to emphasize the advancements mankind made from his discovery of weapons to space flight. Kubrick LOVED tracking shots. You can see this in Paths of Glory and Spartacus. But he used them with a master's hand in 2001.

Remember that when it debuted, 2001 had no computer generated effects. That mankind had not even seen the whole of the earth at once from space. The movie was groundbreaking in this regard.

The ending was intended to be interpreted by the viewer as a metamorphosis from one state of conciseness to another. Something each viewer has to resolve on his own.

And the subtle message not to mess too far with the capabilities of artificial intelligence was there with "Hal" calling all the shots. What was the other movie in the 60's(??) with two supercomputers absorbing all of the other's memory, and eventually merging and able to control humans?

I can't recall one with two super computers. But there were other insane computer/robot/technology flicks. Like 1975 Westworld with Yul Brynner. The Stepford Wives (I should get that one for my collection). And later in the 1980s War Games with Dabney Coleman and Matthew Broderick.

All pretty bad movies considering the competition at the time.

The book "The Stepford Wives" was terrific, but they just couldn't get the intrigue right in the movie, either the first one or the remake. Same with Amityville Horror. Read the books which are much scarier.

 

[Nosmo King]

And the subtle message not to mess too far with the capabilities of artificial intelligence was there with "Hal" calling all the shots. What was the other movie in the 60's(??) with two supercomputers absorbing all of the other's memory, and eventually merging and able to control humans?

I can't recall one with two super computers. But there were other insane computer/robot/technology flicks. Like 1975 Westworld with Yul Brynner. The Stepford Wives (I should get that one for my collection). And later in the 1980s War Games with Dabney Coleman and Matthew Broderick.

All pretty bad movies considering the competition at the time.

The book "The Stepford Wives" was terrific, but they just couldn't get the intrigue right in the movie, either the first one or the remake. Same with Amityville Horror. Read the books which are much scarier.

Isn't that the usual way of book to movies?

Now that would be an interesting thread. Which movie was most faithful to the book. Which movie was more enjoyable than the book.

And there are some, The Godfather, The Grapes of Wrath The Shining which were not completely faithful to the book but made for great films on their own.

 

[Dabs]

You people keep coming up with movies I have never heard of! Ok, what about The Great Gatsby??
Starring Robert Redford, I think-- whatcha all think about that movie??

 

[Sallow]

Nearly forgot this one..

Hotel - Burt Reynolds, Lucy Liu, David Schwimmer

Absolutely awful. Though the cat fight between Lucy Liu and Salma Hayek was fun.